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
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Our police force is one of the best in the world and, as we approach Christmas and the new year, I wish to take this opportunity to thank all of them for their heroic efforts this year.
I want to empower our policemen and women, stripping out unnecessary bureaucracy and boosting their numbers. That is why I asked Sir Stephen House to report back to me on productivity, with a focus on mental health. That is why I am also pleased that Cumbria police now has more than 1,000 police officers and will have the highest number in its history once its recruitment drive is complete next year.
Simon Fell
I thank the Home Secretary for her response and for the good news about Cumbria police as well—that is always welcome.
Around 40% of the crimes committed today are fraud, but only about 1% of the police’s resources are dedicated to tackling that as an issue. Policing leaders have repeatedly told the Home Affairs Committee that a new policing model is needed to address this growing threat. Organisations such as the Royal United Services Institute have pointed the way to sensible and achievable plans for how we might be able to grow the skills, capacity and capability in policing that is needed to turn the tide not just on an epidemic of fraud, but on what is now a national security concern. Can my right hon. and learned Friend please outline what steps are being taken in the Home Office to review that capability and resourcing, and when we can expect to see the fraud plan published?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend speaks very powerfully about the prevalence of fraud and online crime when it comes to modern-day crime fighting. Tackling it requires a unified and co-ordinated response from Government, from law enforcement and from industry. We will publish the fraud strategy very shortly setting out the response. It will focus on prevention and on bolstering the law enforcement response. None the less, some good work is already going on. I applaud the Metropolitan police on the largest anti-fraud operation relating to the iSpoof website, which was responsible for more than 3 million fraudulent calls in 2022, and there have been 100 arrests so far. There have also been some other high-profile successes relating to fraud, but there is much more that we can do.
Rob Butler
I warmly welcome the investment that means Thames Valley Police has already taken on more than 600 new officers. However, because most of them have to enter on a graduate programme, they are currently required to spend 20% of their time on training courses away from the police station, meaning they are not available to answer 999 calls or patrol neighbourhoods. I am delighted that, thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend’s intervention, it will after all no longer become compulsory for new police officers to have degrees. Can she explain what progress she is making to achieve that change and how it will benefit policing in Aylesbury and beyond?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue. I want policing to be open to the best, the brightest and the bravest, and that does not always mean that new entrants need to have a degree. I have listened to concerns from police leaders and various people in the sector that we risk getting too academic when it comes to policing. That is why I instructed the College of Policing to design options for a new non-degree entry route, increasing choices for chief constables when it comes to recruitment and ensuring that we build a police force fit for the future. That is what common-sense policing is all about.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Across Barnsley local people are concerned about antisocial behaviour, from fly-tipping to arson. With police forces having seen cuts in the past 12 years, what are the Government doing to support them so that they have the personnel and resources to tackle antisocial behaviour in local communities?
Suella Braverman
Antisocial behaviour is a real focus for neighbourhood policing. Ultimately it depends on local police forces having increased numbers of policemen and women on the frontline, responding quickly to neighbourhood crime, antisocial behaviour, burglary, vandalism and graffiti. That is why I am glad that across the country we are seeing increased numbers of officers recruited to our ranks.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The police in my constituency work tirelessly to keep local residents safe, but every year they are asked to do more with less. We have lost Richmond police station, we have had budgets stretched further every year and our local officers are increasingly being pulled out of the community at short notice to support events in central London. Does the Home Secretary agree that a visible, regular local presence would help the Met Police to build trust with Londoners, and will she support the Liberal Democrats’ call for a return to community policing and put an end to police station closures?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Lady should take up some of her concerns about London’s policing with the Mayor of London, who I am afraid has a very disappointing track record when it comes to rising crime in London, particularly knife crime. I urge the Lib Dems to stop their meaningless opposition and get behind the Government’s plan to recruit police numbers and ensure they have the right powers.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Home Secretary likes to talk about back to basics policing, but last week’s police grants saw core Government funding for the police fall by £62 million, with more of the budget funded through council tax, shifting the extra burden onto struggling households during the cost of living crisis. In the meantime, funding for core priorities such as fraud and serious violence has been cut by £5 million and £4.5 million respectively. Can the Home Secretary explain these cuts, or is this just a case of her Government’s abject failure to grow the economy, back our police and keep our streets safe?
Suella Braverman
I am sorry, but the hon. Lady needs to get her facts right. This Government are proposing a total police funding settlement of up to £17.2 billion in 2023-24, an increase of up to £287 million compared with 2022-23. Assuming that there is full take-up of the precept flexibility, something this Government introduced, overall police funding available to PCCs will increase by up to £523 million next year—a welcome increase and one that I hope she would support.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The level of fire cover in Nottinghamshire is a matter for the Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham Fire Authority, but I would observe that in Nottinghamshire the Labour-controlled fire and rescue service has cut firefighter numbers by 11% since 2016, despite its funding settlement having been about the same as other fire and rescue services, which, nationally have seen only a 1.6% reduction.
Ruth Edwards
The Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham Fire Authority is proposing to cut the night shift at West Bridgford fire station despite the fact that it will save no money, the station has higher night-time call-out rates than other stations in the county, and it will leave Rushcliffe as the only borough in Nottinghamshire without full-time fire cover at night. Can the Minister advise me on the options Members of Parliament have to challenge the decision-making of local fire authorities when it is clear that they are letting down our constituents and the brave firefighters who serve them?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her campaigning on the issue of Nottinghamshire fire services, which she has raised with me a number of times. There is certainly no financial excuse for what the fire and rescue authority is doing. This year, it received a 5.2% funding increase and, thanks to my hon. Friend’s campaigning, when the figures are published tomorrow, there will be further good financial news for the Nottinghamshire and City of Nottingham Fire Authority. On how the fire authority’s decisions might be queried, any concerns she has can be raised with the inspectorate and taken into account when the fire service is next inspected. Otherwise, the fire and rescue authority is made up of local authority representatives, who are accountable, periodically, via the ballot box.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service is well led and staffed by excellent firefighters and non-firefighting staff alike. They keep our community staff in increasingly difficult circumstances. They would like to meet the Minister to discuss their challenges, particularly in relation to funding. Will the Minister take that meeting with them and with local MPs?
Chris Philp
Yes, I would be very happy to meet the hon. Member and his colleagues from Nottinghamshire, perhaps early in the new year, to discuss this issue. As I said, Nottinghamshire fire services got a 5.2% funding increase in this current year, and I think good news can be expected when the full settlement is published tomorrow. I would observe that, in common with the rest of the country, the number of fires in Nottinghamshire has substantially decreased by 45% over the last 12 years.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government are committed to tackling burglary. Domestic burglary, as measured by the crime survey, has fallen by 53% since 2010—a statistic that Opposition Members seem remarkably reluctant to discuss. We are hiring many extra police officers—the Metropolitan police force, which covers my hon. Friend’s constituency, has a record number of officers—and thanks to the Home Secretary’s intervention, police across the country are working to ensure that every single residential burglary receives an in-person visit from police officers.
Elliot Colburn
I congratulate the Home Secretary for stepping in where the Mayor of London has failed by pushing for police officers to attend all burglaries, and I congratulate the Metropolitan police for listening to that call and implementing Operation Tenacity, as this was a concern that I heard from many Carshalton and Wallington residents. Can my right hon. Friend, at this early stage, give me an indication of how successful the operation has been for burglary arrest numbers?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the Home Secretary has acted, ensuring that there are record numbers of police in London, whereas the Mayor of London very often simply plays politics. In relation to Operation Tenacity, and the police commitment to attend every residential burglary, I am pleased to report that the Op Tenacity activity has been extremely successful. In fact, it saw 1,700 arrests in just six weeks.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
We now live, under this Government, in one of the most unequal countries in the world. Christmas is particularly hard for many people. Although I wish everyone in the House a happy Christmas, can we make sure that the police have the resources, back-up and backroom staff, without whom they cannot catch burglars? We need to stop burglary and reduce poverty in this country simultaneously.
Chris Philp
As I said, I am pleased to remind the House that since 2010, according to the crime survey of England and Wales, domestic burglary has fallen by an astonishing 53%. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about making sure that the police have adequate resources. That is why, as the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago, police and crime commissioners will receive next year up to £523 million in additional funding. By March next year, we will have an extra 20,000 police officers. Never in this country’s history have we had so many police officers, which is something that, I hope, people across the House can welcome.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Last week we set out plans to clear the initial decision backlog of asylum legacy cases by the end of next year. Over the summer and autumn, the Home Office reduced the number of older asylum cases by 11,000, and the number of asylum caseworkers has doubled.
Kate Osamor
Last week the International Development Committee heard from organisations working closely with refugees in the UK. I was disappointed but not surprised to hear Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, say that it was not consulted about the proposals, announced last week, to tackle the backlog. Why have the Government neglected to widely consult experts, and would the Minister be willing to consider their recommendations if I was to write to him?
Robert Jenrick
I would be interested in the views of any of our stakeholders, but the Prime Minister set out a very compelling case last week to radically re-engineer the end-to-end process, with fewer interviews, shorter guidance, less paperwork, specialist caseworkers by nationality, including tackling Albanian cases, and reforming modern slavery by reducing the cooling-off period from 45 to 30 days—all steps to clear the backlog as quickly as possible.
Vicky Foxcroft
One of my constituents arrived in the UK from Afghanistan and claimed asylum in September 2021. Despite my caseworkers making regular inquiries since August 2022, we have received no updates regarding the status of his application. He tells us that the situation has made him seriously depressed. Does the Minister agree that excessive wait times can have a hugely detrimental impact on mental health, and will he agree to look at this case in further detail?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to look at that case and any others that are brought to my attention. The backlog, however, is a symptom of the problem, which is that far too many people are crossing the channel illegally, and that is what this Government are determined to tackle. The hon. Lady and her Opposition colleagues have voted against every tough measure that we have sought to take in recent years. I hope that she will now get behind the measure that we are taking, the statement the Prime Minister made last week and, of course, our world-leading Rwanda partnership, which the Court today gave its agreement to.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Government introduce urgent legislation to strengthen control of our borders, and could that include a notwithstanding clause to guide the courts against using other laws that undermine the fundamental principle of the Prime Minister’s policy?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out last week our intention to bring forward legislation early next year, and at the heart of that legislation will be a simple point of principle that we on this side of the House believe: no one should gain a right to live in this country if they entered illegally. From that, all things will need to flow. Nothing is off the table. We will take our obligations to deliver on that policy very seriously. That is in stark contrast to the Labour party. At the weekend, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), could not even say whether illegal entry to this country should be an offence. That says it all. We believe in securing our borders and in controlled migration. The Labour party is the party of mass migration.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
We in Wiltshire are proud of the fact that some 900 Ukrainians will be enjoying Christmas dinners with us, and that we have entertained a large number of Afghan people who looked after us so well during the war. However, we were very surprised when last Friday 82 young Albanian men were moved into the very rural, very distantly located Wiltshire golf club without any notice at all being given to the neighbouring retirement village. Does the Minister agree that this is an inappropriate location for people of this kind, who are very probably economic migrants, and will he seek to advance them elsewhere as soon as he possibly can?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We do not want to use hotels in any part of the country; we want to tackle the issue at its source. I understand his constituents’ concerns with respect to the hotel in Wiltshire. As I understand it, a smaller number of individuals have been accommodated there than he has perhaps been advised and the local authority was informed in advance, but that does not diminish his constituents’ concerns. I am happy to talk to him to see what we can do to end that at the earliest opportunity.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is profoundly counterproductive legislation, as illustrated by the fact that, since it was passed, the number of dangerous crossings has reached a record high. The Act includes the so-called inadmissibility clause, but the fact that the Government have failed to negotiate a returns agreement with a single European country means that just 21 out of 18,000 inadmissible people have been returned. Sending 300 asylum seekers to Rwanda will not even touch the sides of that 18,000. Does the Minister recognise the inadequacy of the legislation? Will he explain why the Government’s utterly self-defeating approach has led directly to the British taxpayer footing an extra bill of £500 million?
Robert Jenrick
First, whatever the inadequacies of the current system, they would be far worse if the Opposition were in power—in fact, the backlog of cases was 450,000 when the last Labour Government handed over to us. They have opposed every tough measure that we have taken, including the Nationality and Borders Act. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Act did not go far enough, I will welcome his support next year when we bring forward further and even tougher legislation. We will make sure that we secure the borders and control migration. He cannot see the difference between people genuinely fleeing persecution and economic migrants. He is testing the will of the British people; we will take action.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My casework in Glasgow Central speaks to the fundamentally broken asylum system, and a failing immigration system more widely, as other types of applications are regularly delayed and people are left waiting for years. The barrister Colin Yeo suggests that, to get the asylum backlog down to 20,000, the Home Office would need to make 8,000 decisions a month. In the year to September, only 16,400 decisions were made in total, so precisely how will the Minister meet his target?
Robert Jenrick
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our plan to re-engineer the process and hire more decision makers. It is about not just people and resource, but ensuring that the process is faster and less bureaucratic, and that the guidance is cut and simplified. If the hon. Lady wants to help us with the issue, perhaps she will get on to her colleagues in the Scottish Government, because today in Scotland, in contrast with the rest of the United Kingdom, only one city—Glasgow—is doing its fair share and taking asylum seekers. In the whole of Scotland, only a dozen hotels outside of Glasgow are taking asylum seekers, which is not fair and equitable. She might sound pious, but her words and rhetoric are not matched by action from the Scottish Government.
Alison Thewliss
Local authorities in Scotland are reticent to take more because they know that the UK Government are not funding asylum seeker provision properly, and that pressed budgets due to another round of austerity are coming down the road, as the Minister knows just fine. Can he confirm that the Home Office is recruiting asylum decision makers from people in customer service and sales positions at McDonald’s and Aldi who have no prior experience of the asylum system, who are consulting Lonely Planet guides for knowledge of applicant countries, and who have described being
“left to fend for themselves”
after two days to conduct complex interviews and make life or death decisions? Is that really an adequate way to conduct sensitive decision making?
Robert Jenrick
I do not recognise anything that the hon. Lady just said. The problem with the current system is that it is too complicated and too bureaucratic. We want to simplify that, speed up those decisions and make sure that the teams are more productive. To come back to her first point, the Scottish Government are refusing to take any of the asylum seekers who are arriving in the UK on small boats, which is not right. There is a widening gulf between the actions of the Scottish Government and their rhetoric, which I ask her to consider.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
We are taking immediate action to accelerate decision making and improve our asylum system by streamlining and modernising it, including by shortening interviews, removing unnecessary interviews, making the guidance more accessible, and dealing with cases more swiftly when they can be certified as manifestly unfounded.
Caroline Lucas
The Home Office is placing vulnerable, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in hotels in local authority areas. It is directly commissioning those hotels and other services, because it knows that local authorities do not have the funding or capacity required. Will the Home Secretary finally admit that these vulnerable children are legally the Home Office’s responsibility, so that they are not left in legal limbo? Will she ensure that her Department takes a strategic approach that addresses the placement shortage, rather than its current ad hoc approach, and will she ensure that the police do all that they can to keep searching for those children who have gone missing and have yet to be relocated?
Suella Braverman
We take very seriously the position of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—and indeed of children, full stop. Safeguarding them is of the utmost importance to all authorities, and to the Home Office, when it comes to decision making. We will shortly look at the funding arrangement for local authorities’ support of these children, so that their needs are properly met.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Potentially one of the best parts of our asylum system is the safe route created for Afghans who helped British forces during the war in Afghanistan. They are often full of professional skills, speak good English, and could make a huge contribution to this country, if they were allowed to move on with their life. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give me a report on progress on getting more of these Afghan citizens out of hotels, and allowing them to get on with their life and to contribute to our society?
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We support those who have come to the United Kingdom through designated schemes such as the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, and those people who supported allied forces in Afghanistan. Far too many of those Afghan nationals are being accommodated in hotels; on that, he is right. That is why we are moving very quickly. We are working with the Ministry of Defence, and are looking at all options, including, for example, service family accommodation, to properly accommodate a cohort of Afghans, so that they can move on with their life and settle peacefully here.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
In 2020, the Home Office secured just 12 convictions a month for people smuggling into the UK. In 2021, that fell to eight a month and, in the first half of 2022, it fell to just three a month. The smuggler gangs have proliferated, and the dangerous boat crossings that put lives at risk are up twentyfold, yet the number of criminals paying the price for their crime has collapsed. Why has the Home Secretary totally failed to take action against the criminal gangs?
Suella Braverman
Let me point out who has totally failed to take any action against the criminal gangs: the right hon. Lady and the Labour party. I am really enjoying the shadow Home Secretary’s reinvention over the past weeks and months, but despite her trying to sound tough on illegal migration and people smugglers, Labour voted against our new offences for prosecuting the people smugglers who are causing the problem on the channel. Labour voted against tougher sentences that enable us to deport foreign rapists and foreign drug dealers. Labour would scrap our Rwanda scheme. Yesterday, the right hon. Lady did not even know whether illegal entry was an offence. The reality is that Labour has no plan whatever on illegal migration; it is against our plan, and all it wants is open borders.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary had no response on the total collapse in prosecutions, and she has had 12 years in charge. She says that the asylum system is broken; well, who broke it? Minsters have been running the system for the last 12 years, in which they have made things worse. Since the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 came into force, the number of people arriving by dangerous boat has reached a record high, so their legislation has not worked. The Prime Minister promised extra money for the National Crime Agency, but two days after he made that announcement, the Home Office does not know how much that money is, and the Treasury has not agreed anything. Can the Home Secretary tell us how much additional funding there will be for the National Crime Agency, and where it is coming from? On the Conservatives’ watch, a multimillion-pound criminal industry has grown along our border, and while Ministers faff around, gangs are making profit and people are drowning.
Suella Braverman
I am proud of the announcement that the Prime Minister made last week, setting out a comprehensive, methodical and compassionate approach to dealing with illegal migration and stopping the boats crossing the channel, dealing with the asylum backlog, responding to the cohort of people who have come here illegally from Albania, operationalising our Rwanda agreement and ensuring that ultimately we crack down on the people smugglers through better operational command on the channel. The right hon. Lady needs to get with the programme. I invite her to reverse her opposition to our plan, come up with a methodical plan and then let us have a proper conversation.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
This question has been raised on many occasions, including, funnily enough, by me in a former incarnation. I am pleased to say that we are approaching the moment when I will be able to satisfy not only the hon. Gentleman’s but my desires.
Neil Coyle
Sounds fascinating, Mr Speaker, but the Minister—whom I congratulate on his role—knows that this review was commissioned nearly five years ago, so it is pathetic not to be able to give us a direct answer on when it is coming. Contrary to today’s rhetoric on securing borders, can he confirm that this scheme quickly became a security risk to this country, with no fewer than 10 Russians who were approved under the scheme now being sanctioned by the UK, and that more than 6,000 others granted tier 1 visa status are now being reviewed as a security risk to this country?
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member makes some solid points about the dangers of the involvement of certain states—in this case, Russia—in the United Kingdom. He should also be aware that the visa scheme closed in February 2022, and the response to Russian aggression or Russian influence in this country has been pretty robust. Indeed, since 2019, we have increased spending on the National Crime Agency by 30% and £200 million extra has gone in. As he knows, there is a long way to go and that is exactly what I am going to be doing over the next few years.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Appropriate support is provided to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute while applications are outstanding. Asylum seekers have access to the NHS, and children in family units to full-time education. They can obtain further assistance via the Migrant Help support line.
Rachael Maskell
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and British Red Cross have highlighted how 13,000 individuals have been trafficked into modern slavery, and the fact that they are not in regular employment being a risk. As a result, will the Minister ensure that local authorities have the funds to put on a full programme for asylum seekers while they are waiting, but also that there are pilot schemes so that those people can have access to the labour market?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady and I have met to discuss this issue, and I am grateful to her for her thoughts and for the good work that has been done in York. We do not agree that those awaiting asylum decisions should have access to the labour market. We think that that could be a further pull factor to the UK. However, there are other ways in which asylum seekers can make a positive contribution to society, for example, through volunteering, and we want to work with local authorities and other stakeholders to see whether we can pursue those.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
No one would deny that France is a safe country, so should not those genuinely fleeing persecution be claiming asylum in France, rather than paying people traffickers to bring them across the channel in small boats in dangerous circumstances?
Robert Jenrick
As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those claiming asylum should do so in the first safe country they pass through, and France is demonstrably a safe country. The system that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I want to build is one whereby those who come here illegally have no route to a life in the UK and are taken for their claims to be heard in third countries such as Rwanda, and we focus our resources as a country on targeted resettlement schemes and safe routes, like those that we have done so well in recent years in respect of Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Applications for the UK’s three bespoke Ukraine schemes are online, have no fee and no salary or language requirements. Nearly 150,000 visas have been issued to Ukrainians since the start of Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion. The UK Visas and Immigration service aims to decide those applications within five days, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Generally, we are now meeting that standard.
Stuart C. McDonald
Ukrainian MPs who have met colleagues here have repeatedly asked for improvements to UK visit visa processes. Visitors from Ukraine must either go to Poland twice—first for biometrics and then to collect the visa—or wait there for several weeks. Will the Minister look at what can be done to make it simpler for those brave politicians and other Ukrainian citizens visiting their families here to access the necessary visa?
Robert Jenrick
I am in contact with a number of Ukrainian politicians who have raised exactly that point with me and, indeed, the issue of those serving in the Ukrainian armed forces who might wish to visit relatives here while on a short period of leave. I am giving that further consideration.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
Our points-based system, with a wide range of eligible occupations spanning many economic sectors, works for the whole of the United Kingdom by welcoming people to fill skills gaps, support our public services and boost our economy. As noted by the Migration Advisory Committee’s annual report, immigration policy cannot be a complete solution to population movements within the UK, or labour shortages. It is for the Scottish Government to use their policy levers to address those issues more effectively.
Ms Qaisar
One of my constituents is a renewable energy researcher from Syria, and he is struggling with the Government’s restrictive policies on the employment of asylum seekers. He is unable to work or pursue further study in his field. Given that the shortage of labour impacts all sectors of the economy, does the Minister agree that the UK Government should make the rules on asylum seekers seeking employment less restrictive to support the Scottish labour market?
Robert Jenrick
No, I do not, because we want to ensure that deterrence is diffused throughout our asylum system. That means making the UK a significantly less attractive destination for asylum seekers, and particularly for those asylum shopping, than our EU neighbours. For that reason, we do not want to see asylum seekers working in the British economy. We want to see their cases decided as quickly as possible. If they are approved, of course they should be welcomed into the UK and make a positive contribution to British society. If they are declined, they should be removed.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government are determined to crack down on county lines gangs who are exploiting our children and devastating communities. That is why we have invested £145 million in our county lines programme over three years. That is delivering results. Since 2019, the programme has resulted in over 2,900 drug dealing lines being closed down, including over 8,000 arrests. That is important work and it is continuing.
Dean Russell
I recently took part in a dawn raid with Watford police officers as part of a national operation to crack down on serious organised crime. There are of course clear victims involved in crime but, as I wore my stab vest, I contemplated the dangerous situation that we were about to enter. Can my right hon. Friend confirm what support is being put in place to keep our brave police officers safe in such situations, including mental health support for the horrific scenes that they may see in their jobs daily, and support when they encounter dangerous criminals?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for taking part in the dawn raid, which I hope was a resounding success. I share his concerns about the mental health of police officers, who are often exposed to dangerous conditions and situations. The police covenant board, which I chair, met just a few weeks ago, and many of the work streams are designed to help police officers deal with mental health pressures. We have instituted a new chief medical officer position to look after serving and retired police officers, which is extremely important, and I am working closely with the Police Federation to ensure that the right support is in place.
Antony Higginbotham
In Burnley, our neighbourhood policing taskforce has been doing great work breaking down doors, disrupting gangs and arresting those responsible for dealing drugs. A key driver of that is the Government’s combating drugs strategy, but most of the new funding under the strategy is geared towards treatment and prevention, which, while important, will not be effective without the deterrent of tough enforcement. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and the Lancashire police and crime commissioner to talk about what more we might be able to do to make the strategy even better?
Chris Philp
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues from Lancashire. He is quite right that there are three elements to the combating drugs strategy. One is treatment. It is important to treat drug addiction, which is the underlying cause of a great deal of offending behaviour. In addition to ensuring that we are treating people, we need to enforce, too. That is one reason why we are recruiting more police officers. I think his local Lancashire force already has an extra 362 officers, which is well on the way to the extra 509 officers it is due to have by March next year. We are also increasing resources in Border Force to stop drugs getting into the country. There are now, I think, over 10,000 Border Force officers, up from about 7,500 in 2016. So, lots of extra resources are going into enforcement and policing, as well as treatment, but both are important.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Smashing the county lines business model and breaking up the gangs has to be a top priority, but of course it is still attractive to far too many young people. At the heart of the model is the exploitation of vulnerable young children. What more cross-agency work does the Minister think could be done that is not yet being done to ensure that a life of criminality is not a viable option?
Chris Philp
I agree entirely with the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman expresses. It is vital to stop younger people, perhaps early and mid-teenagers, falling into gang culture. Very often that is because they have suffered from family breakdown or are in difficult social circumstances. One action we are taking, which we need to accelerate and increase, is introducing violence reduction units. They are designed to identify individual young people at risk of falling into gangs, including county lines activities, and to take interventions, whether through social services, education or other interventions, to try to put them back on the right track. That is a Home Office-funded programme that we intend to continue, but the diagnosis the hon. Gentleman makes is exactly right.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
On that very point, last week I met an inspiring group of young students at West Thames College who are studying full time and having to work two or three jobs to make ends meet. It has not been easy for them. The message they asked me to bring here was that the best way to protect young people from going down a different route and getting sucked into county lines and violent crime is to have adequate, accessible and fully funded youth services. Does the Minister therefore regret the Government’s cuts to local councils since 2010, which have led to the decimation of universal youth provision?
Chris Philp
I have already referred to the significant amounts of money being put into violence reduction units, including funding some of the activity that the hon. Lady refers to—although it is not just that, it is much wider. It is important to divert younger people away from a life of crime and a gang culture that can all too easily take hold. It is for precisely that reason that we have established the well-funded violence reduction units, including in the London constituencies that both she and I represent.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Merry Christmas to you and to all the staff.
Contrary to the current rhetoric on modern slavery, thousands of British children were enslaved for sex and crime, such as county lines gangs, this year. Of the thousands of children identified as potential slaves this year, more British children were identified as potential child slaves than any other nationality. Last year, there was one conviction for modern slavery offences involving children. A woman I work with was left waiting by the Home Office for two years to be classified as a victim of slavery after she was groomed for sex and criminally exploited in a county lines gang since the age of 13. Referring to the Home Office written statement on the national referral mechanism, can the Minister confirm what “objective factors” to evident slavery means? If the Department thinks it is easy to prove slavery, why was there only one conviction last year?
Chris Philp
A lot of work is going on in the area. We have provided £145 million of funding to investigate and tackle county lines. That work has included 2,900 county lines being shut down. Critically, it has also included 9,500 individuals, most of whom are children, being engaged with safeguarding interventions.
Essentially, the national referral mechanism is currently being overwhelmed with a large number of claims, many of which are connected with immigration proceedings. One reason that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration wants to introduce objective criteria is to ensure that we focus our resources on genuine cases like the one that the hon. Lady describes. Rather than having the system overwhelmed by many unmeritorious claims in connection with immigration matters, it is important that we focus our attention on genuine cases like the one to which she refers.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Today I updated the House on the upcoming Protect duty, now to be called Martyn’s law. The threat from terrorism is complex and evolving, and we need to stay ahead of it, including in public places. There have been horrific incidents such as the Manchester Arena bombing, which claimed the life of Martyn Hett and 21 others.
Having carefully considered the views shared in the public consultation, we have taken a huge step forward. This will be the first legislation of its kind, placing proportionate security requirements on public venues to be better prepared and better able to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. I am extremely grateful to the heroic Figen Murray and the Martyn’s law campaign team, as well as to campaigners such as Brendan Cox; they have campaigned tirelessly and with great skill for this change. I also put on record my thanks to the Minister for Security for his work in getting us to this point.
Terror will never win. We will defend our values and be relentless in keeping the public safe. I hope that this new law is of some comfort to the families of victims, and a fitting tribute to Martyn, who I am sure would be proud of his mother’s achievement.
Elliot Colburn
Carshalton and Wallington residents often raise concerns with me about antisocial behaviour involving vehicles, from trying car doors at night to using modified vehicles or riding mopeds dangerously. Will my right hon. and learned Friend update me on the Home Office’s work to tackle that specific type of crime and antisocial behaviour?
Suella Braverman
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about antisocial behaviour, whether it is vandalism, graffiti, loitering or burglary. I am pleased to say that neighbourhood crime has fallen by 20% since 2019. I am well aware that the activities he describes can really blight local communities: that is why tackling antisocial behaviour is a priority for me and for the Government. We have expanded the remit of our successful safer streets fund so that there is now dedicated funding for initiatives to combat antisocial behaviour.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
We very much welcome the Protect duty legislation, which we have heard more about today, and look forward to seeing it. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the families who have worked so hard to get us to this point.
The annual threat update from the director general of MI5 was explicit about the seriousness of the threat from Iran to some UK residents, yet there are still those in religious roles working and living here in the UK who are appointed directly by the Supreme Leader himself. There are also key players within the draconian Iranian regime who have business interests and assets here in the UK. What are the Government doing to make it explicit that the UK will have no part in being a haven, either for individuals or for money linked to—
Mr Speaker
Order. You know the game: the game is short questions in topicals. Please do not take advantage of the situation, because all the Back Benchers want to get in as well.
The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)
I am delighted that the hon. Lady has raised the question of the Iranian threat in the UK. As she knows very well, the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, has cited the issue that our country faces in this arena. He has also, however, prepared many different aspects of the National Security Bill, which will help to put the country on a much stronger footing. We have enjoyed strong cross-party co-operation on this, and I look forward to the hon. Lady’s co-operating further with the Government in ensuring that this country is in a much stronger position than it has been in recent years, particularly in facing the Iranian threat, which sadly has become all too great here, quite apart from the extraordinary brutality that we are seeing in Tehran today.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I appreciate the concerns that my right hon. Friend has raised. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will set out in more detail the Government’s response to the High Court’s judgment today on Rwanda, but it is the court’s opinion that the Rwanda policy is consistent with the UK’s obligations under both the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Suella Braverman
I regret the attempt by the hon. Gentleman to lower the tone of this debate. What I will say is that I will not apologise for telling the truth about the scale of the challenge that we are facing when it comes to illegal migration, and I will also reiterate my absolute commitment to delivering on the groundbreaking agreement that we have with Rwanda. It is compassionate, it is pragmatic, and I invite the Opposition parties to support it.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is disgraceful that millions of pounds are being spent on housing asylum seekers in hotels. We want to end that as quickly as possible and ensure that those individuals are housed more appropriately—for example, in large sites that offer decent but never luxurious accommodation. However, the root cause is the numbers crossing the channel, and that is why policies such as the Rwanda policy, which create a clear deterrent, are so essential.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Suella Braverman
I welcome the High Court judgment, which states that the overall policy relating to Rwanda is lawful. It is in line with our international law agreements, and it is a rational policy choice that the UK Government have taken. We look forward to working more closely with Rwanda to deliver it.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I warmly welcome the legal ruling on the Rwanda plan, and also the reforms to the modern slavery system as part of the overall work to deter those involved in small boat crossings. Does the Home Secretary agree that another way of tackling the backlog would be to speed up the local authority pilot programme for processing claims relating to child victims of modern slavery, many of them vulnerable county lines drug gangs children? Would that not improve support for those children as well as helping to clear the backlog?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has been an eloquent and knowledgeable campaigner on this issue. She has spoken to me about how we can better ensure that young people who are exploited by criminal gangs are looked after properly. We will take forward more pilots with local authorities next year. I will take her advice under consideration as we design them.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out last week that we will redesign and speed up the asylum decision-making process. There will be a particular focus on those individuals with the highest grant rate, and those with the lowest grant rates, such as Albanians, who should be removed from the country. What we will not do is institute a policy of blanket approval, which, in essence, is what John Reid and previous Labour Home Secretaries did.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In Essex, our excellent police, fire and crime commissioner and I are concerned that out of 2,500 reported rape cases last year, only 70 were prosecuted. Can the Minister encourage the police to work more closely with secondary schools to ensure that girls who have been victims of rape know that their privacy and safety will be protected if they come forward to give evidence?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
We have allocated £125 million across England and Wales through the safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund, including £550,000 to invest in my right hon. Friend’s constituency. She works very hard on this issue. Work and engagement are ongoing with schools in the Chelmsford area, including the delivery of awareness sessions on healthy relationships and consent, and work with 15 and 16-year-olds who attend Chelmsford City football club.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Suella Braverman
I strongly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s assertion, surprisingly. On crime, we have seen a 20% fall in violent crime and neighbourhood crime and a 30% fall in domestic burglary since 2019. We see record numbers of police officers on our streets—something that everyone on the Opposition Benches voted against. When it comes to migration, I am incredibly proud of what this Government have achieved so far: the groundbreaking agreement with Rwanda, which is compassionate, pragmatic and lawful; and a plan to go further and deal with the problem.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s work with the Prime Minister on tackling illegal immigration and the statement last week. The statement talked about fairness; I think she knows very well that Stoke-on-Trent feels that it has not been treated fairly. The Minister mentioned that Scotland could take a few more asylum seekers if they were really concerned about these things. Other parts of the country could do the same.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are almost as many hotels in use in Stoke-on-Trent as in the whole of Scotland, bar the city of Glasgow. Fair and equitable distribution involves Scotland paying its fair share. We are acutely aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend and her colleagues in Stoke-on-Trent. I met the leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council last week to hear them directly. We will do all we can to support them.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
In the past decade it was normal to write to the Home Office about an immigration case and get a reply within six weeks. That went up to 10 to 12 weeks. It is now running at three to four months—not to get a decision, just an initial response. How sustainable is that?
Robert Jenrick
I am always happy to take up cases for right hon. and hon. Members. I would just say, however, that the Home Office’s standards for visa applications are now back in line with its customer service standards. A large number of staff were taken off those cases in order to support the Homes for Ukraine and other humanitarian schemes, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree with, but the service standards are now being met.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
A great many of my residents raise with me the issue of cross-channel migration. Following this morning’s High Court ruling, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Rwanda scheme, when it gets the green light, will be a fair scheme that will act as a deterrent and help to allay the concerns of Gedling residents?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point of the Rwanda scheme is to provide a significant deterrent, so that those coming here illegally never find a route to life here in the UK and so that we can focus our resources as a country on supporting those who really need to be here, through targeted resettlement schemes such as those for Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The production of industrial hemp in my constituency offers real promise and opportunity for crop diversification and soil improvement, but the growers are limited by Home Office rules around tetrahydrocannabinol protections. There is no need to worry about that, so can I invite the Home Secretary to come and discuss the matter with my farmers and to ensure that the law is changed to let them produce not only the stalk and the seeds, but the flowers and the leaves?
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government approach illegal drugs—or drugs of any kind—under advice from the Advisory Council on the Abuse of Drugs. If the hon. Member has detailed points that he would like to submit in relation to this, he can write to me and I would be happy to look into it.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I want to give credit to the Marling School students who got me in to talk about migration. Those smart, constructive young people really understand the complexities and I know that they will welcome the recent announcements, but they also expect me to keep pushing for improvement. I am concerned that MPs, councils and councillors are still some of the last people to find out when asylum seekers are placed in hotels in their constituencies. How is the Home Office working with the companies that have been contracted to source and organise hotels in rural areas, and is there day-to-day oversight?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I have worked together with respect to some accommodation in her constituency. We have now implemented far better engagement criteria with the Home Office, which will ensure that there should always be engagement with the Member of Parliament and the local authority in advance of placing asylum seekers in a particular place. But it is important to stress once again the immense pressure that our system is now under as a result of the number of people crossing the channel illegally, hence our need to take bold measures such as our Rwanda partnership.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My constituent’s wife is still stuck in Afghanistan with their two children, who are British citizens, and they cannot travel to safe routes for obvious security reasons. I have made untold representations to the Home Office about this. Will the Minister agree to look into this case on my behalf if I get the details to him today?
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
In 2010 and 2015, Dudley town centre was the scene of some very ugly riots, with the British National party, the National Front and the English Defence League converging on the town centre. On that basis alone, will the Home Secretary ask her officials to reconsider the proposals for siting up to 144 illegal immigrants in a hotel—the Superior Hotel—not 100 yards away from this location?
Robert Jenrick
As a result of the good work undertaken by the Home Office in recent weeks to ensure that the Manston site in Kent is operating appropriately, we have now been able to implement some simple criteria, including risk to public order or disorder, when choosing new hotels. If there is compelling evidence in that regard, it should be taken into account by the Home Office, but there are no easy choices in this matter. The UK is essentially full, and it is extremely hard to find new hotels or other forms of accommodation.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Can the Minister confirm that no citizen will require an electronic travel authorisation to travel from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom, and that there will be no equivalent to an Irish sea border for citizens travelling from Northern Ireland to Great Britain or for citizens travelling from GB to Northern Ireland?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point, because concerns that need to be allayed have recently been raised in some quarters. There will be no checks at the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland for tourist and other visas. His other points are absolutely correct. It is important that we proceed with our own ETA, as the European Union will be proceeding with its own version next year. This will enable us to improve security throughout the UK by ensuring some dangerous individuals do not enter.
Strep A Treatments: Supply
(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
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the supply of strep A treatments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know families are concerned about the recent outbreak of strep A in children. Although the vast majority of strep A cases are mild and can easily be treated with antibiotics, a small number of children have gone on to develop serious infections.
The UK Health Security Agency has already declared a national enhanced incident to co-ordinate our public response. Increased demand has led to some temporary supply issues, but I reassure Members on both sides of the House that we have stock of antibiotics and have taken a number of steps to deal with some of the supply issues.
First, we have worked at pace to help to ensure that there are supplies of vital medicines to meet the increased demand. Earlier this month, we convened roundtables with manufacturers of the preferred treatment, penicillin V, and with major UK wholesalers. We continue to work with manufacturers and wholesalers to boost supply to meet demand. The key issue is getting stock to pharmacies across the country. We have brought forward stock to make sure it gets to where it is needed, and we are expediting deliveries. Deliveries to wholesalers and pharmacies continues to be made, with more expected in the coming days and weeks.
Secondly, we have issued eight serious shortage protocols to allow pharmacists to supply not only alternative forms of penicillin, but alternative antibiotics. This will make things easier for pharmacists, general practitioners and, of course, patients. We have also added a number of antibiotics to our list of medicines that cannot be exported or hoarded.
Finally, we have updated advice across the board. Further guidance was given to GPs and pharmacists on Friday as part of the new SSPs. My Department has provided advice to colleagues in primary and secondary care on the management of the current supply issues. We have also held a cross-party briefing for MPs, and a “Dear Colleague” letter will go out later today.
I know this is a worrying time for families across the country, but I reassure them and people across the healthcare sector that we are managing the higher-than-normal number of strep A cases this winter and we have a range of medicines available.
Daisy Cooper
Across the country, parents are worried sick about the sharp rise in strep A infections. Tragically, strep A has caused the death of at least 19 children since September.
Last Thursday, just a few days after insisting there were no shortages, the Government finally admitted that there were indeed serious shortages of three penicillin medicines and issued serious shortage protocols to give pharmacists emergency powers to deal with supply issues. Why on earth did they take so long?
The Government will have seen the data on the number of prescriptions for strep A antibiotics, which started to rise more than a month ago. Health professionals, including Leyla Hannbeck, the chief executive of the Association of Independent Multiple Pharmacies, have been raising the alarm publicly for more than two weeks, and I called for a strep A summit to resolve the supply issues. Because the Government did not come clean sooner about the shortage of antibiotics, parents who are worried about their children have been left to travel to multiple pharmacies, GPs have had to find time to rewrite prescriptions and A&E departments have been overwhelmed by anxious parents and children who cannot access medical help when they need it.
Why have the Government taken so long to act? Did they not look at prescription data, or did they just ignore it? Why did the Secretary of State insist on television that there were no shortages, when GPs, pharmacists, directors of public health and parents all said that there were?
After shortages of lateral flow tests, hormone replacement therapy and so on—you name it—why are we in this position again? The Government seem incapable of forward planning, and we are stuck in a shortage groundhog day. Can the Minister update us on the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into the sharp rise in the prices of antibiotics?
Finally, we are in the lead-up to Christmas. Pharmacists have told me that some key contacts in the manufacturing companies are already on leave for the Christmas holiday. Families are making difficult decisions about the safety of their children and extended family. What action will the Government take now to ensure that families across the country can access the antibiotics they might need over the entire Christmas period?
Maria Caulfield
I reassure the hon. Lady that we have not waited to act. We have already issued serious shortage protocols, which are routine mechanisms when there is pressure on supplies. We have the stock of antibiotics in the country—as I outlined in my opening remarks, it is about supply issues. We are seeing five to six times the amount of antibiotics being prescribed at the moment. That is because the UK Health Security Agency has issued guidance to GPs, A&Es and healthcare professionals to lower the threshold of when they would normally give antibiotics. We are seeing significantly increased use of antibiotics. That is in addition to the prophylactic use of antibiotics by directors of public health, if they have had an outbreak locally. That is why we issued the initial SSPs already a couple of weeks ago so that pharmacists had flexibility in how they dispensed that medication. It is why on Friday we issued the new SSPs, which allow amoxicillin, clarithromycin, flucloxacillin, cefalexin, co-amoxiclav and erythromycin to be issued instead, if pharmacists do not have Penicillin V on their shelves. We are being as flexible as possible to give pharmacists that scope.
We are monitoring this issue on a daily basis. May I reassure people that while these are higher than usual incidences for this time of year, overall for this season we are not yet at the 2017, 2018 levels, where we had a significantly higher number of deaths? Strep A occurs not just in—[Interruption.] Hon. Members do not want to listen. I think I have said enough.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am pleased to hear that there are adequate supplies of penicillin and amoxicillin. My hon. Friend will be aware that some tetracyclines are less effective with certain ethnic groups. She is right in saying, is she not, that most strep A infections are not serious. Does she agree that we should be encouraging parents to give their children flu vaccinations? Usually, serious streptococcal infections occur when someone has been run down through a viral infection first.
Maria Caulfield
My hon. Friend is right to advise people to take their flu vaccination. What I was trying to say, but the Opposition did not really want to hear, was that strep A occurs in all age groups. Actually, the highest number of deaths we see are in over-65s. It is important to get the message out that this issue does not just affect children. My hon. Friend is right. The flu vaccine is something that should always be recommended for winter. He is also right that the alternative antibiotics that I read out have been recommended by UKHSA, and we have taken its clinical advice.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all staff of the House a merry Christmas? I also thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) for securing this urgent question. I put on record my deepest condolences to the families of the children who have tragically passed away with strep A. The news that cases are surging has been deeply worrying for parents of children showing symptoms, and it comes at a time when the NHS is facing unprecedented pressure.
We first heard about shortages of antibiotics to treat strep A almost two weeks ago, but when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue with the Prime Minister, he said:
“There are no current shortages of drugs available”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 333.]
At the same time, parents were going from pharmacy to pharmacy to find the antibiotics their children had been prescribed, and they simply were not available. Why did the Prime Minister not know that there was a problem, when it was plain to see for parents of young people across the country? Had the Government been aware of the problem sooner, surely they could have acted to secure supplies earlier? The Minister said that there has been no shortage, just a supply chain issue. For a parent turning up to a pharmacy and finding that it does not have the antibiotics, it does not make much difference whether this is called a shortage or a supply chain issue, as the antibiotics are not there. The Government must get a grip on this situation and be honest with the public about the reality on the ground.
In addition to the export ban, will the Minister tell the House exactly what the Government are doing to shore up supply of drugs needed to treat strep A? During the past couple of weeks, as desperate parents have been looking for antibiotics, prices have disgracefully shot up. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will come down like a ton of bricks on any company found to be exploiting this situation by jacking up prices for medication?
This is about access to not just medicine, but GPs and A&E. Parents concerned about symptoms are advised to seek prompt medical advice, yet about one in seven patients cannot get a GP appointment when they need one, a record 2 million patients are made to wait a month before they see a GP and A&E departments are overwhelmed. So will the Minister assure parents of children with symptoms of strep A that they will be able to see a GP when they need to? Finally, given that there are strikes planned in the NHS this week, may I ask the Minister whether the Secretary of State plans to update the House tomorrow and explain the Government’s disgraceful inaction on that issue too?
Maria Caulfield
Let me reassure Members that, as I said in my opening remarks, there is no shortage of antibiotics to deal with strep A. There have been pressures on supplies; there have been five to six times the amount of prescriptions that are normally issued at this time of year. Let me give the House an idea of the sorts of figures we are talking about. This season, we have seen 74 deaths across all age groups in England, with 16 of them, unfortunately, having been deaths of children under 18—the vast majority have been among the over-65s. In the 2017-18 peak, we had 355 deaths of all ages, with 27 of those being deaths of children under 18. That just gives us an idea of the scale of the difference compared with the peak of 2017-18. We have put significant measures in place to expedite that supply. Manufacturers are ramping up production lines. Deliveries to pharmacies have been happening every day, but often when the supplies arrive there they go very quickly. That is why we have issued the SSPs already, so that pharmacies can allow the different medication to be dispensed, and the alternative antibiotics are there as well. May I also put on record my thanks to GPs and A&E staff, who have seen record numbers of people, particularly children, with concerns about strep A? We did lower the threshold to prescribe antibiotics and they have gone above and beyond in seeing as many children as they can, as quickly as possible.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
Group A streptococcus has been associated as a trigger for PANDAS—paediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with streptococcal infections—a distressing autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder in children. I welcome the planned PANDAS surveillance study, which will, no doubt, help assess the impact of this outbreak on children, but will the Minister meet me and other members of the all-party group that deals with this to discuss how we can develop and move towards a treatment pathway for PANDAS in the UK?
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important point. UKHSA is looking at the data on this outbreak and previous ones. I am happy to meet him to discuss that, particularly if he has details of treatment options he feels are not being pursued at the moment.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that no production lines in UK pharmaceutical suppliers are operating, because we have contracted out all our supplies to China and India, which manufacture all the drugs? Both countries have not signed up to the pharmaceutical inspection and co-operation scheme, which ensures homogenisation of good manufacturing practices. The UK manufacturers have to apply that whereas the overseas manufacturers do not. Therefore, we have over 10 manufacturers of pharmaceuticals who are not able to produce the right antibiotics because of the unfair discrimination against them by the Government. Will she ensure that this is put right before Christmas so that our local, British pharmaceutical manufacturers can produce the right antibiotics to give to all our children who need them so desperately?
Maria Caulfield
Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had not been heckling me throughout my opening remarks, he would have heard that we are working with manufacturers and wholesalers across the country. Manufacturers are opening up new production lines and those supplies will be hitting pharmacy shelves very soon.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I recently visited Broomfield Hospital and was concerned to hear that the paediatric A&E was seeing three times as many children as was normal for this time of year. Given that strep A is often a complication of flu, which can be harmful to children, and given that the vaccine take-up, especially of two and three-year-olds, is so low, will my hon. Friend join me in urging all parents, especially those of two and three-year-olds, to go out and get that protection against both flu and strep A by getting their child the flu vaccine?
Maria Caulfield
My right hon. Friend is right to encourage parents to take their children for the flu vaccine. She is also right to highlight the level of demand in her local A&E. Parents are doing the right thing. If they are concerned about their children, they should get them seen as early as possible. For those in doubt about the symptoms: they are flu-like symptoms of sore throat, headache, fever, muscle aches and also a rash that can feel like sandpaper. If parents are concerned, they should seek medical advice.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is currently suggested that parents contact 111 or book a GP appointment if they are concerned about strep A. Yet 111 workers are already stretched and millions of parents are struggling to get GP appointments, but with strep A there is no time to be wasted. What are the Government doing to ensure that diagnosis and treatment are expedited, because no more families should be facing the prospect of mourning this Christmas?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady is right to raise that matter. Every day, we monitor the number of appointments with GPs, A&E visits, pharmacy visits and the impact that those are having on our stock levels of antibiotics, and the number of incidents of positive cases. Scarlet fever is a notifiable disease, so we are able to track this fairly easily, but she is right on this. GPs and A&E doctors are going above and beyond to see as many as possible of the people coming forward with concerns.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is good to hear that there is no shortage of antibiotics, and I know that many parents in my constituency will be reassured by that. None the less, from speaking to constituents, I do know that they have had to travel further than normal to get the antibiotics that have been prescribed by a GP. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that antibiotics are delivered to a range of places, particularly those areas where there is a larger outbreak, because that is where they will be needed the most?
Maria Caulfield
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. While we do not have a shortage, there are, as I have clearly outlined, supply issues. When deliveries are made to pharmacies, those pharmacies very quickly run out because of the sheer scale of demand. I say to parents that the new SSPs issued on Friday will allow pharmacists to replace the prescription antibiotic with a number of antibiotics. If they go in with a prescription for penicillin B and are given amoxicillin, clarithromycin, flucloxacillin, cephalexin, co-amoxiclav or erythromycin, for example, that is because they are recommended as alternative antibiotics that can adequately treat strep A.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but you caught me unawares there. I was expecting to go up and down automatically until the very end.
I thank the Minister for her answers, but this is not only about strep A. Will she confirm that discussions have taken place with Army medics, so that they can step into the breach as GPs are under pressure? One parent in my constituency simply refused to leave the GP’s office until he was seen, and quite rightly so, as his daughter had scarlet fever and needed an immediate antibiotic injection. I do not blame the GPs, because it is clear that they need more support. Can this be made available? The Army medics are perhaps the solution.
Maria Caulfield
I am sorry to hear about the problems that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has had in accessing help. We do recognise that there are serious pressures. Winter is a busy time for GPs in the best of years, but this year, with strep A, UKHSA and officials are encouraging parents to come forward, and parents are doing exactly the right thing. We are working with GPs, and NHS England is reaching out to primary care colleagues to see what additional support is needed to meet that demand.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think the Minister’s definition of a “shortage” is different from that of parents. One parent in my constituency got in touch with me last week. She was a local mum of a 13-month-old boy who has been diagnosed with strep A. After a frantic search for antibiotics—during which the doctors changed the prescription—she managed, in her desperation, to get a third of the necessary prescription. Since then she has been trying pharmacies repeatedly to get the remainder. Today, she runs out, and she still does not have the drugs that she needs. What is the Minister’s message for that mum trying to keep that little boy safe?
Maria Caulfield
We recognise that there are supply issues with pharmacies. That is why pharmacists have had the flexibility since before last week to adjust doses and preparations. Since Friday they have also been able to issue alternative antibiotics. I would say to the hon. Lady’s constituent to go back to her pharmacist, who will be able to give her an alternative supply.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Parents right across my constituency have been raising concerns with me about the rise in strep A cases. I spoke to a reception class teacher last week who told me that more than half the reception class were off with a variety of winter diseases, including strep A. Parents tell me that when they see the symptoms, they struggle to get a GP appointment because of the logjam in the primary care system. What steps is the Minister taking to make more GP appointments available so that parents are not left waiting?
Maria Caulfield
Where there has been an outbreak in a local area, many directors of public health are starting children in classes or in schools with known cases on prophylactic antibiotics, preventing strep A in the first place. If the hon. Lady has a case in her constituency, I urge her to talk to her director of public health; it is a clinical decision, but they may be able to start pupils in those classes on prophylactic doses.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
On Friday, with my local pharmaceutical committee, I visited Whitworth Pharmacy in Elswick in my constituency and saw the fantastic work it does to support health in the community. I also saw the empty shelves where the antibiotics that would normally be used to treat strep A should be. The Minister does not seem to realise that a supply issue means a shortage on the shelves. I learned too that pharmacies are being asked to pay up to £19 for a box of antibiotics that would normally cost £2, and there is no commitment from the Government to reimburse that amount. What immediate assurances can she give that local pharmacies will not be priced out of supporting their communities?
Maria Caulfield
Let me be absolutely clear that no supplier should be using this as an opportunity to exploit the NHS. The Competition and Markets Authority is looking at any complaints about price increases and we are working with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee at pace to review the concessionary price arrangements and see how they can be improved.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
If parents right across the country are reporting to their MPs that they are having to go from pharmacy to pharmacy to get the right antibiotics, there is a shortage. If pharmacies are reporting that they are running out of supplies as soon as they come in because they already have high demand, there is a shortage. It was not until last Thursday that the serious shortage protocols were introduced. I raised this issue with the Government on 6 December at health questions, and I was told that there was no shortage. As well as repeating her answer that there is no shortage, can the Minister give us an assurance that the antibiotics are available in liquid form, which is suitable for children?
Maria Caulfield
Just to confirm, the five SSPs issued on Friday were in addition to the three issued previously. If colleagues are having problems with the pharmacies in their constituencies not getting stock, I must say that I held a cross-party meeting with MPs on this very issue not so long ago and a handful of colleagues attended. My door is open and, if people are having problems in their constituencies, I ask them to please come and see me, because we have mechanisms in place to deal with that—but I need colleagues to let me know when we hold cross-party meetings.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Last week Hannah, a young mum from the Runcorn part of my constituency, visited nine different pharmacies looking for the appropriate medication for her four-year-old little boy. It was not available, because there is a shortage. It is time to be clear and transparent about that. The Minister should not be in denial about the reality; she should give those parents and their children reassurance by getting a grip of the situation.
Maria Caulfield
I can give parents struggling to get those antibiotics the reassurance that pharmacies are now able to dispense alternative antibiotics. I have read them out, but I can do so again: amoxicillin, clarithromycin, flucloxacillin, cefalexin, co-amoxiclav and erythromycin. We have taken action to make sure that those antibiotics are available to parents.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
There appears to be some confusion about the difference between an insufficiency of stocks and supply difficulties. Just for absolute clarity, given that the Minister has reported to the House today that demand has gone up five or six times, are there currently sufficient or insufficient stocks in the country to meet that increased demand?
Maria Caulfield
There are sufficient stocks in the country to meet demand.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The deputy chair of the British Medical Association’s general practitioners committee told the Health Committee two weeks ago about the challenges faced by GPs in accessing appropriate pharmaceuticals. What are NHS planners doing to ensure that logistics are getting stocks to the appropriate place in a timely way? With strep A, we just cannot wait.
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely. That is why wholesalers have expedited deliveries and increased the number of deliveries that are going to pharmacies. We are working with NHS England, with UKHSA and with pharmaceutical bodies to make sure that those supplies are getting to them. But we recognise that even with the expedited and extra deliveries there is still demand on supplies, which is why the SSPs have been issued—so that pharmacists can dispense not just alternative preparations of what has been prescribed, but alternative substitutes.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Parents in Barnsley are really worried. The Minister has said more than once that there is no shortage, but I say gently to her that that is not the experience of many of my constituents. They do not need her to refer to that simply as a supply issue; they want to hear what the Government are doing to tackle the shortage and to ensure that there are no regional disparities in access to medicine.
Maria Caulfield
I do not want to repeat myself, but we have been clear. We have been working with manufacturers and wholesalers to up production and expedite deliveries to pharmacies, but we recognised fairly early on that that was not going to be enough to meet demand. That is why we already had SSPs in place, so that pharmacists had some flexibility. But we recognised that that was not enough, so on Thursday and Friday we issued five new SSPs so that pharmacists had the flexibility to dispense alternative antibiotics that are as good at dealing with strep A as penicillin V. We will go further. We have more manufacturing plans to increase supply, and we also have alternative provision coming onstream in the next few days, about which I can update the House as well, so we are not just resting on our laurels. We will do whatever it takes to get those antibiotics to those who need them.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister said that there are supply issues but no shortage. I am trying to be helpful here, so may I make a suggestion to improve domestic supply? I recently visited Bristol Laboratories in Peterlee in my constituency—I pay tribute to its management and workforce for their hard work—which has the facilities and the flexible capacity to supply generic medicines to the NHS at relatively short notice. It would seem advantageous to meet Bristol Laboratories and similar manufacturers. UK domestic production capacity for such medications is vital, as was demonstrated during covid. If we do not protect our sovereign manufacturing capability, we risk the UK being at the back of the queue if and when the next global supply shortage or demand surge hits.
Maria Caulfield
If the hon. Gentleman forwards to me the details, I will happily look at that. I would just point out that, as of 12 December, a number of European countries, including Ireland, France, the Netherlands and Sweden have indicated an increase this winter, particularly since September. Antibiotics and amoxicillin are both reported to be in short supply in those countries. This issue is not related solely to the United Kingdom.
Migration and Economic Development
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the UK’s migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda.
One hundred million people are displaced globally. Others want to move to a different country, often for economic reasons. This presents an enormous challenge for sought-after destinations such as the United Kingdom. Since 2015, this kind and generous country has welcomed nearly 450,000 people through safe and legal routes. The British people are eager to help those in need and they support controlled migration. They have opened their homes to refugees. But they do not want open borders.
For decades the British people were told that this was immoral and that their concerns and opinions did not matter. Even today we see from certain quarters an unhealthy contempt for anyone who wants controlled migration. Such an attitude is unhelpful. Moreover, it is fanciful. We do not have infinite capacity. Already we are struggling to accommodate new arrivals, meaning that we spend millions every day in hotel bills alone.
We cannot tolerate people coming here illegally. It is not legitimate to leave a safe country such as France to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. We have to break the business model of the people-smuggling gangs. Their trade in human cargo is evil and lethal, as we were tragically reminded very recently.
There is a global migration crisis and it requires international solutions. In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), backed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), signed a ground-breaking migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda. They deserve enormous credit for their work on this. We agreed that people who come to the UK via dangerous, illegal and unnecessary means can be relocated to Rwanda to have their asylum claims considered there. Those in need of protection will be given up to five years of support, including education and employment training, along with help with integration, accommodation and healthcare.
Being relocated to Rwanda is not a punishment but an innovative way of addressing a major problem to redress the imbalance between illegal and legal migration routes. It will also ensure that those in genuine need of international protection are provided with it in Rwanda. It is a humane and practical alternative for those who come here through dangerous, illegal and unnecessary routes. By making it clear that they cannot expect to stay in the UK, we will deter more people from coming here and make such routes unviable.
There has been a great deal of misinformation about Rwanda. I visited Rwanda myself several years ago. She is a state party to the 1951 United Nations refugee convention and the seven core United Nations human rights conventions. It is a safe and dynamic country with a thriving economy. It has an excellent record of supporting refugees and vulnerable migrants. The UN has used Rwanda for the relocation of vulnerable migrants from Libya—and this was first funded by the European Union. Many migrants, including refugees, have already built excellent lives in Rwanda. Our partnership is a significant investment in that country and further strengthens our relationship.
A myth still persists that the Home Office’s permanent secretary opposed this agreement. For the record, he did not. Nor did he assert that it is definitely poor value for money. He stated, in his role as accounting officer, that the policy is regular, proper and feasible, but that there is not currently sufficient evidence to demonstrate value for money. As he would be the first to agree, it is for Ministers to take decisions having received officials’ advice. Once the partnership is up and running, he will continue to monitor its efficacy, including value for money.
In June, the first plane was ready to relocate people to Rwanda. Our domestic courts—the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—upheld our right to send the flight.
However, following an order by an out-of-hours judge in the European Court of Human Rights, the flight was cancelled. The European Court of Human Rights did not rule that the policy or relocations were unlawful, but it prohibited the removal of specific people. This was a “without notice” order and the UK was not invited to make representations to oppose it. As a result, we have been unable to operate relocation flights pending ongoing legal proceedings, but we have continued to prepare by issuing notices of intent for those eligible for relocation, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently outlined a comprehensive new approach to illegal migration.
A judicial review was brought against the Rwanda partnership by a number of organisations and individual asylum seekers. The first part of proceedings considered a case that the partnership is unlawful; the second part argued that UK domestic processes under the partnership are unfair; and the third part argued that the policy is contrary to data protection laws. Today in the High Court, in a judgment spanning more than 130 pages, Lord Justice Lewis and Mr Justice Swift held that it is indeed lawful for the Government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom. The court further held that the relocation of asylum seekers to Rwanda is consistent with the refugee convention and with the statutory and other legal obligations on the Government, including the obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998.
This judgment thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership. Earlier today, I spoke to my Rwandan counterpart, Minister Vincent Biruta, and we confirmed our joint and steadfast resolve to deliver the partnership at scale as soon as possible. It is what the overwhelming majority of the British people want to happen. The sooner it is up and running, the sooner we will break the business model of the evil gangs and bring an end to the illegal, unnecessary and unsafe channel crossings. Now that our courts have affirmed its legality, I invite the Opposition to get behind this plan. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Government have failed to stop criminal gangs putting lives at risk and proliferating along our borders; they have failed to prosecute or convict the gang members; and they have failed to take basic asylum decisions, which are down by 40% in the last six years. Instead of sorting out those problems, however, they have put forward an unworkable, unethical and extremely expensive Rwanda plan that risks making trafficking worse.
The Home Secretary describes today’s court judgment as a vindication, but I wonder whether she has read it, because it sets out evidence of serious problems in Home Office decision making. It also identifies the significant financial costs of the scheme and the very limited number of people who will be covered, and certainly identifies no evidence that it will act as a deterrent or address the serious problems that we face.
The court concluded that the Home Office’s decision making in each of the eight cases considered was so flawed and chaotic that those individual decisions have had to be quashed. There were cases of literally mixing up evidence and the names of individuals, so the Home Office was making decisions on the wrong people; there was confusion between teams in Glasgow and Croydon about who was deciding what and which information should be shared; and evidence of torture and trafficking was not considered. We also know that the Home Office attempted to send heavily pregnant women to Rwanda.
That is a damning indictment of the decision-making process in the Home Office, which we know is not working because no decision has been made on 98% of the small boat arrivals in the last 12 months. Ministers seem to have decided that they are so incapable of getting a grip on the asylum system and of taking asylum decisions effectively here in the UK that they want to pay a country halfway across the world to take those decisions for us.
On the lawfulness of the decision, the Court accepted that Rwanda does not have the processing capacity, including interpreters and legal support, needed to take asylum decisions, but it concluded that the agreement was still lawful because of two key points: the number of people Rwanda takes will be very limited; and lots more money will be provided by the UK Government. The Home Secretary did not tell us about any of those things. Will she now tell us, first, how many people she expects to send to Rwanda next year? Rwanda has said that it can accommodate 200 people. That is the people from 0.5% of this year’s channel crossings. The Home Office itself has said that there is no evidence that the scheme will act as a deterrent, and that the scheme is unenforceable and has a high risk of fraud.
Secondly, can the Home Secretary tell us the full cost? The Court said that significant additional funding would be provided. The Government have already written Rwanda two cheques this year: one for £120 million, and another this summer for £20 million. Millions more are promised—but how much more? How much will the scheme end up costing per person? It looks as though it will be more than £1 million per person.
Thirdly, the Court judgment says that there is no evidence that the UK Government sought to investigate either the terms of the Rwanda-Israel agreement or the way it had worked in practice. Why on earth not? That agreement was abandoned, and there is evidence that it increased trafficking and the activity of criminal gangs. Convictions for people smuggling have already dropped by 75% in two years; convictions for people trafficking are already pitifully low; and a former chief constable has warned that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will make that worse. Time and again, the Government have failed to tackle the criminal gangs driving the problem, and to make them pay the price. Instead of pursuing this unworkable, unethical, extortionately expensive and deeply damaging policy, the Government should use the money that they are investing in it to go after the gangs that are putting lives at risk. All that they are doing, time and again, is chasing headlines, which is a damaging distraction from the serious hard work that is needed to tackle the gangs and sort out the asylum system.
The Home Secretary has said that the Conservatives are in the last chance saloon. Their policies put them there, and have let the country down. They are always ramping up the rhetoric, and never doing the serious, hard work, or using common sense. Britain deserves better than this. Britain is better than this.
Suella Braverman
I am very disappointed by the response from the shadow Home Secretary, and I am concerned that she is seeking to go against a legitimate, rigorous decision set out exhaustively by our independent judiciary, and is still suggesting that this is an illegitimate scheme. We see in the judgment that the scheme is lawful on several grounds. The judgment looked at the legislative authority for the scheme. It looked very closely at the claims that it breached articles 3 and 14 of the European convention on human rights, and article 31 of the refugee convention. It looked closely at whether it was fair, and at whether the right of access to justice was respected. It looked very closely at other public law grounds. On all those claims, the Home Office won. The Court concluded that it was and is lawful for the Government to make arrangements to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda, and for asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda, rather than in the UK. The judgment is a comprehensive analysis of the reasons why.
The right hon. Lady asks about the eight individual cases. We accept the Court’s judgment on those cases. We have already taken steps to strengthen the caseworking process, including revising the information and guidance given to individuals during their assessment for relocation, but we have been clear throughout that no one will be relocated if that is unsafe for them, and support is offered to individuals throughout the process to ensure that it is fair and robust.
The simple truth is that Labour Members have opposed every one of our efforts to deter illegal migration. They opposed the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, life sentences for people smugglers, and the removal of foreign national offenders, including drug dealers and rapists. All they offer is obstruction, criticism, the performative politics of opposition, and magical thinking. What do they actually offer? They say that we should return to the failed Dublin scheme—no matter that it was ineffective, and no matter that the EU does not want it. Labour Members want safe and legal routes as the answer, no matter that this Government have done more than any other in recent history, offering sanctuary to more than 450,000 people by safe and legal routes. No matter that Labour Members cannot define what routes they would stand up themselves, or that our capacity is not unlimited, and that there are more than 100 million people displaced globally. Would Labour give them all a safe and legal route to the UK?
We cannot indulge in fictions. A fundamental reason why Labour Members cannot articulate a plan is that they cannot be honest with the British public about what they really want. The shadow Home Secretary could not even decide whether she would repeal illegal entry, even though she voted against it. Labour’s solution would be to turn our crisis of illegal migration into a crisis of legal migration, with open borders by the back door. Unlimited safe and legal routes are simply open borders masquerading as humanitarianism. Last week the Prime Minister and I announced our plan to tackle small boats. Today the Court affirmed the legality of a central piece of that plan, and tomorrow Labour still will not have a plan.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Although the High Court ruled that the Rwanda policy is lawful, as has been said there were only eight asylum claimants. Those cases have all been set aside by the Court, which said in its ruling that the circumstances of each claimant had not been considered properly. Latest Home Office website figures currently show that more than 160,000 individual cases are outstanding. Furthermore, as the Home Secretary—in whom I have the greatest confidence—stated, the European Court judge who issued the injunction clearly did so without proper consideration of the Rwanda policy, and such rulings do not command our respect.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that for all those reasons it becomes more essential than ever to apply the “notwithstanding” formula to the new legislation that the Prime Minister has announced for mid-January? That must also distinguish in our own law between genuine refugees and illegal economic migrants, not only in the interests of saving life, but also to prevent organised criminality, and to assert UK parliamentary sovereignty, overriding the European convention on human rights, and at the same time dealing comprehensively with the current backlog of those 160,000 outstanding asylum cases.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The European Court of Human Rights did not rule on the lawfulness of our policy. It did not rule that the policy or relocations were unlawful, but it did none the less prohibit the removal of individuals on the 15 June flight, via interim and injunctive relief. We have a proud tradition of defending fundamental rights in this country, and we will always retain a robust approach to protecting and preserving human rights. However, that does not mean that we will have a migration system that can be abused and exploited by those who do not have legitimate claims to be here. As the Prime Minister announced last week, we will be bringing forward legislation to ensure that we have a robust migration system and secure borders.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
This is a dark day indeed with this judgment, particularly when the Home Secretary comes to the House to imply that having morals is fanciful. Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council has called the policy
“wrong in principle and unworkable in practice”,
and I am certain that this will go to appeal as charities and those involved in the issue have stated. SNP Members will never get behind this policy—not in our name—and I remind Members that slavery, apartheid and marital rape were all lawful at one time, but none of them were right.
The Court found that the Home Office had failed to consider properly the circumstances of the eight who challenged the policy. How exactly does the Home Secretary intend to approach such cases now, and what will happen to those eight individuals? What happens to those who have already been issued with notices of intent, and what confidence can they have in a system that previously did not properly consider the cases of eight people?
The Home Secretary claims that this will be a deterrent. The Tories also claimed that the hostile environment would be a deterrent and that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would be a deterrent. Now they claim the Rwanda policy will be a deterrent. None of them is working because they fail to recognise the desperate circumstances that drive people to come here in the first place. Safe and legal routes will work and prevent people from losing their lives in the channel.
The Home Secretary talked about the trade in human cargo. We all want to tackle the people smugglers who exploit people in the most vulnerable of circumstances. However, what else is the Rwanda policy but state-sponsored people trafficking? How many people are actually going to be removed to Rwanda? It is going to be a tiny proportion, so any deterrent effect that the Government claim is not going to be proper. What is the total cost of this unworkable scheme? How much money has been spent on it already? How much has gone on the legal case? How much of it would have been better spent dealing with the catastrophic backlog of cases that the Tories have created?
Suella Braverman
I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s ideological zeal is blinding and preventing her from taking a rational approach. I am proud of the fact that we have welcomed 450,000 people through safe and legal routes to this country since 2015. I do not think that anyone can claim that we are not forward-leaning on all of this. She and her party need to be honest about their position with the British people: they stand for open borders and uncontrolled migration.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Parliament has legislated, our courts have ruled. We are apparently stopped by a Russian judge, woken from a bar, to issue an injunction. Can this stand?
Suella Braverman
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Neither the Prime Minister nor I are deterred from delivering on this policy, which is an essential part of our wider plans to break the business model to stop illegal migration. We have a legitimate basis for it. It has been upheld after being rigorously tested in our courts. We will continue to move quickly to honour the will of the British people.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Home Secretary says that Britain has a proud tradition of supporting asylum seekers. That is true in part, but it is not true under her tenure. She is pursuing a vile policy, which is brutal towards the individuals concerned, and continually tells us that it is illegal to seek asylum. It is not; it is clearly there in all international conventions. Will she for once have a sense of humanity towards people who are desperate and victims of wars, environmental change and human rights abuse—and exploited to boot? Cannot she just hold out a hand of friendship and understanding towards these desperate people, rather than the brutal assertion that she is making?
Suella Braverman
The right hon. Gentleman talks regularly about safe and legal routes being a means to an end of illegal arrivals. The reality is that our safe and legal routes have already allowed 450,000 people to come here since 2015, with 300,000 in the last year alone—the highest number that we have seen in several decades. However, that needs to happen in conjunction with deterrent policies if they are to have any effect and if we are to stop the practice of people taking lethal and unlawful journeys across the channel, jumping the queue, undermining the British people’s generosity and breaking the law.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
While the judgment is welcome, it will not solve the problem not just because of the relatively few numbers that can be deported to Rwanda but because each case must be fought individually, and human rights lawyers will fight every single case individually. That is the problem. Surely the only serious way in which we can deter migration across the channel is by having the legal right not just to process people when they arrive on our shores but to arrest them and detain them until their asylum application is dealt with. Does anything in the refugee convention stop us doing that? If not, why are we not doing it? If the Human Rights Act stops us doing it, can we not apply for a notwithstanding clause in our new legislation to deal with that problem?
Suella Braverman
This is exactly why the Prime Minister made an announcement last week, and the Immigration Minister and I are working intensively to prepare legislation, which will be introduced next year. It will deliver a scheme along the lines my right hon. Friend describes, whereby if you come here irregularly or illegally—on a small boat, putting yourself and others at risk—you will be detained and swiftly removed to a safe third country or to Rwanda for your asylum claim to be processed.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In her statement, the Home Secretary confirmed that the permanent secretary at the Home Office had concerns about the cost and that she overruled him. We have spent £140 million so far and not a single individual has been removed. When the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) was Immigration Minister, he said that the average cost of removing people would be £12,000—something that was not based on any fact. If she is so confident about the scheme that she took a decision to overrule the permanent secretary, will she not today publish all the costs of the scheme, so we can all take a view on whether it is a good use of taxpayers’ money, or whether it is simply a way of fulfilling one of her weird dreams?
Suella Braverman
The right hon. Gentleman needs to get his facts right because actually the agreement was struck between my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, and the Rwandan Government. But I support the work she did and the achievement she struck. The agreement represents a long-term policy. It is expected to last for at least five years, and the costs and payments will depend on the number of people relocated, when that happens and the outcomes of the individual cases. Of course, we have been held up by litigation. Once the litigation process comes to an end, we will move quickly to deliver that and deliver value for money.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I am saddened that following last week’s tragic events neither the shadow Home Secretary nor the SNP Front Bench are prepared to say that people should not be getting into these boats in the first place. They should be claiming refuge and asylum in one of the 149 convention countries, many of which they will have gone through. I welcome today’s judgment from the High Court. Is it not even better than Rwanda that people stay safe on land in France and do not make the crossings in the first place?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People should not be making this journey, they should not be crossing through other safe countries and they should not be choosing to come to the United Kingdom via those means. The sooner we are able to deliver a policy that reflects that, the better.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The courts have been very clear: it is wrong to have a blanket approach to the treatment of refugees, just as it would be wrong to decide that everybody caught speeding could never drive again. What matters is treating each case on its merits. We have seen already how poorly the Government treat refugee children who are here. The Home Secretary talks about being honest, so let us finally have some honest, straight answers. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Home Secretary confirm whether she intends to deport children, or those who are looking after children and are here as refugees to Rwanda? Yes or no—will children be on those flights, Ministers?
Suella Braverman
We have been very clear that families are not subject to the Rwandan policy, but the broader point is this. The hon. Member’s reading of the judgment is different from mine. There has been an extensive and exhaustive analysis of the legal claims brought against the Government, and the Court has been pretty emphatic on the legality of the policy. It concluded that the scheme is compliant with our ECHR and refugee obligations.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Two months ago, I visited the Hope hostel in Kigali. Not only was the accommodation of a high standard, but the Rwandans I spoke to expressed hope that those coming would, in due course, obtain jobs and move out to their own homes, thus allowing more refugees to come and take their place. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this policy is not just lawful, but humane in that it offers refugees real hope?
Suella Braverman
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend reiterates a point dealt with extensively in the body of the judgment. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to that judgment, in which there is a complete analysis of the exact support that people will receive when they are in Rwanda, the monitoring that will go on to ensure that their welfare is safeguarded, and the track record that Rwanda has demonstrated in supporting refugees from the region in previous instances.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is frustrating to sit here and listen to the Secretary of State, because none of us is denying that this is a legal ruling, but whether or not it is lawful, this plan is immoral, ineffective and incredibly costly for taxpayers. Does the Secretary of State agree that, instead of wasting taxpayers’ money on defending the policy through the courts, the Government should focus on stopping these dangerous crossings and tackling smugglers and trafficking by providing more safe and legal routes and sanctuary for refugees? Rather than dealing with the problem after people arrive here, we must deal with it at source so that they are never put in the position where they make a dangerous crossing over the channel.
Suella Braverman
As the justices made clear at the beginning of their judgment, they are not opining on the politics or the morality of the Rwanda scheme; they are simply opining on the lawfulness. That is why I have huge confidence in the judgment that has been handed down today.
If we are talking about the broader issues, I gently disagree with the hon. Lady, as the House would imagine. I think that what is actually unacceptable is that her party is peddling a mistruth to the British people. It is saying that we can have an unlimited and open borders policy, that we have unlimited capacity and that everybody is welcome. Unfortunately, the reality is that that is not the case. We have to take a pragmatic, measured and compassionate approach to our migration—that is what is sensible and is required by the British people.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Central to solving the crisis of illegal migration is the prevention of further loss of human life in the English channel, so I welcome not only today’s judgment, but the commitment that my right hon. and learned Friend made in her statement to delivering the Rwanda partnership
“at scale as soon as possible.”
However, it is clear that there will be continued legal challenges to it, either on an individual basis or on a whole-policy basis, so may I push the Home Secretary further on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash): that the legislation coming in the new year, which I look forward to supporting, really must include a “notwithstanding” clause to ensure that we can prevent the further loss of human life in the channel?
Suella Braverman
What is essential is that we introduce, consider and pass legislation that will be robust and resilient and actually deliver on our stated political objectives. That will require an exhaustive analysis of the legal methods but, simply put, we are in the process, we are in the sausage machine, as they would put it, so it is not a pretty sight, but nothing is off the table.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Home Secretary said over the weekend that she is considering leaving the European convention on human rights in order to prevent people from claiming asylum. Is it possible to do that without breaking our commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?
Suella Braverman
What I think is clear is that there are evident challenges with the way in which international conventions and agreements relating to migration are working in the 21st century. I think there are legitimate questions that, at an international level, all nation states are grappling with; I have seen that at first hand when I have spoken to my counterparts in the Calais group or other international partners. There is an unprecedented scale of illegal migration and there is unprecedented pressure on domestic resources. I think that looking at how we can forge a new set of agreements to work better together is definitely a reasonable approach.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Were more safe and legal routes to be made available, they would quickly be taken up and the trade in small boats would then continue unabated—wouldn’t it?
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary assure the House that if someone arrives on the shores at Dover to claim asylum in order to be able to join a child, a spouse or an elderly parent here in the United Kingdom under the right to family life, that individual will not be put on a plane to Rwanda and separated from his or her family for the rest of their lives?
Suella Braverman
Anyone arriving here irregularly will be eligible for consideration. We will consider every case on its individual merits. We have excluded families from the scheme, but we will also ensure that the decisions are made on a lawful and rational basis.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the ruling and the Home Secretary’s comments. It is clear from what we are hearing from Opposition Members that there is a great gulf between their views and those of the vast majority of the British people. Overwhelmingly, my constituents will want to see the Home Secretary’s and the Prime Minister’s proposals implemented as quickly as possible. In particular, there is genuine concern about the speed of the processing of the many cases. Although additional staff are being taken on, the pitiful number of cases with which they are dealing each week needs to be dramatically increased. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that action is being taken to ensure that that happens?
Suella Braverman
Processing asylum claims is one core element of meeting the challenge more broadly. That is why it is right that we are increasing the number of caseworkers, increasing their specialism and streamlining the process. Ultimately, we want to bear down on the number of people waiting for a decision from the Home Office.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Home Secretary says that she is taking a deterrent approach, but it is plain that today’s judgment cannot and will not function as a so-called deterrent. The whole point of this vile policy of expelling asylum seekers to Rwanda is that expulsion was supposed to happen automatically and rapidly for anyone without a prior permission to come here via a refugee scheme. However, today’s High Court judgment found that each and every individual case must be assessed first, so there will be nothing automatic about it, and under this Government there will be nothing rapid about it either. Will the Home Secretary therefore put a permanent end to this useless cruelty, provide safe and legal routes, and ensure that such routes actually function? The one from Afghanistan currently does not.
Will the Home Secretary also stop saying that this policy has the support of the British people? According to a recent YouGov poll, just 10% of them support it. The British people are better than this vile British Government.
Suella Braverman
I think the reality is that we are supported in taking control of our borders. That was reflected in both the 2016 referendum and the 2019 general election. We have made it clear that we will do whatever it takes to ensure that we make progress on stopping illegal migration, bring an end to this lethal journey, and, ultimately, restore integrity to our immigration system.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I welcome today’s judgment, but I find it deeply frustrating that one isolated judge can delay this process for six or seven months. Will the Home Secretary give me some sense of the timescales following the judgment? When will the first flights take off? That is what we all want to see happening, and my constituents will begin to rest easy when they can see those flights taking off.
We will probably have to strike agreements with other countries. Can the Home Secretary assure me that when we do strike such agreements, they will not be delayed in the way in which this has been delayed, and we will not go through exactly the same motions, which take oh, so long?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right. We have always maintained that this policy is lawful, and today the court has upheld that. We know that further legal challenges are possible, and we will continue to defend this policy vigorously in the courts. However, once the litigation process has come to an end, we will move swiftly in order to be in a position to operationalise the policy and deliver on our promise.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Can I caution the Home Secretary gently against getting overexcited about a decision at first instance? Often, important constitutional decisions at first instance are overturned on appeal. A recent example was when the last Prime Minister but one unlawfully prorogued Parliament. I think an appeal is inevitable. In the meantime, removals to Rwanda cannot take place because of the interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights. Perhaps she would like to explain to some of her Back Benchers the concept of an interim order issued by a judge sitting alone to preserve the status quo, which happens, I believe, in English law regularly by way of injunction.
The Home Secretary seems to be implying that she will obtemper the order of the European Court of Human Rights issued under article 34 of the convention, which the United Kingdom is bound by. I know she is not a great fan of the convention, and a lot of her Back Benchers are asking her about the notwithstanding clause, so is it her intention to domestically legislate her way out of our international treaty obligations?
Suella Braverman
It is not appropriate for me to speculate on the claimants’ response or whether there will be any appeals following today’s judgment. We welcome today’s findings and we will vigorously defend any appeal on the substantive matters of the lawfulness of the policy. We have been clear that, in designing and introducing our legislation next year, we will have to ensure that it is sufficiently robust to promote a scheme to ensure that if people arrive here illegally, they will be detained and swiftly removed to a safe country for your asylum claim to be processed.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My constituents welcome the High Court judgment and want the relocation flights to Rwanda to take off as soon as possible. They will be very concerned to hear that they could be subject to further judicial delay. Could the Home Secretary outline to my constituents how long she anticipates that judicial delay will be? When can I tell my constituents that the flights will take off?
Suella Braverman
The reality of litigation is that there are appeal rights. There is a hearing on 16 January, in which the claimants and the Home Office will make representations on any applications to appeal. The court will decide the next steps, if any, in UK litigation. I am considering the Home Office’s position with my legal team, so it would not be appropriate to discuss our strategy in the meantime. There is a hearing on 16 January to consider appeal applications.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The right hon. and learned Lady tries very hard to find a way forward and a solution, which I acknowledge, and I defer to the High Court ruling. I say with great respect to the right hon. and learned Lady that, clearly, we have a duty of care. Along with many others in this House and in the nation, I do not believe that the scheme fulfils our moral obligation. Should other ways of dealing with the situation be identified, such as better regulation of the English channel, better processes in France or more acceptable ways of migration, will it be reconsidered? There has to be a more compassionate approach.
Suella Braverman
The solution involves a multifaceted approach. That is why we are working closely with the French. I was pleased to strike an agreement last month with my French counterpart to bolster co-operation on the channel, and information and intelligence sharing. For the first time ever, UK Border Force officials are working hand in hand with our French counterparts. That is why I have worked closely with other Interior Ministers from European nations on similar issues. That is why we need to work on our asylum backlog and introduce legislation. The Rwanda scheme is one element of a multidimensional programme. We need all elements to work in tandem.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
As the Home Secretary knows, Stoke-on-Trent has already done more than its fair share, and this has put huge pressure on our local public services, so does she agree that it is really important that we now get on with delivering this policy and get on with those flights as soon as possible?
Suella Braverman
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, his Stoke parliamentary colleagues, the local authorities and all those involved in supporting asylum seekers in Stoke. I know that a high number of people are currently accommodated in his area. It is therefore vital that we stop people coming in the first place, and delivering the Rwanda partnership is key to making that happen.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is the super-rich and those on luxury yachts, not small boats, that people should be scared of. Asylum seekers are people just like us; they have hopes, dreams and aspirations. This policy could be legally sound but it is immoral and a waste of taxpayers’ money. This cruel Government should be ashamed of themselves. The Home Secretary said in her statement:
“This judgment thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership…It is what the overwhelming majority of the British people want to happen.”
Of course, the Rwanda partnership was not in the Tory manifesto, so can she evidence this support from people across all four nations wanting the Rwanda deal? Scotland certainly does not, and Scotland will continue to reject these xenophobic policies.
Suella Braverman
The reality is that stopping people taking the journey in the first place is the compassionate and pragmatic approach. It delivers for the British people, but it also sends a message to the people smugglers, the human traffickers and those who are deliberately taking the journey to come here for illegitimate means, not to do so. That is the sensible approach.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I welcome the judgment today that confirms that the Government’s policy is legal and will be a step forward to implementing what the Prime Minister said last week. The Home Secretary is right to say that we need to break the business model of the people smugglers. Does she agree that it is not enough just to go after the supply, even though those people are immoral and parasitic, and that we also need to destroy the demand for these journeys in the first place? The way we will achieve that is by making it clear that those that come by boat will not be allowed to stay in this country. That is what worked in Australia, and that is what will work here.
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have met Australian officials who were involved in the design of their sovereign borders programme, and they say that once they were able to remove illegal entrants to Papua New Guinea or Nauru, they saw a dramatic change in the numbers of people attempting the journey in the first place. That is the model on which our Rwanda scheme is based.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
If every country took this Government’s approach, this Rwanda approach, the countries that already host the overwhelming majority of refugees—the Jordans, the Lebanons, the Pakistans and the Ugandas of this world; the first countries—would be required to host all of them, while wealthy western countries such as the United Kingdom could pick and choose if and when they wanted to help out. What this Government are arguing for is an end to the international system of refugee protection, is it not?
Suella Braverman
I really disagree with the moral high ground that the hon. Member seems to be taking, in the light of Scotland’s paltry record on taking asylum seekers. It has refused to take anybody who has come here on a small boat, and that is unacceptable.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I welcome the statement today and the judgment, but will the Secretary of State confirm to the House that she will continue to use every tool in her power to stop these boats? As we can see, the Opposition and the human rights lawyers will try to stop the good work that the Secretary of State is doing, but the people of Doncaster are tired of been taken advantage of by these illegal immigrants. Will she confirm that she will continue to use every power that she has?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend speaks not only for the people of Doncaster but for the people of Britain in expressing the sentiment that the British people are tired and want this problem to be fixed. It is only this Government who are going to do it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
How many of the people who were pulled from the channel last week does the Home Secretary think should be sent to Rwanda?
Suella Braverman
The incident last week was tragic. People died. Precious human lives were lost. People had been exploited and took a journey that was unlawful, lethal and, in the end, tragic. That is what we want to bring to an end.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The High Court found that the Home Office has to consider an asylum seeker’s particular circumstances before deporting them to Rwanda. Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that this defeats the scheme’s original purpose, which was to have applications assessed in Rwanda under Rwandan law? As such, will she reconsider?
Suella Braverman
The judgment is very clear that our arrangement, under which people will be relocated to Rwanda for their asylum claim to be processed and for them to be resettled there, has been found to be lawful. There was an extensive analysis of all the potential legal claims that could render it unlawful, and the Home Office won.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for responding to questions for more than 50 minutes.
Convention on Biodiversity COP15: Outcomes
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the outcomes of COP15 on the convention on biodiversity, which was held in Montreal and from which I have just returned.
For too long, nature has been overlooked as the Cinderella of the story, but flora and fauna are important in and of themselves. Nature is both the essential foundation and a powerful engine of our economy, and helping nature to recover is one of the most cost-effective ways of tackling so many challenges, including the causes and impacts of climate change, thirst, hunger and ill health. and of bolstering peace and prosperity.
Early this morning, the world came together to secure the strong, ambitious global framework we need to catalyse a decade of environmental action. The framework is on the scale of the Paris agreement, as required, and puts nature firmly on the map. The agreement includes global targets to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and at least 30% of the global ocean by 2030, and to see natural systems restored, species populations recovering and extinctions halted. It includes reporting and review mechanisms that will hold us all to account for making timely progress on bringing our promises to life, and commitments on digital sequence information to make sure communities in nature-rich countries feel the benefit of sharing the solutions that we know their flora and fauna can provide.
Behind the scenes, over many months, we have been working with Ecuador, Gabon and the Maldives to develop the credible 10-point plan for financing biodiversity during this decade that played a critical role in getting the agreement over the line, by giving nature-rich countries confidence in our collective willingness and ability to secure the investment needed to protect the natural wonders on which their people and, in many cases, the whole world depends. On the back of those efforts, public, private and philanthropic donors committed billions of dollars to new investment in nature.
The agreement includes commitments to create a new international fund for nature, to increase investment in nature from all sources to $30 billion a year by 2030, and to accelerate the vital shifts that are already under way to make sure our economies underpin our survival and our success. I thank our team of Ministers and pay tribute to all our UK civil servants from across Government and our world-leading scientists from a range of British institutions, including Kew Gardens and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
We have been on this journey since the CBD COP14 in Egypt in 2018, which I attended. In meetings with delegations from around the world, time and again, we heard praise for how the UK’s world-class negotiators helped to broker this agreement. We know from our experience here in the UK that, when we set ambitious targets, we see an acceleration in action to meet them across Government, sectors and communities, which is why we have worked so hard to secure these global targets.
Just before I set off for Canada, I announced that we have taken the next steps towards leaving the environment in a better state than we found it, by putting a set of new stretching domestic targets into UK law under the Environment Act 2021 on air, water and waste, as well as nature, land and sea, to improve the state of the environment in our country. These targets will be challenging to meet, but they are achievable. The global coalitions of ambition that we have been leading, co-leading and supporting will now shift towards supporting the implementation of the new international nature agreement.
The UK is committed to playing our part now and in the months and years ahead. Although no country can solve this alone, if we work together to make this a decade of action, we not only stand to avoid the worst impacts but, by securing the abundance, diversity and connectivity of life on Earth, we stand to build a better future for every generation to come.
I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The agreement signed in Montreal this morning to protect 30% of the planet for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems is welcome news. That we are to protect a minimum of 30% of land and 30% of our seas is a benchmark we must adhere to, to avoid ecosystem collapse.
I was glad to be part of the UK’s delegation to COP15. The Secretary of State used her spot on the global stage to announce the UK’s environmental targets—the ones where she missed her own legally binding deadline in October. I note that the Secretary of State did not announce the delayed targets to the House first in the proper way, and I think that speaks volumes. We are still to have an oral statement on those targets.
It is astonishing then, that after all the warm words, the Government’s own targets do not include a 30% goal for protecting nature. The Secretary of State compared nature with Cinderella. If that is the case, the right hon. Members for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) must be the cruel stepsisters who have neglected her during their time in charge.
The Government also failed to include overall measures for water quality and protected sites in their targets. The reality of the Secretary of State’s watered-down targets means that our country and our communities will face even more toxic air and more sewage dumping for longer. A cynic’s view might be that the Government are happy to commit to non-legally binding targets in Montreal, while shirking any real responsibility at home. Ambitious environmental leadership means, at the very least, ensuring clean air, clean water and access to nature. It does not matter how the Government try to dress it up, their targets do not go anywhere near far enough and it is our communities that will suffer as a result.
Rivers in England are used as open sewers. Not one is in a healthy condition, and only 14% meet good ecological standards. With no overall water quality targets, the Conservatives can continue to allow raw sewage to flow into our natural environment hundreds of thousands of times a year. How does that fit with our Montreal commitments? Only Labour has a proper plan to clean up our waterways. We will introduce mandatory monitoring with automatic fines, hold water bosses personally accountable for sewage pollution and give regulators the power to properly enforce the rules.
One in five people in the UK live with a respiratory condition, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which are worsened by breathing toxic air. We know that is especially dangerous for children and vulnerable adults, and I am extremely concerned by the unambitious targets for air quality set out by the Government. Labour is committed to tackling this health crisis once and for all with a clean air Act, including the right to breathe clean air, monitoring and tough new duties on Ministers to make sure that World Health Organisation clean air guidelines are kept.
Of the 20 UN biodiversity targets agreed to in 2010, the UK has missed 17. When it comes to the environment, the Government constantly make the wrong choices, delay vital action and duck the urgent challenges. Failure to deliver on environmental targets at home show that their promises at COP15 mean very little. The Secretary of State’s colleague at COP, Lord Goldsmith, described the UK as one of the “most nature-depleted countries” on the planet. The Environment Act 2021 target on species abundance, which the Government were forced to concede by Opposition amendments, promises only to “halt” the decline in species by 2030. How does that now sit with our Montreal commitments? It is clear from the Secretary of State’s watered-down environmental targets that this Conservative Government have given up on governing.
Dr Coffey
I have never heard such rubbish from the Opposition. I am really quite sad about that. For a start, let us just get it clear: it was good that the hon. Member went to Montreal, but he was not a member of the UK Government’s delegation. I am glad that he went anyway, as did other Members. At the first opportunity after getting clearance for the targets, I did inform Parliament, and a written ministerial statement was laid in the Lords on Friday before I made a short announcement when I was in Montreal.
I am very clear that this agreement would genuinely not have been as strong had it had not been for the efforts of the UK Government. Even this morning, in the dark hours in Montreal, the text was reopened at our insistence to make sure that the depletion of nature was included in the text of what was agreed. At the same time, we have been working tirelessly, day in, day out, during this negotiation to make sure that we secured finances, because I am conscious that many nature-rich countries around the world need that financial support to make sure that nature is restored.
In terms of what we are planning to do here in the UK, frankly, nature has been depleted ever since the industrial revolution. That has recently been more recognised, and that is why it was this Government who put in place the Environment Act 2021. By the way, that builds on a number of environment Acts that previous Conservative Administrations have put in place, recognising the importance of legislation, but also delivery.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the air quality target. The only reason why we have kept what we consulted on—10 micrograms per cubic metre for PM2.5by 2040—is because the Labour Mayor in London is failing to deliver it. I am absolutely confident that in the rest of the country it can be delivered by 2030, but that is why we will continue to try to make sure that air quality is a priority for Mayors and councils right around the country.
As for moving forward, almost every statutory instrument has now been laid today. There was a slight delay on one of them, but I expect those SIs to be considered by both Houses of Parliament next month. They will come into law. Meanwhile, we continue to work on our environmental improvement plan and making sure that the environment will be a better place than it was when we inherited it.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State say a few words about the need not only to stop the diminution across the world of biodiversity, but, ultimately, to get to a place where the expansion of nature can once again happen? That is a long way off. But is it not true that UK Government leadership on this issue has just delivered a major landmark step forward and we should all, across this House, be proud of the effort the team has put in, in order to make as much progress as this? In the international arena it is hard to get big agreements, and the Secretary of State has just got one.
Dr Coffey
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. We both represent the magnificent county of Suffolk, which is why we are trying to make sure we continue that improvement of nature. I believe he is a champion for dormice and I am a champion for bitterns, and we have seen improvements in the habitats for both animals. On a long-term situation such as the environment, it is crucial that the House comes together to recognise the importance of what has been achieved and give credit, particularly to our civil servants, for that achievement. We also need to recognise the challenges ahead for Governments, local councils and industry, and for individual choices that people make, in what we are trying to do to not only protect, but enhance, restore and improve the environment, which we enjoy.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. Whether it is local schools such as St Paul’s Primary School in Shettleston having a focus on biodiversity in the school garden or global summits such as COP15, we all have our part to play. So we on these Benches welcome any progress made at COP15.
Scotland’s new biodiversity strategy includes the COP15 target of halting biodiversity loss by 2030 and goes further, with a target of restoring biodiversity by 2045. So will the British Government likewise produce a new biodiversity strategy, one that matches both the COP15 and Scottish targets? Ministers in Holyrood have recognised that the climate and biodiversity crises are inextricably linked, and that one cannot be tackled while the other is ignored. Does the Secretary of State agree with that, and agree that decisions to increase fossil fuel production and use will only accelerate biodiversity loss?
The Scottish Government led the UK in recognising the biodiversity crisis and have now led the UK in establishing a dedicated £65 million nature restoration fund. Will the British Government follow that example and create a dedicated biodiversity restoration fund for England? Finally, concerns have been raised about the sidelining of African states at the very end of the COP15 process, and the overruling of their calls for dedicated funding to support biodiversity efforts. Does the Secretary of State share our deep concern at global south nations being ignored? Does she agree that those who face the brunt of the climate and biodiversity crises must be heard in global climate negotiations?
Dr Coffey
I thank the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Minister, Lorna Slater, was out in Montreal as well, and it is really important that the UK works together to improve nature. I give credit to Scotland in that regard.
However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we already have established funding, with the nature for climate fund, and through the blue planet fund we have already undertaken a number of investments that will improve nature, not only in this country, but around the world. I am particularly thinking of Commonwealth countries, but this also applies to overseas territories and the south, to which he refers. That is why the importance of the £30 billion funding that will go in was discussed back and forth, and the UK was very happy to make sure that it got delivered. We recognise the need to ensure significant investment all around the world and that value is attributed to nature as much as it is to climate, if not even more so.
Candidly, we can do as much as we like on tackling climate change, but if we do not preserve and restore nature, it will effectively be for nought. That is why we have put so much work into doing this. It is why, at COP27 in Egypt, our Prime Minister set out the importance of restoring nature, saying that it was critical in terms of tackling climate change. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of our environmental land management scheme. We have started the first phase of the sustainable farming incentive, and we will be announcing more early in the new year as we make the transition from the traditional European funding, which is effectively area-based—on how much land people owned—to farmers being paid for certain goods in order to improve the environment and reduce carbon emissions.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
This issue rightly attracts a lot of attention. In particular, schoolchildren in Moray often speak to me about biodiversity and nature. Indeed, it is one reason why a nature Bill was included in the Scottish Conservative manifesto for the Holyrood elections. The Secretary of State has outlined the collaboration that there was with Scottish Government Ministers out in Canada. Can she state what ongoing discussions there will be with the devolved Administrations to ensure that this crucial issue continues to be raised at the highest level within Governments across the United Kingdom?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that collaboration, which is vital when it comes to recognising the importance not just of nature corridors, but of biosecurity, and it unites Great Britain. There is also the work that we do through Northern Ireland. Importantly, we have regular meetings with all the Governments of the devolved Administrations, and we will continue to do so. Nature is critical because of its self-evident transboundary nature. Whether it is about species abundance or about thinking of ways to reduce pollution, which has impacts on nature, we will continue to work collaboratively right across the United Kingdom.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the UK’s officials for what they have achieved in the negotiations in Montreal, and, indeed, to David Cooper, who, as deputy executive secretary, has worked tirelessly for many, many years. She knows that, despite 28% of England already being designated as protected areas, scarcely 4% is actually being protected. The target of 30% of our planet to be protected by 2030, however desirable, is just that—a target. It is nothing without a programme of implementation for the protective measures to restore those eco-systems and stop the extinction of species. That programme needs interim deliverable goals, yet in the written ministerial statement last week, the earliest interim target, against which the Government’s performance can be measured, is 2037. Will she set out clear UK staging points against transparent baselines, and does she accept that the Paulson report on the financing of nature says not that £30 billion is required, but that £711 billion is required?
Dr Coffey
Let me just correct the hon. Gentleman on the last thing that he said. What was published the other day was about the targets, which, according to the Environment Act 2021, have to be for a minimum of 15 years. The interim targets have not yet been published. They will be included in the environmental improvement plan and they are for a minimum of five years. Therefore, to get the record straight, they are two different targets.
On making improvements, I completely understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. There are a number of situations where we want sites of special scientific interest to be in a better state than they are. That is why we will work through the environmental improvement plan. That is also why we are taking advantage of Brexit freedoms to make sure that we can redesign how the money from the common agricultural policy, which currently supports farmers and landowners, will be repurposed to make sure that public goods are achieved, such as environmental improvement and the tackling of carbon emissions.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will this landmark agreement open the way for larger-scale uptake of solutions such as mangrove and seagrass as a means of capturing carbon and helping to tackle global heating?
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend may not know this, but I am mad for mangroves. They are amazing. Unfortunately we cannot grow them in this country, since we are not in the tropics, but we do have salt marsh and we want to see increasing elements of that. I expect to see a substantial amount of the funding from our blue planet fund purposed towards mangroves; I believe we already have projects under way in Madagascar and Indonesia, and we will continue to try to develop those.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I have also recently returned from the international biodiversity summit, COP15, where I met representatives from the Wampis Nation, indigenous people from Peru. Their fear was palpable. Their neighbours are dying and the world has cast them aside. Can the Secretary of State tell me what the UK Government are doing to prevent their extinction, and whether COP15 was a missed opportunity to protect the rights of indigenous people?
Dr Coffey
Far from it. I appreciate that the agreement was only closed earlier today, but it was a significant win for indigenous people and local communities, which is why it played such a prominent part in the negotiations. I think the hon. Lady is probably behind the times, but I think it is important we continue to make sure that—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady obviously wants an Adjournment debate, and I am sure she might get one, but that would just give us a further opportunity to say what a magnificent achievement this was for the world and that it is thanks to the UK Government making sure that it delivered, not only for people in the UK, but for indigenous peoples and local communities. We will continue to strive to make nature for the planet a lot better than what we inherited from the last Government.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this statement and on all her work and leadership on this issue. Protecting ecosystems and halting biodiversity loss is critical to safeguard our planet for future generations. Does she agree that maintaining international leadership and making this issue central to Government policy is the only way to ensure that the changes needed will be delivered?
Dr Coffey
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That is why it was important that when the Prime Minister went to Sharm el-Sheikh for COP27, building on our COP26 presidency where we included nature as a full day of the climate change conference, he referred specifically to the fact that £3 billion of the £11 billion total climate financing will be dedicated to nature. He recognises how critical it is, and we will continue to endeavour to improve the natural environment not only in this country, but around the world.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The agreement on a framework that commits to halting and reversing biodiversity loss is of course very welcome. However, it is a bit staggering that the Government’s own environment targets, smuggled out late last week, will fail to deliver on that goal. They do not even include goals to improve the condition of protected nature sites or overall water quality. As a priority, will the right hon. Lady align the Environment Act 2021 with the new commitments made in Montreal? Specifically, with just 38% of SSSIs and 14% of rivers in good condition, will she now commit to consulting on and setting those crucial targets next year?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady is right to congratulate the world on recognising that and the UK on its role in making sure that nature and restoration were included in the text—and if she did not mention our role, I can assure her that that was the reason it was put back into the text early this morning. The indicators we consulted on set out very clearly that the apex indicator was species abundance. There are a number of other targets that will aim towards that, and by achieving that, I am confident that we will achieve some of the other targets to which she refers, including of course increasing the number of hectares of habitat for nature in this country.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Protecting nature and increasing biodiversity is often led by grassroots organisations. I invite the Secretary of State to commend the work of the Friends of Miss Whalley’s Field, led by Paul Wiggins in my constituency, which takes a piece of land between the Freehold and Ridge estate areas of Lancaster and plants trees and wildflowers, involving children from local schools such as Castle View and Lancaster Christ Church primary schools and Central Lancaster High School. Will she not only commend the work of those volunteers, but reaffirm the Government’s commitment that they will not return to fracking?
Dr Coffey
I certainly commend the children and volunteers to whom the hon. Lady refers. Fracking has nothing to do with what I am talking about today. That statement has already been made separately by Energy Ministers.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Addressing biodiversity loss is an essential part of addressing climate change, but as with climate change, we see no sense of urgency or leadership in action from this Government. Does the Secretary of State accept that her Department’s failure to set targets for water quality or habitat protections in England undermined talks at COP15? She calls nature the “Cinderella of the story”, but Cinderella was never forced by the ugly sisters to swim in sewage. That achievement belongs to this Government.
Dr Coffey
I can say that our beaches are cleaner than we inherited them in 2010 from the Labour Government—that is clear. The hon. Lady must be very proud of the last Labour Government’s record of achievement on that. I say to her that this matters not just in our countryside and on our coast, but in our urban environments as well. We already have targets on water quality. In fact, I was discussing today with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) who is responsible for environmental quality and resilience, the approaches we are going to take to try to improve water quality, particularly by thinking about the chemicals in our water, which are particularly problematic in urban areas. That is something on which we need to work with local councils, as well as with the Environment Agency, to try to get changes so that we clean up the water right around the country. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join us when we need to take appropriate action in her constituency in future.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
An historic deal has been reached today, including a global target to conserve at least 30% of land and inland water at a time when we know that not a single river in the UK is free from pollution. The Government only last week scrapped the indicator on river health, the only measure for water companies and the public to know whether their water is clean. Without that indicator, how will my Bath constituents know in future that their water is clean?
Dr Coffey
I think the hon. Lady is incorrect in her understanding about that. The targets are still in place on our aim to achieve for our rivers a 75% “good” ecological status by 2027. That is what we signed up to when we were part of the European Union, that is still our target today, and that is what we will keep working on. It is important that we continue to try to improve the environment—she will know that, given the difficult things that happened with air quality in her city—and we will continue to try to make sure that we take that right across the country.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State and others in the House in welcoming this important agreement, but it only means something if countries do what they have signed up to do. Can she tell us when she intends to bring forward any proposals that may be required to ensure that we in the UK match the very ambitious targets that have just been agreed in Montreal?
Dr Coffey
Through the Environment Act 2021, some targets on improving the environment are already in primary legislation. We have just confirmed pretty much the environmental targets that we consulted on earlier in the year. I believe the statutory instruments are being laid today, and I think one is being laid tomorrow, so that Parliament can vote on those legally binding targets. Meanwhile, we continue to make other improvements, including through the clean air strategy, the biosecurity plan, existing plans for increasing biodiversity, and landscape recoveries.
We are already doing a lot of work. Indeed, we are changing our funding away from the basic payment system and what the European Union did—making payments to improve the environment based on the amount of land somebody owned—to paying for services, so that we can do more spatial targeting in a more intelligent way by improving water quality and reducing pollution. We will take that forward in aspects of the environmental improvement plan, which will be published next month, as well as in the changes that we will make through the environmental land management scheme.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, may I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, which is really encouraging news? I think we are all excited by what she said. As somebody who has been involved in prior biodiversity drives and has planted some 350,000 trees on my land, I know that other landowners will get involved if the incentive is there. I am inspired by the aims, but will the Secretary of State outline how she believes that the UK as a whole can achieve them, how the devolved nations will play into them, and how we in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can all win?
Dr Coffey
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I know that the people of Northern Ireland are also keen to see enhanced nature. I recall my trip earlier this year when I went to the Giant’s Causeway for the first time ever and saw beauty in nature but also the force of nature and a desire to continue to improve it. As for how we work together, it will be up to individual devolved Administrations, but I know that Northern Ireland Ministers and the Executive have been very supportive of our approaches so far.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)
What impact is the UK’s decision to cut the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income having on the UK’s ability to contribute to the 10-point plan for financing biodiversity?
Dr Coffey
We have actually increased the amount of official development assistance going to environmental and climate change projects. I am excited about that. We will continue to see more money coming in from around the world, including from the private sector and philanthropic donors, to help achieve these ambitious aims. I am excited about the future decade.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for responding to questions for over half an hour.
Alcohol Duty
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the alcohol tax system.
When in the autumn 2021 Budget the then Chancellor—now Prime Minister—announced the biggest reforms to alcohol duty in 140 years, he did so in order to change an outdated and impractical system. Following our country’s departure from the EU, our changes will overhaul the UK’s obsolete rules, which our membership of the EU precluded us from doing. With these new freedoms, we will embark on radically simplifying the entire system and slashing red tape.
The new alcohol tax system will adopt a common-sense approach whereby the higher a drink’s strength, the higher the duty, while new reliefs will be made available to help pubs and small producers to thrive. In doing so, we have made a system that fits with our national priorities, encourages growth and innovation, aligns with public health goals and is fairer for hard-working producers. The aim that lies at the root of this reform is to make the system fairer, simpler to use and more supportive of business.
Notwithstanding those ambitions, we fully understand that businesses face difficulty and uncertainty in the face of rising energy bills and inflation. I have listened to and value stakeholders from across the sector, and I understand that they want certainty and need reassurance in these challenging times. That is why today I can confirm that the freeze on alcohol duty rates has been extended by six months, to 1 August 2023.
Although new duty rates typically come in on 1 February each year, I can confirm that the Chancellor will instead make his decision on future duty rates at the spring Budget 2023, to give businesses certainty and time to prepare. To further support the industry, we are going further by confirming that if changes to duty are announced then, they will not take effect until 1 August 2023. This is to align with the date that historic reforms of the alcohol duty system come into force, and amounts to an effective six-month extension to the current duty freeze. Most importantly, to minimise the burden on business, it avoids the sector having to deal with multiple changes to duty rather than one.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the alcohol duty reforms will help create a simpler, fairer and healthier duty system. A higher rate for sparkling wines will come to an end, meaning that they will pay the same rate as still wine. Liqueurs will be put on the same footing as fortified wine, meaning that a sherry will now pay the same duty as a spirit liqueur, and the duty rate on super-strength white cider will increase in order to address public health concerns.
New draught relief will be worth £100 million a year, and to ensure that smaller craft producers can benefit, the threshold for qualifying containers will be 20 litres. The wine industry will also be supported as it adapts to the new system. Duty on all wine between 11.5% and 14.5% alcohol by volume will have its duty calculated as if it were 12.5% ABV. This will last for 18 months from the implementation of the new system.
Pubs, cider makers, brewers, distilleries and wine makers have an historic place at the heart of our communities. They provide not only thousands of jobs, but hubs that enrich and often define the social fabric of our villages, towns and cities. By saying to the industry that it will face just one single industry-wide change next summer, rather than two over the course of the year, we are giving it maximum certainty. Hospitality is a major part of our economy, and while these remain challenging times, we are doing everything we can to support individual hospitality businesses of every size so that they can have a prosperous new year. I commend this statement to the House.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Government have confirmed that they are freezing alcohol duty rates for six months. I know that the sector will welcome the announcement, especially given the difficulties that businesses are facing, whether they are producers, suppliers or hospitality venues. I must say, however, that it is absolutely laughable that the Government have announced the change in the name of certainty. We should call it what it is: a U-turn. The previous Chancellor announced a freeze, the current Chancellor scrapped it, and now it is back on.
How did we get here? In October 2020 the Government announced a call for evidence to seek views on how the alcohol duty system could be reformed. At the time, they said that they would make the system
“simpler, more economically rational and less administratively burdensome on businesses and HMRC.”
What we have seen since then, however, is indecision, U-turns and delays.
The Government finally published a response to the alcohol duty consultation in September this year. Then in the shambolic mini-Budget that crashed the British economy, the then Chancellor announced a freeze on alcohol duty that was due to come into force in February 2023. The new Chancellor scrapped the planned freeze, however, in October’s autumn statement—just a couple of months ago. We now have a screeching U-turn; the freeze is back in place.
We see again that the Government have no long-term plan for the British economy. They cannot provide the certainty that businesses and their hard-working employees need to plan for the tough winter ahead. They have left businesses and consumers out in the cold. They may not want to hear it, but that is the reality. They are unsure what regulatory systems will be in place in as little as two months.
Today, Labour found that more than 70,000 venues have had to reduce their opening hours due to the price of energy bills, which means that almost a third of pubs, bars and hotels are missing out on customers at the busiest and most profitable time of the year. Those businesses and producers of wine, beer, cider and spirits enrich our communities and boost our high streets. I recently popped into the Standard, a pub in my Erith and Thamesmead constituency, which is really struggling with soaring energy bills and the lack of Government support. It needs the Government to be on its side. The Government promised to tell the House what the new energy bills support scheme would look like before Christmas, but we have yet to hear anything from them. Only Labour has set out a long-term plan to get our economy growing again.
Looking to the future, we agree with the principles behind the alcohol duty review and we want the alcohol duty system to be made simpler and more consistent. We recognise that there is a balance to be struck between supporting businesses and consumers and protecting public health, and maintaining a source of revenue for the Exchequer, but this statement leaves many questions unanswered.
Can the Minister give an indication of his plans for duty reforms in the coming spring? Can he confirm whether the alcohol duty reform package will be implemented in full? If so, what impact assessment has been carried out on the impact of the transition to the new duty regime? I hope that he can provide some clarity. The alcohol sector and the businesses and jobs that it supports have suffered enough uncertainty and U-turns. These are major changes that will affect businesses and consumers in all our constituencies, so I hope that they will be properly thought through and that we will not see last-minute policy announcements and changes, as we have today.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. To be clear, this is good news for every single part of our alcohol industry and for those who drink in our pubs. Crucially, it gives certainty to the industry. The hospitality industry employed 2.1 million people at the latest reckoning, so it is a huge part of our economy and we want to do what we can to support it.
The hon. Lady mentioned a U-turn. To be clear, we said that we would introduce a radical reform of alcohol duty, and we will introduce that reform. It will come into effect next August. That reform could not have happened if we had not left the European Union. It will introduce, for the very first time, differential duty rates on tap and in the supermarkets. The public want that, because they value their pubs and understand the importance of pubs to their communities. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady intervenes, having sat down. She talked about her local pub. Obviously, we want to assist her local pub, and all pubs up and down the country; that is why we have put in place an energy bill relief scheme worth £18.1 billion, which is a huge intervention.
The energy bill relief scheme is very generous, but it is expensive, and we need to ensure longer-term affordability and value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we are carrying out a review of the scheme, with the aim of reducing the public finances’ exposure to volatile international energy prices from April 2023. We will announce the outcome of the review in the new year to ensure that businesses have sufficient certainty about future support before the scheme ends in March 2023. We should remember that this energy-related support comes on the back of the enormous support that we put in place during the pandemic. There were grants, bounce back loans, and of course furlough for all staff working in the hospitality sector.
We are proceeding with this ambitious reform package next year. We felt that it was appropriate to give the sector certainty as soon as possible that it would face only one uprating. That is the right thing to do, and it shows that the Government are supporting the hospitality industry.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Like the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), who speaks for the Opposition, I support what has been announced today. I declare an interest: I drink most things, except super-strength draught cider.
On wine, using an average rate of 12.5% is right; stepped rates would not have worked, because growers do not know what strength a wine will be—the strength fluctuates naturally. A revenue-neutral level makes sense. I hope that this approach will continue beyond the 18 months.
I hope that the Minister will consider whether farm-gate concessions can be made for the growing number of vineyards in this country. I hope that between now and the Budget the Chancellor will calculate the price and tax elasticity, because often, when duty rates are frozen, revenue goes up. There have been times when the rate has gone up and the revenue has gone down, which is perverse.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the Father of the House for his question—I do not think that I will ever get another that mentions both elasticity and high-strength cider; it was an interesting combination of points. He made a very good point about wine. I have enjoyed engaging with all the main alcohol sectors, mainly in November, in the run-up to the making of this decision. As he knows, we are requiring all wine between 11.5% and 14.5% ABV to be treated as though it were 12.5% ABV for the purpose of calculating the duty rate. That will apply for 18 months, so there is a transition. We have to ask ourselves: if that were made permanent, would it not undermine a regime that is ultimately based on taxation by strength? I understand my hon. Friend’s point and will continue to engage with the sector on it.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I welcome the statement. I have long supported an alcohol content duty regime, and I hope that it delivers the fairness that the sector needs. As a gentle aside, may I say that we did not need Brexit to bring in this regime? The UK could have applied for a derogation, but it chose, over decades, not to do that.
I have some technical questions. The previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), announced a one-year freeze on alcohol duty in “The Growth Plan 2022”; that was due to cost £545 million in 2023-24. The current Chancellor scrapped that, but anticipates an additional yield of £1.3 billion in 2023-24; that was in the autumn statement 2022. First, how can a one-year freeze cost £500 million, while its cancellation in the same year suddenly generates £1.3 billion of additional yield? Also, we have been told that the freeze is being reintroduced and will last until August. How much will that cost the Exchequer?
The proposals following the post-2021 Budget consultation have been reported as having a modest cost of only £25 million next year—that was in the autumn statement Green Book. But this statement seems to suggest that the cost to the Exchequer of the draught beer relief scheme alone will be £100 million a year. Will the Minister explain what the net cost of this measure will be either to the Exchequer, or to the industry? As things stand, the numbers are not clear and in some cases do not add up.
James Cartlidge
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman supports the principle of the reform package that will come into place next August. I hope Members across the House can do so. The cost obviously depends on what decision is made in the Budget next year. That is a matter for the Chancellor at the time. We know that that will be on 15 March, so there is not too long to wait.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point that it was not necessary to leave the European Union to make these changes. To be clear, EU law does not allow member states to differentiate beverages on qualitative characteristics such as whether the product is on draught. EU law actively discourages any attempt to support the on-trade through the duty system. That is also true for a system based on ABV; by and large, that would have been very difficult as well. The fact is that this is a radical reform and it has been made possible by Brexit.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary beer group, and someone who enjoys much of what we have been discussing. May I at least warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s statement? This will provide significant certainty to an industry that has experienced significant challenges over recent times, from the impact of weather on crops, to the impact on energy prices on the back of the fallout from covid. So this is a much needed platform on which the industry can build a strong future. It is looking forward with enthusiasm to the differential draught beer duty. That is an important principle. Come the Budget in March, will the Minister consider going much further that the 5% that has already been promised? The principle, and the Brexit dividend, can bring significant benefits to our pubs and beer industry across the country.
James Cartlidge
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. He has become the chairman of the all-party beer group, but we should remember the work of the former chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). He cannot speak as he is a Whip, but he put in place all those sessions lobbying MPs and Ministers and making the case for beer. Much as we enjoy that, it is a major employer in this country. My right hon. Friend makes an important point about differential duty. To put that in context, the 5% cut to cider duty will be the biggest cut to cider duty since 1923, so it is significant. Of course I cannot from the Dispatch Box make decisions for the Budget next year, but it is not too far away and I am sure there will be plenty of chances for colleagues to engage up to then.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Stockport has several wonderful producers, including Robinsons Brewery and Stockport Gin, and they have been through a lot over the past few years. When will the Government finally end the U-turns and delays, and agree a long-term solution and support package for the alcohol sector?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the producers in his constituency: Robinsons Brewery and Stockport Gin. I am grateful to them for all they are doing in these challenging times to provide employment in his constituency and support consumers with the products they offer. That is what this is all about—supporting those companies and vital sectors in our constituencies. The hon. Gentleman asks about a long-term commitment. This is the biggest reform to alcohol duty for 140 years. It is a significant reform, getting the balance between competitive rates of duty and consideration of public health, which is incredibly important. It is an opportunity we should all seize and welcome.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I warmly welcome the proposals announced by the Minister today in one of his most impressive performances at the Dispatch Box, and in particular the differential duty rates to allow pubs and restaurants to charge their customers a lower rate of duty than the off-trade, for which many of us have called for a long time. I also congratulate him on the point made by the Father of the House—differential rates on wines will be consolidated to a single rate for the vast majority of wines—because that reaches the principle of simplicity, which was an essential part of the consultation. What is the 18-month period dependent on? If we were to move then to differential bands per percentage of ABV, that would not really help the trade to prepare. The trade needs to know where it is going.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind words. My first ever Parliamentary Private Secretary job was as a PPS to him, as a brilliant Health Minister. He mentioned simplicity: he is absolutely right that that is a key part of the reform package. In terms of the wine easement, as we call it, the 18 months is there precisely to enable the sector to adapt to the changes that are coming. He was also right to emphasise the on and off-trade differences. There is a key point on those differences. It is again about public health. The evidence shows that, while all drinking should be done responsibly, where people are socialising and going to the pub, they are less likely to encounter the more severe end of problem drinking; that is more likely to happen in private. That is one of the reasons why we have the differential.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Scotch Whisky Association said on behalf of producers that it was furious about the Government’s decision to increase rates of duty in the autumn statement. The freeze is therefore welcome, but distilling is an energy-intensive business. The Minister said that the energy bills report will come in the new year, but the Chancellor assured me at the Dispatch Box during the autumn statement that it would come before Christmas. I would be grateful if he could explain the delay.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Lady makes an important point. We are aware of the importance of energy costs. I was absolutely clear just now that we will report in the new year. It has taken slightly longer than expected. These are complex matters. It is complex enough to put in place household support. Non-domestic support is particularly complicated because of the huge range of businesses involved. However, let us be clear what is happening: six months of support since October, worth £18.1 billion for businesses, including pubs, distillers and breweries, with their energy bills. That is huge. Of course, I know that people want to know what happens next and in the new year we will come forward with the results of our review.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is encouraging to hear support from across the House for these duty reforms, which were originally announced as a manifesto commitment at Roseisle distillery in my constituency. Of course, Moray is home to more Scotch whisky distilleries than any other constituency in the House. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) says, many are very good ones. I have been pressing both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to maintain the freeze on duty for Scotch whisky for as long as possible, which is important for the entire industry and the jobs that rely on it. Will the Exchequer Secretary take on board what the Father of the House said? When it comes to the Budget in March, will the Government listen to the industry, which has time after time proven wrong Treasury officials who predicted that an increase in duty would increase revenue to the Treasury? In fact, a freeze in duty increases revenue to the Treasury and it would be welcome to see that continuing.
James Cartlidge
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great knowledge on these matters. He has been a consistent champion for the Scotch whisky industry, standing up for it in this place, whether on tariffs or duties. I know that he was lobbying the Chancellor and the Prime Minster to continue the freeze, so I hope that he is pleased with the result. On what happens going forward, I will engage with the Scotch whisky industry and indeed all the other alcohol sectors. The clear point is that the extension of the freeze is good news for every single sector and I hope that colleagues welcome that.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am not sure whether I should declare an interest, but I do enjoy a tipple—a glass of beer—on occasions. I thank the Minister for his statement. May I seek clarification in relation to his comments on differential rates of duty? He mentioned the need for certainty and the need to encourage diversity in choice in the small brewery sector. He referred to the new draught relief, worth £100 million a year, to ensure that smaller craft brewers can benefit, and he mentioned that the threshold for qualifying containers will be 20 litres. Can he go further and say something about the duty taper? Are the Government going to address the cliff edge above 5,000 hectolitres for small producers?
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. To clarify, the draught relief is the new differential duty between the rate applied to alcohol purchased on draught—in other words, in the pub—as opposed to, for example, in the supermarket. This is about creating a level playing field. Small brewers relief is becoming small producers relief, so it extends to cider makers, for example.
As a general point, I have a chart here—you will be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I will not get it out—showing the old rates and the new rates that will come in under the reform, and it is striking how much leaner the new system is. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with details of the taper and the technical points. I think he will observe that this is a much simpler system.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I welcome the extension of the duty freeze and am particularly pleased to see the draught relief to support the important on-trade. Can my hon. Friend comment or write to me about the proposals for mergers and acquisitions to absorb production over three years rather than one? Basically, allowing that to happen would facilitate a smoother business transition and smoother ownership in the sector.
James Cartlidge
Of course, my hon. Friend was an Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, and I should put on record that he did much of the work that led to us being able to deliver these reforms in the first place. On his question about mergers and acquisitions, I am more than happy to meet him and share with him further detail from officials about the matter.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
I speak as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm. I thank the Minister for recently meeting me and alcohol harm charities. I welcome the introduction of duty in regard to the strength of drinks, but my view is that it still does not go quite far enough, although I appreciate the differential duty. What assurances can he give me, alcohol harm charities and all those concerned about alcohol harm that he will continue to work cross-party and cross-Department to ensure that public health is fundamental in any alcohol duty changes?
James Cartlidge
I enjoyed meeting the hon. Gentleman, other parliamentarians and alcohol harm stakeholders on, I think, 24 November in the Treasury. It was a good meeting, where I think there was acceptance that we are trying with the reform package to strike that balance. We want to have competitive duty rates and to look at levelling the playing field that exists between pubs and supermarkets, but, equally, alcohol harm and consideration of public health must be at the heart of this. That is why the reform package in August has one underlying principle: taxation on the basis of ABV. We think that that is the right way forward, balancing both those approaches.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the statement. It is good news not simply because the hospitality industry is on its knees, but because the steep increases in prices have led to more people having not a social drink with friends but a sustained drinking at home mentality, which can be detrimental to families. Has the Minister considered taxation aimed at multibuys in supermarkets, in co-ordination with the welcome freeze for pubs and hospitality?
James Cartlidge
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I said last time he asked me a question, the occupant of the Chair always seems to save the best till last. The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head. Let us be clear. He is talking about friends who cannot go for a drink because of economic pressures. With the enormous surge in energy costs and the rise in inflation, the biggest impact economically is on consumption and therefore discretionary spend such as in pubs, hitting hospitality. When we talk about the support that matters, it is not just help for businesses with their energy bills but the help that we are giving to consumers, so that they can still find that expenditure to support our pubs this winter. Of course, we are helping them by freezing duty for six more months. It is a win-win for consumers and for the sector.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to questions for just under half an hour.
Deputy Speakers
Ordered,
That, for the period up to and including 31 January 2023,
(1) in the absence of Dame Eleanor Laing, the functions reserved to the Chairman of Ways and Means by Standing Orders or the practice of the House shall be exercised by Dame Rosie Winterton, or, if she is unable to perform them, Mr Nigel Evans; and
(2) Sir Roger Gale shall act as Deputy Speaker and shall exercise all the powers vested in the Chairman of Ways and Means as Deputy Speaker.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Britain’s maritime industry is respected around the world for its professionalism and high standards. From shipping safety and financial services to seafarer training and welfare, our flag is acknowledged globally as a symbol of excellence, but maintaining that position in a competitive market requires constant progress. In particular, we must continue to invest in people, the men and women who are our maritime industry’s greatest resource, and on whom we rely to uphold Britain’s proud maritime tradition. When that hard-earned reputation for quality and expertise was threatened by unscrupulous employers, as it was earlier this year when P&O Ferries shamefully sacked almost 800 seafarers and staff to replace them with cheaper agency labour, we did not hesitate to take action. That is why, following the sackings in spring, the then Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), set out a nine-point plan to prevent other companies from benefiting further from such underhand and unacceptable moves.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
There is nothing in the Bill currently on changing sections 193 and 194 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to prevent anyone doing what P&O did earlier this year. Is that something the Government are considering?
Mr Harper
The solution we have decided to set out is to ensure that, for operations taking place with a close connection to the United Kingdom, operators have to pay an equivalent to the national minimum wage, so that what they cannot do is replace their staff for cheaper agency labour. That is our judgment on how we think the situation can best be prevented in the future. I accept that other people will propose different solutions, but this is the one we have settled on, and we think it will deal with the issue highlighted earlier this year.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
It is undeniable that P&O has acted appallingly, but I do not understand why there is a need for this proposed legislation. The maritime labour convention came into force on 7 August 2014. That international convention, which we signed up to, applies to vessels engaging in trade, or where a vessel is operating under the flag of a country that has ratified the MLC, or is operating in the waters of a country that is ratifying the MLC. Surely that legislation from the International Labour Organisation takes precedence for all vessels across the world?
Mr Harper
Clearly, given what happened earlier this year, we do not think the existing position is satisfactory. That is why we are bringing forward the Bill. If my hon. Friend wants to set out his argument in more detail during the debate, we will obviously listen with great care, but we think legislation is necessary. The Bill is a major step forward and it will deliver on point one of the nine-point plan, changing the law so that seafarers with close ties to the UK working on frequent services to UK ports are paid at least an equivalent to the UK national minimum wage while they are in our waters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The concern I have, and I believe other Members in the Chamber have, is that I understand the chief executive officer of P&O said that the average hourly wage for his new crewing model would be £5.50 per hour, yet the minimum wage is much more than that even for under-18s. Can the Secretary of State provide clarification? I want the Bill to be firm, hard and strong—I think we all do—so will he address that issue?
Mr Harper
The legislation will ensure that seafarers with close ties to the UK who are working on frequent services to UK ports have to be paid at least an equivalent to the UK national minimum wage while they are in our waters. As the hon. Gentleman points out, for those aged 23 and over, the current rate is £9.50 an hour. From April 2023, it will be £10.42 an hour. That is clearly significantly higher than the amount the hon. Gentleman just set out. That is the point of the Bill: to discourage the sort of behaviour we saw from P&O earlier this year.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Just to amplify the point from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the chief exec of P&O gave evidence to the Transport Committee indicating that it was common practice to pay below minimum wage level. On the Dover-Calais route, P&O staff used to work—this is the UK-based ratings—one week off, one week on rotas. It is not just about wages. Currently, agency staff, including Indian able seafarers, are working at least 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for up to 17 weeks with no shore leave. That must be a risk to health and safety. Does the Secretary of State remember the Herald of Free Enterprise and the impact of stress and tiredness? Surely, it is about more than just wages?
Mr Harper
It is about more than just wages. That was one of the things covered in the nine-point plan, but we are working on other things, including various seafarers’ protections and measures with our international partners. This specific Bill is to deal with the specific issue of what seafarers are paid. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the issue is wider than that, but the Bill deals with what they are paid. It is focused on that, and I hope it gets the support of the House.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State explain to the House clearly why, in the Bill’s original draft, frequent visits to UK ports was defined as 52 times a year and now it is 120 times a year? That surely makes it far easier for unscrupulous companies to drive through loopholes here and evade paying people the national minimum wage?
Mr Harper
We think the definition in the Bill at the moment will capture the vast majority of the services we wish to capture. We think that defining that in the way that we have makes it more difficult for people to avoid than it would be if we were very specific about types of vessels, for example. I am conscious that a number of people wish to speak in this debate, so I will make a bit of progress before taking any further interventions.
We said from the start that where new laws were needed, we would create them, that where legal loopholes—which the hon. Gentleman referred to—were cynically exploited, we would close them, and that we would strengthen employment rights. That is why the Bill is important. Operators of regular services to the UK will be required to pay their crew a decent wage if they want to access our ports, and it will remove the incentive for other, unprincipled firms to drag down pay for seafarers with close ties to the UK.
Under the existing national minimum wage legislation, not all seafarers who regularly call at UK ports are currently entitled to the UK national minimum wage. It cannot be right that seafarers who frequently work in the UK and in our territorial waters are not entitled to the same as other workers simply because they work on an international, rather than a domestic, service. The Bill will fix that particular issue. I recognise that there are other issues that people wish to deal with, but the Bill deals with that. It does not amend the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, but it makes provision for seafarers on services in scope of the Bill to be paid at least a rate equivalent to the national minimum wage.
Since March, we have consulted extensively with the industry to make sure the measures we are discussing are workable. Those discussions have been productive and are continuing. As was just alluded to, the legislation will apply to international passenger or freight services that call at UK ports on at least 120 occasions in a year, which equates to 72 hours on average. Harbour authorities will be empowered to request declarations from operators of services to confirm that they pay their seafarers no less a rate than that equivalent to the national minimum wage. If they do not provide that declaration when requested, harbour authorities will have the power to impose a surcharge, or may be directed by the Secretary of State to do so. It will not be a profit-making exercise for harbour authorities. They may only use the money raised from the surcharge for the discharge of their functions or for provision of shore-based seafarer welfare facilities.
We hope the surcharge is never required. The point of it is to be a disincentive to operators paying low wages. It will be set at such a rate that it does not make financial sense for operators to underpay staff. If they do not pay the surcharge when it is levied, harbour authorities will be empowered to deny access to the port. That will not be an onerous responsibility for harbour authorities; beyond accepting the declarations, they will not be responsible for checking the details of seafarers’ pay. The enforcement role will be carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which will undertake inspections and investigations and, if necessary, prosecute offending operators.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I am curious about denying access to ports. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to granting powers to detain a ship in port? Denying an operator access to a port may simply mean that it moves to a different port of the United Kingdom; detaining a ship would mean much greater risk for the operator, which will surely mean greater compliance.
Mr Harper
We judge that the risk of operators moving to or operating out of a different port is relatively small. The routes on which they operate are the profitable ones, so ceasing to operate on them would not make business sense. We think that denying access to a port is a proportionate response to the problem, so we have settled on that measure as the appropriate solution.
We will draw up regulations and guidance setting out further details of how the legislation will work. They will be subject to consultation to ensure that our measures are practical and effective and that people cannot avoid them. Feedback from the industry has been crucial throughout the process. Ferry operators told us that inclusions or exclusions based on type of service would create market distortion and ambiguity, so the only specific exclusion in the Bill is for
“a service that is for the purpose of leisure or recreation, or…a service provided by a fishing vessel.”
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for his graciousness in giving way. Will resources be made available for the extra work that harbour authorities and marine services will have to carry out? If they are already rushed and under pressure, surely it makes sense to employ more people and make more resources available.
Mr Harper
We do not think that the responsibility on harbour authorities will be particularly onerous. Their job will be to receive declarations, not to investigate or do compliance work; those responsibilities will fall to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. As with all our agencies, it will be a question of setting priorities. As the hon. Gentleman can see from the fact that we are introducing primary legislation on the matter, improving services for seafarers is indeed one of our priorities.
Grahame Morris
The Secretary of State is being generous in giving way. On the point about harbour authorities being charged with collecting the surcharge, is there a conceivable conflict of interest where a shipping company owns a port or has an interest in a harbour authority?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that illustrates why I will have legal powers to enforce whether a port levies the surcharge: to deal with any issues where there is a conflict. He makes a perfectly fair point, and we have thought about how to deal with it.
Our analysis shows that the arrangement that we have set out will capture the vast majority of ferries to the UK, but without including services such as deep-sea container services or cruises. Those services will remain out of the Bill’s scope, because they do not call at UK ports frequently enough that the seafarers working on board could be said to have sufficiently close ties to the UK.
We will continue to engage with industry throughout the passage of the Bill. We intend to consult on regulations and supporting guidance, which will include setting the framework within which harbour authorities will set their tariffs for surcharges and the method of calculating the national minimum wage equivalent rate.
It is important to remember that the Bill is just one part of a wider plan to protect seafarers’ welfare. It will not solve all the issues brought to light by P&O Ferries’ actions, but it is an important step. That is why we continue to discuss seafarer protections and welfare with a range of close European partners, including discussions about the creation of minimum wage equivalent corridors to encourage the payment of fair wages on entire routes. To continue to improve the protection of working conditions for seafarers, we are developing the voluntary seafarers’ charter.
Luke Pollard
There has been a race to the bottom, with P&O Ferries creating a toxic culture, but not all ferry companies are doing the same. Brittany Ferries operates out of Plymouth; it provides a significant lifeline route between Plymouth, Roscoff and Santander that is vital for our exports of agriculture and fisheries products. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not about P&O Ferries alone? There are examples of good practice among UK ferry operators; it could well be improved, but it is good practice. The race to the bottom that P&O Ferries started is not one in which all UK and French ferry operators want to participate.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point. The point of the Bill and the nine-point plan is to ensure that ferry operators that want to operate in a responsible way are not forced out of business or forced to drop their standards by unscrupulous operators. He also makes the point that services to Plymouth are incredibly important; speaking as a south-west Member of Parliament myself, I want to make sure that they can continue.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
May I draw attention to the much better behaviour that we have seen from DFDS, which operates out of the port of Dover? On port-to-port agreements, will my right hon. Friend confirm that some of the issues that have been raised—including rosters, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s overview of the intensity of the Dover-Calais route, and matters outside the simple question of wages—can be better addressed within that framework between our two nations?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend has put an enormous amount of work into the matter, following P&O’s behaviour. She is focused at all times on solving the issues on behalf of her constituents; I know that her conversations with my predecessors focused on fixing the problem in the long term and on supporting operators that want to raise standards in the sector. I thank her for all her work.
The charter that we are developing, in conjunction with the maritime industry and various social partners, will enhance the core employment protections available to seafarers. As part of that plan, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will introduce a new statutory code of practice to address fire and rehire, which it will publish for consultation in due course. My Department is also taking steps to encourage more ships to operate under our flag and to improve the long-term working conditions of seafarers beyond pay protection, as my hon. Friend has just set out.
The measures in the Bill will help to ensure that employees working on vessels that make regular visits to UK ports can no longer be exploited by unscrupulous operators. Following the mass sacking earlier this year of P&O Ferries staff, some of whom had worked for the company for four decades, we promised to act. The Bill demonstrates that we are doing so. We are sending a message to every operator: if you want to serve UK ports on a regular basis, and if you want to carry passengers to and from our country, you must meet our high standards. I commend the Bill to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
May I wish you, the whole House and the staff of the House a very happy Christmas, Mr Deputy Speaker?
Earlier this year, this House stood completely united against the action taken by P&O Ferries. There was total consensus that that criminal act was a national scandal. Some 800 British workers were sacked with no notice—nearly 800 livelihoods were lost because a rogue company made a calculation that it was cheaper to break the law than abide by it. At the time, I stood side by side with many of the sacked crew in Dover. A married couple who had been employees of P&O Ferries for 14 years spoke to me about the reward for their years of loyal service: summary dismissal via a pre-recorded video message, being marched by private security guards off the ships they lived and worked on, and being treated like criminals. That was the human face of P&O’s criminal act. It was the reality of a business model that has been allowed to prevail for far too long on our seas—a business model predicated and dependent on exploitation.
As the Secretary of State knows, Labour supports the provisions in the Bill, but, as we have already heard, it is wholly insufficient. Its test must be whether it will end those exploitative practices that have become commonplace in our maritime sector. Will those responsible for the P&O scandal be brought to justice? Will the Bill stop another P&O scandal? I ask because six months on, this Dubai-owned company, which received millions in taxpayers’ money during the pandemic and which tore up the rights of British workers and bragged about it to Parliament, has continued business as usual. It should be a badge of shame for this country that P&O Ferries and DP World did what they did precisely because they thought they could get away with it. They knew they could exploit our weak employment laws. They made the calculation that it would be cheaper and easier to pay off those workers because this Government would not hold them accountable.
Despite all the Government’s promises, despite all their outrage, P&O’s central calculation was correct, was it not? Earlier this year the then Prime Minister himself said that P&O Ferries would face criminal sanctions. The then Transport Secretary said that it would be placed under criminal investigation. He demanded that the boss, Peter Hebblethwaite, stand down. He even demanded that P&O rename its ships, stating that it was completely wrong for them to sail under names such as Spirit of Britain and Pride of Kent. Six months on, however, that chief executive and those who deliberately broke the law in plain sight have faced no consequences whatsoever, and, as far as I am aware, their ships are still happily sailing under those names.
Workers across the country may well be looking to this Government and asking what exactly is the point of them if they can let P&O get away with all this—because Peter Hebblethwaite has been rewarded with a promotion to another directorship within the company. There has been no criminal prosecution as was promised: the Insolvency Service refused to take forward a prosecution, and chose not to consider the public interest test in doing so. There has been no action against any of the directors responsible. Every day that Peter Hebblethwaite remains in charge of P&O Ferries, other employers who wish to undermine the rights of British workers will find comfort. He is unfit to lead a British company, and he should be disqualified as a director.
I will be grateful if the Minister who winds up the debate tells us whether he agrees with that, and why it is that six months on, the Insolvency Service is still considering his case when the evidence could not be clearer. He bragged about it to a parliamentary Select Committee! Will the Minister bring that case to a conclusion, and use his own powers under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to finally bring this individual to justice?
The fundamental point, however, is this. If P&O Ferries or any of its low-cost rivals wanted to do all this again, nothing in the Bill or anything else that the Government have put forward would stop them. P&O Ferries decided not to notify either the Secretary of State or the competent authorities of the flag states of Cyprus, Bahamas or Bermuda of its dismissal plans—a legal requirement under sections 193 and 193A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—and refused to consult the workforce ahead of their dismissal.
The Secretary of State’s predecessor said:
“where new laws are needed, we will create them…where legal loopholes are cynically exploited, we will close them, and…where employment rights are too weak, we will strengthen them.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 840.]
So why does the Bill contain nothing about notification of flagged vessels, or increased sanctions for those who fail to consult ahead of redundancy? The only way to prevent this from happening again is to hike up the damages that can be paid at tribunals, and/or to slap criminal liability on those who break the law in the same way as Peter Hebblethwaite, who bragged about it. Why have the Government shied away from taking the action that is so clearly needed—and why, six months on, have they still not published even a draft of their promised strengthened code on fire and rehire? It was due for consultation in the summer, but it has still not been published. Even the very little that the Government promised in the wake of this scandal has fallen by the wayside.
Let me now turn to the provisions of this limited Bill. We do, of course, welcome the intention to ensure that operators pay a national minimum wage equivalent to those who have a close working relationship with the UK, but, as we have heard, significant elements of these provisions and their enforcement must be strengthened to prevent avoidance, which we know is rife in this sector. First, the minimum wage provision has an offset allowing employers to deduct costs of providing accommodation. That is clearly ripe for abuse, and must be explicitly ruled out. Then there is the issue of “port hopping”. As the Bill stands, operators fall within the scope of the Bill if they call at a single UK port on at least 120 days within a year. In the case of some routes, such as that of the Pride of Hull, only slight adjustments to their timetable would allow them to escape paying the minimum wage. That period must be reduced. The initial drafting specified 52 visits a year.
There is also the issue of enforcement. In his nine-point plan, the now Business Secretary pledged to involve His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in ensuring compliance with minimum wage legislation, but the Bill does not include a direct role for HMRC, the only expert in minimum wage compliance; and there is no clearly defined minimum fine for breaching the Bill’s provisions.
That brings me to the role of the port operators themselves, which was mentioned in earlier interventions. This is, perhaps, the most troubling aspect of the Bill. Many operators do not just run the ferry services, but operate ports as well. P&O itself operates a port. The Government are potentially asking operators such as P&O to fine themselves. That is utterly perverse, and the Government must think again. I note that the Secretary of State said he would retain powers to decide which ports would enforce fines, but he must set a national tariff for surcharges and designate a Government agency for collecting them.
The P&O scandal was supposed to represent a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights. The Secretary of State’s predecessor was clear about this, saying that the Government would work with
“unions and operators to agree common levels of seafarer protection on…routes.” —[Official Report, 30 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 841.]
Seafarers’ exploitation is every bit as much about conditions as it is about pay. Baroness Vere of Norbiton, the Minister in the other place, said that the Government would act on that wider exploitation only
“where it is proven that it is appropriate to do so.”
Let me briefly give the House an illustrative example of why that is so important.
An agency worker can be contracted on the Dover-Calais service at the shamefully low rate of £4.75 an hour. As is common in the industry, they could be expected to work up to 91 hours a week, on board, full time, for 17 weeks at a time—not entitled to any pension; not entitled to the minimum wage or any sick pay when outside UK waters. I ask Members to imagine a season of winter storms in the Irish sea or the North Sea, where sleep is almost impossible, and to imagine spending up to 17 weeks on board, responsible for the safety of passengers and that vessel. The industry has already learnt from painful experience about the danger of this kind of exploitation, and of seafarer fatigue. The Herald of Free Enterprise disaster 35 years ago claimed the lives of 193 crew and passengers, but the Bill does nothing to address these dangerous and exploitative crewing and rostering practices. That is why we must see a legally binding seafarers’ charter on the face of the Bill—one that ends the race to the bottom from which P&O Ferries has benefited; one that smashes the business model dependent on the manipulation of vulnerable workers from around the world.
We are a proud seafaring nation. That tradition has been the envy of the world, but the ongoing exploitation of seafarers is a stain on it. With this Bill, we have the chance to drive out these exploitative practices for good, and ensure that another P&O can never happen. That is why Labour supports it today, but will seek to work with the Government to strengthen it in Committee, and ensure that never again can we allow such exploitation to go unchecked on our seas.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to make a short contribution to the debate on this important Bill, as Chair of the Transport Committee. I welcome the Bill, although I appreciate that it is not the full solution to the issues that were uncovered by the disgraceful behaviour of P&O earlier this year. Following that incident, the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee held a joint evidence session, and produced a number of recommendations.
One of those key recommendations was that the omission of seafarers from the extension of the national minimum wage, which happened in 2019-20, should be removed, so that the national minimum wage applies to seafarers on journeys to and from the UK. I am pleased that this Bill delivers on that recommendation, but it is not the whole solution to the problems. I welcome further progress on the nine-point plan that the Secretary of State has outlined today.
I have a number of questions on the practicalities of implementing this Bill, which perhaps the Minister could address in his response. I appreciate that some are quite technical, so if he would prefer to write or address them in the Bill Committee, that would be helpful. The first is to pick up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). International maritime law is very complex. I would like to probe to ensure that nothing in the Bill will inadvertently cut across provisions in international legislation. I am not a lawyer—I freely admit that. I have done a quick scan of the relevant law and I do not think that the Bill has unintended consequences, but one of the duties of Parliament is to prevent that. If the Minister could give me some reassurance, that would be welcome.
The second point picks up on what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) raised on port hopping. Are harbour authorities the best body to enforce breaches of the law? I am reassured by what the Secretary of State said in response to the hon. Gentleman, but I would like to probe a little further. Would the Maritime and Coastguard Agency be a better body to enforce breaches of the provisions of the Bill to prevent the port hopping risk? I do not think it is a serious risk but it is worth exploring further to have a comprehensive settlement.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning my intervention. The concern of Opposition colleagues is in relation to when the ferry operator has a commercial stake in the harbour authority. I wonder whether there should be an automatic pass-through where there is a commercial link, so that powers automatically go to the Government and there can be no suggestion of any conflict of interest in the regulation of those fines and surcharges?
Iain Stewart
That is a fair question. I was reassured by the Secretary of State’s answer that the Government have thought about that. That is why the Secretary of State has the power to intervene when he thinks that the harbour authority has a conflict of interest. I am sure that it will be explored further in Committee. I was satisfied on that point; my concern was with regard to a vessel that might skip around different ports or adjust the timetable, as was mentioned, to get around that. I am not saying that the MCA is the most appropriate body, but I would like to check that.
The third point I want to raise is on the minimum wage corridor that the Secretary of State mentioned. The joint Select Committee session flagged this up. Work is ongoing with a number of European countries to try to establish those, but an update on how those discussions are going would be welcome. This is a good Bill and I welcome it. It is not the full solution but is a very welcome step forward.
Finally, if you would indulge me a minute, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is probably the last time I will speak in the Chamber this year. May I add my good wishes to all the staff of the House for Christmas and the new year? I particularly thank the Clerk of the Transport Committee and her staff who have made me so welcome as the new Chair and have been very helpful steering me in the right direction.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the brand-new Chair of the Transport Committee, and, as someone who serves on the Committee, may I say that it is relief to hear that he is not a lawyer? I also pass on my best wishes to Members—most Members, even in my own party—and Clerks and staff for a very Merry Christmas, and a happy new year when it comes.
When the previous, previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), brought forward the nine-point plan to protect seafarers, I genuinely welcomed the action outlined that day. However, the strength of his words must be followed by the strength and urgency of actions. We welcome the intent behind the Bill to tackle companies that fail to observe even the most basic employment rights while operating from ports in the UK but, clearly, there are areas where this Bill could, should and must be strengthened.
Before I come to the substance of the Bill, could the Minister give us a little more detail on the Government’s progress with their overarching nine-point plan? Clearly, today we are attempting to deal with point No. 1. Point No 7 is on taking action against company leaders who break the law. Earlier this year, P&O and its parent company DP World, achieved the rare—perhaps unique—feat of uniting the Institute of Directors, the TUC, the CBI and the RMT, alongside Nautilus and Members across the House, in their condemnation of P&O’s actions against its staff. The chief executive, Peter Hebblethwaite, appeared before a Joint Committee of Parliament and admitted that his company deliberately broke the law when it dismissed 786 employees with no consultation and no notice.
Mr Hebblethwaite still hangs around P&O Ferries like a bad smell—an albatross around the neck of a company that is now a byword for corporate greed and bullying. He recently had the honour of being named the worst boss in the world by the International Trade Union Confederation, beating out the likes of the chief executive officers of Amazon, Starbucks and Emirates airlines. That is quite an achievement for a relative newcomer. I am sure that his trophy will have pride of place on his mantlepiece.
It is doubtful that P&O’s reputation will ever recover—quite rightly—but as it stands, it is clear that provisions in the Bill will need to be beefed up in Committee. I hope that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team are feeling festive, because I have a list for them. I am sure the House would agree that I have been very good this year.
First on the list is roster patterns. For reasons passing understanding, the Government suddenly rejected the previously agreed roster pattern in the seafarers’ charter to commission further research into roster patterns and crewing levels. That was despite the collectively agreed standard in place at Stena and DFDS, and evidence of the danger that crew fatigue poses to maritime safety.
The RMT gave an example of P&O staff having worked one week on, one week off, as has been mentioned, on the Dover-Calais route where 75% of the jobs were lost. The agency crew who replaced them work much longer—in the case of Indian Able Seafarers, up to 17 weeks for at least 12 hours a day, seven days a week without shore leave. P&O is making bigger savings from that dangerous change to roster patterns than it is from the sub-national minimum wage rates of pay.
Crewing levels must be addressed. For those who do not know, crewing levels are the ratio of full-time-equivalent positions required to maintain the vessel in service for each rank or role required. P&O used operate with a crewing factor of four. They now operate with a crewing factor of just over two. That does not sound safe or advisable. The charter must be incorporated into the Bill if it is to be properly effective. The fact that those operators that seek to exploit workers are complaining should tell the Minister all he needs to know.
The Government defeated amendments in the Lords to reinstate the Government’s previous position of setting the qualification threshold at 52 visits per year. The 120-visit threshold may well allow operators to port hop or design routes to avoid having to make declarations about the national minimum wage equivalent. We must also ensure that accommodation costs cannot be deducted from the national minimum wage equivalent. P&O could potentially deduct over £1,000, and Irish Ferries nearly £500, from a non-qualifying seafarer’s wage if the accommodation offset is available to it under secondary regulations in the Bill.
While extending national minimum wage coverage is welcome, we would like to see ways of introducing other employment protections that are available to those working on land in the UK, such as better rights to redundancy pay, sick pay and consultation, and a clear statement in legislation of exactly how much those rogue operators who try to avoid compliance with the new regime will forfeit to the Exchequer. We will also be looking for assurances on the kind of action that the Government and port operators will be empowered to take against rogue employers. We all saw Mr Hebblethwaite brazenly sitting in front of the Committee happily agreeing that he and his colleagues had broken the law, knowing that the likelihood of any sanctions against them as controlling minds was minimal. Making something against the law is not the same as making people comply with that law. We want to see a sanctions regime that has teeth. The Insolvency Service is still dragging its feet, citing a lack of legal clarity as to whether the dismissed seafarers worked outside Great Britain. The Government must accept amendments to the Bill to close these legal loopholes if they are truly committed to preventing a repeat of the unlawful actions of P&O.
It might be outside the current scope of the Bill, but I would like to see the Government take the lead internationally to amend and improve the current maritime law to boost employment rights for all seafarers around the world, as those changes would also improve the lot of maritime workers here. As a result of this Government merely announcing action, the French Government were prompted into taking similar action. That shows that there is an appetite elsewhere to improve the lot of seafarers across borders and across the water. In the UK Government’s own words from just a few years back, the UK is one of the world’s leading maritime nations, so perhaps it is time to leverage that leadership into a fairer deal for workers across the world, rather than only for those—while fully appreciating our international obligations—who will be covered by the Bill. We also need to ensure that all those who serve the ever-growing offshore wind sector are protected. This Bill does not protect most of those workers.
I very much agree with the Law Society of Scotland’s view that it is unclear how harbour authorities will resource, upskill staff and cover costs to be able to undertake these additional tasks and obligations. Enforcement will be needed for these measures to be of the greatest benefit, and this will require sufficient resourcing. We also anticipate that processes will require to be set up between the Secretary of State, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the harbour authorities to manage the requirements, powers and duties in the Bill in practical terms. It also points out, notwithstanding the point that the Secretary of State made in opening the debate, the deviation of the description of a vessel in this Bill from the description in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which includes every description of vessel used in navigation. This should be addressed not just for consistency’s sake but to close any loopholes that this may unintentionally open.
There is quite a lot to fix, and we have only one Committee day to do it. I think it is fair to say that the Government’s record on workers’ rights has been deplorable. With this one Bill, the Tories claim to be supporting workers while they plan others that will roll back workers’ rights and attack the right to collective bargaining. This Bill will make welcome but small changes for a small number of workers while at the same time the Government are promising new anti-union laws for millions of others. What was originally planned as a limited transport striking law designed to prevent railway strikes seems to have morphed into a wider anti-union move that the Tories claim will save lives and prevent disruption. Despite their claims, it is the Tories themselves who are responsible for this winter’s disruption.
All of this is on the back of the Government’s appalling response to fire and rehire, which has seen hundreds of thousands of workers faced with the threat of redundancy or a lower wage. I am sure that workers who were forced out or who are on inferior contracts at British Airways, British Gas, Go North West, Tesco and Menzies Aviation, to name but a few, will be pleased that the Government are trying to do something, but they will look at these plans and think, “Where was our help in our time of need?” The Government had plenty of opportunity. I brought forward three Bills to deal with fire and rehire, and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) had a private Member’s Bill, but the Government thought that a simple change to guidance would deal with it. I totally agree with the question from the Labour shadow Secretary of State: where is the code? We were promised it long before now and we have not heard a thing about it.
It might be churlish of me—but I hope the House will allow me a bit of festive churlishness—to point out that the RMT that the UK Government were working closely alongside in March this year, when P&O Ferries put in motion its despicable actions, is the same RMT that the UK Government have been baiting in public and in private over its industrial dispute with employers. Perhaps if other areas of the Department for Transport could revisit that spring spirit and fuse it with some festive spirit, they might remember that trade unions and workers are there to help improve working conditions and will work with Governments of all political stripes—even this one—rather than be reviled and demonised for their work.
I will stop now before I am accused of turning even more into Ebenezer Scrooge. In the Christmas spirit, I will close by saying that this is a welcome Bill that we very much support in principle, but we need to work with the Government to improve it, alongside the trade unions and staff whose working conditions will be improved by it. I look forward to that work and hope that it is as constructive as the Minister has been thus far.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to speak in support of this very welcome measure, but this should be only the start of what we do to improve the working conditions for seafarers, and not just in our own waters but globally. It is a fact that when we look at where companies are able to exploit migrant labour and other workers, our shipping industry is perhaps one of the most notorious. Following the successful World cup in Qatar, where lots of issues regarding migrant workers were raised, I think that shining a light on some of the practices in the shipping industry would be welcome.
The act of industrial vandalism perpetrated on British workers by P&O Ferries was absolutely disgusting, and I am pleased that the whole House came together to condemn that practice at the time. I commend the Government for being quite fleet of foot in bringing forward this legislation. It proves that they can be fleet of foot when they choose to be, and I hope to see more of this when problems and, in particular, injustices are highlighted. But of course this Bill is limited to EU traffic, particularly on the short seas—the kind of traffic that goes from and attends our ports in Hull, Dover and Holyhead.
I represent what I like to describe as the ports capital of the UK, in Thurrock, after the port of London moved east from the London docks to my constituency. This has been a challenging period for us. DP World owns the new London Gateway port, the newest deep-sea port in the country. We have been working hard to have good relations with the British management of that port, but we were equally condemnatory of the actions of the parent company, through P&O Ferries, towards those workers. I am keen to ensure that the management at London Gateway understand that we in Thurrock thought that was completely unacceptable. We want to labour that point, not least to protect the thousands of workers in my constituency who are employed by that company. It is important that this House sends a message to companies that wish to invest in our country that there are things we will not put up with, and that what passes for reasonable employment practice in their own jurisdiction will not pass in ours. It is important that that principle is hammered home.
We also have ports in Thurrock that serve European traffic, and they have a very different business model from those to which this legislation is directed. I highlight particularly the integrated port and shipping operation run by CLdN at Purfleet, and Britain’s newest port at Tilbury 2, which also serves the European market. It is a different model because we are talking about unaccompanied roll-on roll-off freight. For example, at Dover the HGV drivers will accompany their cargo straight on and off and hit the road, but those ships arriving from Europe at Purfleet and Tilbury are undertaking a much longer journey to make that crossing. They are not accompanied; a driver drops them off at one end, and another driver picks them up at the other. I register with the Minister that the regulations currently being drafted to address the particular situation of short seas should perhaps be used more sensitively than the regulations covering other kinds of economic operation.
As has been highlighted, these minimum wage regulations are directed at ships that regularly attend British ports. The truth of the matter is that the ports of Tilbury and London Gateway deal with very large ships that make multiple stops around the world. Fifty years ago, some of the people working on those ships would have been my constituents, but today, frankly, my constituents are too expensive. The ships are now staffed by Filipinos, Thais and a lot of Ukrainians—I will come back to them—and we need to think about their welfare, too. I know the Government have made that case through their role in the International Maritime Organisation. If there is one thing for which I am grateful to P&O Ferries, it is for giving us the opportunity to shine a light on how our global seafaring population needs more support and more attention to its welfare.
We have heard about what would be the most appropriate enforcement authority. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), the Chair of the Transport Committee, said about the MCA. I have seen at first hand how the MCA took action to regulate behaviour towards seafarers during the pandemic, when a number of cruise ships were stranded at Tilbury. Frankly, the seafarers on those ships were in a terrible state. They did not know how long they would be stuck there, and their welfare conditions were truly appalling. The MCA took decisive action to improve their welfare.
As we head towards Christmas, people do not worry about how the items they have purchased and wrapped to put under the Christmas tree got to the shop. The fact is that we rely on our seafarers to keep us fed and watered, and they did a fantastic job during the pandemic. The shelves were full when we went to the supermarket because the seafarers kept working. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) is nodding in agreement, and he did a fantastic job of championing them. His door was always open when I was doing my best to represent the welfare of that community, and I thank him for everything he did. He was a truly excellent maritime Minister who did much to elevate maritime issues within Government. We do not worry too much about how things get on to the shelves, but the truth is that many people are paid not very much money and work in terrible conditions to make sure they do.
My annual treat is going down to the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest in Tilbury to wrap Christmas presents. We give out 3,000 presents, supported by voluntary donations. Every seafarer who passes through the port of London gets a present and a Christmas card from my constituents. The present consists of toiletries, chocolates, some London mementos and a hand-knitted hat made by Tilbury’s knitting community. It is a special thing to do because those seafarers are away from their family, and the gift shows that someone has thought about them.
I particularly highlight the welfare of Ukrainian seafarers passing through the port of Tilbury this Christmas. They are away from their family, and they are clearly very worried about them. I am pleased that we are giving them SIM cards so that they can contact their family. I thank the Department for Transport for funding the wi-fi routers that give us that facility.
I wish this Bill well, and I want it to be on the statute book as soon as possible so that we can raise the standards of behaviour towards seafarers who work on our European seas. I log my clear message to Ministers that we must also do more to raise global standards for our seafarers.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I do not intend to detain the House for very long, but I am grateful to speak in this very important debate.
I am concerned that the Bill simply does not go far enough, but I pay tribute to the former maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), and the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), for their work in putting the Bill together in such short time.
I have three chief concerns. The first is about enforcement, as there is a clear conflict. When a port operator also happens to be a ferry operator, it is incredibly unlikely to take the necessary action on the measures in this Bill.
Roster patterns are also a major concern. The 800 sacked British ratings—800 men and women—were paid, on average, about £28,000 a year, and they have been replaced, in the Dover-Calais example, by Indian seafarers on £4 an hour. That is bad enough, but the safety-critical issue is the fact that they work 17 weeks on, seven days a week, without shore leave, and they do 12-hour days. We should not need to be reminded of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, in which 193 seafarers and passengers were lost. The Bill desperately needs to be improved on that issue.
I am also concerned about the definition of “regular operator” and “port of call.” For example, the requirement for 120 visits to a port means the ferries sailing out of Hull will not be caught by the Bill, so the number needs to be much smaller—52 visits ought to be accepted by the Government. If a ferry leaves and returns to the same port, that is where it lives and where its crew members would be expected to reside, so 52 visits should help in that regard. As currently drafted, the ferries sailing out of Hull will not be caught by these provisions.
When I visit schools in my constituency, children often talk about the job they want to do. They live and are schooled in the shadow of the docks, and they see those big vessels, so they often think about having a decent, prosperous career at sea. Sadly, they do not have the opportunity to enjoy a career at sea.
I give credit to the hon. Member for Witney and the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield for doing a lot of work in short time to address the P&O Ferries scandal, but the legislation must be improved to prevent the likes of P&O Ferries from treating seafarers in that terrible way.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is a great pleasure and honour to speak in this debate, and in particular to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I hope he will not mind if I say that he was always extremely challengingly constructive, and I very much enjoyed and valued the interaction we had when I held that brief. I did think twice about whether I ought to speak in this debate, because as the maritime Minister at the time of this scandal and of the early stages of the legislation being drafted, to a certain extent I am marking my own homework, even if it is the poor old Minister who has to defend things at the end of the debate.
I came to care deeply about this issue during the course of my time as maritime Minister, partly because of some of the seafarers I met in Dover just after this happened, and partly because of the interaction I had with many hon. and right hon. Members across the House. I rise to record just a few thoughts about the Bill and where we go from here. Before I do, I hope I may be permitted a moment of indulgence just to thank the maritime directorate at the Department for Transport, with whom I worked so closely over some tumultuous times. With their good humour, boundless expertise and incredible passion for everything they do, they are a true credit to the finest traditions of their service. It was a great pleasure and honour to work with them, and I thank them for everything they did to see me through the difficult, challenging two years that we had.
The civil service often likes to say it works at pace, and that is often true, but it was never as true as it was during the formation of this Bill. As the hon. Member just said, this scandal broke and we had to take action. The Government of whom I and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) formed a part felt extremely strongly about it, so we worked at great speed. All the civil servants who worked on it were incredible in those weeks and months, and I thank them for that. Finally on this note—I apologise to the Members who are not lawyers; I am a lawyer, or a recovering lawyer as I like to say—I am grateful to the civil servants for having allowed me to crawl all over the legislation and pick away at bits of it, and I hope it is slightly better as a result.
Taking a moment to dwell on why this Bill is necessary, the decision by P&O Ferries that we have heard about was despicable—I make it clear at the outset that I am talking about P&O Ferries as distinct from P&O Cruises, which bears no responsibility for it. Those 786 seafarers were made redundant without prior notice or consultation, to be replaced by agency workers who would be paid less than the national minimum. It was an extraordinary moment of shameful behaviour from a company. We will all remember that incredible Zoom call when they were dismissed by video conference. It is emblematic of all the issues we are dealing with today.
When I went back to my constituency that weekend—my landlocked, rural, Oxfordshire constituency—the people at every single door I knocked on were livid at how P&O had behaved, and every single one commended the Government’s strong action. I think the disgust of those in west Oxfordshire and more widely was down to two reasons. First, it was because P&O is an iconic British brand. It is one of those brands that sits along with the Red Arrows, or Cadbury or Rolls-Royce, as a quality marque that shows the country stands for the highest standards not just in products, but in people.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, P&O Ferries violated some unwritten rules of decency, fair play and valuing the people who work for them—all those things that mark the UK out as a special place to live. P&O Ferries took those things, valued them at nought and broke them, and that was a wicked thing to have done. No excuses will do. This is not about P&O’s balance sheet or what it chose to do to try to make recompense to those seafarers afterwards; it is about something very simple: the way that people should be treated. These people have given their lives to learn a trade that is difficult, vital and frequently dangerous, and to be treated in that way is not how Britain does business.
What P&O Ferries did that day was to suggest that those seafarers did not matter. It suggested that people who had devoted their lives and labour in that way did not matter and could be replaced like a machine with something cheaper. That is what the people of west Oxfordshire were angry about that weekend, and that anger is as nothing compared with the anger of the people of Dover and Hull, and rightly so. P&O Ferries violated the British sense of fairness. It is more than just a brand; it is a sense of doing the right thing—of decency, hard work and commitment paying off.
Some months later, Peter Hebblethwaite—he of that truly infamous Select Committee appearance—had the cheek to suggest that the dispute that there was and remains over how he treated his workers was of historic interest, as if the Government should just accept it and move on, as if it did not matter or had not happened. Well, this is a historic matter, but not in the way that Mr Hebblethwaite thought; this is a historic matter, because what this House of Commons said then, and is going to say now in all our different ways, is that maritime really matters, seafarers really matter, ships really matter and how we treat people really matters.
We are going to make sure, through this legislation and everything else, that how P&O treated its seafarers on that day will never happen again; and, more than that, we are going to take a historic look at how maritime and seafarers are treated in this country and ensure that this great industry is treated how it should be, right at the heart of this great country. That is what the nine-point plan that we have heard about already intended to do, and I know that the Government will continue to do more.
I am mindful of time, and others want to speak, so I will not go through the Bill in detail, as many others will wish to do that, as well. I will echo some of the points made by Members from both sides of the House about how it is essential to see this Bill as a starting point. The Bill is important, but it does not of itself solve the issue. Another reason I am pleased to speak today is that this is one of the first times in recent memory when the House has considered maritime legislation as a whole. There has been a lot of specific legislation—bits on safety and so forth—but for the last substantial bit of maritime legislation, we have to go all the way back to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, and even that just pulled together bits of legislation from earlier years.
In the past, Parliament has tended to look at maritime as a functional thing—a way of getting from A to B—and not looked holistically at what it brings to the life of the nation. Of course, what maritime brings to the life of the nation is vast. We are talking about trade, highly skilled jobs, and British influence way beyond these shores. I want to ensure—I know I will have the agreement of many other Members of this House—that the value of what maritime business brings is truly understood by the Government. I am not suggesting wholesale Government intervention, as this is a privately run, privately operated industry, and for the most part is much the better for that, but some measures could be taken, particularly in the areas of regulation and fiscal policy, that could help the maritime sector to grow.
The Department’s excellent “Maritime 2050” programme must be supported and continued, but I would like the Government also to focus on a number of other things that I will briefly talk through. The first is seafarers’ training. We need to expand the training commitment under the tonnage tax and support the work of the Maritime Skills Commission and the Merchant Navy Training Board, because children growing up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, or in Dover, Tilbury or so many other areas, must be able to look out of their window, to see those vessels and think, “That is a fascinating career,” and should know how to go about achieving it and have the jobs available at the end of the day, such that they can go and do it. Training is key to that. We have to have British seafarers trained—both officers and ratings—if we want to have a thriving merchant fleet.
The second point I wish to raise is about the importance of the UK flag. Ships registered on the UK ship register are not just a matter of national pride, although it is always great to see the red ensign fluttering from the stern of a ship; this is so important because, in simple terms, flying the red ensign makes that ship a floating piece of Britain, which means that the standards we enjoy in this country are more easily applied to it. Increasing the number of ships on the UK ship register is one of the most important things that can be done to help seafarers’ pay, welfare and standards, to which attention has rightly been drawn already. This is about more than pay; it is about welfare and standards as well. This is very complex work, and there is too much here for me to go into at the moment, but a number of things have to be done. Some of this has to be done internationally, and I urge the Government to look at what can be done at the International Maritime Organisation, particularly on the issue of flags of convenience, which is a major part of this.
I also wish to draw attention to the issue of investment in British shipbuilding—a massive topic that, again, I cannot go into in any detail. When we look at the decline of the merchant fleet since the first world war, and even more so since the second world war, we see that the lack of attractiveness as a place to invest in British shipping is a big part of what has happened. Only by increasing British ship ownership, through targeted fiscal measures and creating the right regulatory environment in which to work, can we have the British standards, pay and welfare we would expect, as well as providing the extraordinary strategic reserve that a merchant fleet is able to give, as of course we saw during the Falklands war.
The tonnage tax reforms that were announced last year by the then Chancellor, now our Prime Minister, are hugely welcome. They are due to be reviewed again next year, and I ask the Government to look creatively at what can be done there, through tonnage tax and wider fiscal measures. I would like the Government and the Minister to respond on some of those points.
I shall make a couple of concluding points. As I said at the beginning, maritime matters. We have understood the way maritime matters and the way seafarers matter to this country as never before. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) has just said, during the pandemic we saw them in all weathers, day and night, whether there was covid or whether there was no covid, constantly working to make sure that we had the food, medicine and wider supplies we needed. They were not complaining, and it is vital that we support them in due course. But maritime will matter only when seafarers’ welfare and training matters as much as their wages, and when shipping ownership and the red ensign are given the attention that they deserve.
This Bill is a good start, but it is only a start. There is a wide, delicate maritime ecosystem that needs wide attention, which is what I am asking the Government to give here. There has never been a successful trading nation without its own maritime fleet and without the seafarers to man those ships. Global Britain, an independent trade policy and Britain on the world stage will not count for anything without maritime. Maritime is essential, seafarers are essential, and we must do more.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
P&O Ferries’ actions earlier this year to make 800 seafarers redundant and replace them with agency staff on just over £4 per hour were shameful, illegal and immoral, and they were rightly condemned across the House at the time, and indeed in this debate. But I must say that that would never have happened in the first place if former Ministers had listened to the warnings from the RMT and Nautilus International, and many others, about the loopholes that put maritime workers at particular risk. That advice should have been heeded in the past. The Government could have strengthened protections for workers, and they still can, to end the immoral practice of fire and rehire. That needs to happen.
In the aftermath of this shameful episode, the then Prime Minister and the Government promised that these issues would be dealt with, and that there would be clear and serious consequences, and of course better protections. Six months on, we are yet to see the legal action that was promised materialise, as has been pointed out by the shadow Secretary of State. Although this Bill steps forward, it falls short of the employment protections promised. Indeed, the Secretary of State referred to its narrow scope and its limited impact, and focused on those issues.
The Bill does not take the opportunity, desperately needed, to effectively restore collective bargaining for ferry staff, and raise employment standards across the board. Other hon. Members have referred to rostering, hours and shore leave. What about pensions, apprenticeships and training, an issue mentioned by Members from across the House? Those are other areas where workers can be exploited, and we all know that P&O ferries and others will do exactly that.
The Bill is also a missed opportunity to get the detail right on protecting seafarers. We know the P&O Ferries will exploit any loophole it can, so let us make the protections for seafaring staff ironclad. We need to ensure that a minimum wage equivalent has the tools for strong enforcement measures. We need to end clear existing loopholes that employers such as P&O Ferries and many more are able to exploit, such as moving between ports to avoid the necessary regulations that have been placed in the Bill and operating ferry services while collecting national minimum wage fines as a port authority—there is a clear conflict of interest there, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the new Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). While amending this legislation to ensure these loopholes are closed and protections are enforced, we still need justice—social justice, employment justice—for the 800 P&O staff and their families, and those responsible need to be held to account.
Grahame Morris
I share my hon. Friend’s anger and outrage at those job losses and the way those men were treated by P&O. Does he share my outrage that the Government have subsequently given £50 million to P&O’s parent company, DP World, in order to facilitate the freeports at Southampton and London Gateway? Is that not absolute nonsense?
Mike Amesbury
I concur on that, and the smell of hypocrisy is somewhat nauseating across the Chamber.
We are still without answers as to why the CEO of P&O Ferries felt empowered enough to tell Parliament—to tell the Select Committee—that they were breaking the law. Why have they still have not faced the consequences for their actions? Why have heads not rolled? Why are Ministers not stepping in to ensure that that happens? Again, we are talking about not only justice for the seafarers concerned and their families, but creating that landscape of good employment and good employment practices in this country.
In conclusion, the P&O Ferries scandal must be the end of the exploitation of seafaring staff in this country, but in its current state the Bill falls far short of that. It is a starter for 10, which I will certainly be supporting it, along with His Majesty’s official Opposition. However, I will also be supporting amendments that will make it far stronger, to ensure that we have a race to the top, rather than a race to the bottom on employment rights. Finally, let me wish everybody a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Not only has 2022 been a year of opportunity, new jobs, higher wages and investment across Dover and Deal, but it has been a difficult and challenging year, with a number of significant and sometimes shocking events occurring around our sea border. Looking back to this time last year, I would not have expected to see a household name, a much-loved part of the Dover landscape, a global company headquartered in the town, become a pariah and a disgrace, not just in the maritime community, but in the business world. That is what the directors of P&O Ferries made it in March 2022. P&O’s management is a total disgrace, and it has put a stain on the name of this great company. In March, I wrote to the Insolvency Service, calling on it to consider director disqualification action against the named directors of P&O Ferries Ltd and its parent company, P&O Ferries Holding Ltd, on the basis of the directors’ misconduct.
The Insolvency Service has a responsibility to uphold confidence in directors and to hold them to account for serious misconduct. The response from the service has been wholly inadequate so far. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to press the Insolvency Service to step in and do its job—to hold those P&O directors to account for their reprehensible, immoral and unlawful conduct. I still have constituents who have not been compensated properly for lost or stolen belongings. I ask the Minister to meet me to see how my constituents can be helped, so that this matter can finally be resolved for them.
In relation to the well-made comments on the intensity of the channel route, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency looked at these issues for Irish Ferries when it came into Dover and for P&O when it tried to stand up its agency workers and was not allowed to do so because they were not good and ready. I ask the Minister to have a conversation with the agency and then for us to meet further to discuss how assurances can be given that the intensity of the channel route is being properly monitored and considered in relation to the safety of workers and passengers on it.
Looking back to the sackings in March, I was glad to take up an offer from Darren Procter of the RMT union to march with the workers, my constituents in Dover Town, along with other prominent local Conservatives. As the local MP, I supported workers in two previous restructurings of the workforce of P&O, working with the unions and speaking to the management of P&O. It was completely untrue, therefore, for P&O to seek to blame predicted union militancy by RMT for its disgraceful management behaviour, because previous restructurings had been by negotiated settlement.
P&O did not even try to negotiate. It just decided that it would break the law. None the less, it is true that, on the day I marched with the RMT, we did see the ugly face of the militant unions and the Labour party. It is also true that the Labour party saw an opportunity to exploit the shocking corporate behaviour of P&O, just as we have heard that it intends not to fully and unequivocally support the measures of this important Bill today.
As I was surrounded by bused-in, hard-left aggressive militants outside the RMT headquarters in Dover, I was rescued by local union members whom I know and who brought me into the building for my safety. Imagine my shock when I saw the leadership of the RMT—Mick Lynch no less—and other trade union barons holding a Zoom meeting with none other than the Labour leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). While I was in that private meeting, I was shocked to hear how the Labour leader and the trade union barons were chatting away about exploiting the P&O situation in Parliament for political gain in those coming days, and how the unions could create a winter of discontent, stoked up by trade unions here. It seemed to me, listening to everyone that day, that they were working hand in glove with the Labour leadership.
Back then, in the spring, I thought that it was just wishful thinking on the part of Labour and the trade union barons. Now Mick Lynch has turned into the Christmas Grinch and the winter of union trouble making is well and truly under way—and not a word of condemnation from those on the Labour Front Bench, and I think that we all know why.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
As a Scottish nationalist MP, there is not a lot of love lost between me and the Labour party. It certainly comes as a surprise to me to hear that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is very much in cahoots with the unions. I think that he could do an awful lot more to stand up for Labour values. However, at the heart of all of this are the hon. Lady’s constituents who were treated incredibly badly by P&O. The issue here is not the RMT union; the issue here is P&O Ferries, which has acted disgracefully. I urge her to try to get back to that point, which is what the Bill is about.
Mrs Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I have made it very clear, as the Dover MP, I have worked very constructively with the RMT, and particularly with the local branch. What I saw that day was the Labour leader on Zoom, and it seemed to me from that meeting that he was looking for political opportunism, rather than having the interests of my constituents at heart. I am therefore very pleased that so many Members on the Opposition Benches now speak so freely about my constituents, but I urge them to fully support the Bill, and not to seek to create division and engage in shameless political opportunism on what they know is a very specific Bill, as they have already done in the Lords.
Richard Burgon
We do not seek to oppose the Bill. We seek to strengthen it and improve it, but I do have a question for the hon. Member. She has repeatedly referred in her speech to “trade union barons”. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that trade union leaders—of the RMT and other unions—are not barons, because they are elected by their members? Would it not be helpful to stop using this silly, right-wing tabloid language of “barons”? They are not barons. They are elected leaders—elected by many more people than some Conservative Prime Ministers.
Mrs Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think he has made his point about his choice of language, in the same way that I have made mine.
As we look forward to the Bill going through Committee, I urge Opposition Members not to seek to create division in the name of improvement, when in fact they are making amendments that are outside the scope of the Bill. It is this Conservative Government who are prioritising fair pay and equal rights for our workers on land and at sea. We are applying the minimum wage to ensure that we do not see a race to the bottom of foreign crews and cheap labour, helping to secure the future of the workforce on the short straits.
In Dover, the maritime industry is part of our DNA. I just visited Viking’s Maritime Skills Academy in Dover, which trains seafarers in fire and sea rescue safety. Like a number of local businesses, it has worked really hard to support those in P&O who have lost their jobs, and I pay tribute to all those across my constituency who have come together to help. It is a reminder that, from training to deployment, Dover has a central role in the maritime community. With that central role, I would like to see this Bill accompanied by further international steps to improve the pay and conditions of international seafarers.
The conditions for some international seafarers are nothing short of slavery. That point was very well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). We have a moral responsibility to address that. We have taken action to address the use of sweat shops on land in other countries. We must show international leadership in tackling the sweat shops at sea—the shocking conditions for international seafarers, particularly those from poorer countries. We must also go further in completing bilateral agreements with port-to-port European and other counterparts, so as to ensure that standards, safety and training meet the demands of the sea. As I raised with the Secretary of State earlier, it is those bilateral agreements on which we should be focusing the specific needs of the channel routes.
Today’s Bill is one that I strongly welcome. It will help to ensure that the financial incentives that led to the decision-making of P&O Ferries will be neutralised. It will help to avoid the race to the bottom and shore up jobs here in the UK ports. It is an important and focused Bill to plug a gap in employment law to ensure that British workers operating at sea between Dover and Calais will be treated just the same as workers operating in Dover itself.
I would like to finish by saying how grateful I am for the work of a number of right hon. and hon. Friends, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Robert Courts), for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who all worked so hard alongside me on this P&O situation, understood it for the disgrace it was and showed determination to push forward on the nine-point plan for action. I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister will be following through on that to ensure that such a situation cannot happen in the same way again.
This Bill shows it is the Conservative party that is on the side of seafarers. It is the Conservative party that is the party of the workers. It is the Government who support jobs, training and pay to protect British workers, including all those excellent workers at Dover and those who work on the short straits.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), particularly with some of the late Christmas cracker jokes she was deploying in the Chamber there.
As we approach the recess, many of us will have our usual favourite films and programmes to watch as we rest up on the couch, recovering from the excesses of Christmas and new year celebrations. For some it may be “Miracle on 34th Street”, “Home Alone” or that classic “It’s a Wonderful Life”. I personally look forward to the now-annual mockumentary on Netflix, previously called “Death to 2020” or “Death to 2021”. I have no doubt that the March segment of “Death to 2022” will feature the disgraceful behaviour of P&O Ferries and its chief executive officer Peter Hebblethwaite—who would surely make Scrooge look like Bambi—as it chronicles the outrageous decision to fire nearly 800 directly employed seafarers on these islands.
In watching the Netflix mockumentary, I suddenly remember all the appalling things that unfolded in the year just past. However, for many seafarers, including those who live in my East End constituency, the P&O tragedy is much more than a mere three or four-minute segment of a documentary. While the P&O dispute is long buried in most folks’ memories, it is important to understand how and why we came to that position and how we can improve things.
Although the previous Prime Minister—I mean the second-to-last one—had said that Ministers would be taking legal action, the Insolvency Service quietly dropped criminal prosecution of P&O Ferries. While the actions of P&O Ferries were disgusting and deeply unethical, they highlighted some serious weaknesses in employment law, not to mention refuelling the “fire and rehire” issue that continues to plague ordinary workers and be a plaything of unscrupulous bosses in boardrooms across the land. That is why many of us on the Opposition Benches have been disappointed that the long-awaited post-Brexit employment Bill never materialised and why many of us would, frankly, now be surprised to see one this side of a general election.
The Bill before the House tonight—just a day before we rise for our Christmas recess—is obviously not one that should be opposed, but I think there is a broad consensus in the debate, including on the Conservative Benches, that it is not a silver bullet, nor will it fix the problems it seeks to remedy. The Bill needs significant amendment and improvement, as many of my constituents have made clear.
I was struck by the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) referring to the fact that he represents a rural, landlocked constituency in Oxfordshire. Similarly, in my small city constituency I have a number of RMT members, particularly seafarers, who have worked on P&O Ferries. My constituent from Barlanark wants the Bill improved to increase seafarer jobs and build our green maritime skills base. Another constituent from Easterhouse who wrote to me wants to see the Bill amended to promote collectively bargained terms and conditions, as is the case, for example, in France.
Likewise, another constituent believes the Bill must support domestic seafarer jobs on the international routes that keep the economy of these islands functioning and secure. Lastly, an email from a resident of Sandyhills gets to the nub of the issue here, state-sanctioned pay exploitation, highlighting that P&O Ferries pays under £4 per hour on contracts of up to 17 weeks. Ministers regularly stand up at the Dispatch Box and tell us that work is the best route out of poverty—but not, it would appear, for a seafarer.
Many hon. Members have outlined and will outline how the Bill can be improved, particularly as it moves into Committee, but I want to touch on just a few things this evening. I am particularly grateful to colleagues in the RMT, which I am proud to support, for their briefing on this Bill. More generally, I send my continued solidarity and best wishes to their rail members who are engaged in an industrial dispute. I have certainly been proud to join them on picket lines, and I have no expectation that my party leader will ask for me to be fired or anything like that as a result of doing so.
However, coming back to the Bill, it would be fair to say that it must be widened in scope. In my opinion and that of many others, it is too narrowly drawn, a point made by peers when it started its legislative journey in the other place. The Bill would, I believe, benefit from being widened in scope to tackle some of the wider conditions that P&O and other operators use to exploit and recruit crew on pay and conditions that undercut UK-based seafarers and responsible operators.
Fundamentally, in its current form, the Bill does not address the nationality-based pay discrimination on ships that routinely work from UK ports, regardless of flag or crew nationality. There is a real risk that this Bill’s passing unamended would lead to avoidance techniques such as changes to port call schedules, which have already been referred to. Basically, port-hopping becomes more likely the more frequently a vessel calls at a UK port.
The RMT briefing, for example, makes it clear that at 120 calls per year, it would be far easier for operators to make very modest changes to scheduled port calls in order to avoid this legislation, whereas 52 calls would be far tighter and was, I understand, the Government’s intention when the Bill was launched. Looking at the Hansard from when the Bill went through the Lords, I can see no legitimate reason why the Government departed from 52 weeks after the consultation, especially when there was widespread support for it from trade unions.
Baroness Vere is on record in the other place saying:
“I do not think operators would play switcheroo with UK ports because, frankly, their customers would not put up with it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 2022; Vol. 824, c. 1506.]
In short, the Minister is saying that it will be all right on the night and we should just leave it to market conditions to dictate the direction of travel. However, I remind Ministers that the whole reason we are in this sorry mess in the first place is precisely a lack of regulation and an increasing tolerance for casino-style decision making on the part of bosses who have shamelessly, and unquestionably, exploited staff. We should learn that leaving it to the market will not necessarily be helpful.
There is one other aspect of the Bill I want to draw to the attention of the House before I conclude. It relates to offshore wind and the renewables sector, something particularly pertinent to Scotland. At the moment, as I understand it, crew working on vessels servicing the offshore oil and gas industry are entitled to protection when it comes to national minimum wage legislation, but that protection is not extended to crew, sometimes on the same ships, who work instead on offshore windfarms in the UK exclusive economic zone. That point was respected by the Minister in Grand Committee in the House of Lords, so it is clearly an issue for the Government. As an MP from Scotland, where we have a burgeoning offshore and renewables sector, that gap concerns me greatly and I believe it must be plugged.
All that makes the point that the Bill before the House tonight falls short of what is expected following the P&O debacle. The unintended consequences of not tightening things up will, once more, lead to future Parliaments having to come back and fix issues that have been highlighted in this debate and will only prolong the injustice faced by seafarers.
I started my remarks tonight by talking about the films we all watch during the Christmas holidays. I rather fear that, if this Bill was made into a film, it could quite easily be called “A Missed Opportunity”. Let us ensure that that is not the case, and instead bring the Bill into dry dock for major repair and improvement when this legislation is considered in Committee.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I have listened to all the contributions with great interest. There is clearly a consensus developing that, although this Bill is a step in the right direction, it is completely inadequate to the scale of the situation seafarers face.
Who can forget those appalling scenes when balaclava-wearing, handcuff-trained security guards were sent on to the ships to remove P&O workers? That was a real wake-up call about the reality of employment law in this country and more widely. What worries me is that the Bill is full of loopholes—ones that will be exploited by unscrupulous employers. Before I was elected as a Member of Parliament, I was for 10 years a trade union lawyer representing workers, including seafarers. Time and again, I saw ruthless employers exploit loopholes in well-intentioned laws and get away with treating workers like dirt. We cannot allow that to go on. Far from the divisive language of the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), we need to work together to improve the Bill.
What are some of the loopholes? I mentioned in an earlier intervention my concern that when the Bill was drafted, frequent use of a port was defined as a ship calling at a UK port 52 times in a year. That has now been increased to 120 times a year. I am still not clear on why that is the case, but it is logical that if we define regular use of a UK port not as 52 visits but as 120 visits, that is a great loophole for port-hopping and for unscrupulous employers to avoid paying the national minimum wage when they should do so.
There is also a lack of legal clarity on whether dismissed P&O workers resided in Britain. The Insolvency Service has still not pursued legal charges against P&O. The TUC rightly says that that loophole continues in the Bill, and it is therefore clear that it must be closed. It cannot be acceptable for this House to be content with a Bill that, following the P&O scandal, does not close the loopholes that allowed P&O Ferries to get away with its behaviour in such a horrific manner.
The Bill does not go far enough on employment protections. We need stronger protections in law. P&O is currently making more savings from the intensive roster patterns forced on agency workers, for example, than it does from paying below minimum wage. It is clear, then, that the national minimum wage provisions in the Bill are not enough on their own, because firms can still undermine workers’ rights if minimum wage protections are not coupled with broader employment protections. We see deductions taken from workers’ pay for their accommodation, for example, which is completely outrageous.
The Bill does not protect all seafarers, by the way, as has already been mentioned in discussion about workers in the offshore renewables sector. If we want, as we do, a future of well-paid, green and unionised jobs that help us to tackle climate change and solve the ongoing energy crisis, we need to ensure that those jobs are well paid, secure and unionised, not part of a race to the bottom. We need to ensure that offshore workers in the green sector have proper protection as well.
As the Bill progresses, I will introduce or support amendments to close legal loopholes and prevent port-hopping—that is essential—and, crucially, to inscribe a seafarers’ charter into law, expand collective employment rights, and ensure that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has the powers and resources to enforce employment protections. We have already heard in the debate about the conflicts of interest for companies that run ships and have financial interests in ports. We also need the Bill to be changed so that minimum wage rights for seafarers’ working in offshore renewables are equalised with the entitlements for those working in the offshore oil and gas industry.
The Bill needs to be amended and strengthened or it will be a huge missed opportunity, which we cannot allow to happen. We all remember the strong feelings in the country, which were reflected on both sides of this Chamber, about what happened at P&O, but we must ask ourselves these questions. First, is it right that, as we have heard, P&O’s parent company benefits from Government funding to the tune of £50 million for London Gateway freeport? More importantly and more fundamentally, is it right for this House to be content with legislation that is a tiny step in the right direction—that is why we are not opposing it—but does not go far enough?
The Seafarers’ Wages Bill needs vast improvement if it is to be worthy of its name and if it is to prevent what happened at P&O from happening again. If we do not improve it, people outside this House will be very disappointed indeed, because the Bill will not match the speeches made in this House back then and tonight.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). Like him, I feel that a consensus is emerging in this place tonight. We all welcome the Bill, but we welcome it as a first step and see the flaws in it. I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) that there is not really any opposition to the Bill, and reassure her constituents that everybody in this House feels very strongly about what happened to those workers who had given their careers, and in many cases their lives, to P&O.
As the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) said, P&O is an iconic company in this country. To many people, it epitomises our seafaring tradition and the merchant marine—people see that in P&O. Like Cunard, P&O is synonymous with the image of Britannia and the waves, so when I look back to March, it is not easy to put aside the shock that came with the news that it had treated almost 800 of its staff so shamefully. It is clear from the reaction in the House tonight that none of us here has been untouched by what we remember from that time. The RMT estimates that 75% of those 800 UK seafarers worked on the Dover-Calais route, as well as on services out of Hull, Liverpool, Cairnryan and Larne. Just about every port in the UK was affected and had constituents who were affected, and landlocked constituencies had families who were affected by what happened. What was also significant about it was that it exposed a major flaw in UK employment legislation as it affects seafarers, and the potential for that major flaw in UK law to be exploited by others.
The Liberal Democrats support the Bill, which has three main principles at its core. Seafarers with close ties to the UK who work aboard services in scope of the Bill but do not qualify for the UK national minimum wage will receive fair pay. The Bill will disincentivise the race to the bottom that we have talked about in employment standards among operators. It will protect the reputation of the UK maritime sector, of which P&O is such an important part, following the disgraceful actions of that company.
However, there are flaws in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats in the other place had three main concerns: the lack of sufficient protections for seafarers; compliance with international conventions and agreements—of which the Bill potentially challenges a number—and the practicalities of implementation and enforcement, which have been raised by the UK Chamber of Shipping, the British Ports Association and trade unions. The RMT in particular wants to see changes to the Bill, including amendments to prevent port-hopping and other avoidance techniques by operators, and to introduce collectively agreed standards for roster patterns, pension rights, crewing levels and training schemes.
When the Bill moves forward into Committee, I urge the Government to take on board those concerns and to ensure that the Bill is improved in the way that I think we all—on both sides of the House—would like to see, for the wellbeing of seafarers, not just at the moment but in the future, in an industry that is in the DNA of this country.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Most of the points of detail have been raised by other Members, so I will not focus on those. I will vote for the Bill, but—I am not being party political here, because when it comes to the treatment of seafarers, I have been critical of every party that has been in national Government—the Bill is a mouse, and I do not think that it is a mouse that is going to roar. That is my worry about it.
I was pleased at the cross-party anger about P&O’s behaviour. I had expected that to result in a real opportunity to tackle the way in which seafarers are treated, and not just by P&O but historically. I have checked Hansard, and the first time I raised in the House the application of the minimum wage to seafarers was in the 2002-03 Session, which was 20 years ago. I blame the Chamber of Shipping, which has been mentioned, and its influence on successive Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments. Time and again, we have pointed out what is technically, in employment terms, a feudal relationship with many seafarers and the way they are treated. It is also a neo-colonialist relationship, given the recruitment practices across the globe. It is a level of exploitation that we would not tolerate in any other sector. People are working long hours in unsafe conditions, on low pay and with limited training. When they complain, they are replaced by labour that is brought to this country from across the globe. They are severely exploited.
Every time we have debated the issue and the Chamber of Shipping has realised that the game is up and that change is necessary—largely through public opprobrium, as happened with P&O, though perhaps not on the same scale in the past—successive attempts at reform by this House have resulted in a standard strategy to be pursued, which is that the Chamber of Shipping, working with the Government, obfuscates, seeks to limit change and the effectiveness of that change, and drafts trench warfare in legislation.
I will give a few examples. In 2002 I said that we should ensure that the minimum wage applied to seafarers in this country on the basis of the Race Relations Act 1976. When lobbying on the Race Relations Act, the shipping industry secured an exemption—the only sector that gained such an exemption. As a result, it was able to exploit workers. We ran a campaign and the Government put their hands up and said, “We accept that there is a wrong here, so we will ensure reform.” That reform was that people could be discriminated against based not on their race but on their nationality. What is the difference? That was the change in legislation.
From 2007 to 2009 we ran a campaign and I raised the issues in this House. When we sought to give some form of legal protection to people, we were told that they could have that legal protection only if they had employment links to this country—and that was ill defined. It just went on like that. I have example after example of us campaigning for reform and being met with obfuscation and the drafting of trench warfare, and the reform was largely frustrated. It just went on like that.
I raised the issue of accommodation charges in 2014. Again, the argument was that the charges would be relatively limited and that there would be no major impact on the seafarers. The companies then started increasing the charges and they got to ludicrous levels. What could the seafarers do? They had no choice over where they were going to sleep at night. They could not hire a separate boat to sleep on. The companies were ripping them off.
I can remember about 40 of us turning up to a Statutory Instrument Committee thinking that we had achieved a major victory—it was wonderful—whereby the minimum wage was going to apply to British waters. We all thought that meant territorial waters, but then there was a change of definition and we found that it applied only to internal waters—which just about applies to the Norfolk broads, to be honest.
That is what has happened year after year. I have had 20 years of this, so Members will understand my sense of frustration that leads to anger. That is why I think this Bill is a mouse. We will work together to improve it—that is what we will do. We will try to eradicate the loopholes that have been set out by virtually every Member who has spoken so far, including on the number of times a port is used, the way in which measures are enforced and the way in which the surcharge is defined. The Government cannot leave the definition of the surcharge to the harbour authorities. There will be another race to the bottom because they will want to attract companies to use their harbour on the basis that their surcharge is so low. Let us work together as a House to resolve those issues with this mouse of a Bill.
The Bill does not solve the problem of fire and rehire. I was with the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) in Dover. I think she has misunderstood what was going on in the RMT office. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was receiving a briefing from the RMT that was offered to the Prime Minister and the leaders of other parties as well. I was in the room at the time, and there was no plotting or anything like that. It was about trying to ensure that points were raised in this House so that the Government could act more effectively.
Mrs Elphicke
I have notified the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras that I will be raising this issue. I was in that meeting along with a member of my team. It was very clear that what I was observing was not a conversation with the Labour leader but a conversation led by the Labour leader about what might happen the following week, including some very disparaging references about the Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), whom he sought to embarrass. I appreciate the perspective of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I recall him being there.
John McDonnell
We were both in the same room, but I suppose that it is like people witnessing an accident, in that there will be different interpretations. By no means was I calling the leader of the Labour party’s conversation an accident—that would be grounds for expulsion.
The Bill does not outlaw fire and rehire. That was used by P&O, whose example was followed very quickly by Heathrow airport in my constituency. If this Bill is the first stage of a reform package, we need to see the rest of it pretty promptly. That means not just introducing minimum wage legislation but looking at the wider exploitation of seafarers, including accommodation charges and safe crew levels. I am really worried. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. Time and again, evidence is emerging that the exploitation of seafarers is not just about wages, but about how few seafarers there are on any particular ship and how the training they receive does not guarantee safety. Therefore, we need legislation to be introduced rapidly to ensure that seafarers are not only properly paid but properly trained, and that any ship that sails around our ports has an adequate number of crew on board.
At some stage—this applies to the overall debate as well as to this Bill—we will have to have another discussion about the regulation of the sector. This Bill relates to how it abides by payment of the minimum wage. I do not believe that the concept of harbours levelling the surcharge and then it being implemented or, I suppose, inspected by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is going to prove effective. That is a division of responsibility and I do not think it will work.
As other hon. Members raised earlier, the idea that a ship or company can simply be excluded from operating out of a particular harbour will not prove effective either. We must demonstrate seriousness of purpose, which is why the unions are arguing for detention of the ship when there is a refusal to abide by the measures that are going through in this Bill.
I hope that we will rapidly hear a report on the progress of the seafarers’ charter, which I thought would be included in the first legislation that we saw to attack the issues around seafarers and P&O in particular. I would also like to have had some strong evidence of the agreements that are coming forward in the cross-country negotiations taking place on these issues; can we have that in the new year? I also throw in that it is not just about the wages earned week by week, month by month, but about pensions, which are another form of wages. Seafarers’ pensions have been eroded over the years and, as a result, it is difficult to attract people to the job because of low pay, lack of pensions, insecurity and, to be frank, unsafe working conditions.
My final point comes back to the Chamber of Shipping. I am angry that, throughout the whole period that these activities have been taking place, when low pay has been inflicted on seafarers and their pensions have been under attack, shipping companies have taken £2 billion in tax relief from tonnage tax—in fact, they have laughed all the way to the bank. The tonnage tax has failed, and it has not produced the jobs that we were promised or encouraged the companies to behave as dutiful employers. I urge the Government to bring forward the whole programme of legislation that was promised as part of the development of the nine-point plan, as well as the seafarers’ charter, early in the new year. Unless we have that, there will be no secure employment and the long-term future of the sector will be at considerable risk.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate. It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I will speak in support of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and raise an important issue about seafarers’ pensions. I commend my hon. Friend for her speech and her well-made points. Seafarers working on British vessels and providing services to British ports should be paid at least the minimum wage; I hope that those highly skilled workers, who carry out difficult and dangerous work, would be paid well above that basic minimum.
I take this opportunity to raise an important issue about seafarers being treated properly by their employers. As the House will know, I have been raising the issue of the outstanding £146 million debt owed to the merchant navy ratings pension scheme by P&O Ferries and ultimately by its parent company DP World. This important issue affects thousands of P&O workers and pensioners as well as seafarers across the maritime industry, who are members of the same industry-wide pension fund.
The sad fact is that, despite repeated requests and years of waiting, DP World has still not paid the money it owes. That is despite the precedent it set by paying debts it owed to the merchant navy officers pension scheme and the precedent P&O Ferries set by making additional voluntary contributions to the merchant navy ratings pension fund before P&O Ferries was taken over by DP World in 2006. To make matters worse, DP World seems to have the money that it owes to the pension scheme, as it spent a similar sum on sponsoring an international golf tournament—in fact, it spent more on the golf tournament, which cost it about £147 million to sponsor.
The debt to the scheme needs to be paid, and pension schemes such as the merchant navy ratings pension fund need to be properly supported. Scheme members and employers deserve to be reassured about their pensions and the future of the scheme. The scheme has about 14,000 members and a large number of employers contribute as well as P&O Ferries. Those employers range from relatively small shipping firms to large Government organisations, including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the British Antarctic Survey. Because the merchant navy ratings pension scheme is a “last man standing” pension scheme, other employers could in theory be asked to cover the cost if an employer left the scheme. It would be wrong for there to be a risk, however distant, of the taxpayer or other employers having to pay that unpaid debt.
As we have heard, DP World is taking part in the Government’s freeport scheme, so there seems to be a more immediate risk that taxpayers could indirectly subsidise or support an employer that is not fulfilling its obligations. It is important that schemes are protected and treated properly by their members, and confidence in pension schemes needs to be maintained at a high level. I am sure that P&O and DP World do not intend to be seen as the Scrooges of the shipping industry, so I ask them to look into the matter urgently and think again. I hope that they will now provide the funding and financial reassurance needed. They should do the right thing this Christmas for pensioners, workers and fellow employers. I ask the Minister to encourage them and, if necessary, to take further action to ensure that they do that.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I declare an interest as a proud member of the RMT parliamentary group, and I support the maritime sector and our seafarers, as well as those involved in the dispute in the rail sector with Network Rail and the train operating companies.
I was present in the House when the actions of P&O became apparent on St Patrick’s day. Those actions represent the lowest point in industrial relations in this country for many years. There are some parallels with Tiny Rowland, the unacceptable face of capitalism, and some of the excesses that went on with the asset stripping of Michael Slade and others, but this is about as low as it gets.
I was buoyed up by the response from Ministers, including the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), the former shipping Minister, who was incandescent. I was under the impression that the will in the House and the country was such that measures would quickly be brought before the House to take P&O Ferries to task—to fine it and to take appropriate action against its chief executive. The chief executive was arrogant and flippant in his presentation to the joint session of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee; he was almost boastful that he had not consulted with the unions and had broken the law. I am therefore disappointed that it has taken nine months—we are now in December; it is almost January—to have a Bill intended to address the issues. I will support the Bill, but I have reservations and I hope that it is possible to improve it in Committee or even on Report.
Certainly, the Government cannot claim that the issue came as a bolt from the blue, because the unions, particularly the RMT, warned them about it in 2020 when an order was introduced to extend the national minimum wage to seafarers in UK territorial waters. It then warned them again in 2021 when there were issues with Irish Ferries, which was operating services between Dover and Calais and undercutting P&O and DFDS. I will outline some of my concerns with the Bill, in the hope that we can secure the best deal for seafarers, which is an outcome that I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see.
Successive Governments have convened legal working groups on seafarers and the national minimum wage. I think the first was in 2009. We have a major problem with seafarer care that the minimum wage alone cannot address. We were promised a review of the Equality Act 2010 regulations, but that has not happened, which is a major failure in the Government’s seafarer policy. The powers in the Bill to make secondary regulations disguise the complexity and the narrowness of the legislation. I ask the Minister: will the UK national minimum wage age bands apply to the national minimum wage equivalence declaration? P&O, of course, dismissed apprentices, as well as hundreds of directly employed seafarers, but does the Minister consider a £4.81 hourly rate for apprentice seafarers fair? The Maritime Skills Commission’s ratings review, which is extremely welcome, should look at this aspect of the Bill, but it is vital to avoid putting in place any more barriers to training more ratings in the UK.
As well as training, the Government must facilitate employment opportunities. I fully understand the sentiments expressed by hon. Friends who represent ports where there are opportunities, particularly for young people to have a career at sea, but the Government have a role in ensuring that those jobs are not taken by agency workers from overseas.
When the Bill was in the other place, the noble Lord Hendy discussed the lack of national minimum wage protection for crew working in the offshore wind and offshore renewable supply chain beyond the UK territorial waters limit. Crew working on vessels servicing the offshore oil and gas industry across the UK continental shelf are entitled to protection under national minimum wage legislation, but crew working on offshore wind farms in the UK exclusive economic zone—sometimes on the same ships—are not. That is unfair, and it leads to serious exploitation.
There is exclusion of UK seafarers from a growing labour market directly linked to the UK economy. It is incredible: there will be 100,000 new jobs in the North sea, but young men and women from the coastal communities will not have the opportunity to take up those positions. Those jobs, and that market, are funded by the UK taxpayer. Also, operators should be prohibited from deducting accommodation costs. My colleagues have already mentioned how much Irish Ferries and P&O were deducting.
Rosters have been mentioned. The Bill recognises to a certain extent that national minimum wage avoidance is a problem in the UK shipping industry, but it does not fully cover wider employment rights issues, such as the hours and roster patterns that seafarers work; neither do the raft of secondary powers that the Bill creates. On Report in the other place, the Minister openly stated that the Government are not seeking to influence roster patterns—I believe that the Secretary of State said the same thing today—or any other employment conditions through the Bill. To give this legislation a greater chance of successfully countering the actions of P&O, Irish Ferries and others who are trashing UK seafarer jobs and the maritime skills base in order to increase their profits, the seafarers’ charter should be put in the Bill.
On the seafarers’ charter, we really need a maximum roster pattern of two weeks on, two weeks off, in the ferry sector. I urge the Minister to work with the Labour party and the trade unions on the Bill, and on the seafarers’ charter, so that we get this right, restore jobs, get fair pay agreements, and start training programmes in the ferry sector. Members have pointed out that P&O is making bigger savings from its changes to roster patterns than it was from having rates of pay that were below the national minimum wage.
In the other place, the Government rejected the previously agreed roster pattern in the charter. It is commissioning further research on roster patterns and crewing levels. That is despite a collectively agreed standard being in place in Stena Line and DFDS. I refer the Minister to Cardiff University’s crew fatigue study for P&O in 2012, the EU Horizon 2020 project, and the World Maritime University’s EVREST report. All that evidence has been shared with the Government. I am surprised and disappointed that the Government have not taken action to tackle low-cost operators, particularly in view of the issues of crew fatigue and safety.
Others have raised the issues of port-hopping and avoidance techniques. I asked the Secretary of State about that when he appeared before the Transport Committee. The criteria are too loose; we need to have a look at that. Port-hopping remains a genuine avoidance technique, and it becomes easier to use the more frequently a vessel calls at harbour. I support the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Nautilus International in specifying that the threshold in the Bill should be 52 calls at a harbour per year per vessel, rather than the 120 that the Government suggest.
In conclusion, the Bill is an opportunity to mandate better pay and employment standards, to restore the principle of collective bargaining conditions at P&O and across the ferry sector, and to ensure fair pay and safe, decent employment conditions for decent, hard-working seafarers. The Bill’s scope must be widened to tackle avoidance techniques, and to help to standardise fair pay and collective conditions, starting in the ferry sector. I hope that the Minister will address the concerns that I have raised, and ensure the best possible deal for seafarers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say how pleased I am to have heard the comments of right hon. and hon. Members? In particular, it was a real pleasure to follow the forensic contribution of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris); he has a vast wealth of knowledge on this subject. I thank him for sharing it with all of us in the Chamber; it was good to have those points strongly reinforced.
I warmly welcome the Bill. It makes complete sense that those who spend a considerable amount of time in British ports should be paid at least the minimum British wage—indeed, they should be paid more. In my constituency, there are many seafarers and fishermen from the Philippines; they spend a lot of time in Portavogie. It is not only morally correct but our responsibility to ensure that those seafarers are looked after financially.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) outlined his case very clearly; unfortunately, he has had to do so over a great number of years. As he said, every time he thought an agreement was reached, another obstacle—another reason for saying no—was found. How frustrating that must be! Our hope is that this legislation will be the start of something firm, strong and final that gives the reassurance and the protection that the seafarers want. He also referred to fire and rehire. I wholeheartedly endorse what he said on that, as others have done. Perhaps the Bill could deal with that issue. If it could, then we will have achieved something above and beyond what we hoped for. It would be good to have provisions in place to deal with that.
The issues surrounding P&O Ferries have proven instrumental to the fishing and trading industry. I echo what has been said about P&O. I am outraged by how people wearing balaclavas strong-armed and man-handled the workers off the P&O boats. I watched that, that day; it was the same in Larne harbour as in other places. There was something totally wrong, outrageous and disgraceful about it in a democratic country—a country of freedom, where we stand up for the rights of others. We watched what was happening on TV, and we could do nothing about it. I hope that the legislation will be strong and firm, and will give the protection that is necessary.
A combined number of 800 staff, including in Northern Ireland, were made redundant at start of the year, in additional to a £100 million loss year on year. P&O stated that the business is not viable in its current state. P&O’s chief executive officer stated that the average hourly rate for agency workers under the crewing model would be £5.50, yet the minimum wage in the United Kingdom is higher than that for those 18 and over.
I read the comparisons by the International Labour Organisation—for Hansard it is important to put this on the record. It stated that the recommended basic wage for an able seaman is $648, around £550 per month, based on seafarers working eight hours a day, or a 48-hour working week. That equates to around £2.66 an hour. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has quoted that figure in this House on numerous occasions, and it is disgraceful that that should be the wage for people on the international seas. I know that control over what we do in British waters is with the Minister in the House, but we are all outraged by that sort of wage for seafarers across the world. Such a wage is unheard of, and impossible for those working to live on. The Government must step in and ensure that seafarers are rewarded for their work in British ports—I think the Minister has given that commitment, but we want to see a bit more strength in that if we can.
I hope that the Bill will pass, because if it does, harbour authorities will have the power to request ship operators covered by the Bill to declare that their seafarers are paid at a rate at least equivalent to the national minimum wage for their work in the UK or its territorial waters. In addition, as the Minister said earlier, harbour authorities can refuse access to the harbours if operators fail to pay the surcharge and the additional payment. Those are the sorts of penalties I wish to see in law, and like others, I wish to see stronger, firmer laws and greater protection and penalties. We should hit these people in their pockets, and that will have an effect because they are very much money orientated.
I commend Relate NI—this is a different issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is linked to seafarers so I wanted to put it on record. It is working with the Seafarers’ Charity to provide free counselling for current and retired seafarers, fishermen, and anyone who works with them. It provides finance and counselling or advice about isolation due to being out at sea or homesickness. It provides six fully funded sessions for seafarers, their dependants, children and wider families, which is incredible support for those who are based at sea and possibly not earning much money. We all recognise the good work that Relate NI does, and I wanted to put that on the record in the House and thank it for all that it does and for stepping up.
In conclusion, there is more we can do to ensure that seafarers working in British ports a certain number of times each year are properly paid. This debate is all about that. This is about protection and a Bill that makes a difference. It is about ensuring that people want to be seafarers and have that as a vocation or job that will give them great confidence for the future. It is not possible, and more importantly it is not fair, for staff to be so severely underpaid for the decent work they do. One old saying, which I think is important, is “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work” and that is what we want from the Bill. I look to the Minister to give us that reassurance, and I welcome the Bill. This is a giant step in the right direction, but as others have said, particularly the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, we want the Bill to have teeth, because with those teeth comes protection, which is what this debate is all about.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Today represents the 41st anniversary of the Penlee disaster when eight brave members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution set out on a stormy night off the coast of Cornwall to rescue the crew of the Union Star. Having rescued four of them, another 16 were lost at sea. Today we remember the pain of that community in the south-west, and the bravery that those people show on a daily basis.
The maritime sector is responsible for transporting 90% of global trade and supplying the world with food, fuel, medicines and goods. The world’s 1.9 million seafarers are key workers. We as a nation ask a lot of them, and they do not let us down, as has been pointed out tonight, particularly during the pandemic. We owe our mariners and seafarers the most protection, and I use the word “protection” deliberately. We must protect their rights as workers, protect their pay and conditions, and protect their future.
We have seen what happens when bad bosses go rogue. We are a proud seafaring nation that was once the envy of the world. How could a Dubai-owned company, which was given millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money by this Government during the pandemic, sack 800 staff and seemingly get away with it? It has got away with it. It knew we have a weak Government, who might talk a good game—after all, at the time both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport said that the company would be criminally investigated and sanctioned. But that has not happened.
Peter Hebblethwaite, who was described by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) as the world’s worst boss—I have noticed it is a crowded field—cynically trampled on workers’ rights, and has gone unpunished and faced zero consequences. When P&O pulled the rug out from underneath its staff, and sacked them illegally over a pre-recorded Zoom call, I can honestly say that never in my political life had I seen such blatant abuse of workers’ rights at such a scale. That must not happen again. The Bill is supposed to strengthen protections for workers, and we will work with the Government to set out what the Bill can do. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said that the Bill does not address the situation that happened with P&O, so let us not fool ourselves. Until we start with criminal liabilities, and hike them up, as well as protection against criminal negligence, such companies will continue, and are continuing, to get away with it.
First, we will press for a reduction in the number of port visits to UK ports from 120 to 52 times a year. We will amend the legislation to ensure that HMRC’s involvement is stronger, and that its role is clear when it comes to ensuring that bad bosses comply with the minimum wage. We ask that the Bill ensures that fines are mandated for non- compliance with the national minimum wage, and that they are punitive enough to act as a deterrent. We will ask in Committee that if directors of those companies fail to pay the national minimum wage, they should be found criminally responsible. Our amendments, if accepted by the Government, will ensure that port operators are not their own authorities and are not marking their homework. There must be firm guidance on surcharges, and the Secretary of State should be responsible for establishing a method for collecting those fines. We cannot give ultimate power to port operators—bear in mind that P&O operates a port, and it is inconceivable that it would potentially be responsible for fining itself and its business competitors at the same time. We know that bad bosses will exploit any gaps in the Bill, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that a third party collects the fines, not individual port authorities.
We have had a full and thorough debate, and I thank hon. Members who have, towards the end of the year, turned up to participate in it. First, I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who said that the Bill is not the whole solution to the problem. He is absolutely right. I hope that, some time after the Bill has passed, his Select Committee will take it away and reflect on how successful it has been. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is a doughty champion for the docks in her constituency, and she was exactly right to say that P&O’s action was a disgusting act of industrial vandalism. I note further that her council has been declared bankrupt tonight, so I wish it all the best and hope that it can come through its current problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is another doughty campaigner who, in a tour de force, eloquently described the working conditions that these workers now face, with weeks and weeks at sea, on for 12 hours a day, seven days a week. He is right that the Bill needs improving,
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) for being the Minister through such turbulent times for both aviation and maritime. He put in a shift—in my opinion, on some days there is no fairness in politics. He said that P&O’s actions did not appeal to a British sense of fairness. I would say that they could not have happened in any country with proper employment laws. That is what really needs to change if we want to make progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) talked about morality. I rarely go into morality in politics because there is rarely a black-or-white day in this business, but he described P&O’s action as immoral—it was—and the Bill as a missed opportunity.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) started well, and I am sympathetic to the crisis in her coastal community. However, she strayed into errant Whips’ lines. She kept saying that Labour Front-Bench Members were silent on something, but she did not say what that was. I am happy to give way if she wants to tell me what we are silent on. On her criticism of unions, as a fellow traveller of faith, I will lend her my copy of Pope Leo XIII’s 1892 encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, which stood up for the rights of trade unions to organise. Labour Members will always stand up for that right.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) took us down a Netflix line for a while. He said that seafarers get poverty pay. It is poverty pay, but it is worse than that, because people now cannot get into these jobs. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a great speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that the legislation is like a mouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) said that DP World’s pension deficit is the same as the amount it spent on a golf tournament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) talked about a bright future for our coastal communities and how those jobs that could have been the future of those communities now cannot be accessed. Labour will work constructively with the Government to strengthen the Bill by closing the loopholes that we know bad bosses will exploit and to ensure that our seafarers are protected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I thank hon. Members for all their contributions and join the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) in commemorating, 41 years on, the memory and service of the eight RNLI lifeboatmen from Mousehole who operated the Penlee lifeboat.
I think that everyone in the Chamber agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who put it bluntly by saying that all of us, especially at this time of year, are reliant on those who operate our ports and bring everything into our country. Ninety-five per cent of all of our trade travels by boat, and a lot of that comes into her constituency. That is why it is so important to all of us that we see the Bill progress.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Robert Courts) and for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) and, across the political divide, the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), who all made the point that everyone in the House was shocked by the behaviour of P&O earlier this year, and they have come together in wanting to do something about it. It was particularly gratifying to see both the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) supporting the legislation and wanting to see good standards and raised standards not only through the Bill but through the Government’s nine-point plan.
I am glad that those on the Opposition Front Bench broadly welcome the Bill, as do the SNP representatives. I just point out to the SNP Front Bench that the RMT did meet my hon. Friends in the Department on Thursday. We are always happy to engage with unions and anybody else who is interested in bringing things to a head in that regard.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was also very kind to praise the Government for dragging the French to start looking at issues in this space. I am glad that he is supporting those of us on the Government Benches who are leading our European partners forward on legislation in this space. More broadly, I am delighted that everyone across the House is supporting where we are going, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose voice it is always a pleasure to hear.
I think we can all agree that the Bill is not a silver bullet, but it is a starting point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said. I pay tribute to previous Ministers, including him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) who brought it forward. I look forward to picking up on many of the issues raised at later stages if I cannot address them at the Dispatch Box today.
I want to turn first to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), the Chair of the Transport Committee, who raised three points. First, on the International Labour Organisation, the measures in the Bill will be stronger than what it has brought forward. They are compatible with the ILO, but they will be stronger than what it has as a baseline. On which is the best body—the harbour authorities or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the MCA will have the power to investigate and prosecute offences under the Bill. It is responsible for the enforcement role, although port operators will collect the moneys. He made another important point on minimum wage corridors. We are looking at that across the piece at the moment. I mentioned France, but we are looking at other European counterparts for where we can have routes to really drive forward standards for workers across the country.
John McDonnell
Will the Minister write to us with some form of timetable on the agreements and when they will be ready?
Mr Holden
I would be delighted to update the right hon. Gentleman at a future point. We can perhaps go into that further in Committee. If he raises it at that point, we can perhaps take it further from there.
Those were the three points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South. I want to touch on a few more points.
One main point was the concern, expressed by many hon. Members including the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), about the potential for port hopping. The key thing is that the Secretary of State has the power to direct anybody who is trying to abuse the system.
On the civil investigation and the ongoing matters mentioned by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) relating to P&O, I think we can all agree about Mr Hebblethwaite—the way that he has tret his workers is totally unacceptable. Given the ongoing civil action, it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment at this time. However, after that point I will be happy to comment further.
I want to draw Members’ attention to the broader issue regarding the Government’s nine-point plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made a point about global standards, which was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). We want to see them leading the world with the highest standards possible.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Dover, the hon. Member for Easington and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney all mentioned training and quality. They are part of the seafarers’ charter, which we want to see driven further forward.
On rostering, an important point mentioned by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East and for Weaver Vale, and my County Durham neighbour the hon. Member for Easington, we have commissioned an independent assessment of rostering and I look forward to its conclusions.
Offshore wind was mentioned by several hon. Members, including Members from Scotland. Under article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order, on working in connection with the exploration of the sea or subsoil, basically if you are in the UK’s exclusive economic zone, there is a difference between that and the continental shelf. I look forward to further debate on that in Committee. It is a technical area, which is worth us looking at further.
The Bill marks great progress on the Government’s nine-point plan. It is a step forward, delivering a suite of measures to improve seafarers’ protections and welfare. It is not a silver bullet and will not solve every problem, but it will incentivise operators to pay fair wages, particularly for those with the closest ties to the UK, and recognise the pivotal role that they play in the movement of the UK’s goods and services. It will drive best practice.
Beyond the Bill, the UK will continue to be a leading voice on the international stage as the home of the International Maritime Organisation. That proximity will help us to work more closely with counterparts across the seas in driving forward better standards, as we have already seen from the reaction of France, Denmark, Belgium and other continental neighbours. We will continue to make progress on the rest of the nine-point plan and will work with our international partners to ensure a fairer deal for seafarers.
I wish you a merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I shall save my merry Christmases for the rest of the House until tomorrow evening when I reply to the Adjournment debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 January 2023.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords] (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Seafarers’ Wages Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) any expenditure incurred by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
NHS Dentistry: Salford and Eccles
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The British Dental Association states that NHS dentistry is facing an existential threat. It says that the threat predates the pandemic, when only enough dentistry for about half the population of England was commissioned. Access to NHS dental services was already very poor in many parts of the country, but access problems have now reached an unprecedented scale, with existing deep inequalities in access and outcomes set to widen. Sadly, nowhere are those access problems more acutely felt than in my constituency of Salford and Eccles. I have been receiving unprecedented levels of casework from people who simply cannot access an NHS dentist.
One constituent works night shifts on minimum wage. She had required urgent root canal treatment for some time but could not find an NHS dentist and could not even contemplate the cost of a private dentist, so, like millions across the country, she struggled on. The problem is now so severe that her tooth is beyond saving with root canal treatment. She is having to consider having it removed, which she is told will cost her several hundred pounds. She has not got several hundred pounds. She does not know where to turn.
Another constituent, who is also on a low income, had been trying to find an NHS dentist for over two years. They had two broken teeth and other dental issues that they could not afford to have treated privately, so they called the emergency dentist helpline. The helpline advised them to go for private treatment. Now, at only 21 years of age, my constituent cannot afford any dental treatment at all, and they fear that they will end up losing their teeth.
Another constituent, who is registered with a disability and who works full-time for the NHS on low pay, tried as far as Rochdale and Oldham but eventually had to pay £250 for a private tooth removal that left her with little money to live on until her next pay cheque.
To assess the severity of the situation, my office rang every single dental practice listed on the NHS website as falling within my constituency, to inquire if they were accepting new adult NHS patients. Every single one said no, and only two said that they were taking on new NHS child patients. What is worse, when I raised that very issue with the Government back in October 2021, I was informed that they had not made an assessment of the numbers of people refused NHS dental treatment, nor did they hold any waiting list data at all on access to NHS dental services in Salford or Greater Manchester. Not even to be aware of the scale of the problem is, in itself, somewhat staggering.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, this is not just a Salford problem, but a national one. Researchers for the BBC documentary “Disappearing Dentists”, which aired in August, attempted to call every one of the dental practices in the UK that holds an NHS contract.
Of the 26 dental practices with NHS contracts across Salford, 96% were not taking new adult NHS patients, and UK-wide, 90% of practices were not taking new adult NHS patients.
I must pay full credit to the local staff and teams across Salford: all the dentists, hygienists, therapists, nurses and administrators, and the Greater Manchester integrated care partnership’s dental commissioning team. They are giving their absolute best in incredibly difficult circumstances. However, our dental services are under unprecedented strain.
I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the following issues in his response. First, there has been chronic underfunding of NHS dental services. In real terms, net Government spend on general dental practice in England was cut by over a quarter between 2010 and 2020. It is also important to note that England invests significantly less in dental services per head of population than other parts of the UK. For example, before the pandemic Government spend on NHS dentistry per capita was £37 in England, compared with £49 in Wales, £56 in Northern Ireland and £59 in Scotland. The Minister might respond by saying that in January the Government pledged £50 million for a “dentistry treatment blitz”. However, that was a time-limited, one-off injection of funding which had very modest take-up, as practices were so overstretched in trying to hit unrealistic activity targets that they struggled to find any additional capacity. The British Dental Association estimates that it would take £1.5 billion a year just to restore dental budgets to their 2010 levels. I hope that the Minister will agree to take back a proposal to his Department for the ringfencing of long-term funding on that scale.
Secondly, the current target-based NHS dental contract is causing serious problems in the recruitment and retention of staff. The British Dental Association says that we are facing an “exodus” of dentists from the service: 75% of dentists surveyed are thinking of reducing their NHS commitments next year alone. Central to this is not only the issue of chronic underfunding that I have already mentioned, but the current discredited target-based dental contract that was imposed on the profession in 2006 and was widely considered unsustainable and unfit for purpose even before the pandemic. Indeed, in 2010 both Labour and the Conservatives committed to amending the contract. It sets restrictions on the number of NHS patients that a dentist can see, and it punishes dentists for taking on new patients with high needs.
The Minister may, of course, refer to a package of marginal changes that the Government introduced in November, including dentists’ updating a “find a dentist” website regularly with details of the availability of appointments, a higher reward for treating three or more teeth, and a new payment rate for complex treatment. While those are of course welcome changes, sadly there is little point in setting up a “find a dentist” website for appointments when the Government know that no appointments are actually available.
Furthermore, the British Dental Association states that the changes will do little to arrest the exodus of dentists from the service or to address the crisis in patient access, given that they have been introduced with no additional funding. With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister told me when formal negotiations on fundamental long-term reform of the dental contract are due to begin.
A constituent contacted me to express concern about the Government’s plan to go ahead with proposed changes pursuant to the recent consultation on changes to the General Dental Council’s international registration legislation despite the large number of respondents who have raised issues relating to the proposal. I hope that the Minister will take those concerns on board, and will agree to review it.
Thirdly, let me stress to the Minister that NHS dentistry must cease to be treated as an afterthought in healthcare policymaking. Changes in primary care commissioning in the Health and Care Act 2022 must not lead to further cuts, and dental services must be represented adequately in the governance structures of the new integrated care systems.
Let me finally point out that prevention is key, but has lost its way somewhat in recent years. The Government must undertake to build on historical commitments to prevention, in parallel with support for dental services. That must include supervised brushing in early years settings, dedicated funding for new water fluoridation schemes, and measures to reduce sugar consumption.
I hope that the Minister has listened to the concerns I have raised and will address each point in turn, rather than reiterating previous Government responses on what they have done so far. What the Government have done so far clearly is not working. If my constituents cannot get access to an NHS dentist across Salford and Eccles, something needs to change urgently. Access to dental treatment should be a right, not a luxury.
As I set out at the start, NHS dentistry faces an existential threat. My constituents are not receiving the access to care that they deserve. It is clear that urgent action is required. Finally, let me take this opportunity to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a fantastic Christmas and a happy New Year, and the same to the Minister and all staff in the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this important debate. I share her frustration and am aware that some areas in the country face serious difficulties with access to NHS dental care. She used some powerful examples, which are exactly the kinds of things that we are trying to fix.
As we recover from the pandemic, activity is going back up again and we want it to go up faster. Dentistry is an important part of the NHS. We are committed to addressing the challenges that NHS dentistry faces in some parts of the country. We are continuing to take important steps to improve access for patients. There are variations around the country, which was already an issue before the pandemic.
The specific risks from covid in dentistry, for obvious reasons given the nature of the treatment—looking down people’s throats and breathing in the same air—resulted in the need to reduce the amount of care that could be delivered, in line with infection prevention and control measures to keep patients and the workforce safe. The pandemic placed further pressure on the system. However, NHS dentistry provision has been increasing gradually and safely. I am pleased to say that NHS England asked all dental practices to return to 100% of their contracted activity in July this year. Many practices are already delivering at that level and, in some cases, beyond. I will go on to talk about delivering beyond.
To support the industry during this testing time, we took unprecedented action and provided over £1.7 billion in income protection, to ensure that NHS dentist capacity was retained and services were provided and available after the pandemic. We made an additional £50 million available for NHS dental services at the end of last year, to increase capacity in NHS dental teams. Appointments were given to those in most urgent need of dental treatment, including vulnerable groups and children. As a result of that funding, I am pleased that say that an additional 1,110 patients were seen in Salford. To support the provision of urgent care, more than 170 urgent dental care centres remain open across the country. One of those centres is in the Salford locality, as the hon. Lady knows.
Across the nation, the system is recovering and delivery of dental care is increasing. In 2021-22, 24,272 dentists performed NHS activity—an increase of 539 on the previous year. In the 12 months to 30 June this year, 5.6 million children were seen by an NHS dentist, compared with 3.9 million children in the same period the previous year. That represents a 43% increase.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
There have been reports in a number of our constituencies of almost a dental health epidemic. Can the Minister explain whether there will be targeted resources for a number of our constituencies where there is such a high level of child dental ill health?
Neil O’Brien
I am exploring how we can best target the places with the most acute problems. There are problems in a lot of different places, and we are thinking about that actively at the moment. I will come back to that as I make progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he wanted to intervene, he ought to have been here right at the beginning, because it is the hon. Lady’s Adjournment debate, and it is about Salford and Eccles? I leave it to him to decide whether he wishes to intervene.
Neil O’Brien
I am happy to take whatever interventions are appropriate.
We know that there are still further improvements to be made. Although I am pleased that over 75% of the patients who tried to get a dental appointment over the last two years were successful, this is not back to the level that we were seeing pre-pandemic, which was 92%. That is why in July and in our plan for patients, which the hon. Lady mentioned, we announced some improvements to the 2006 contract to ensure that patient access was improved, although I want to reassure her that we do not regard those as the end of the story; they were a stepping stone.
Those changes included: making sure that dentists were remunerated more fairly for complex work, which will improve access for patients; implementing a minimum value of £23 for each unit of dental activity, boosting incomes in the places where the UDA value is lowest; and enabling dental practices to deliver up to 110% of their contract levels, to increase activity and allow those practices that are delivering NHS care most effectively to deliver more. This effectively takes away the cap that has been in place since the 2006 contract, which the hon. Lady mentioned.
This package will increase and improve access to dental care for patients across the country. We have already taken action to implement these changes, including through regulations that came into effect on 25 November. The changes have all been decided with careful consideration, working collaboratively with the dental sector. The Department has worked with the General Dental Council on legislative proposals that will make registration processes for dental professionals qualified outside the UK more proportionate and streamlined, making the process to join the UK workforce more efficient for dentists from overseas. These changes are another way in which we are seeking to improve access for patients.
Finally, to make it easier for patients to find dentists taking on new patients, we have made it a requirement for NHS dentists to update their information on the NHS website, which has historically been out of date, but of course we are looking to go further to ensure that those appointments are there. These changes are just the beginning. They are the necessary first steps of our work to improve NHS dentistry. These are the measures that we can take immediately, and they will have a noticeable impact, but we will go further.
Looking forward into the new year, we have been working with NHS England and the sector on further changes to improve access. Our priorities for this next phase of reform include: improved access to urgent care for patients who need to see someone immediately; better access to care for new patients; and further workforce and payment reform. We aim to take the necessary steps to implement these changes next year, but I am keen to seek every opportunity to take action wherever I can, and ahead of those reforms we are also actively considering what support we can offer to help patients who do not currently have access to the dental system and those who are not attached to a practice, who have the worst access. We are also considering how the recruitment and retention of dentists can be improved, particularly in the parts of the country where the need is greater. We are also thinking further about how overseas qualified dentists can be supported to start working in the NHS more quickly.
I am strongly committed to improving our NHS dental system wherever I can for all those who need it. The hon. Lady has set out a powerful case today on why we need to go further, and we will go further. I thank her for raising this important debate, and I hope that she will be reassured that although the reforms we have made so far will make a difference, they are far from being the end of the story, and that we will continue to take action to improve access to NHS dentistry across the nation.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Child Bed Poverty
(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
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
Welcome to today’s debate. Before we start, I remind colleagues that it is a 90-minute debate. I think it was advertised as being slightly longer.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 604509, relating to child bed poverty.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Paisley. The petition asks the Government to bring an end to child bed poverty by creating a national sleep strategy. It states:
“Bed poverty is affecting educational outcomes for children across the UK
A national sleep strategy must resource local authorities to identify, address and ultimately end bed poverty”.
When I was presented with the title of the petition, as part of the Petition Committee’s normal deliberations, I was frankly shocked. I could not help but question how bed poverty could be a thing in our country, but after listening to the petitioner and taking evidence on the issue, it evidently, and shockingly, is. Here we are, just days away from Christmas, and it is utterly depressing that some children will be saying to themselves, “All I want for Christmas is a safe place to sleep.”
I express my admiration for the creator of the petition, Bex Wilson. As well as being a hard-working deputy headteacher, Bex has founded her own charity, Zarach, which provides beds for children living in poverty in the Leeds area. I congratulate Bex on the recent arrival of a healthy baby girl, Viola. I also thank Buttle UK, End Furniture Poverty, the Sleep Charity, Orange Box North East and a number of parents with lived experience of bed poverty for sharing their insights and experience with me ahead of the debate.
It is a distressing and shameful truth that in this country child poverty has become a pervasive issue. More children than at any other point in the last decade are growing up in households that are unable to meet their most basic needs. The latest available figures suggest that in 2021 3.9 million children across the UK were living in poverty. Since then, uplifts to universal credit and local housing allowance have been scrapped, inflation has reached heights not seen in 40 years, and an absence of support has pushed millions more families into desperate circumstances.
To those who work on the frontline of crisis services, it is undeniable that the figure of 3.9 million has been dwarfed by reality, but child poverty is more than just a statistic; it is a painful, grinding experience for each child living through it. It means growing up in stressful households, going without the same educational and development opportunities as their peers, going to school hungry or spending their evenings in a cold and damp home. For many children, it means not having a safe space to sleep at night.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
In my constituency, the Batley & Birstall Excellence in Schools Together group of 21 schools across Batley and Birstall has identified at least 163 of its pupils who do not sleep in their own bed. They either share with their siblings or sleep on sofas or on the floor, which has a severe impact on their educational attainment, development and family life. Charities such as Zarach are incredible at providing beds for children in need, including in my constituency, but does my hon. Friend agree that those depressing statistics are a sad reflection of the poverty in our communities, and that the Government must step up to help those families and provide local authorities with the funding that they need to eliminate child bed poverty?
Catherine McKinnell
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. The fact that she has that statistic is progress in itself, because one of the big challenges is that we do not know the level of this form of poverty. It is a hidden truth that many households simply cannot afford to provide each child with a bed of their own. On speaking to families with the lived experience of bed poverty, I heard some utterly heartbreaking stories: children sleeping on infested sofa cushions because the only alternative was a wooden floor, which we know would not provide support for their growing bodies; children sharing a bed with their siblings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) said, none of whom have privacy or can expect a night of undisturbed sleep; and children sleeping in a bath because it was the only safe space for them to rest. With all the resources, opportunities and potential that we have in this country, I cannot believe that that is the start in life that the Government think should be given to our children.
Part of the problem, as I have mentioned, is that there are no official figures that I can share with Members to convey the scale of the problem. In 2018, Buttle UK estimated that around 400,000 children were going to sleep without a bed of their own. That was in 2018, so we know that that figure is wholly unrepresentative of the crisis that many families face today. The ongoing economic tumult has already left households struggling to put food on their plates and heat their homes. When the cost of furniture has increased by 42% since 2010, the prospect of buying a bed for every child is simply out of reach for some parents. Rising financial hardship has combined with a plethora of concerning trends to make the issue of bed poverty, which has come to the attention of schoolteachers, particularly acute.
Sadly, the covid-19 pandemic saw a rise in cases of domestic violence. As the increased number of mainly women fled abusive partners, they were left with nothing but their children, and a suitcase of clothes if they were lucky—no furniture and no money to buy it with. Buttle UK has identified the pandemic as generating a sharp rise in need. Within the first year, demand for its grants increased by 70%, and the amount spent on beds almost tripled.
Our country also faces a housing crisis in which the most disadvantaged are particularly vulnerable. Families are moving to unfurnished homes to try to save some rent just so that they can keep a roof over their heads, but the idea that they can then secure beds—big, bulky items—and new mattresses for each member of the household and get them to an unfurnished property is out of reach. Social housing rarely comes furnished.
End Furniture Poverty found that just 2% of social homes include some form of furnishing compared with 29% of private rented properties. Given that the purpose of social housing is to accommodate the most vulnerable in our society, it seems the crisis of bed poverty, although shocking on the surface, is inevitable.
The scale of bed poverty is really concerning when we consider how corrosive it is to a child’s life. For all of us here, getting into our bed at the end of a long day is utter relief and second nature—something we take completely for granted and that we could not imagine going without. So it will come as no surprise when I say that growing up in bed poverty has lifelong consequences. At the most fundamental level, a bed is a safe space for a child. It offers warmth, independence, privacy and comfort, and it is especially important in high stress households, which we know, when someone experiences poverty, is how it can be.
A bed also provides a social function—a place for children to have sleepovers and build their friendships at school. If that bed is taken away, a child is further exposed to the anguish and solitude that growing up in poverty can bring. Going without a comfortable space to rest also leaves a child unable to sleep properly.
As a mother of three, I know how irritable children can be when they miss a good night’s sleep, but the effect of sleep deprivation on a child’s wellbeing is far more detrimental than just a day of being a bit grouchy. From low moods to persistent feelings of helplessness and isolation, the mental health impact of bed poverty is something that no young person should ever experience. Parents can see that pain in their child. One mum told Buttle UK’s Chances for Children campaign that her children were
“angry and irritable and the two of them would argue all the time because they were so tired. Both are bright and their schoolwork suffered. They were constantly late for school”,
and one
“started to take time off because he was so exhausted. His mood suffered and he started to get depressed.”
I also spoke to one mother who had experienced bed poverty and was so grateful for the help that she received. After she received the bed, sheets and pyjamas from a charity, she described her child as becoming a different person overnight. It was powerful to hear about that experience. Those parents share their experiences, no matter how hard it is or how difficult it is to admit that they found themselves in that situation, because they do not want any child to go through that experience.
The importance of sleep does not stop at emotional regulation. It is important for many physical and neurological processes that allow children to function and grow in everyday life. It is important for brain reorganisation, and it helps children to focus and process thoughts throughout the day. Sleep is when hormones are balanced, blood pressure lowered, the immune system regulated and illnesses fought. It has even been associated with a reduction in the risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes. All the way down to the very smallest levels, a child’s cells and body systems perform vital jobs during the stages of sleep. Michael Farquhar, an NHS consultant in children’s sleep medicine, stated:
“I describe sleep as like getting an MOT every night for your brain and body…the longer you leave it the more problems it causes.”
With the short-term challenges of sleep deprivation come the lifelong consequences of bed poverty. Research has shown that pupils who get more sleep perform better at maths, science and reading—markers of educational attainment that the Government tell us are vital for securing good jobs in the future. That is because sleep helps children to solve problems, develop their memory and learn effectively. How many times do we go to bed on a problem and wake up with it solved? That is the power of sleep. How can we expect a child to concentrate throughout a day of education if their night was spent on a cold, hard floor, or in a bath? That was a question Bex put to me after explaining the backstory of her charity, Zarach. After discovering that one of her pupils was living in a home without a bed, the difficulties that she encountered in teaching conjugated verbs made more sense.
Education has the power to improve opportunities and give young people the ability to transform their lives, but for children living below the poverty line it is their main hope of escaping a lifetime of deprivation. The Government recognise that; one of the levelling-up missions is for 90% of primary school age children to achieve the expected standard in key stage 2 reading, writing and maths by 2030. However, the Government stand by while children are deprived of that one shot at education because they do not get a decent night’s sleep. Even before the pandemic, disadvantaged children were already 18 months behind their peers at school, and covid-19 has exacerbated that attainment gap. That distressing trend is continuing. The Sutton Trust recently reported that 74% of the teachers it surveyed saw an increase in pupils too tired and unable to concentrate in class. In what universe can the Government claim to be levelling up when increasing numbers of children are struggling at school because they do not have a bed?
The Government have said that they are acting on the issue, and I am sure that we will hear that from the Minister. In response to the petition, they stated that there are several avenues of support that are available to families affected by bed poverty. One of those is the budgeting advance, which is a loan available to universal credit and legacy benefit claimants—the only source of direct Government support for the cost of essential furniture. However, in evidence sessions, parents told me that the loans condemn them to further poverty; although the loans might allow them to buy a new mattress—at a cost of at least £100, I would say—they are left hopelessly trying to pay them back on already stretched and insufficient incomes. They are trapped in a cycle of deprivation and debt.
Kim Leadbeater
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to think outside the box when it comes to bed poverty? I am fortunate to have a fantastic range of bed manufacturers in my constituency of Batley and Spen. I wonder whether the Government might consider working with them on a scheme to help families who are struggling. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good suggestion?
Catherine McKinnell
The Government definitely need to think outside the box and take responsibility for this issue, and I will come to why. My hon. Friend points to what the charitable sector has been doing, working with local bed manufacturers that are solving the problem in very localised ways, but this is a national issue and it needs a national response. That is the point that the Government really need to listen to.
The anti-poverty charity Turn2us made a similar assessment, identifying the 2013 conversion of the social fund grant into a budgeting loan as the single biggest erosion of help for those living without household appliances. Among those unable to access the social security advances, there is an alarming trend of parents becoming victim to predatory high-interest loan organisations because they just cannot see any alternative to securing a peaceful night’s sleep for their children. Rather than giving a helping hand to families facing unimaginable hardship, the means-tested and loan-based provision of support is pushing families into even more desperate circumstances.
In response to the petition, the Government have said that councils in England have been
“empowered to establish local welfare provision”,
which is another claim that seems detached from the reality. More than a decade of austerity has had catastrophic consequence for local authorities, and chronic underfunding has left them permanently uncertain about their future and unable to deliver the long-term, transformational policies that communities in crisis need. This year’s autumn statement doubled down on the trend, forcing yet another real-terms cut to local authority budgets: needless to say, that has impeded the ability of councils to address bed poverty.
End Furniture Poverty has consistently challenged the alarming diminishment of local welfare assistance schemes across the country. In November, it found that more than one in five local authorities in England had closed their schemes, leaving over 14 million people without access to crisis support. Although the Government are likely to indicate that the deficit has been bridged by the household support fund, that does not offer hope to children sleeping without a bed. With tight spending deadlines and guidance provided at short notice, many local authorities have been unable to develop the infrastructure needed to ensure that they are meeting all areas of need.
Often the fund has been given as direct grants to people on certain benefits, or to third-party organisations such as food banks. Of course, I am not here to suggest that those are ineffective or unsuitable ways for local authorities to distribute the support fund—for a child, being well fed is just as important as being well rested. However, it is indicative of the insidious nature of child bed poverty, which, being largely absent from public awareness, has become impossible to address, despite the very best efforts of charities. I hope people realise that it is a problem, which is why Bex and the supporting petitioners are calling on the Government to create a national sleep strategy.
Given that storing, transporting and providing beds poses a number of financial and logistical challenges, the petitioners fear that the funding will inevitably continue to be redirected in order to prop up other frontline services. They therefore want the Government to explicitly commit to end child bed poverty and ensure that councils have the resources and capacity to do it. A national sleep strategy also has the potential to address several other related issues. For Orange Box North East, it could mean developing the infrastructure needed to stop good-quality pre-loved furniture going to landfill, and to divert it instead to families in need of an affordable option. For The Sleep Charity, it could provide much-needed education to an increasingly sleep-deprived teenage population, which we know is a big issue. How can we help children to develop healthy behaviours around getting a good night’s rest if they do not even have a bed to sleep in?
There are so many people with expert insight and the drive to create a brighter future for our children, but if they are left filling the void left by a Government who are failing to provide children with a safe space to sleep at night, it is an opportunity wasted. However, despite all the possibilities that a national sleep strategy holds, my discussions with charities have led me to one conclusion: until the Government finally step up and commit to end child poverty with a joined-up and cross-departmental approach, there will always be children growing up without a bed.
It is absurd that our country is facing such desperation that charities are being forced to compete over which symptom of child poverty the Government should pay most attention to. It is not enough to leave an overstretched and under-resourced third sector relieving the physical manifestations of child poverty, nor to repeat tired lines about the importance of getting parents into work when 70% of children living below the poverty line come from working households. Our children need a coherent, cross-departmental anti-child poverty strategy matched with ambition and investment. We need action on the social security system, on insecure, low-paid work, on housing, on education, on our early years sector and so much more. We need more than yet another pot of funding for crisis support. Enough of the sticking plasters, which simply patch over the trauma that is crippling our country.
Despite its seeming normalisation, child poverty is not inevitable. The last Labour Government proved that and turned the figures around. Whether they are going without a bed, food, a warm home or decent clothes, children will continue to be crushed by the pressures of poverty until we see such a commitment from the Government again.
I have a few questions for the Minister. Will he commit to ensuring there is a definition of child bed poverty within Government so that we understand and start to measure the extent of the problem? Will he set out what work the Government have undertaken with third sector organisations to understand the level of child bed poverty in the UK? Will the Government review regulations in the social housing sector to ensure that those without access to furniture have some protection when they move into a new property? Does he recognise the financial challenges that loan-based support poses for families who are in hardship or in crisis? Does he agree that the conversion from a grant was the biggest erosion of help for those living without household appliances, which is what it has been assessed as? Will he consider the petitioners’ request for all local authorities to be provided with dedicated resources to fund local schemes and support families affected by the crisis of bed poverty? Does he agree that child bed poverty is part of a much wider issue—the scandalous level of child poverty in the UK? Will the Government commit to a cross-departmental laser-focused strategy to eradicate it urgently?
I recently visited a school in my constituency and spoke about my preparations for this debate. I can still see the shock on the faces of the pupils when they heard that there are children just like them growing up without the safe space that so many take for granted—a bed. A bed of their own is the bare minimum that we should expect for every child in this country. I still cannot believe that we are even having this debate. Even those pupils knew that bed poverty is nothing short of a crisis, but it is part of a much wider systemic problem under successive Conservative Governments. We have seen child poverty increase in this country. More and more children are growing up in households without the very basics, whether it is food in their stomachs, heating in their home, clothing on their backs or, as this petition highlights, a bed.
It should be a source of immense shame that we have children sleeping in the bath or on the floor, or sharing beds. As a society, we are failing our children and taking away their futures. The cost of living crisis continues to hit households in the UK, which are facing double-digit inflation, so it is clear that the problem is only going to get worse. The Government can and must do much more. They are not a mere bystander to this issue; they are our only hope of tackling it. With a laser focus and a joined-up strategy, they can lift children out of poverty. Only then can we be sure that all children will have a safe space to lay their head at night. I really hope that the Minister hears this call and that the Government finally take action on this issue.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) not only for her work on the Petitions Committee, providing time for this petition and making it a priority, but for starkly setting out the pervasive nature of this type of poverty and how it affects children. I join her in paying tribute to Bex Wilson, who started the petition.
The debate has shone a light on how prevalent and stark bed poverty is throughout the UK. According to the Department for Work and Pensions’ households below average income survey from, 26% of children have parents who want to replace worn-out furniture but cannot do so and 19% of children surveyed have parents who want to have a bedroom for every child aged 10-plus of a different gender, but also cannot afford to do so.
I recently spoke to Calderdale Lighthouse, which is a volunteer-ran charity in my constituency. I pay tribute to Diane Barker and her co-founders Donna and Emma, who do incredible work supporting disadvantaged families. As the cost of living crisis continues to bite, the charity has received an ever-constant stream of requests in recent weeks for beddings and beds for vulnerable families, in addition to the other support it provides. In one instance, a health visitor for a family consisting of a single parent—a mother—and two young children found that neither child had a bed, and they asked if Calderdale Lighthouse could provide some. In another case, Calderdale Lighthouse provided blankets, duvets and hot-water bottles to a family that had no gas or electricity and had taken to sleeping in one room in an attempt to preserve heat.
On average, Calderdale Lighthouse receives a request for beds, cots or toddler beds more than twice a week. It has seen instances where victims of domestic violence choose to go back to their abusive partners so that their children are not left cold and without beds. There has been a number of cases where families with young children with continence challenges have struggled to provide them with the beds and bedding necessary. Charities such as Calderdale Lighthouse provide an important lifeline for so many people. Many of us cannot imagine sleeping in a proper bed being a luxury, but for too many children, it is.
As well as creating unhealthy and dangerous living conditions, bed poverty has a devastatingly long-term impact. The disruption caused by not having a bed permeates through every aspect of a child’s life and development. How can we possibly expect children to learn, grow and realise their true potential if they come to school exhausted and weighed down by a disrupted night’s sleep? One of my constituents recently got in touch to powerfully explain this problem. They said,
“I currently reside in a one bedroom flat on 15th floor, which is not ideal. We are overcrowded, my son cannot develop to his full potential in this tiny flat. He also needs his own bedroom as he has trouble sleeping, meaning he’s disrupting my daughter.”
The link between child poverty and children’s outcomes is clear. Data from 2014 showed that less than a third of Calderdale pupils in my area who claim free school meals achieve five or more GCSEs at grade C or above, including English and maths, compared with nearly 60% of all pupils. Unfortunately, bed poverty is symptomatic of a wider trend of growing poverty. Under this Government, the proportion of children in poverty in my constituency has steadily grown. According to the House of Commons Library, 30% of children in Halifax live in relative poverty—an increase of more than 6% since 2015. A further 25.8% of children in Halifax live in absolute poverty. I want every child to have the chance to fulfil their potential, but the cost of living crisis on top of years of austerity has taken us back to an almost Victorian era for some families.
Under this Government, work no longer represents a route out of poverty. According to the Library, 65% of families in relative poverty in Halifax are classified as in-work families. Bed poverty is not seen by many in our society and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, I frankly do not receive direct contact about it, because it is hidden. Most of the referrals to local charities like Calderdale Lighthouse come via social workers and health visitors, who are required to involve themselves in people’s lives and to visit homes. If they were not there undertaking those roles, such deprivation would probably go completely unseen, and I pay tribute to them for being in those homes, for raising the alarm and for undertaking that work day after day, which I can only imagine has an impact on them as well.
The debate has shown that children up and down the country are suffering in this way, hidden from the line of sight, in people’s homes. The reality is that many children will go to bed in insufficient conditions tonight. We can clearly see the incredibly detrimental impact those conditions are having on children’s broader outcomes. We all bring problems and injustices to Parliament—that is part of our job. However, I say in all honesty that this is one of the hardest speeches I have ever had to write, prepare for and give, so heart breaking is the reality of bed poverty.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on her work on the Petitions Committee and on introducing the debate so effectively, passionately, knowledgably and sensitively. In common with others, I thank Zarach as well as Crisis and Barnardo’s for their supportive work.
We may be few in number in the Chamber today, but I know we speak for many colleagues in expressing our distress over any child going without the space and comfort to sleep. As we have heard, children need sleep and a safe space to grow and learn. That is essential for neurological development, absorbing what is taught at school and building up a memory store for adulthood, a point put well by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), where at least 163 children do not have a bed of their own. She highlighted the horrific impact that that has on their education and emotional wellbeing.
Sleep is as important to a healthy lifestyle as limiting fast food and running around the park, but too often we can forget that as we get older. Bed poverty is a hidden level of poverty, and not something that parents, families or children are willing to share; it is hidden away from sight. As any parent will know, children’s sleep is crucial for our sanity too. Behaviour, along with physical and mental health, is drastically impacted by the amount and quality of sleep people get. Studies in China in 2021 found that the quality and length of sleep directly correlated with levels of depression and anxiety later in adolescence.
Salient points have been made by hon. Members throughout the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North talked about the scale of child poverty in this country, with 3.9 million children in poverty in 2022. That should shame any Government, of any colour, into action. Bed poverty has a horrific impact on a child’s education and wellbeing that ensures that the cycle of poverty and deprivation continues. We need to break that cycle for good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) pointed out the growing levels of child poverty—we are seeing not a decline, but growing levels of child poverty. In places such as Halifax, 30% of children are growing up below the poverty line. The cost of living crisis plus the pandemic and years of austerity have created a perfect storm that allows child poverty to continue. As we have heard, there has been a constant mantra—and almost a guilting of parents—that work is the best route out of poverty, but we know that millions of people go to work, do the right thing and work all the hours that they can yet are still paid below poverty wages. That is an absolute disgrace. My hon. Friend is right to thank the charities and social workers who are the backstop for families, but it should not be that way. I cannot believe that in 2022, in the sixth richest country in the world, we are talking about children going without beds.
I invite all Members, Mr Paisley, to picture a scene: a family Christmas, with sparse food on the table, if there is indeed even a table, mum and dad worried about paying the rent, grandparents shivering in the cold and dark, kids sharing single beds, sleeping on the sofa or even on the floor or in a bath tub. That sounds Dickensian, but is in fact the prospect for too many of our constituents as they face hard times this Christmas. In 2020, Crisis estimated that 30% of families on the lowest income could not afford a bed for their child. Will the Minister provide an updated assessment of the figure as it stands now, after a prolonged pandemic, energy price rises, rocketing inflation and a catastrophic recession?
The housing crisis is nothing new, but its impacts are reaching new heights. Last Christmas, 1,300 families with children were living in unsuitable B&B accommodation over Christmas, already a rise of 3% on the year before. Given the added recession, will the Minister tell me how many more families with children will be in temporary accommodation for Christmas 2022? Is his Department investigating how many of them are living in unsuitable, overcrowded conditions, perhaps also grappling with dangerous levels of mould, damp and cold?
The gap between housing benefits and standard private rents is also increasing. New research by Crisis found that fewer than one in 12 homes advertised on Zoopla were affordable for renters receiving housing benefit, compared with one in eight just five months ago. With section 21 eviction notices still not banned three years after their election on a manifesto that promised to deliver that, the Government are only pushing more families into homelessness and more children into bed poverty. When will we see the ban on section 21 no-fault evictions? Do we have to wait for a Labour Government to finally get rid of them?
The topic of the debate leaves us all asking why, in a country as wealthy as ours, we are grappling with something as basic as children not having the space to sleep. As with food poverty and fuel poverty, bed poverty is just part of the wider scope of deprivation in our allegedly world-leading country. If a parent cannot afford to give their child space to sleep, it is unlikely they are managing to comfortably pay their bills, feed them well and provide for them as any parent would wish to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, this level of poverty leaves families teetering on the edge and still at the mercy and prey of legal loan sharks.
Children’s charity Barnardo’s set up an emergency fund in October to provide urgent support to children, young people and families dealing with the cost of living crisis. Although originally envisaged to help with food costs and energy bills, Barnardo’s has already seen a concerning demand for beds and bedding. In my constituency of Luton, our Labour council released a 2040 report with a vision for where our town would be in two decades’ time. The vision is not a shy one. We aim to eradicate poverty in our town by 2040 and build a child-friendly town. I am proud of that aim, as everybody within my local government should be. It is bold, ambitious and inspirational, and it is everything local government should be, but we have to contend with a Government in power imposing 12 years of austerity on this country. Local communities have to take matters into their own hands for the sake of their people, but they are fighting a constant battle of inflation, cuts and rising demand.
Local authorities have already lost 60p for every £1 of Government funding since 2010, but I know they will fight tooth and nail to support their residents in need, especially children. When will our Government finally take responsibility for the children they should be protecting and caring for? When will all children have a safe bed to sleep in? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s solution to the problem, as it is one we all want to see solved. I hope that not too many families in the UK will face cruel, cramped Christmases this year. Christmas is supposed to be a time of hope. I genuinely hope that this Dickensian Conservative-induced nightmare, with child poverty at the levels we are seeing, finally comes to an end before another generation is harmed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said, we are small in number, but I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the topic. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) for their contributions, and I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for introducing the debate.
As hon. Members already have, I want particularly to thank Bex Wilson, founder of Zarach. The great work her and her colleagues have done in West Yorkshire has been referenced on multiple occasions. She highlights some of the challenges that she has seen on a local level within Leeds and I accept that there are challenges in other parts of the country as well. I pay tribute to her organisation and its brilliant work to provide beds for families who are struggling, especially for those with young children.
As the hon. Member for Luton North said, we all share the same end, which is not to have families or children who need support, do not have access to beds and do not have the ability to have a good night’s sleep, which we all benefit from and often need to be able to make progress in the next day, week and month as we go forwards in our lives. It is down to all the people who work day in, day out to ensure that children can sleep safely and comfortably in their own home that we have, I hope, made progress over recent decades, whether as part of wider work to educate and support or to ensure welfare is in place.
We absolutely agree that sleep is important. The hon. Member for Luton North talked about a number of studies from China and research has also been carried out by the University of Maryland in the United States, which found that pre-teens who slept fewer than nine hours a day had noticeable differences in brain structure, mood and thinking compared with their peers who had sufficient sleep each night. Although science will always be developing in these areas, it is recognised that sleep is a hugely important part of ensuring that people are ready for the next day that they need to face.
We agree on the issue and that it exists—which it does, in certain places. We might take different views on how much it exists, and I accept the point that it is sometimes difficult to understand the level of challenge, but the question is what we do next. We all want to ensure that there is support for those who are in need, and we want to find the best way to ensure that we can cover that need. We want to highlight the amazing work of volunteers from Zarach and wherever else such work is happening in the country. I acknowledge their understandable concerns about why, at times, the system does not work as perfectly or as well as we would ideally like it to.
No system with hundreds of billions of pounds in it will work perfectly. The job of Government is not to claim that the system is perfect but to recognise that there are challenges, and try to structure that system in a way that works while ensuring that we do not change the way in which people work, operate and are incentivised where they can resolve some of the issues themselves—I recognise that not everybody can.
All that brings questions: ultimately, what do we do when we see issues such as this; and secondarily, what is it proportionate for the Government to do, and how should they respond when they see such issues? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North anticipated some of the points I am likely to make. A substantial amount of work is going on across Government to provide a system of support for vulnerable children and families, which I hope includes the ability to tackle sleep deprivation and the drivers behind it.
I will spend some time explaining how that work is broken down between the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in which I serve, and why, given the plethora of initiatives across multiple Departments, we do not think that a national sleep strategy is the way to go at this time. A substantial amount of work is already under way that we hope is helping in this difficult and challenging area.
I will start with the top line, which is about tackling poverty; it is the question with which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North ended her speech. We recognise that there are often multiple, complex reasons why families find themselves in poverty. The hon. Lady suggested that the Government are a mere bystander, which is difficult to evidence given what we are doing. This year, we will spend the best part of a quarter of a trillion pounds—£245 billion—through the welfare system to tackle such causes head on, recognise that there are vulnerable people out there and ensure that people have the support they need. That includes about £110 billion of support for people of working age, who are the most likely to have children.
Catherine McKinnell
I want to challenge the Minister on his statement. I did not say that the Government were a bystander; I said that they were not a bystander on this issue and they have the power to do something about it. The concern is that, for everything the Government may be doing, they are also the architect of the problem. That is my view and the view of many in this area. I appreciate all the initiatives the Minister is outlining, but they are clearly not solving the problem.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful for that clarification, and I apologise if I inadvertently suggested something that I did not intend to. I was merely trying to contextualise. The hon. Lady accepted that a substantial amount of work is going on. That needs to be acknowledged and contextualised within the wider discussion. There is such a substantial amount of work going on—I will go into that in a moment—that the challenge is knowing how best to approach things. I will try to address a number of the suggestions outlined by the hon. Lady and her colleagues.
It is important to acknowledge that a substantial amount of money is going into the issue. This has been a relatively well-regarded debate and I do not seek to make it particularly political, but, given the multiple references to austerity, I have to highlight that some of the difficult decisions that we have had to take over the last 12 years have been as a direct result of pre-2010 spending. We need to acknowledge that our decisions have trade-offs and consequences, and we are still living with those consequences a decade or so later, despite the fact that in absolute terms we are spending substantially more money than we were a decade or so ago. [Hon. Members: “Such nonsense!”]
We are going to spend over £245 billion through the welfare system this financial year, and £110 billion to support people of working age. That builds on wider efforts to lift more people out of poverty and to support those who have been highlighted in this debate. There were 1.2 million fewer people living in absolute poverty in 2020-21 than in 2009-10, including 200,000 fewer children, 500,000 fewer working-age adults and 400,000 fewer pensioners. That is not to take away from the challenges we face today, particularly the cost of living, but it is important to contextualise where we are.
In response to the global challenges we are facing, the Government have provided £37 billion of emergency support this year, and we are putting in place more help over the coming months. In the autumn statement, £26 billion of cost of living support was announced as a taxpayer subsidy for 2023-24, meaning that from next year households on eligible means-tested benefits will receive up to a further £900 in cost of living payments. From April next year, we are also uprating benefits for working-age households and disabled people, as well as the basic and new state pensions, by over 10%. Benefit cap rates will be increased by the same amount.
Just today, in the local government finance settlement we have announced a further £100 million of support for people who are deemed to be the most vulnerable, including a discretionary element that gives local authorities around the country where there are challenges—whether they are to do with access to beds or something else—additional funds to be able to close those gaps and ensure people have the things they need.
Crucially, there is also a dedicated household support fund, overseen by the Department for Work and Pensions, that councils in England can use to help families struggling with essential household costs, including the purchase of new beds and mattresses. A further £1 billion is going into that fund over the next financial year. Nearly £850 million will be distributed in England, and the remainder will be distributed in the devolved nations according to the Barnett formula. That will mean we have allocated £2.5 billion of taxpayer subsidies since October 2021.
Crucially, local authorities will have the freedom to allocate funds according to the needs in their communities. Given the acknowledgement by the Opposition that this issue is difficult to assess or even find, which was one of the points made a moment ago, the best way that we can respond to challenges that are hidden or semi-hidden is to provide both funds, which we have done, and the freedom to allocate those funds in the most proportionate and reasonable way in communities, driven by representatives in communities themselves, including the kind of councils that the hon. Member for Luton North highlighted, which are setting an agenda and making important decisions for their local area.
Holly Lynch
Some of the referrals coming through to local charities in Halifax relate to families involved in providing kinship care, which is where family members—often at short notice—take over responsibility for caring for a very young child as a member of their family.
Will the Minister, as part of his cross-departmental work and the Government’s response to the MacAlister review, which looks at the responsibilities of kinship carers and the support they deserve, specifically look at the support required by kinship carers? Will he look at what else can be done to support families in such situations when financial support is not a part of the package because of a variety of barriers, so that the children in those circumstances do not go without beds?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the hugely important matter of kinship carers, which I know all Members will have an interest in and experience of; I certainly have, having spoken to constituents at length about these issues. It is an immensely challenging area to know how to get right. Of course, ideally in the first instance there would not be a need for such care, but this is life and there always is such a need. Where there are challenges, we want to keep young children as close as possible to their families and friends, who they know and understand. That will inevitably mean people take over at short notice caring responsibilities that they may not have anticipated. There is a very difficult challenge about knowing how to balance that. I will certainly pass on the hon. Lady’s comments to my colleagues in the Department for Education, who are leading on the MacAlister review and the response to it, and ask them to consider specifically her point about kinship care in that work, where possible.
I return to the point about freedom. Twenty-three councils have already put on record that they are using their funds to provide beds, bedding and blankets to vulnerable residents. Havering, for example, has already partnered with local retailers to supply beds, white goods and other essential household items to struggling families. At the other end of the country in Blackburn, the council has been working hard on the provision of new high-quality beds for children under the age of seven. Additional discretionary support funds are available where necessary.
I will touch on the broader point about supporting families. The supporting families programme operates between the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which I am a Minister within, and the Department for Education. It seeks to help councils do exactly what I have just mentioned—co-ordinate help for families to overcome multiple and complex problems. Supporting families funding is allocated to authorities based on levels of deprivation and the number of families in the local population; put simply, more deprived areas receive more funding. The programme can help with some of the drivers of financial insecurity and the knock-on effects, such as those we are talking about today. It can help to address mental health, drug or alcohol problems, or issues such as finding work and keeping children in school. There was a 40% cash uplift for this programme in the Budget, which should mean that 300,000 families are covered over the coming period.
There is a role for schools and the Department for Education, as this is not just about council officers working with individual families; schools play an important role in identifying pupils who may not be getting enough sleep at home. That is why we are here today and why Bex Wilson has set up the charity, after her experience while teaching in Leeds.
Through the publication of the special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision Green Paper, the schools White Paper and our response to the MacAlister review, we are creating a system that seeks firmly to work in the interests of vulnerable children and young people. We know that vulnerable children are more absent from school than their peers. In autumn last year, a third of all pupils eligible for free school meals missed more than 10% of school sessions, and nearly one in 10 pupils eligible for free school meals missed more than 10% of possible school sessions for unauthorised other reasons, compared to only 3% of their peers.
The pupil premium will provide over £2.5 billion in 2022-23 to help schools improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, which can be used to support social, emotional and behavioural needs, and approaches to improve attendance. Every local authority in England must appoint a virtual school head, who have a statutory duty to promote the educational achievement of children in their care.
I am grateful to Bex Wilson, Zarach and all those who have raised this important issue, and to the hon. Members who have spoken today. Across the House there is an absolute commitment to, and understanding of, the challenges we have debated. I hope that everybody, even if they disagree with the proposal that I put forward on behalf of the Government, recognises that a substantial amount of work has been done in the area, and there is a substantial amount of funding and taxpayer support. We all want to achieve the same ends and recognise various challenges. We are grateful for the work done by those who have highlighted this issue. I hope we can continue to make progress in the coming years, while continuing to debate the best approach.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate, both from the Labour Front Bench and Back Benches. I would thank the Minister for his response, but I expected more. It is very concerning that the Government do not seem to recognise that there is an issue, nor commit to understanding the extent of that issue. All we have heard is a list of actions that they are apparently undertaking, but that are clearly not solving the problem.
One mother who spoke to me when I was taking evidence for this debate said that, as a child, she had fled with her mother from domestic violence. She remembers how traumatic that was, but when they moved she said she felt cushioned by a state that supported them into a new home. She does not remember not having a bed when she was growing up. She remembers being looked after and supported in what was clearly a traumatic situation. She has faced that again herself—she has fled domestic violence with her children—and she was shocked at how little support there has been; there was nothing for them. They managed to secure a house, but it had no furniture in it. She said they have lived with one lightbulb, which they move from room to room, and no beds for the children.
It is the charity sector that has helped them, not the Government. That is the case up and down the country. Food, clothing, housing and furniture are being provided by the charitable sector, not by the state. People in the most desperate circumstances no longer have a safety net. As much as the Government and the Minister have set out the support they might be giving, it is clearly not working. It is clearly not reaching the right people.
I did not intend to say that at the end of this debate. I have been quite moved by the evidence I have heard, but I am left not angry, but I think a bit despondent, by the Minister’s response. I hoped that the Government, of all things, would want to tackle children without beds—would want to know how many children do not have a bed and discuss how we can solve that. Obviously, whatever the Government are doing is not working, because the number is growing not reducing. But that is anecdotal; we do not actually know, because the Government have not found out or even asked the question.
I would like to see the Government go away and think harder about this issue. It is about not just those individual children but a lifetime cycle of sleep deprivation that results in adult mental health issues, because if someone has not slept well as a child they will have that for the rest of their life. It will affect their education, mental health, development and wellbeing. Surely we want to put a stop to that, and ensure the basics of having a bed and somewhere safe to sleep. I hope the Government go away and think again. I appreciate that it is not all down to the Minister. The fact that we were not quite sure who was going to respond to the debate is telling of the Government’s lack of focus on child poverty as a whole.
The Department for Education has an interest in children. The Department of Health and Social Care should have an interest in children’s health and wellbeing. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and local government, should have an interest in ensuring that support is delivered at a local level. The Department for Work and Pensions looks after those households that need extra support. None of them appears to be talking to each other to develop a holistic strategy to ensure that more children do not fall into poverty, that they have a bed to sleep in and that we finally turn this around. I really hope the Government listen. If they will not, I really hope this country votes in a different Government who will.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
I thank Catherine McKinnell for that impassioned wind-up.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 604509, relating to child bed poverty.
Grand Committee
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Bill [HL]
Monday 19th 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-V Fifth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (15 Dec 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 165: Relevant heat network
Amendment 161AA
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends the definition of “heat network” to include any appliance connected to a heat network where the main purpose of that appliance is to provide heating or cooling for the network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will note the large number of amendments tabled in my name on heat networks. These amendments are needed to ensure that Ofgem can operate effectively as the heat networks regulator. A large proportion of them ensure that Ofgem’s enforcement powers will replicate those that it has as gas and electricity regulator. These amendments also ensure that the Bill reflects the approach to regulation which the Government committed to in their response to the heat networks market framework public consultation. The majority of these amendments are minor and technical in nature. Some are a little more substantial, and I will address those first.
Amendments 162C and 162YYI will ensure that any price cap introduced through regulations in future can apply to non-domestic as well as domestic heat network consumers. They also widen the scope of the regulator’s power to conduct pricing investigations into instances where non-domestic heat network consumers are receiving disproportionately high prices.
The Government are committed to introducing consumer protection rules that ensure that heat network consumers receive a fair price for their heating. Regulations under the Bill will provide Ofgem with powers to investigate and intervene where consumer prices appear disproportionate, compared with heat networks with similar characteristics or compared with alternative and comparable heating systems.
Non-domestic heat network consumers, particularly micro-businesses, can be vulnerable to receiving disproportionately high prices from heat suppliers. We therefore consider it appropriate to make this amendment so that the regulator’s price investigation powers extend to non-domestic consumers, in addition to domestic consumers. The Bill also provides the Secretary of State with powers to introduce various forms of price regulation, including a price cap, should it be necessary to protect consumers while growing and decarbonising the market.
The Government have committed to using any future powers to set price caps cautiously to avoid undermining investment in this nascent sector and putting at risk the supply of heating to consumers. Should a price cap be appropriate in future, we want to ensure that it could apply to both domestic and non-domestic consumers. In particular, we found in our public consultation in 2020 that micro-businesses supplied by heat networks share similar characteristics with domestic consumers. We therefore consider that these two consumer groups should have similar protections. This amendment would enable any future price cap to also apply to non-domestic consumers such as micro-businesses.
Amendments 162YYV to 162YYY serve to ensure that the full extent of heat network regulatory activities performed by Ofgem in Great Britain, the Utility Regulator in Northern Ireland, consumer advocacy bodies and other entities are funded by heat networks and holders of gas or electricity licences. Last year, the Government ran a public consultation on a mechanism for recovering the costs of heat network regulation. The nascent state of the sector and small consumer base means that recovering these costs solely from heat networks would amount to an extra £10 or more on each heat network consumer bill per year. This would be too high and create risks to the competitiveness of the market and, of course, issues of affordability for heat network consumers.
The Government consulted on heat network, gas and electricity regulatory costs being spread evenly across heat network, gas and electricity consumers in Great Britain. The Government have estimated that this approach would amount to less than £2 added to each heat network consumer bill per year, and an additional 10p per gas and electricity consumer bill per year. Most consultation respondents agreed that this approach was the fairest and crucial to supporting the growth of the heat networks sector. The Northern Ireland Executive conducted an equivalent public consultation for cost recovery in Northern Ireland and determined this a desirable approach.
This amendment sets out for transparency purposes the full extent of the regulatory activities in scope of this approach to cost recovery. The amendment also includes Ofgem’s role as a licensing authority under the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021 in the cost-recovery regime. The Scottish Government passed this Act to introduce their own heat networks regulatory framework. By ensuring a funding route for Ofgem to perform this role, the Government are helping to ensure that Scottish heat network consumers receive robust protections and that heat networks regulation is coherent across Great Britain.
The remaining amendments are minor and technical, so I will not detain your Lordships for too long with them. In summary, these amendments, first, ensure that the provisions relating to heat networks regulation are accurate; secondly, allow for regulations and authorisation conditions to be made about the connection of premises to a heat network; and, thirdly, relate to Ofgem and the Utility Regulator in their role as heat networks regulator in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.
I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will agree that these amendments are necessary to enable a fair and consistent heat network market across the United Kingdom. The one non-government amendment in this group is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I thank her for her thoughtful contributions—actually, I should do that at the end, after she has spoken. Oh, she is not here. I beg to move Amendment 161AA.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, first, I declare my interests as a project director working in the energy industry for Atkins and as a director of Peers for the Planet. I will speak to Amendment 162 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, who cannot be here today.
To give some context to this amendment, I welcome paragraph 14(3) of Schedule 15, in that it provides for all the conditions which may be attached to a heat network authorisation. All of this is welcome—in particular, paragraph 14(3)(f) refers to
“conditions about limiting emissions of targeted greenhouse gases in relation to relevant heat networks”.
However, it is noteworthy that the schedule does not include any conditions about the actual heat source for the emissions, and that is what Amendment 162 focuses on. It is a probing amendment, seeking to determine whether the Secretary of State or Ofgem already have the power to control the heat source using the heat networks and whether they are minded to use them.
There are some fuels which it may be in the public interest to restrict using in a heat network. For example, the UK Government are currently establishing carefully controlled trials for hydrogen for heating. Presumably, the Government would not want to be powerless to prevent a heat network provider using green hydrogen for heating if they had concerns about, for example, safety or the cost effectiveness of hydrogen as a power source. If the hydrogen trials are not taken forward, the Government may not want someone to use hydrogen in a heat network without effective oversight from Ofgem.
In another example, it may be appropriate to restrict the use of biomass, which is ostensibly low or zero-carbon. However, the Minister will have heard concerns from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and other Peers last week, and there are concerns about whether the Government would have the powers to restrict biomass for local heat networks to the sustainable practices the Minister outlined in his response to that question. Can the Minister confirm in his summing up whether the Government have powers to restrict the source of heat input as applied to heat networks? If so, where? If not, would he consider taking these powers?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak chiefly to Amendment 162. tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, although I take the opportunity to welcome the government amendment on help for micro-businesses and say that it is great to see that happening. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has already introduced this very clearly; I shall make just one additional point and apologise to the Committee for my absence last week when a number of amendments that I had either tabled or supported were debated. I was in the Chamber with the genetic technology so-called precision breeding Bill. If we have two environment Bills running in exact parallel, it creates some difficulties. I particularly want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for some excellent support for some of my amendments last week.
On Amendment 162, I want to make the point that it is crucial here that we are talking about local networks; what may be appropriate in one place may be inappropriate in another. I am thinking, for example, of areas where air pollution is an issue and the kind of fuel used will be a particular issue in that area. It may, indeed, be appropriate for the regulator to take action on the basis of local conditions as well as of national polities, in terms of either the nature crisis or the climate emergency.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords may have noticed that I extracted my amendments to the second group, when they were originally suggested to be tabled in this group. They relate to the protection of consumers.
I am grateful that the Minister emphasised protection, for both domestic and non-domestic consumers, of the commitments to district heating, decentralised energy and community energy. I am strongly in favour of that move, but I do not think the Bill, as first drafted, or as I read the amendments proposed in the Minister’s group, entirely meet the need to protect consumers of district heating et cetera to the same extent that consumers of other suppliers are protected. I was gratified by some of the Minister’s words this afternoon, but I still do not feel that this combination of what is in the Bill and the Minister’s own amendments will deliver for consumers of district heating the protections, that have been absent for so long, which are supplied via Ofgem to consumers of other forms of electricity supply. I think it will need a bit of tweaking and I shall come to that in the following group.
I do, however, want to register my appreciation for the role of decentralised energy being recognised here. We have some tidying up to do, but I welcome the Government’s commitment to extend support both for consumers in this sector and for the sector itself.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether rounds one to three of the green heat network fund are throwing some light on the potential for expansion in this sector. Are the Government viewing heat networks as something that we will see a lot of, or just little bits and pieces? Coming back to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, if we are going to see a lot, are we seeing green heat sources coming into play in this area? If we are to see a lot of networks, and since the ones I am familiar with, at least, require serious street works, is there a possibility of combining those street works with separating sewage from storm water?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I want to reflect the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in welcoming the fact that the Government really are concentrating on this area and giving it the attention that they have. We are one of the lackeys on heat networks, certainly in comparison with the rest of Europe.
One thing that struck me, though, was that on the occasions when I meet the Minister before a Bill goes through, he normally asks me to keep the number of Liberal Democrat amendments to a minimum. I think he has broken the record on this occasion, but I will keep my side of the bargain.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and others who have spoken in this brief debate for bringing forward these amendments, as they represent necessary but foreseeable conditions for what is already a doorstep of a Bill. As the Minister said in his introductory statement, these amendments collectively show why and how heat networks and heat zones will be regulated and established.
In response to the noble Lord’s query, my understanding is that there are currently 14,000 heat networks, which represent 480,000 customers—about 2% of the total energy network. However, that percentage is predicted to rise to just under 20% by 2050. They will be a huge and significant part of the future energy market, and thus crucial in meeting net zero as they can unlock otherwise unobtainable and inaccessible large-scale renewable and recovered heat sources, such as waste heat. They are especially important for built-up areas, as they are the most effective way of accessing waste heat from industry and heat from rivers and mines.
There are currently no specific protections for customers of heat networks. A recent Competition and Markets Authority report said that while the majority of heat networks customers received a service comparable to that for other traditional customers, a significant minority did not. Higher prices and more frequent outages were just a couple of the highlighted issues. The CMA recommended regulating the sector, with Ofgem announced as the regulator and Citizens Advice and the energy ombudsman named as alternative dispute resolution bodies.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, on non-domestic customers, what steps do the Government envisage will be taken to draw the line between which of them will receive these protections and which will not? Secondly, while protecting these provisions, why have they come to us so late and to what extent were Scottish heat network customers not receiving equivalent protections under the initial drafting of the Bill? Finally, does this come into play only in a case where the powers in Clause 171 to designate GEMA as the licensing authority in Scotland are used?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this brief debate. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson: it will be difficult for me to ask him in future to limit the number of Liberal Democrat amendments after tabling all these. I quite take his point there; all I will say is that I flagged up to noble Lords at Second Reading that these amendments would be coming forward. There will be more on other subjects, as I also flagged up at Second Reading, which are still being drafted and will be tabled as soon as possible.
I first remind noble Lords, in acknowledging the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas, that heat networks will play a crucial role in the UK reaching its net-zero targets, as they are one of the most cost-effective ways of decarbonising heating, particularly in built-up areas, where it would be more difficult to have individual property solutions. Noble Lords will probably be aware that the Climate Change Committee estimated that around 18% of UK heat will potentially come from heat networks by 2050—up from around 2% currently—to support the cost-effective delivery of our carbon targets. However, the sector is currently unregulated.
The Bill will provide regulation for that sector and give Ministers a power to introduce, among other things, consumer protection rules and carbon emission limits on heat networks. The majority of heat networks are performing perfectly well and often run by local authorities, housing associations and others, but one or two small, private networks are abusing their customers. Of course, once you are connected to it, that is effectively a monopoly. You have no choice but to take your business elsewhere, so regulation is required in the sector.
I will now talk to Amendment 162. The Bill already allows the Government to control heating sources by providing for authorisation conditions to contain emissions limits; this is contained in paragraph 14(3)(f) of Schedule 15. By gradually lowering emissions limits, authorisation conditions will drive changes in the types of fuels and technologies used to power various heat networks.
Using emission limits allows for dynamic, ongoing regulation. I submit that mandating specific heat sources is a more limited approach that risks the Government and this House picking winners. The exact approach for implementing emission limits will of course be subject to further consultation with industry and stakeholders. Settling on a pathway ahead of that consultation would, at this stage, be unwise.
Removing whole fuel types risks ignoring other factors that will come into play, such as technological improvements, system efficiencies, varying fuel costs, the replacement cycle of generation assets, and the need for flexibility in a system to provide separately for back-up or peak demand.
The Government are of course committed to net zero by 2050, and we see heat networks playing a vital role in this. The Government wish for the Bill and its secondary legislation to ensure that the heat network sector thrives and expands and is not held back in this goal. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, will feel able not to press the amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend is so optimistic and shares the Climate Change Committee’s optimism about the future of heat networks. Will he therefore encourage his colleagues to support deep geothermal which, if we are to need that volume of energy, must be a serious contender as it is on the continent. However, in this country, since we have not had the exploration, there is a lot of uncertainty about whether the particular strata will behave in a way that allows heat extraction. It would be a real help to that industry if the Government were to take an interest in how to reduce that first well risk, so that we can get going in the way that the Netherlands and Germany have to take advantage of the deep heat that we all believe—or the British Geological Survey at least believes—is down there and available.
Similarly, is my noble friend content that the regulations governing tidal rivers—such as the one just outside—are such that we can use those as a source of heat for heat networks?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes some good points. There is tremendous potential from deep geothermal, and we are funding some exploratory projects. However, the performance is mixed: some projects have drilled and not found any rocks hot enough to power the network. What is perhaps more viable, particularly in mining areas, is the use of waste mine water for powering heat networks. There are a number of exciting schemes that I have visited, particularly in the north-east of England, where they can extract the warm water from existing mine workings, put it through heat exchangers and use it for heat networks. There are a lot of promising developments in this area.
I will get a more detailed answer for my noble friend on his question about tidal waters, but I know that there are some concerns in the industry about over-regulation from the Environment Agency in some of these areas—they have been flagged up to me. I wrote to Defra about a year ago on this subject but, to be honest, I cannot remember what reply I got—if any—at the time. I will write to him on that subject.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 139, line 35) widens the provision made by Clause 165(3) about the treatment of heat pumps so that it applies in relation to communal heat networks (as well as district heat networks).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 139, line 34.
Lord Whitty
“(3A) The central role of the Regulator in relation to heat networks is to ensure that customers of heat networks have at least equivalent consumer protection to customers of other forms of energy.(3B) The Regulator must have regard to the need for ensuring regulations are supportive of, and compatible with, the United Kingdom’s climate change commitments.”
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot hope to compete with the Minister, who took six minutes to speak to about 40 amendments, which I think is a record even for this Committee Room. I took out my amendments from the previous group, as I mentioned, because the combination of the Bill at present and the amendments to which the Minister and I just referred does not clearly put the consumer of heat networks on the same basis as the consumer of other forms of energy supply.
I confess that, for part of my career 10 or 12 years ago, I was a little schizophrenic about this, because I was both the honorary president of the CHP Association, which is the predecessor of the Association for Decentralised Energy, and the chair of the statutory energy consumers protection body, which was the National Consumer Council and then Consumer Focus, until the coalition Government unfortunately abolished it. I was both a champion for consumers and for this technology, and I still am. The problem is that the consumers of this technology, the households and commercial or industrial elements that depend on district heating and other forms of heat network, are the least protected of all consumers. While I agree with the amendments the Minister spoke to just now—they are a significant improvement—I do not yet feel that the new wording makes that clear.
My Amendments 161B and 161C propose to put in the Bill, eventually in the Act and the Schedule associated with it, a clear and unequivocal commitment that the regulator’s main and central role will be to ensure that consumers of energy supplied through heat networks have the same rights, protections and regulatory authority as other consumers. If you put that centrally, the role of regulation will be clear. I was gratified when the Government committed to extending regulation in this area and, by and large, I was in favour of the consultative document they put forward. I was slightly more equivocal about giving Ofgem the job, but it is logical that it should be done by Ofgem. My equivocation on that issue was that Ofgem’s record in protecting consumers over the last two or three years has not been that great. Nevertheless, I accept that Ofgem should undertake this role.
The situation at present is that the majority of customers of heat networks are in social housing run by local authorities or organisations subcontracted by local authorities. While there are a lot of private heat networks and some commercial heat networks, the majority are in that category. The consumers are therefore tenants and leaseholders of local authorities on what were once local authority estates. Therefore, they are probably among the lower incomes and have a higher proportion of vulnerable consumers.
This makes it doubly worrying that, for years, there has been no equivalent protection for those who receive their energy from the big six or big eight—whatever it is now—energy suppliers. My amendments are intended to make clear that the main role of the regulator is to protect those consumers. They relate in part to the amendments moved by the Minister relating to the price cap, but they are not just about the price cap. They are also about the price support schemes and the whole range of requirements placed on energy supply companies in relation to customer service for consumers, recognition of the problems of vulnerable consumers in particular and the need to ensure that supplies are continuous for such consumers.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to address the amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Whitty outlined clearly the reasons for his amendments. I will speak to Amendment 161CA in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lennie. At this stage, it is appropriate for me to declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association because it comes up in subsequent groups.
I want to refer to my experience when I was the leader of Leeds Council. Leeds PIPES is one of the most successful district heating schemes in the country and is expanding. It aims to take more than 16,000 tonnes of carbon out per year. It is already securing reductions in fuel bills of between 10% and 25%. The other element, which we have not addressed, is that, by working locally through these schemes, we have been able to bring training and employment to the local community. Indeed, 60% of the project spend is by local businesses in the community, making it a win-win scenario.
Social housing and council housing are not the only beneficiaries of the schemes, although they are an important aspect as there are more than 2,000 such homes already on the system. The system has started to be installed and expanded into the city centre, including in council buildings, ensuring that it is a sustainable project. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response to the specific concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Whitty about consumer protection. The third amendment in his name, on the contribution to net zero, is valuable; it highlights how these networks need to be taken seriously. We need to make sure that they are sustainable and that their future is secure on behalf of the consumers that they supply.
Amendment 161CA in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lennie refers specifically to ensuring
“that regulation covers systems that are operational but are operating inefficiently to the detriment of customers.”
As one of the heat network providers, Switch2, explains, a 2018 study by the CMA found that,
“although heat networks provide customers with a cost effective, efficient supply of heat compared to alternatives, some customers experience poorer outcomes in terms of price and service.”
That provider has contributed to the thinking on why heat network efficiency is so important. It says:
“The efficiency of your heat network is the crux of effective operation. Before the energy crisis and regulatory requirements, heat network efficiency was often seen by operators as a ‘nice to have’, rather than a necessity, despite significant cost saving benefits to both residents and operators.”
I think we have moved forward a great deal on that consideration.
Although we are focused on the incredibly high cost of gas at the moment, I hope that we can do everything in our power to improve efficiency and take this issue forward. It is clear that the Government are aware of this issue and are acting on it to a degree. Would it not be sensible to ensure that the regulatory remit also covers inefficiencies and that consumers are protected from the issue, rather than just requiring operators to apply for grants voluntarily?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, for their comments and amendments. As I said on the previous group, the Government are committed to introducing protections for heat network consumers that ensure that they receive a fair price and a reliable supply of heat, and are not disadvantaged compared to other consumers. Ensuring that heat network consumers receive comparable protections to gas and electricity consumers is the primary reason for agreeing to the CMA’s recommendation to regulate heat networks.
We also recognise the vital contribution that heat networks will ultimately make in decarbonising heat in buildings. I highlight to the noble Lord that the Bill already provides for the heat networks regulator to prioritise protection of consumers and the decarbonisation of the sector. The Bill provides for Ofgem to be the heat networks regulator in Great Britain, with the Utility Regulator taking on the equivalent role in Northern Ireland.
Schedule 15 to the Bill provides for regulations making provision about the objectives of the regulator. This includes its principal objective to protect the interests of existing and future heat network consumers. This is equivalent to Ofgem’s principal objectives to protect the interests of existing and future gas and electricity consumers. We intend for this principal objective to be set out in the regulations.
Schedule 15 also provides for regulations specifying the interests of existing and future heat network consumers that are to be protected. This includes consumers’ interests in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions generated by heat networks. Schedule 15 also provides for the introduction of carbon emissions limits on heat networks in England and Northern Ireland. We intend again for this to be provided for in the regulations.
The regulations will also give Ofgem powers to investigate and intervene on networks where prices for consumers appear to be disproportionate compared to systems with similar characteristics or if prices are significantly higher than those consumers would expect to pay if they were served by an alternative, comparable heating system. Ofgem will also be able to set rules and guidance on how heat networks recover their costs through their heat tariffs.
Amendment 161CA tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, is on ensuring the efficiency of existing heat networks. I thank them for highlighting the importance of ensuring that regulation facilitates the improvement of technical standards on heat networks. This will ensure efficient heat networks that provide fair prices and reliable heat to consumers at the same time.
I reassure noble Lords that the Bill, more specifically paragraph 14(3)(d) of Schedule 15, already provides measures for ensuring heat network efficiency. Schedule 15 provides for the introduction of technical standards, which will protect consumers from being supplied by inefficient networks. The regulator’s compliance activity in relation to new and existing heat networks will include work on any standards mandated in authorisation conditions under this power.
I therefore submit that the intentions behind the noble Lords’ amendments are already provided for in the Bill, so I hope that they do not press them.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I will clearly want to look at these clauses and the Schedule once all these amendments have been agreed and adopted. I am still not absolutely convinced that all aspects of consumer protection will be covered by this and by Ofgem’s role, but I welcome the Minister’s reassurance.
The key issue is whether all interventions will treat the consumers of district or decentralised heating the same as they would consumers of other forms of energy supply. That also applies to the Government. The Minister referred to the price cap, but the price subsidies or support that we agreed the other week has not found its way to consumers of district heating. That may be a matter of time or it may be that the entity that supplies the heat is obliged to pass that on, but that is not clear at the moment. Things like that need to be tightened up before the final version of the Bill is agreed. I therefore look forward to seeing what the clauses look like following the Minister’s amendments to see whether any further amendments are needed to meet my concerns in this respect. In the meantime, I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan
“(2A) The provision made in Schedule 15 is without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that the breadth of the power under Clause 168 is not affected by the detailed provisions made by Schedule 15.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits a definition that is no longer needed as a consequence of the amendments in the name of Lord Callanan at page 292, line 6 and at page 303, line 35.
““enforcement undertaking” has the meaning given by paragraph 39(2);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a definition signposting the definition of “enforcement undertaking” in paragraph 39 of Schedule 15.
““relevant requirement” has the meaning given by paragraph 38;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a definition signposting the definition of “relevant requirement” in paragraph 38 of Schedule 15.
Lord Teverson (LD)
Is there a way in which we can just say yes to the government amendments here? There are hundreds of them—well, about 50—so it would make a lot of sense.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I am applying the usual convention. Okay?
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits any requirement on a Regulator of heat networks to keep under review the carrying on of activities connected with heat networks to those activities carried on in the part or parts of the United Kingdom for which that Regulator is responsible.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 290, line 33) enables regulations made under Clause 168 to provide for the Regulator to specify information that must be provided by an applicant for a heat network authorisation.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 290, line 32.
“(2A) The regulations may, in particular, provide for conditions to be included in a heat network authorisation requiring the person who holds the authorisation—(a) to comply with the provisions of a particular designated document;(b) to enter into governance arrangements with the person who is from time to time the licensed code manager for that designated document and to comply with those arrangements;(c) to provide funding for the person who is from time to time the licensed code manager for that designated document.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to provide for conditions to be included in heat network authorisations requiring their holders to comply with designated documents for purposes not limited to those concerning technical standards.
“(za) conditions about the terms on which premises are connected to a relevant heat network (whether for the purpose of supplying heating, cooling or hot water to premises, or supplying thermal energy to a relevant heat network);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables heat network authorisations to include conditions about the terms on which premises are connected to a relevant heat network, whether a connection is for the purpose of supplying heating, cooling or hot water to premises, or for the purpose of supplying thermal energy to a relevant heat network.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the reference to costs in the amendments in the name of Lord Callanan to Clause 170.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the drafting of a reference to the sorts of condition that regulations may provide may be included in heat network authorisations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to provide for a price cap in relation to the charges imposed on any heat network consumer, whether domestic or not.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the drafting of a reference to the sorts of condition that regulations may provide may be included in heat network authorisations.
“(6) The regulations may, in particular, provide for conditions to be included in a heat network authorisation that—(a) in relation to England and Wales or Scotland, impose on the person who holds the authorisation a requirement of a kind that may be imposed under section 7(3) of the Electricity Act 1989 on the holder of a licence under section 6(1) of that Act;(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, impose on the person who holds the authorisation a requirement of a kind that may be imposed under Article 11(3) of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 (S.I. 1992/231 (N.I. 1)) on the holder of a licence under Article 10(1) of that Order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to provide for heat network authorisations to include conditions imposing any requirement of a kind that may under section 7(3) of the Electricity Act 1989 (or under Article 11(3) of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992) be imposed on licence holders under that Act (or that Order).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision duplicated by the amendments in the name of Lord Callanan at page 291, line 14 and at page 292, line 20.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the drafting of a reference to the sorts of condition that regulations may provide may be included in heat network authorisations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the drafting of a reference to the sorts of condition that regulations may provide may be included in heat network authorisations.
“(3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), a reference to the modification of a condition includes a reference to the revocation of a condition.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations may provide for the Regulator to revoke conditions included in heat network authorisations.
“(4) The regulations may provide for the conditions of a heat network authorisation—(a) to have effect or cease to have effect at such times and in such circumstances as may be determined by or under the conditions;(b) to be modified in such manner as may be specified in the conditions at such times and in such circumstances as may be so determined.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations may provide for conditions included in heat network authorisations to come into effect, cease to have effect or be modified in accordance with the conditions.
“(a) for the revocation of a heat network authorisation by the Regulator;(b) for a heat network authorisation to cease to have effect in circumstances specified in or determined under the authorisation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to provide for a heat network authorisation to be revoked by the Regulator or to cease to have effect in accordance with the terms on which it was conferred.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 293, line 30.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with others in the name of Lord Callanan in relation to Schedule 15) ensures that the purposes for which a document may be designated are not limited to those concerning technical standards.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 295, line 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 295, line 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the first amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 295, line 2.
“(ba) conditions about functions of the Regulator in connection with the modification of a designated document;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to provide for a code manager licence to include conditions about the role of the Regulator in the modification of designated documents.
“(4) The regulations may, in particular, provide for conditions to be included in a code manager licence that—(a) in relation to England and Wales or Scotland, impose on the person who holds the licence a requirement of a kind that may be imposed under section 7(3) of the Electricity Act 1989 on the holder of a licence under section 6(1) of that Act;(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, impose on the person who holds the licence a requirement of a kind that may be imposed under Article 11(3) of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 (S.I. 1992/231 (N.I. 1)) on the holder of a licence under Article 10(1) of that Order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to provide for code manager licences to include conditions imposing any requirement of a kind that may under section 7(3) of the Electricity Act 1989 (or under Article 11(3) of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992) be imposed on licence holders under that Act (or that Order).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the reference to costs in the amendments in the name of Lord Callanan to Clause 170.
“(3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), a reference to the modification of a condition includes a reference to the revocation of a condition.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations may provide for the Regulator to revoke conditions included in code manager licences.
“(4) The regulations may provide for the conditions of a code manager licence—(a) to have effect or cease to have effect at such times and in such circumstances as may be determined by or under the conditions;(b) to be modified in such manner as may be specified in the conditions at such times and in such circumstances as may be so determined.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations may provide for conditions included in code manager licences to come into effect, cease to have effect or be modified in accordance with the conditions.
(b) for a code manager licence to cease to have effect in circumstances specified in or determined under the licence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to provide for a code manger licence to be revoked by the Regulator or to cease to have effect in accordance with the terms on which it was conferred.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 297, line 14.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations made by the Regulator about applications for installation and maintenance licences, so far as relating to England and Wales, to include provision about the information that must be provided to the Regulator by a person making an application.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits a reference to “road” that is not necessary in light of the meaning “street” has in paragraph 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits the definition of “road”, which is not necessary in light of the definition of “street” for the purposes of paragraph 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment broadens the definition of “transport land”, in relation to rights that may be conferred on a person by an installation and maintenance licence, to include waterways other than canals.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 299, line 23.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a reference in paragraph 34(2)(d) to the wrong type of licence.
“(4) The regulations may, in particular, provide for conditions to be included in an installation and maintenance licence that—(a) in relation to England and Wales or Scotland, impose on the person who holds the licence a requirement of a kind that may be imposed under section 7(3) of the Electricity Act 1989 on the holder of a licence under section 6(1) of that Act;(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, impose on the person who holds the licence a requirement of a kind that may be imposed under Article 11(3) of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 (S.I. 1992/231 (N.I. 1)) on the holder of a licence under Article 10(1) of that Order.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to provide for installation and maintenance licences to include conditions imposing any requirement of a kind that may under section 7(3) of the Electricity Act 1989 (or under Article 11(3) of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992) be imposed on licence holders under that Act (or that Order).
“(3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), a reference to the modification of a condition includes a reference to the revocation of a condition.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations may provide for the Regulator to revoke conditions included in installation and maintenance licences.
“(4) The regulations may provide for the conditions of an installation and maintenance licence—(a) to have effect or cease to have effect at such times and in such circumstances as may be determined by or under the conditions;(b) to be modified in such manner as may be specified in the conditions at such times and in such circumstances as may be so determined.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations may provide for conditions included in installation and maintenance licences to come into effect, cease to have effect or be modified in accordance with the conditions.
“(a) for the revocation of an installation and maintenance licence by the Regulator;(b) for an installation and maintenance licence to cease to have effect in circumstances specified in or determined under the licence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to provide for an installation and maintenance licence to be revoked by the Regulator or to cease to have effect in accordance with the terms on which it was conferred.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 23.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with other amendments to Part 6 of Schedule 15 in the name of Lord Callanan) provides that regulations under Clause 168 may make provision about the enforcement of requirements contained in regulations, as well as about the enforcement of conditions contained in heat network authorisations and other licences.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that regulations making provision for the Regulator to make orders for the purposes of securing compliance may impose requirements to take such steps as the Regulator considers appropriate.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 32.
“(aa) in a case where it appears to the Regulator that a relevant person is contravening or is likely to contravene a relevant condition or requirement, to make a provisional order requiring the person to take such steps as the Regulator considers appropriate for the purpose of securing compliance with the relevant condition or requirement;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that regulations may provide for a lower standard of proof to apply to provisional orders made by the Regulator.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a typographical error.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 32.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 32.
““relevant requirement”, in relation to a relevant person, means a requirement imposed on the person by or under the regulations or by regulations made by the Regulator by virtue of any provision of this Schedule;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “relevant requirement”, for the purposes of paragraph 38 of Schedule 15, as any requirement imposed by regulations made under clause 168 or by regulations made by the Regulator by virtue of any provision of Schedule 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits provision superseded by the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 300, line 38.
“(f) make provision enabling the Regulator to accept an enforcement undertaking from a relevant person and about the consequences of accepting such an undertaking.(2) An “enforcement undertaking” is an undertaking to take, within the period specified in the undertaking, such action as may be so specified to secure compliance with a relevant condition or requirement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 302, line 21) gives the Regulator power to make regulations allowing it to accept enforcement undertakings instead of taking enforcement action.
“(3) Except as provided by the regulations, the validity of an order made by virtue of paragraph 38(2)(a) or (aa) is not to be questioned in any legal proceedings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the validity of an order made by virtue of paragraph 38(2)(a) or (aa) of Schedule 15 may not be challenged in legal proceedings except as provided by regulations.
“(ea) make provision about payment of a penalty (and any interest) in instalments;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 168 may provide for payment of a penalty in instalments.
“(g) make provision enabling the Regulator to accept an enforcement undertaking from a relevant person and about the consequences of accepting such an undertaking.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 302, line 5.
“(3) Except as provided by the regulations, the validity of a penalty imposed by virtue of paragraph 38 is not to be questioned in any legal proceedings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the validity of a penalty imposed by virtue of paragraph 38 of Schedule 15 may not be challenged in legal proceedings except as provided by regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a typographical error.
“(ea) make provision about payment of compensation (and any interest) in instalments;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations made under Clause 168 may provide for payment in instalments of sums under a consumer redress order.
“(g) make provision enabling the Regulator to accept an enforcement undertaking from a relevant person and about the consequences of accepting such an undertaking.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 302, line 5.
“(3) Except as provided by the regulations, the validity of a consumer redress order is not to be questioned in any legal proceedings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the validity of a consumer redress order (imposed by virtue of paragraph 38(2)(c) of Schedule 15) may not be challenged in legal proceedings except as provided by regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the language of paragraph 43(1) is consistent with that used in paragraph 14(4)(b) in order that regulations may make provision about how the Regulator is to determine whether charges payable by any consumer are disproportionate, rather than only domestic consumers.
“(1) The regulations may make provision conferring powers on the Regulator or imposing requirements on any person, for the purposes of or in connection with enabling the Regulator—(a) to monitor and secure compliance with relevant conditions or requirements;(b) to make an order in respect of the contravention of a relevant condition or requirement;(c) to enforce relevant conditions or requirements;(d) to make a determination under provision made by virtue of paragraph 43(1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 304, line 24) allows regulations to confer powers on the Regulator or to impose requirements on any person for purposes connected to the enforcement of relevant conditions or requirements.
“(3) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) may, in particular—(a) confer powers to enter premises for the purposes of exercising powers conferred by the regulations;(b) make provision about the circumstances in which a warrant is required to exercise a power conferred by virtue of paragraph (a);(c) make provision for the issuing of such a warrant where conditions specified in the regulations are satisfied.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that regulations made by virtue of paragraph 44(1) may confer powers to enter premises and make provision about circumstances in which a warrant is required.
“(5) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) may, in particular, impose requirements relating to—(a) the keeping of records by relevant persons;(b) the provision of information by relevant persons and others;(c) the audit and verification of that information.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 304, line 5.
“(1A) Regulations made by virtue of this paragraph may make provision relating to the connection of premises to a relevant heat network whether a connection is for the purpose of—(a) supplying heating, cooling or hot water to premises, or(b) supplying thermal energy to a relevant heat network.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to make provision about the connection of premises to relevant heat networks whether a connection is for the purpose of supplying heating, cooling or hot water to premises, or for the purpose of supplying thermal energy to a relevant heat network.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the reference to costs in the amendments in the name of Lord Callanan to Clause 170.
“(1A) The regulations may provide for sections 24 and 25 of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007 (provision of information to consumer advocacy bodies) to apply in relation to relevant persons as they apply to regulated providers within the meaning of section 25 of that Act, with such modifications as appear to the appropriate authority to be appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that requirements relating to the provision of information to consumer advocacy bodies, imposed by sections 24 and 25 of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, may be imposed on holders of heat network authorisations and others by regulations under Clause 168.
“(a) to apply in relation to heat network consumers in England, Wales or Scotland as it applies in relation to gas or electricity consumers, with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate;(b) to apply in relation to relevant persons in England, Wales or Scotland as it applies in relation to regulated providers within the meaning of that Part, with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that requirements relating to complaints handling and redress schemes, imposed by Part 2 of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, may be imposed on holders of heat network authorisations and others by regulations under Clause 168.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the reference to costs in the amendments in the name of Lord Callanan to Clause 170.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the reference to costs in the amendments in the name of Lord Callanan to Clause 170.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the reference to costs in the amendments in the name of Lord Callanan to Clause 170.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures consistency with the reference to costs in the amendments in the name of Lord Callanan to Clause 170.
Lord Callanan
“(ba) regulations under section 168 which create an offence or provide for an increase in the penalty for an existing offence;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations made by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland that create an offence, or provide for an increased penalty for an existing offence, may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 142, line 37) clarifies the heat network-related costs that can be charged to holders of gas or electricity licences in England, Wales and Scotland.
“(1A) The costs within this subsection are—(a) costs of the GEMA—(i) under regulations made under section 168, or(ii) in its capacity as the licensing authority for the purposes of the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021 (asp 9), if the GEMA is designated as such under section 171(1) of this Act,(b) costs of a person other than the GEMA in carrying out, by virtue of section 166(2) or paragraph 5 of Schedule 15, functions of the Regulator,(c) costs of holders of licences issued under Part 4 of Schedule 15 (code manager licences),(d) costs incurred by the Secretary of State in giving financial assistance under regulations made by virtue of paragraph 51 of Schedule 15 (special administration regime),(e) costs incurred by a person or body in providing, or arranging for the provision of, consumer advocacy and advice in relation to heat network consumers, and(f) costs not within any of paragraphs (a) to (e) incurred by a person in exercising a function in relation to heat networks in England, Wales or Scotland (whether by virtue of regulations under section 168 or otherwise).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 142, line 36.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 143, line 2) clarifies the heat network-related costs that can be charged to holders of gas or electricity licences in Northern Ireland.
“(3) The costs within this subsection are—(a) costs of the NIAUR under regulations made under section 168,(b) costs of a person other than the NIAUR in carrying out, by virtue of section 166(3) or paragraph 5 of Schedule 15, functions of the Regulator,(c) costs incurred by the Department in giving financial assistance under regulations made by virtue of paragraph 51 of Schedule 15 (special administration regime),(d) costs incurred by a person or body in providing, or arranging for the provision of, consumer advocacy and advice in relation to heat network consumers, and(e) costs not within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) incurred by a person in exercising a function in relation to heat networks in Northern Ireland (whether by virtue of regulations under section 168 or otherwise).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 143, line 1.
Lord Lennie
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the GEMA may be designated as the regulator for heat network zones.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
I shall speak to just this amendment and be fairly brief. It would ensure that the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority was designated as the regulator for heat network zones. Those zones are fundamental to the scale of expansion necessary to achieve net zero. As we heard before, this in turn depends on local authorities having the right resources to deliver their responsibilities effectively. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State delegates to GEMA its authority status to act as regulator in this regard, as already described for heat networks. Essentially, they should expand them in the most efficient manner possible if we are to achieve net zero. Given Ofgem’s regulatory responsibility for zoning, as well as for the networks themselves, this would ensure a joint approach to get the best out of heat networks.
While the devil may be in the detail of the regulations themselves—we have heard about some of that already—the Opposition support the proposals in this group of amendments. Essentially, they are adaptable to changes. Monitoring and adapting to market changes will be vital, and we support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Ravensdale, to which they will speak shortly. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, we move on to the zoning regulations. I very much agree with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. When I read through this section, I must admit that I found it extremely opaque in many ways. I will come to my own amendments in a minute, but perhaps the Minister can explain a few things to me. Clause 174(2) says:
“A heat network zone is an area in England”.
I presume that means that this is just English legislation, not for the rest of the United Kingdom, but it is very unspecific about what a network zone would be. I had assumed that it would be a single zone or single heating system, but it obviously is not. I am interested to hear from the Minister what a zone is likely to be in practice.
We then have a zone authority. Clause 175(1) states:
“Zones regulations may designate a person to act as the Heat Network Zones Authority”.
Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, pointed out, we have very vague ideas as to who this should be. I am interested to hear again from the Minister who the authority is expected to be.
Then we move on to zone co-ordinators. Who are they and what exactly do they do in comparison with the zone authority? Of course, in Clause 175(5), we have a list defining local authorities. I was delighted to see the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which I have represented in the past, there—all 2,000 souls are represented in that list. I would be really interested to understand from the Minister how all this works. Clause 175(4) says that the
“Regulations … may make provision for the Authority to require a local authority, or two or more local authorities”,
so it seems to me a very complicated landscape. I would be interested to understand how that jigsaw fits together.
Two of my amendments would change “may” to “must”; I just cannot see how it could remain “may” in those two places. The main thrust of my arguments is in Amendments 165 and 166. They are about making sure that the regulations are in line not only with the strategy and policy statement—which we have referred to many times already regarding the text of the Bill—but with, in particular, local authorities’ net-zero plans. A huge number of local authorities, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has pointed out, now have net-zero objectives and plans to back them up. We should give credit to that and include it in the Bill. My Amendment 166 is very much on the same area of the delivery of heat networks within zones and how they fit in with local net-zero energy systems.
As I said, it would be really useful to everybody to understand how this geography is meant to work. I suppose my question is: is this just too complicated or is there some logical method here that does not get in the way, and does not create a bureaucracy that gets in the way, of these systems?
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I again declare my interests as set out in the register. I speak to Amendment 167 in my name, which really builds on the amendments that the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Teverson, have put forward to better set out the role of local authorities in this picture.
There is a great opportunity here to extend the zoning powers that we have in the Bill beyond heat networks into other areas. Ensuing that the Bill better defines local authority roles is really very applicable to the delivery of heat, because it is local authorities that know best about their housing stock and its condition and how they can deliver clean heat in their areas.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me first remind the Committee of the broader ambitions of this section of the Bill, which covers heat network zoning, which is a key policy to deliver the scale of expansion of heat networks that will be required to meet net zero. This process brings together local stakeholders and industry, to identify and designate areas where heat networks are expected to be the lowest-cost solution for decarbonising heating. The clauses will enable the Government’s commitment to introduce zoning by 2025.
Amendments 162YYYA, 162YYYB, 162YYYC, 162YYYD, 162YYYE, 162YYYF, 162YYYG and 165A—who gives these numbers to amendments?—are in my name. They will permit regulations to allow the heat network zones authority, which I will refer to as the authority, to directly designate zone co-ordinators and heat network zones in cases where these functions have not been performed by the relevant responsible bodies. This will deliver a more efficient process for establishing heat network zones.
More specifically, Amendment 162YYYA permits regulations to enable the authority to designate a person as zone co-ordinator. This may be necessary in scenarios where, despite directing it to do so using the powers in Clause 176(4), a local authority does not establish a zone co-ordinator. This could prevent the heat network opportunity that has been identified from being realised. Similarly, Amendments 162YYYB to 162YYYG provide for areas to be designated as heat network zones by the authority, in addition to zone co-ordinators as already provided for in Clause 177(1)(b). They also ensure that this expanded role for the authority is reflected elsewhere in Clause 177. This mirrors existing powers for identifying areas as heat network zones and reviewing areas designated as such. The authority or zone co-ordinators may undertake each of these activities. These amendments will therefore ensure that the authority may designate zones directly, avoiding unnecessary delays to the rollout of heat networks.
Amendment 165A concerns low-carbon heat sources. A range of heat sources could potentially be used by heat networks, including heat from thermal power stations, industrial processes or cooling and refrigeration. Clause 180 gives the Secretary of State powers to require heat sources in zones to connect to a heat network. This amendment will allow regulations to ensure that heat sources that are required to connect do not abuse their monopoly position and charge disproportionate prices for the heat that they provide. Equally, it will allow the regulations to ensure that the requirement to connect does not unduly disadvantage heat sources themselves. This will help to support fair pricing, which will give investors greater security and confidence and help to accelerate the delivery of large-scale heat networks in zones.
I now turn to Amendment 162YYYZA in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, regarding designating GEMA as the heat network zones authority. The authority will be a national body responsible for zoning functions that require national-level standardisation or are most efficiently or effectively carried out at a national level. This approach will allow for national standards and consistent rules to apply in the initial identification of a potential heat network zone.
In terms of who could fulfil the authority role, Clause 176(3) is explicit that the Secretary of State may but need not be designated as the authority. The clause as drafted therefore already provides that regulations may appoint GEMA as the authority. We will be specifying the authority’s functions and responsibilities in the regulations; this will therefore be the subject of further consultation.
The authority will fulfil a different function from the heat network regulator, which, as set out in Clause 166, we propose will be fulfilled by GEMA in relation to Great Britain. This role will cover all heat networks, both within and outside heat network zones. We do not envisage a separate regulator for heat network zones in England. We will be specifying the authority’s functions and responsibilities in the appropriate regulations; we intend for the body to undertake functions on behalf of the Secretary of State and be accountable to the Secretary of State.
Detailed considerations regarding roles and responsibilities in zones will of course be subject to further consultation as we continue to develop our policy proposals. Consultation on these issues will take place in due course. Appointing the authority in regulations will allow for amendment should this be required as and when its functions change over time as the networks become more developed in the UK. I hope that this has helped to clarify our proposed approach and the scope of the powers already provided.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his thoughtful Amendments 163 and 164, which would make the provision of the zoning methodology mandatory and require the methodology to include certain details. As always, we want legislation to be flexible and future-proofed. In this context, this means that the regulations can adapt to developments in the heat network market. The Government are clear that a national methodology for identifying zones will be necessary to enable a robust and transparent approach that increases overall efficiency and drives consistency. To this end, a pilot to support the development of the methodology is under way in 28 English cities and towns. The outputs from the pilot will help to inform policy design and future consultation on the methodology and its contents. Accepting these amendments now would, in effect, tie the Government’s hands at this stage to the potential cost of industry, stakeholders and, ultimately, consumers.
Next, I turn to Amendments 165 and 166, also from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which concern interactions between the national methodology and the co-ordination and delivery of heat networks at a local level. Accepting Amendment 165 would mean that the methodology was no longer nationally determined and would have to vary according to each local authority’s requirements. A national methodology will minimise the duplication of effort at the local level and instead ensure that local input is applied at the most appropriate stage: the refinement and designation of the zones themselves.
Heat network zoning will support local net-zero goals by unlocking the lowest-cost pathway to heat decarbonisation in built-up areas. As we expect that zoning co-ordinators will work with the local authority, their work will be brought into local net-zero plans. Therefore, Amendment 166 risks creating unnecessary bureaucracy at a local level, reducing zoning co-ordinators’ capacity to focus on the effective delivery of zones.
The final amendment in this group, Amendment 167 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, would extend the Bill’s heat network zoning provisions to individual heat pumps. As noble Lords will be aware, various factors, including building density and availability of heat sources, mean that certain localised areas are particularly suited to heat networks. This is why we are introducing a framework to identify where heat networks can provide the lowest-cost low-carbon heating solution.
The noble Lord’s amendment would apply zoning to heat pumps. Our strategic approach, set out in the heat and buildings strategy, is to work with the grain of the market and our policy levers are aligned to natural trigger points to create optionality for consumers regarding their various heating options. For clarity, such trigger points include appliance replacement and change of tenancy or property ownership, among many others of course. An approach where more technologies are zoned risks removing choice for consumers and could cause early appliance scrappage and additional disruption.
I thank noble Lords for this debate and for their amendments. I ask them not to press their amendments.
Lord Teverson (LD)
Could I ask the Minister for some clarification? I apologise if I have not got my head around this. What is a zone: a council estate, a county, a region or a combined authority? I am trying to get from the Minister a mental picture of what a zone could be and what determines that boundary.
Lord Callanan (Con)
No specific boundary is set out in the proposals. It can vary from authority to authority. It is very unlikely to be a whole region; it is much more likely to be an inner-city area, an industrial estate or something like that. It will very much depend on the local circumstances and what heating sources are available. Crucially, it will depend on local support, which is why local authorities are crucial to this process. Many local authorities around the country are already in discussions and are very keen to get on with these zoning proposals, presumably including Leeds. Although I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, does not speak for Leeds any more, I know that it is one of the pioneers in this area.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response. He set out the reasons why district heating is particularly well suited to a zoning approach. Could he expand a little on why, for example, heat pumps or urgent retrofits are not suitable for zoning in the same way?
Lord Callanan (Con)
They could be, but we do not want to designate a particular technology because it will vary from area to area and locality to locality. It is to be expected that heat pumps will play a part in heat network zoning. That would be the case but we do not want to be particularly specific.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
I thank the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Ravensdale, for their contributions. I will assume that their questions have at least been addressed, if not fully answered. We might come back to them later; we shall see. On Amendment 162YYYZA, which would designate GEMA, the Minister said that there will be further consultation on who will ultimately become the designated body for network zones. Once that decision is made, will we hear about it? Will whoever has been designated that role be regulated or will it just be announced?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It will be set in the appropriate regulations. The bottom line is that we have not made a final decision at this stage.
Lord Callanan
“(b) to designate a person as a zone coordinator where a local authority (or local authorities) fail to comply with a requirement imposed by virtue of paragraph (a).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Heat Networks Zones Authority to designate a zone coordinator where a local authority (or authorities) fail to comply with a requirement to make such a designation.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables zones regulations to provide for areas to be designated as heat network zones by the Heat Network Zones Authority as well as by zone coordinators.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 146, line 5.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 146, line 5.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 146, line 5.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 146, line 5.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations made by virtue of Clause 177(1)(c) to impose requirements as to consultation on the Authority as well as on zone coordinators.
Lord Callanan
“(ga) make provision about the terms on which thermal energy is supplied to a district heat network in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (f) or (g) (including in particular provision about the amount that may be charged);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to make provision about the terms on which thermal energy is supplied to a district heat network where the supply is enabled by a requirement imposed on a person by a zone coordinator or where the thermal energy is generated by machinery or other equipment of specified types.
Lord Ravensdale
“PART 7ALocal Area Energy PlansDuty to provide guidance(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance for local authorities on local area energy planning within 12 months of this Act being passed.(2) The guidance in subsection (1) may include, but is not limited to, guidance on—(a) contributing towards meeting the targets set under—(i) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target and budgeting), and(ii) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets);(b) adapting to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (report on impact of climate change);(c) the data and assumptions used in creating a local area energy plan;(d) the roles and responsibilities of those involved in creating a local area energy plan;(e) the minimum standards for a local area energy plan.(3) Local authorities must have regard to the guidance produced under subsection (1) when developing local area energy plans.(4) In this section, “local authority” has the meaning given in section 176.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides guidance for local authorities to help them produce Local Area Energy Plans. It aims to widen the roll out of Local Area Energy Plans among local authorities and help better define the role of local authorities in delivering the future energy system.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 168 in my name would put a duty on the Secretary of State to
“publish guidance for local authorities on local area energy planning”
and clarify some of the criteria that should be included in the guidance. This is based on Energy Systems Catapult’s guidance and includes how local area energy plans can contribute to meeting our net-zero environmental and adaption targets.
As I said on Amendment 167, local authorities will be crucial to delivering our net-zero targets, particularly on decarbonising heat from buildings, yet the Energy Bill makes only limited reference to the vital role of local authorities in heat networks. That is a particular gap in relation to local area energy planning, which is not mentioned in the Bill, and I do not believe the Government have made a firm commitment to create this mechanism.
The Government should ensure that local authorities are given powers and mechanisms to enable local area energy planning, which is a whole-system approach and methodology to discover the locally preferred and most cost-effective means to decarbonise local transport of heat in any given place. Ofgem commissioned the Centre for Sustainable Energy and Energy Systems Catapult to develop the local area energy planning methodology and, under the pilot, local area energy plans were prepared in three areas—Newcastle, Bridgend and Bury in Manchester. Other local authorities are also in the process of developing plans, but these are piecemeal, often without funding and are taking too long.
It is worth giving a bit of context around the pilots. They divided each area into zones suitable for different types of low-carbon heating technologies. The balance of technologies across the three areas shows how different each area can be. For example, the local area energy plan in Newcastle found that roughly half the homes could be heated by a heat network, whereas it was less than 30% in Bury and only 15% in Bridgend. In Bridgend, a far higher proportion of homes would need to be heated with high-temperature heat pumps to save on the extra expense of retrofitting insulation in its poorer-quality housing stock. That illustrates how different areas can be and the benefits of this local area energy planning approach.
As I have said, local authorities have the best view of their local areas and the state of their housing stock. A joined-up, co-ordinated approach to local area energy planning, led by government and providing local authorities with the support they need could, according to the Energy Systems Catapult, save £252 billion between 2025 and 2050 compared with organic, unco-ordinated approaches to energy planning. There is real value in such an approach.
In its independent review of the heat and buildings strategy, the Climate Change Committee said that local area energy planning,
“If done well … will ensure a coordinated approach for rolling out different low-carbon heating solutions in different areas.”
It also said that,
“The government acknowledges the value of Local Area Energy Planning … but is yet to bring forwards strong policy proposals that would set a direction here.”
This is a real opportunity. My amendment is really to explore what plans the Government have to develop the institutional framework to empower and fund local authorities to roll out these plans.
As a final note, I originally considered tabling an amendment that puts a duty on local authorities to prepare a local area energy plan, but we were advised by the LGA that mandating this would be very daunting for some local authorities that may be unable to achieve this without committed government funding and support. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Government’s plans to develop local area energy plans in the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association in offering my support for his Amendment 168, which I would have signed had I seen it. He has clearly set out the arguments for this. I just add that this would be a significant step forward for energy democracy, with decisions not being centralised in Westminster but made in local areas, by local people.
I think back to an event I attended with Gina Dowding, who was then the MEP for North West England, which dates the event rather precisely. There was work going on by a wide range of organisations in the north-west, looking at renewables across the region. With this kind of plan, different local authorities would be able to band together in different ways, according to what worked for the geography and the energy supply systems. That would be a flexible and effective way of doing that.
I have one more point to make on Amendment 168. Last month I was in Kyiv, talking to energy managers who had suffered as much of a shock as one could possibly imagine any energy manager having to receive, which was half of their systems being destroyed by vicious Russian attacks directed by people who had actually built the systems, so knew exactly where to hit hardest and worst. The Ukrainians were holding their system together, and one of the things they stressed to me was the importance of decentralised, local systems that were holding up and helping to support the national system because the local system was able to function effectively. So, we know we are in the age of shocks and, in terms of resilience, having that local basis is crucial.
That brings me on to my Amendments 237 and 238, which together form an attempt to deliver the potential of something that we saw flowering a decade ago but was then cut off in its prime, and that is community energy schemes, where community groups come together to provide cheaper, greener power and to distribute the benefits locally. The Government have made us all very familiar with the phrase “world-leading”, but I am afraid that when it comes to community energy, it really is impossible for the Government to claim any kind of leadership in clean, home-produced energy schemes at a local level. What we saw a decade ago was a real explosion of community-owned and run renewable energy generation projects that were driven by the feed-in tariff. Indeed, I recall visiting Berwick solar farm in Sussex with the sadly late Keith Taylor, then MEP for South East England, in 2015. They said, “This is now dead. This has been killed”, by the cutting of the feed-in tariff, which of course entirely disappeared in 2019.
These two amendments reflect what is contained within the Local Electricity Bill, started in the other place. That has the backing of 314 MPs from all the major parties and aims to help community groups sell the electricity they generate to local customers. That Bill is also supported by more than 100 principal authority councils and more than 80 national organisations, including the National Trust, WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and CPRE. These two amendments offer a chance to take that Bill forward; this is the obvious opportunity to act now. Noble Lords will note that both amendments have been kindly backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, so it has full cross-party and indeed non-party support, and I believe we will also be hearing other noble Lords speaking in support.
Similar Amendments, Amendments 242F and 242G have, been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds. I have a list setting out the differences, but in the interests of time, I will leave it to those noble Lords to set out the details of how they differ. They are very much differences of detail, rather than of the main content and intent. The Environmental Audit Committee has looked into community energy and it says that the sector could grow between 12 and 20 times by 2030, powering 2.2 million homes and saving 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions every year. That could take community renewable energy generation to 10% of the UK’s electricity generation, around 6,000 megawatts. At the moment, however, it is less than 0.5% of total UK electricity generation capacity: 331 megawatts in 2021. It is not, of course, because of the cost of generating, which has fallen very rapidly over the past decade, but is due to insurmountable costs in selling the electricity they generate and providing the operational requirements to become a licensed energy supplier. Initial costs are put at £1 million, which of course is far beyond the scale of most community energy projects.
To make it worse, community energy schemes receive no guaranteed price certainty for the electricity they generate. They knew what they were going to get under the feed-in tariff, but that scheme closed to new applicants in April 2019, at which point many schemes that were already on the drawing board and well advanced just fell apart. It is not that the Government have not been trying to encourage community energy—that is clearly their intention. There was the Licence Lite scheme route to market, but it did not put reasonable limits on costs and there was no obligation on fully licensed energy utilities to partner with community groups. More recently, we saw the smart export guarantee. That also places a requirement on larger suppliers to purchase the power, but with no guaranteed purchase price or length of contract, again making the lack of certainty killing.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support Amendments 237 and 238, along with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, set out so many of the reasons why we should support this. As she said, the rollout of community energy has ground to a near halt in recent years for reasons related to the withdrawal of the feed-in tariffs and the surely well-intentioned but hopelessly ineffective smart export guarantee, which has given community energy generators either prices which are inadequate or, where they are adequate, no confidence that they will remain so. This has been distressing for volunteers and community energy generators who have put down roots in the community and are supplying valuable services for their community, including energy efficiency—a significant omission from the Bill, which we will hear more about—and skills.
The Government effectively banned onshore wind in 2015 and are now, after seven lost years, belatedly unbanning it in rather curious circumstances. Some communities are up in arms about solar farms, and the Government have recently wobbled somewhat awkwardly between permitting and restricting them, only to now be talking about the need for a balance between farmland and solar PV. This is odd, given that meeting the Government’s own energy security strategy, published in April this year, of reaching 20 gigawatts of installed solar by 2030 would occupy only 0.5% of UK land, which is half of that occupied by golf courses. As noble Lords know, I am very passionate about food production, but I know that we can also produce a level of energy. As I said, I am not so sure that there really is a great tension when the land needs of solar are so limited.
These bannings and unbannings and restrictions and relaxations are really just the policy manifestations of community concerns about energy installations being done to them, rather than with them. The point about the vast majority of large-scale generation in people’s areas is that there is actually very little community benefit. If the Government were willing not just to see the benefits of community energy—as I am sure the Minister does—but to put in place the policy measures to support it, it would make things so much easier for all of us.
I sit on the Environment and Climate Change Committee, which has been taking evidence about boiler upgrade schemes and the like lately. One of the things about community energy is that one or two people within a community are capable of finding their way through the quite complicated government documents to obtain the subsidies, and they in turn can empower a load of residents who otherwise might not be so minded to install insulation and take up new means of energy. There are multiple benefits to this, and I find it hard to see any drawbacks. I am sure the Minister agrees.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I also support Amendments 237 and 238, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 242F and 242G in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, which, with some variations, aim to achieve the same outcome. Previous speakers talked about the role of community energy generation, which is an important one in future energy supply. It was a small but growing effort in this country and a contribution to the development of renewable energy on a local scale.
However, when the feed-in tariff disappeared for new applications that really put the nail through the head of that growth, and nothing that the Government have done in the last few years to try to reignite it seems to have worked. People have talked about Licence Lite and the smart export guarantee, but neither of these has really produced an uptick in that trend of community energy generation. We need to find a way to get around that. This depends quite substantially on reducing the barriers of upfront capital and the regulatory effort of getting a connection to the system, on making sure that there is a key partnership between the big boys and the small community energy generators, and on some sort of guarantee of purchase price and length of contract. If we do not have those, we will not get any security into the community energy generation sector through investment.
These amendments put forward simple solutions. I shall not go into any detail, because the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has gone through them, suffice it to say that the whole issue is about how local energy generators can sell the power they generate locally through a community scheme to local communities. That is the magic bit in this area of community generation. Local schemes are developed and owned by local people, and they have local benefits in the form of cheaper and cleaner energy. They also provide other benefits for local communities.
When I was thinking about a way of describing this, it came to mind that the Labour Party used to talk about Arthur Scargill in a particular way: “He may be a bastard but at least he’s our bastard”. There is a difference between “damn windmills” and “our damn windmills”, so there is a real attraction in local support. I thought that the Government were keen on improving the popularity of locally determined schemes—I am sure that they are—which gives me huge confidence that the Minister will take these four amendments and do the job that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested some of the rest of us do: draw out the best cherries from among them.
However, I do not intend to do that. I would rather like the Minister to do it and come forward on Report with a government amendment that meets the key needs of obligating the big boys to buy from the small-scale generators; setting a predictable, fair price; and setting a minimum contract period.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was pleased to put my name to both of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Most of what needs to be said has been said. I guess I need to declare my interests: I am a fairly insignificant shareholder of St Ewe community energy, which I have not heard a lot from recently—probably because of the reasons that we outlined here.
The one point I want to make is that this is exactly one of the areas that has been left out of this Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said. It should be in here. However, to me, although community energy is about generating power, the real importance of it is in allowing communities to come together and be a part of the national and global march forwards to net zero. When there were feed-in tariffs, there was an enthusiasm for people coming together and being part of this essential journey towards a clean economy, a clean society and the environment that communities, families, households and small businesses wanted to see in their local areas. It is not about participation in that big COP 27 or whatever; it is about the local contribution that allows people to participate in one of the most important journeys and fights that we face at the moment, which is about climate change and all the benefits that come from net zero.
Let us have this issue in the Bill. Let us ignite this sector again. Let communities participate in one of the most important objectives that we have on this planet.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to add my strong support for Amendments 237 and 238, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and her strong team of cross-party supporters. I thank Steve Shaw of Power for People for his briefing. I will speak only briefly, principally to ask a few questions of the Minister; I hope that he will be able to respond to them—if he heard what I just said.
As we face the existential threat from climate change, it cannot be right for small-scale community renewable energy schemes to be rendered unworkable by disproportionate regulatory burdens and costs. Other countries are promoting small-scale energy production, apparently often by community groups, far more effectively. It must be possible for the UK to do the same. I hope that, today, the Minister will agree in principle that this Bill must remove the barriers to community energy production.
As somebody else—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—said, if the Government can come up with improved amendments on Report to achieve this objective, I for one will welcome them. Does the Minister accept that the community renewable energy sector has the potential, as claimed by its advocates and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to provide 10% of the UK’s electricity generation? I hope that the Minister can respond to this question because it is incredibly important. If the Government can really do that—come on—surely we have to enable them to do it.
Does the Minister accept that it is perfectly feasible to reduce significantly the financial, technical and operational requirements to become a licensed energy supplier, and thus to reduce significantly the initial £1 million start-up cost involved? Of course, that makes the whole idea of developing these community energy schemes quite out of the question. Can he assure the Committee that the department will work to resolve these issues before Report?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I shall speak to the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Lennie and myself. Before I get to that point, though, I want to stress that the contributions made in this debate have been so strong that I cannot see how the Government can continue not to take this aspect of the debate with the seriousness it deserves, because at the end of the day we have very serious obligations and commitments to make. We are not going to achieve what we have set out to do if we do not focus on delivery, and the importance of how we take our communities and people with us on that journey. I really do not think that has been stressed enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, put it very well when he stressed the importance of involving local authorities in setting up local area energy plans, particularly something that has to be repeated again and again when we talk about this: the bringing-in of powers that need to go down to local authorities and then into the communities. The important aspect of this is that the resources must be there to accompany those powers. Frankly, we are in a situation where local authorities across the country have lost over 60% of their budgets. This needs to be taken into account when we consider how local areas can contribute to the important work that needs to be done in this space. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, expressed it exceptionally well by highlighting the current contradictions in government policies that are holding us back in so much of what we need to do.
Going through the debate, I commend the contributions that have been made from our partners coming in. They have brought such important evidence as to what we could be doing, and about the huge potential that could be unleashed if the Government were able to put the necessary measures in place.
In this group, we have focused specifically on setting up a community electricity export guarantee programme. Our amendments relate to community energy and would bring in new clauses between Parts 7 and 8 and Parts 12 and 13. We have done this because, as we have heard, community energy covers aspects of collective action to reduce, purchase, manage and generate electricity. Projects obviously have an emphasis on local engagement and local leadership and control. I firmly believe that that action can often tackle challenging issues around energy with communities, which are well placed to understand their local areas, and bring people together with common purpose. As we have heard, it often takes only a couple of experienced and committed people at a local level to unlock some of the issues we have faced that have been holding us back, and to advise government on what needs to be changed and done to bring this forward.
I do not know whether others picked up a significant amount of interest in the different media outlets over the weekend about community energy projects and initiatives that are being brought forward. We have heard that those projects are significant and cover a whole range of different aspects and ways of coming forward. I do not want to go over all the contributions that have been made, but I hope that we are all looking for some very specific measures and some movement from the Government that we can take forward to Report to examine how we can make the difference that we need.
Running all the way through this is the cruel impact of energy bills on our communities and local people. The response communitywide is because people have to work across so many different areas. That key element of behaviour change is absolutely essential if we are to bring the necessary partners together.
Our amendments would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to
“require licensed energy suppliers with more than 150,000 customers (‘eligible licensed suppliers’) to purchase electricity exports from sites generating low carbon electricity with a capacity below 5MW, including community energy groups … Licensed energy suppliers with fewer than 150,000 customers may also offer to purchase electricity exports from exporting sites … including community owned energy groups”.
Eligible licensed suppliers must
“offer a minimum export price set annually by OFGEM”,
offer a minimum five-year contract and allow
“the exporting site to end the contract after no more than 1 year.”
These steps are important to make sure that the benefits come to community energy projects and that they have a guaranteed stable market to operate in.
A community smart export guarantee is supported by Community Energy England. It would increase investor certainty, especially for larger-scale ground-mounted projects where most of the energy is exported. I am interested to hear what consideration the Government have given to such a scheme and whether we can look forward to progress to ensure that we can deliver.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this important debate. Let me start with Amendment 168, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. It seeks to ensure that guidance is published for local authorities regarding local area energy planning. Although the amendment is well-intentioned, in my view, it is not necessary. The Government already have work under way to consider the role of local area energy planning in delivering net zero and supporting efficient network planning, including heat network zoning policy. Through the Government’s Local Net Zero Forum, we are working with local authority representative bodies to discuss the roles and responsibilities of local government, and how we will work with local government to reach our targets.
I am sure the noble Lord agrees that local authorities are already well placed to undertake local area energy planning given their established relationships with many key stakeholders. Guidance to help develop local area energy plans was already published earlier this year and the Government directly supported this activity through the £104 million “prospering from the energy revolution” programme. This included co-funding for the development of guidance for local areas developing local energy plans and the subsequent delivery of those plans. This has so far seen plans produced for Peterborough, Pembrokeshire, Stafford, Cannock Chase and Lichfield. Given that this activity is already under way, I hope the noble Lord agrees that his amendment is unnecessary and will therefore feel able to withdraw it.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Boycott and Lady Blake, and the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Lennie, for Amendments 238 and 242G, which seek to enable community renewable generation schemes to sell electricity generated to local consumers. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her contribution. The Government believe that community groups have a role to play in our efforts to eliminate our contribution to climate change. However, it is our view that encouraging or introducing obligations on licensed electricity suppliers to mandate them to offer local tariffs would be a disproportionate intervention in the market. Local tariffs are better left as commercial decisions for suppliers.
There are already examples of suppliers offering local tariffs through the market. Octopus Energy offers customers in Market Weighton, Caerphilly and Halifax a tariff with discounted prices at times when electricity is generated locally. Any new obligation in this area is likely to be complex and burdensome, particularly if it interferes with suppliers’ existing services and processes already used to serve their customers.
It is therefore more appropriate to allow market-led solutions to continue to develop, rather than us trying to make commercial decisions on behalf of suppliers. As we set out in the British energy security strategy, the Government are developing local partnerships in England that will enable supportive communities to host new onshore wind infrastructure, for example, in return for benefits including lower energy bills. The Government are separately considering wider retail market reforms that deliver a fair deal for consumers, ensuring that the energy market is resilient and investable over the long term.
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the Government are undertaking a comprehensive review of electricity market arrangements in Great Britain, which considers options that encourage generation and demand to consider location. It also asks how markets can better value the role of small-scale, distributed, renewable electricity. The department is currently looking at the responses to the review of electricity markets consultation, which closed in October.
Amendments 237 and 242F would enable community renewable generation schemes to receive a guaranteed minimum price for the electricity that they export to the grid. Small-scale, low-carbon electricity generation should be brought forward through competitive, market-based solutions, which will help to encourage innovation and investment. We introduced the smart export guarantee in 2020 to provide exactly that: small-scale, low-carbon electricity generators with the right to be paid for the renewable electricity that they export to the grid. It ensures that these generators, which would otherwise struggle to find a way to sell electricity, can have guaranteed access to the market and a choice of options following the closure of the feed-in tariffs scheme.
To enable the SEG to be truly market-based and encourage innovation, however, suppliers must be in a position to set both the tariff levels and structure for themselves. We should allow the small-scale export market to develop with minimum intervention and not introduce a support scheme that specifies minimum prices or contract lengths for generators.
I say without much optimism that I hope noble Lords are reassured that the Government recognise the role that community-owned and locally owned renewable energy schemes can play in supporting the UK’s national net-zero targets. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister sits down, can he tell me—either now or in writing later—what is the Government’s estimate of the amount of local community energy generation that would be arrived at by 2030 under the market-led approach?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am happy to give the noble Baroness a detailed answer in writing but we do not see any particular limit on it. It is what the market will develop. The problem with the noble Baroness’s amendment is that she is seeking, in effect, to get every other customer to subsidise a relatively uncompetitive form of energy production. If community energy schemes are low-carbon and competitive, they will be able to take their place in the generation mix. Many of these community energy schemes are already supported and will continue to be.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I wonder whether, in writing to the noble Baroness, the Minister could also write to us on a couple of other things, including the number of schemes that have gone through the two mechanisms that were introduced subsequent to the feed-in tariff changes. This would let us see how trends are operating in the market situation that he is describing at the moment; my perception is that it is not producing growth in the uptake of community schemes. The Government must be clear: are they keen on community schemes, seeing them as a real attribute, or are they keen on only commercially competitive ones? If it is the latter, I am almost certain that we will not see many come forward.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are keen on these schemes but, as always, the question comes down to cost. How much we are prepared to subsidise an essentially uncompetitive scheme that is leveraged on the bills of everyone else who is not benefiting from these schemes? That is the fundamental question. I am of course happy to write with the clarification that the noble Baroness asks for.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am sorry but I really have to come back on that. Does the Minister acknowledge that there are advantages to these schemes other than on cost? They include, for example, insulation, bringing communities together and increasing acceptance and understanding of net zero, as many noble Lords have outlined.
Lord Callanan (Con)
If the noble Baroness is asking me whether I think that there is an advantage to insulation schemes, the answer is of course yes. I am not sure what her question is, but insulation is a great thing.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Finally, if the Minister can bear it, can he tell us in writing whether he feels that these small community schemes could in fact deliver 10% or so of the UK’s electricity energy; and what estimate he has made of the feasibility of reducing all these technical regulatory constraints, which cost so much at the very beginning? He will understand that, if you are going to make a profit, you have to invest up front. Small schemes are unlikely to be able to make that initial investment but it may well be a tremendous bonus to the country in the longer term if the Government were able to help them reduce all these costs at the outset. It would be helpful to have all that set out in a letter if the Minister is able to do so.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am of course happy to set out to noble Lords the details of our position in writing. We want to reduce bureaucracy as much as possible but we have an overriding need to ensure the stability of the energy system. Certain technical requirements need to be met by these schemes. We want to encourage them as much as we possibly can, but that comes with limits. We will certainly write with as many details as we can provide.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has been very helpful, but I am none the less fairly disappointed by the replies he has been able to give. To illustrate, I live in Eastbourne and, if you stand on the hills above Eastbourne—Britain’s sunniest town—and look down at hundreds of acres of industrial and retail estates and car parks, about the only solar panel you will see is on the local college’s eco training hub. That is because the ownership and commercial benefits of these areas are extremely complicated. No one is in a position to get a cost-effective, reasonable-scale scheme going on their own; it needs something that will work as a whole.
A decent feed-in tariff need not be subsidised—it can be below market rate—but there needs to be something so that there is a base on which you can build. My noble friend’s department was kind enough to send a representative to our recent solar summit. One of the main things that came out of a gathering of local businesses, energy suppliers and so on was the need for a basis on which local collaboration can be built, not to create something that requires a subsidy to produce electricity at a greater cost than would otherwise be the case, but to enable a very complicated situation to come together and be supported into commerciality, allowing local virtuous circles of electricity generation and consumption to emerge. That is not happening in our system at the moment, which is ridiculous. Something needs to happen to enable us to move from 200 hectares of white roof to 200 hectares of black roof, and to get the benefits of that.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said, a number of suppliers already offer competitive tariffs in the market. They will provide long-term certainty on pricing. There are many examples of industrial units that have already put solar panels on. Obviously, the most cost-effective way is for them to use that power themselves and export any surplus power to the grid using the smart export tariff guarantees. I will answer that question again: the Government are supportive of community energy schemes. We want to see more of them, but we think that is best delivered through the market framework. I will happily provide noble Lords with more detail in writing.
Lord Teverson (LD)
Can I remind the Minister that it is government policy to decarbonise the electricity system within 12 years and one week? That is no time at all. I am absolutely a defender and promoter of market forces, but in some places they just do not act quickly enough. We have a very short period of time in which we must decarbonise the electricity system. I cannot see why the Minister would not be in favour of ease of movement into this market. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, it does not necessarily require subsidy. To use a Borisonian term, it would unleash the real will of communities in this country to help in that target of decarbonisation by 2035. I cannot see why the Government do not grasp this and make the most of it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said, we are supportive of proposals. We accept the target for decarbonising electricity production and we are moving ahead full-scale with our sails erected—which is no doubt a Borisonian term—towards that goal. Community energy will play probably a small role, but it will play a role. Obviously, larger-scale generators will supply the majority of the nation’s electricity.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for participating in this very informative debate. I was very encouraged by what the Minister had to say in response to my Amendment 168 and the work already ongoing in government. I come back to the fragmented nature of local area energy plans: some local authorities have the resources and others perhaps do not. I look forward to fleshing out the detail on that as we go towards Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, put it really well. The key theme running through all this is the participation of local authorities and local groups in our energy transition and about defining the part they have to play. We have these big, top-down targets—50 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 and 24 gigawatts of nuclear by 2050, as well as heating targets—which are all of course very necessary. But we need that bottom-up view and a better definition of the role of local authorities and local groups in supporting this huge engineering challenge, and I say that as an engineer. It is about stitching together all that local data to better inform how we respond nationally. I look forward to further discussions leading up to Report but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends the reference to electrical energy in the definition of “energy smart appliance” that applies for the purposes of Part 8.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 169 standing in the name of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Callanan, and will also speak to Amendments 170 to 172. This group of amendments considers the definitions set out in Chapter 1 under Clause 186 on “Energy smart appliances and load control”. Clause 186 sets out a number of definitions that are used in other clauses of the Bill relating to load control. These include permitting the creation of new licensable activities, the modification of licence conditions and industry codes for load control purposes, and the making of regulations for energy smart appliances.
Amendments 169 to 171 have two combined effects. First, by removing the reference to the “use, discharge and storage” of electricity, the definition broadens the potential scope of appliances captured. This is because the definition is now agnostic to the way in which the appliance interacts with electricity. Instead, we are now concerned only that there is a flow of electricity into or out of the appliance which can be controlled by a load control signal. The original formulation does not clearly capture local generation of electricity by an appliance—for example, solar panels—and we wish to capture this.
For the purposes of licensing load control, the relevant factor is the sending of a load control signal to an energy smart appliance, regardless of whether that signal is then received by the appliance. Therefore, the amendments make it clearer that the signal needs only to be sent to an energy smart appliance, not necessarily received, to be regarded as a load control signal.
Amendment 172 clarifies that a load control signal may not only be a signal that directly affects electricity usage by an appliance but one that affects the electricity flow into or out of an appliance, based on additional information that is available to the appliance. This means that the improved definition also captures a signal which can configure a device to change electricity usage, depending on additional information available to the appliance. For example, an appliance could be configured to increase its electricity usage if the price of electricity drops below a certain level.
I hope the Committee will agree that these are important amendments that deliver additional clarity in the definitions used.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 154, line 25, amends the definition of “load control signal” that applies for the purposes of Part 8 so that it includes a digital communication sent to an energy smart appliance even if the communication is not received by the appliance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 154, line 24.
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2) an adjustment to the flow of electricity into or out of an appliance is made in response to a load control signal whether it is made in response to—(a) the sending of the signal, or(b) the sending of the signal and one or more additional factors.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment glosses the definition of “energy smart appliance” that applies for the purposes of Part 8 to make it clear that a load control signal may be one of a number of factors in response to which an adjustment is made.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the other amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 155, line 6, amends the list of purposes of energy smart appliances about which regulations may be made so that it includes appliances for cleaning tableware and washing or drying textiles but not other cleaning appliances.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 173, I will also speak to Amendments 174 to 176, 178 to 180 and 182 in the name of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Callanan.
Amendments 173 to 176 provide clarification and consistency to the definitions of the appliances to which the energy smart regulations will apply. These definitions focus on the purpose of an appliance. Amendments 173 and 174 ensure that energy smart regulations can be made only for cleaning appliances that are most appropriate for demand-side flexibility. This includes, for example, a dishwasher or a washing machine. Amendment 175 allows battery storage to be captured in a manner consistent with the definition of electricity storage in Clause 162. Amendments 176 and 182 clarify that the regulations capture heat pumps, which are essential to the Government’s policy objectives for decarbonising heat.
Next, Amendments 178 and 179 indicate that the Secretary of State may make provision about the recall of non-compliant appliances and may issue guidance about the prohibitions and requirements imposed by these regulations. These amendments therefore provide further safeguards to address serious cases of non-compliance and will support industry to comply with its obligations, aided by guidance.
Lastly, Amendment 180 makes a minor amendment to ensure that the regulations cover additional methods other than ordinary selling for making energy smart appliances available to consumers, such as hire purchase agreements.
Energy smart appliances will play an essential part in the transition to a smarter energy system, enabling consumers to save money on bills and contributing to cost-effective decarbonisation. These amendments provide important clarifications on the scope of these regulations and make certain that they can be implemented effectively in a way that maximises the benefits of smart functionality for consumers and the electricity group.
I will respond to the non-government amendments in this group when we have heard noble Lords’ contributions. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My little Amendment 177 seems to have intruded on this group of government amendments. I tabled it because I was concerned about the practical implications of the Government’s reliance on smart regulations and smart appliances. I am certainly not arguing with the technology but I am seeking to tease out exactly how this will impact on us and the people of Britain as ordinary consumers.
If you read Clause 187, you will see that it is very dictatorial and centralised in its approach. Yet if you look at paragraph 438 of the Explanatory Notes you will see that, in practice, the Government’s intentions are going to be carried out by retailers and manufacturers, and they will face penalties if they do not get it right. My concern is that one size does not fit all. For example, the noble Baroness just mentioned washing machines and so on, but my example would be electric vehicles. We are told to charge electric vehicles at times when electricity usage is low, and we are promised that this will become an automatic default position. The Government are relying on smart usage, in effect, to expand limited national grid capacity. At the weekend, when I was reading some background material, I noticed that there are only two regions where there is currently said to be any level of surplus national grid capacity. The rest of the country is in a very stretched position.
I have been asking these questions for some years. I have been asking how a reliance on telling people when they can wash their clothes or charge their cars will impact on consumers and the way we use our gadgets and run our daily lives. There is a current experiment, not using smart technology but with a voluntary agreement, to get people to opt in to using their washing machines, dishwashers and so on at low-demand periods, with a financial incentive to do that. That is great if it is convenient for these people and they are opting in to do it. I am pleased that the experiment is taking place, as I am sure it will produce some useful information, but I want to float past everyone a couple of potential issues.
First, I do not want to bore noble Lords for long with the details of my domestic life but I have solar panels and an electric car. I want to use my washing machine and dishwasher and charge my electric vehicle when the sun is out; sometimes, that is at a time of peak demand. I am saving myself money, which I regard as a good thing, but, more importantly, I am limiting the amount I draw down from the grid because my solar panels provide my electricity. I am minimising my call on the grid. There are lots of people like me with solar panels; let us hope that there are heaps more in the coming months and years. This issue needs to be taken into account.
Secondly, more importantly, there is a host of people whose working patterns require them to charge their cars and do their washing at peak times. A care worker working nights has to fit their domestic life around those daily patterns, which might be peak demand times. This is not just about just care workers; it is about health workers, district nurses or anyone working on shifts—the police, firefighters and taxi drivers. We want taxi drivers to drive electric vehicles but they are going to run out of electricity half way through the day; they must be enabled to carry on their work.
We have all, I am sure, experienced a situation where we have had to take our phone or laptop to the technical experts because it is doing something strange, behaving in a way that is beyond our understanding. We are normally told that it is the factory settings or an automatic download. I am now aware that, because they are so automated, electric vehicles adopt patterns that one might not necessarily understand fully because they have downloaded a new program and so on. As the technology becomes more sophisticated, in reality, consumers will find it more difficult to understand what it is doing, why and to override it when they need to.
My big question is that any reliance on smart charging and smart usage must be able to be adapted for that large body of people for whom it is not convenient. In days of high energy prices, most of us can probably be relied on to know what is best for us financially and, therefore, what draws least from the grid. I am concerned that the way in which this is expressed allows no latitude, judgment or option for consumers to make that decision for themselves.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 181 in my name, which follows on from what my noble friend Lady Randerson was talking about.
The whole area of smart appliances is really important. It is in fact where demand management starts to creep into this Bill; it is about the only place that it does. The popularity of their potential has, I think, been shown by National Grid’s call for people to offer to manage their energy usage over particular times in the winter; the Minister may give us the figures but I think that more than a million people have shown an interest in it. I would be interested to know where we are with that.
There is a risk here, however. We have seen it with smart meters. I will not go back to the smart meters argument but one barrier to rollout has been the fear of people sharing information. Clearly, data is core to smart technology; data is personal so there is the question of how that data will be used.
My Amendment 181 is really a probing amendment; it is not in the form that would finally go into a Bill. It seeks to understand how the Government are going to communicate what is a really important thrust in terms of demand management and the way we use dispersed energy systems in a smart grid. How are they going to explain and deliver the strategy outlined so that we do not have the consumer reaction that we have had in other areas, including smart meters—very much media-driven, I should add? I want to avoid that.
The other area on which I want to tackle the Minister is concerns Clause 187(3)(d). It is one sub-paragraph of just three lines about security of information—indeed, the whole area of security. This is a core, important area: we know that, wherever smart systems or information technology are involved, there are all sorts of threats regarding the use of personal information. There is also the threat of external hacking, with state actors or others going into these systems and making them unusable.
It is easy and right to say that personal and other data used with smart technologies are secure or otherwise protected, but who is actually going to do that? I am talking about security or communication software systems. I would like to know from the Minister who will be responsible for the protection and security of these systems. I believe that it is important from the bottom up in terms of personal information but also in terms of smart grids and external, less favourable people towards the United Kingdom intervening here. I am sure that the Government have this under control and consideration but it is a really important area. We need to understand that it is being taken seriously and that, whoever the person or authority, they are going to make sure that these particular three lines in Clause 187(3)(d) are delivered.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will be brief, but I will continue the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on security. I do not have a sense of confidence when we are told that the Government are going to be responsible for these specific areas. Could we have some more detail from the Minister about how this will be put in place and regulated? As we have heard in this discussion, exposure to cyberthreats could be enhanced by the very nature of smart technology. Therefore, we need a great deal of reassurance that this is being dealt with appropriately, and we know who is ultimately responsible for that reassurance.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Blake, for their contributions. I was going to cover enforcement in group 7, but I have now catapulted some of those remarks back into this group so that we can cover that at the same time.
Turning first to Amendment 177, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, the Government have published both the smart systems and flexibility plan of 2021 and the July 2022 public consultation on developing a smart and secure electricity system. Both documents set out how consumers can provide flexibility to the system and reduce their energy bills via the deployment and use of energy smart technologies and flexibility services. Consumer interests and considerations are at their heart. However, we believe that this amendment would place an unreasonable and inappropriate expectation that regulations could determine or pre-empt how and when consumers choose to use those smart technologies and appliances. It is unnecessary as the Energy Bill is already clear on the importance of protecting and providing benefit to consumers.
First, Clause 187 already allows for regulations to be made which impose requirements on energy smart appliances—in particular, to ensure that the appliance can operate in response to load control signals; to ensure the protection of end-users; and to impose technical requirements, including the requirement to display or provide information about the appliance. Secondly, in taking these primary powers, the Government are also clear that energy smart appliances should always benefit consumers in line with their preferences and choices. The detail of how appliances may be operated is for manufacturers and product designers, and for consumers when they make their product choices. No one will be forced to use their appliances at particular times, and consumers should decide how they want to utilise smart functionality to best meet their individual needs and lifestyles.
The noble Baroness referenced EV charge points. The Government anticipate implementing these measures in a phased approach over several years, recognising the EV charge point sector is already working hard to implement existing regulations. We will work collaboratively with industry as our policy develops, building and learning from the experience of the EV charge point regulations to deliver necessary protections for the energy system and for consumers. To reiterate, consumers will remain in control. This legislation is aimed at facilitating exactly the sorts of exemplary behaviours the noble Baroness is referring to. So, while I welcome the intention of her amendment, I hope she recognises that the Bill sufficiently commits future regulations to maximising the benefits of smart energy technology to deliver the best outcomes for consumers and the wider system.
Turning to Amendment 181, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the Government have already set out how consumers could reduce their bills and be rewarded for the value they provide by using smart appliances in a flexible way. I refer noble Lords again to the smart systems and flexibility plan and the public consultation on developing a smart and secure electricity system. However, this amendment would place an impractical and inappropriate expectation on the Secretary of State to make a statement on exactly how individual consumers can derive maximum value from their smart appliances.
This value is highly variable, depending on how flexible consumers can be with their energy use, their location and the type of smart service and appliances they wish to use. Manufacturers and flexibility service providers will be best placed to inform consumers about the best available benefits and value from their products and services. So, while I welcome the intention of the noble Lord’s amendment, I hope that he can recognise the impracticality of his suggestion and appreciate the wider government actions in train to maximise the benefits of smart energy technology for consumers and the wider system.
The noble Lord also spoke about security, a concern also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake. Regulations made under these enabling powers will ensure that smart devices in scope are secure by design, and that economic operators that play a critical role in delivering load control services to consumers are meeting minimum standards of cybersecurity and data privacy. BEIS is working very closely with the National Cyber Security Centre as well as industry experts to implement measures we intend to take to achieve this. So I beg to move the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan and ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
“(ba) washing or drying textiles;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the other amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 155, line 6.
“(c) storing energy that—(i) was converted from electricity, and(ii) is stored for the purpose of its future reconversion into electricity;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the list referred to in the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 155, line 6 so as to refer to electricity storage using language consistent with that used in Clause 162 of the Bill.
“(d) heating;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the list referred to in the amendment in the name of Lord Callanan at page 155, line 6 to remove unnecessary words from the entry referring to heating.
“(ca) make provision about the recall of appliances to prevent, or in response to, non-compliance with the regulations;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables energy smart regulations to make provision about the recall of appliances.
“(cb) make provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about prohibitions or requirements imposed by or under the regulations;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables energy smart regulations to provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about prohibitions or requirements imposed by or under the regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the list of persons on whom energy smart regulations may impose prohibitions or requirements so as to include persons who supply energy smart appliances by means including but not limited to selling them.
“(3A) The reference in subsection (3)(b)(ii) to electrical heating appliances includes a reference to heat pumps.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment glosses the definition of “relevant appliance” so as to clarify that heat pumps without the energy smart function, or that are not compatible with the energy smart function of another appliance, are relevant appliances about which provision by virtue of Clause 187(4)(c) may be made.
“(iii) take specified steps to remedy non-compliance;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables energy smart regulations to make provision about steps that must be taken to remedy non-compliance (without an enforcement authority imposing a requirement under provision made by virtue of Clause 189(5)).
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to strengthen the enforcement powers of the energy smart regulations. This would enable an enforcement authority to investigate and take action swiftly and effectively against non-compliance, and to provide support to industry to comply with their obligations. First, these amendments enable the regulations to place obligations on economic actors to take steps to remedy non-compliance, and to provide evidence of their compliance to an enforcement authority.
Secondly, the amendments allow an enforcement authority to test and make test purchases to assess and to ensure that appliances comply with the regulations. This is an essential requirement, given the necessarily technical requirements the Government will impose to protect consumers and the energy system. If severe non-compliance is identified, Amendment 186 grants a power to an enforcement authority to issue a recall notice to withdraw appliances from the market, if necessary.
Thirdly, Amendment 187 permits an enforcement authority to accept enforcement undertakings. This allows authorities to work constructively with industry to ensure appliances are brought into compliance with regulations, without the need for costly corrective enforcement action being taken.
Finally, Amendment 188 allows an enforcement authority to issue guidance about the enforcement of the regulations and how any authority would exercise its role. This will support industry to comply with their obligations. The market for these appliances is expected to grow rapidly and will play an essential part in the transition to a smarter energy system. These appliances will help consumers save money on bills and contribute to cost-efficient decarbonisation. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is an important group of amendments to enable an appropriate and proportionate enforcement regime to develop, which is consistent and compatible with existing product safety legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I just want to probe the Minister so that I understand how this works in practice. What are the Government enforcing? Is it an operating system? Is it the design of a chip? Is it the company that makes them? Will they be type-approved in the UK? Will there be compatibility across different domains? All producers of white goods are international, I think. Will we have our own standards here? I am trying to understand how this will work practically. I absolutely agree with the Minister that this is a key area.
Enforcement authorities are mentioned in the Bill. I just want to understand who they are. Are they the thought police? The Minister mentioned an organisation—the UK cyber headquarters or whatever—so is it that? Is it the Department of Trade, as we would have understood it? Is it the police? Who are those enforcement agencies and how will they work?
I have one last request for clarification. Clause 189(2)(f) refers to
“conferring functions, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion.”
I cannot work out what that means so I would be pleased to understand it.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I agree that the language in that particular paragraph is quite legalistic. I might need to come back to the noble Lord on that one unless I can get an instant answer.
As I have said, the detailed enforcement regime will be set out in legislation. The enforcement powers underpinning these regulations will provide an appropriate toolkit to allow an enforcement authority to work with industry to ensure that appliances are both compliant with the future regulations and proportionate to the risks that non-compliant devices could pose to consumers and the grid. The Government have aligned the enforcement powers underpinning the regulations with other product regulations that have similar enforcement powers, such as the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016 and the Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021.
We are in conversation with regulators on our measures. We are confident that we will have the right knowledge and expertise to resource and regulate this market as it develops. I think that is probably as far as I can go at this stage.
“(ba) requiring persons to supply evidence of their compliance to enforcement authorities;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables energy smart regulations to make provision requiring persons to supply evidence of their compliance to enforcement authorities.
“(ea) conferring powers to enable the testing of energy smart appliances by enforcement authorities, including powers to require the provision of sample appliances and powers to make test purchases;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables energy smart regulations to confer the powers necessary to enable enforcement authorities to test energy smart appliances.
“(d) recall appliances to prevent, or in response to, non-compliance with energy smart regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables energy smart regulations to allow enforcement authorities, by written notice, to require persons to recall energy smart appliances.
“(7A) Energy smart regulations may make provision to enable an enforcement authority to accept an enforcement undertaking from a person where the authority has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has failed to comply with any prohibition or requirement imposed by or under the regulations.(7B) An “enforcement undertaking” is an undertaking to take such action to secure compliance with the regulations as may be specified in the undertaking within such period as may be so specified.(7C) Provision made by virtue of subsection (7A) must include provision that unless the person from whom the undertaking was accepted has failed to comply with the undertaking or any part of it—(a) that person may not at any time be convicted of an offence in respect of the act or omission to which the undertaking relates, and(b) the enforcement authority may not impose on that person any penalty which it would otherwise have power to impose under the regulations.(7D) Provision made by virtue of subsection (7A) may include any provision of a kind mentioned in section 50(5) of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables energy smart regulations to make provision enabling an enforcement authority to accept enforcement undertakings.
“(9) Energy smart regulations may provide for an enforcement authority to issue guidance about the enforcement of the regulations and the exercise by the authority of its functions under the regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables energy smart regulations to provide for an enforcement authority to issue guidance about the enforcement of the regulations and about the exercise of its functions.
“(1A) Energy smart regulations may make provision about the sharing of information between an enforcement authority and the GEMA for the purposes of their functions in relation to energy smart appliances and load control.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables energy smart regulations to make provision to facilitate information sharing between any enforcement authority designated under the regulations and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (and vice versa).
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the Government have tabled two amendments relating to the licensing of load control. The activity of load control here refers to the control of electricity flow to an energy smart appliance by a load controller.
The first of these amendments, to Clause 192, will ensure that the information-sharing between enforcement authorities for energy smart appliance regulations and load-control licensing is explicitly provided for in legislation. The energy smart appliance regime and the load control regime may be regulated by different authorities, so it is imperative that they are able to communicate effectively and share information where necessary. The second of these amendments also relates to the effective delivery of the load control licensing regime. It relates to Schedule 16 and ensures that the provision for consequential amendments to be made to existing legislation, in practice to support the amending of licence conditions, also applies to Acts of the Scottish Parliament or instruments made under them.
In practice, it is unlikely that amendments will be required to Acts of the Scottish Parliament or instruments made under them. However, the load control market is a nascent market. We cannot rule out the possibility that future categories of licence could interact with devolved matters in Scotland. This amendment will ensure that that scenario is provided for, should it ever be needed; should this scenario arise, the Government would of course work with the Scottish Government and adhere to the appropriate processes.
These two amendments will help to provide clarification and explicit provision to support the effective delivery of a load-control licensing system. I beg to move.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment omits a provision that is superseded by new Clause (Section (Modifications of licences etc): supplementary).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables provision made by regulations under section 56FBA of the Electricity Act 1989 (inserted by the Bill) to include amendments to Acts of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Statutory Instruments (which are not within the meaning of “enactment” given by the Interpretation Act 1978).
Lord Ravensdale
“National Energy Demand Reduction Strategy(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish an Energy Demand Reduction Strategy, to include but not limited to the following—(a) achieving a low-carbon heat target, of 100% of installations of relevant heating appliances being low-carbon by 1 January 2035;(b) achieving an energy-efficiency target, of all UK homes and buildings attaining a minimum EPC C rating by 2028;(c) interim targets relating to the targets in paragraphs (a) and (b), and the development of skills to achieve them, at not less than three-yearly intervals;(d) a programme of public engagement and a single source of advice provided by the Government to raise awareness of and encourage energy demand reduction.(2) The Secretary of State must, in developing the Government’s strategy on reducing energy demand, consult the Climate Change Committee and its sub-committee on adaptation.”Member's explanatory statement
This is a new Clause which requires the Secretary of State to publish a National Energy Demand Reduction Strategy to provide for delivery of low carbon heat and energy efficiency targets for all UK homes and buildings.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 192 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman, which is supported by noble Lords across the House, some of whom cannot be here today, including my noble friend. Amendment 192 is quite simple in that its sole purpose is to require the Government to produce an energy demand reduction strategy. It would require the strategy to be in line with the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation for all buildings to be EPC C by 2028, and in line with the Government’s own non-statutory commitments for all heating appliances to be low carbon by 2035. The strategy would have to include interim targets, including on the development of the necessary skills needed for the strategy to be achieved, and a public engagement element.
Since my noble friend Lady Hayman tabled this amendment at the end of the summer, we have seen some welcome movement from the Government. Last month they announced an £18 million public awareness campaign, with an overall target of reducing energy demand by 15% by 2030. To do this the Chancellor, in his Autumn Statement, announced £6 billion of funding—but not for this Parliament. I believe that while the Exchequer is footing our energy bills to the tune of billions of pounds a year, it would perhaps make sense to bring forward this investment. A new energy efficiency task force was also announced, which will be charged with delivering energy efficiency across the economy to realise that 15% reduction.
The government announcements on demand are most welcome, but what is lacking is that golden thread of a strategy to weave it all together. In that sense, the amendment is highly complementary to what the Government are aiming to achieve with demand reduction. A strategy such as this would link together all the areas which need to coalesce to ensure we can reduce the energy consumption of our buildings: strategic leadership by government, providing certainty to the sector; a plan for how and where efficiency will be achieved; importantly, the jobs and skills which will be required to deliver the energy efficiency improvements; and engaging with the public so that they are fully aware of the necessity of doing this and of the benefits to them that can be realised.
The final strategy would be up to the Government to decide, as is correct, but it could include and outline who will receive government support and through what means; what the expectations will be for those who are able to pay for it but perhaps are not doing so at the moment, because they are waiting to see whether they will receive support from the Government; and what non-financial incentives the Government will use to achieve the overall target. The strategy could also outline in what order improvements to efficiency could or should be made, while it should include provisions for skilling the workforce that will be needed. As I said, the Government have already implemented or are planning to implement things which are included in this amendment, but it would be helpful for the sectors which will carry out the work, for households and building managers and, no doubt, for civil servants to have this all in one place.
I have an example: I went to visit a heat pump manufacturer a few weeks back. It made the point that we have the target of installing 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028, which is very good, but that the dots need to be joined—for example, having the skills available to install those heat pumps and incentives for households to install them. The dots need to be joined between the production of heat pumps, demand, skills and all those other aspects. That is one of the things this strategy could provide.
Reducing energy consumption in the near term does not require every household to do an urgent retrofit or install a heat pump next year. There are small and relatively cheap improvements, such as installing loft and cavity wall insulation, draught-proofing, thermostatic radiator valves and smart thermostats. It would cost around £1,100 on average to install these in a typical semi-detached house, which would cut energy bills by £273 annually. Under current energy prices, these costs would pay for themselves in just five years. The earlier we take action, the bigger the aggregate savings will be.
I also note that this approach would be popular with the public. Various organisations have come out in favour of a strategy like this. In a recent briefing, UKSIF, E3G and Carbon Tracker stated that improving the efficiency of the UK housing stock could lead to bill savings of at least £500 every year per household, and around £1,000 per year for the least efficient homes—an aggregate annual saving to the economy of £10 billion. Insulated buildings are also less damp and healthier to live in. I beg to move Amendment 192.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which has been so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. The crux of it is that it calls for joined-up policies around energy demand management, low-carbon heat and energy efficiency by requiring a national energy demand reduction strategy.
I have the privilege of sitting on your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Select Committee, and our current inquiry, as noble Lords have already heard, is into the boiler upgrade scheme. Indeed, we had an interesting session with the Minister last week. We have been hearing evidence from the UK and internationally, particularly those countries which are further ahead on air and ground-source heat pump adoption than we are. Both national and international witnesses have confirmed the importance of the key elements of this amendment.
The first is joining up policies by having multiple instruments clustered together and working to maximise uptake of grants and loans. Regulatory bars on old technology should be signalled in advance, but not too far in advance. There should be public information campaigns and effective campaigning for the positive promotion of energy demand reduction.
The second feature that comes clearly in this amendment is that low-carbon heat is not enough. Our housing stock is among the worst in western Europe. Low-carbon heat needs to be linked much more closely than it currently is with effective energy efficiency programmes, and both need interlinked targets so that progress can be co-ordinated and measured. The whole issue of rising energy prices has brought this into sharp focus. We expect to see nearly 11 million households in fuel poverty this winter. Many of those households live in houses that typify the UK as having the worst-insulated housing stock in western Europe.
There needs to be huge progress in energy efficiency as part of the mix but I caution an overreliance on EPCs as a means of judging that, because they are very imprecise instruments. In fact, they can have some peculiar outcomes: if you have an air source heat pump installed in your building you will not necessarily get a higher rated EPC as a result. We have to be sure that we are not inadvertently placing a trap for ourselves for buildings, particularly old and heritage buildings, that will never reach EPC band C.
The third element of the integrated strategy the amendment calls for is the issue of skills in installing and maintaining low-carbon technologies, and in installing energy-efficiency measures. Energy-efficiency skills are much more timeworn and easier. Skills for installing low-carbon technologies are more complex and we are only at the beginning of the road. NESTA has estimated that there were around 3,000 heat pump engineers as of July. It projects that we will need around 27,000 heat pump engineers if the Government are to meet that target of 600,000 installations a year by 2028. There has to be a really big investment in skills programmes. I had a figure that I have now lost, but the German Government have put about €28 million towards skills improvement. We need to be in that ballpark.
The fourth thing is public engagement. I commend the Government for, at long last, having lurched into action with their “It All Adds Up” campaign, but that is rather late in the day and very much short term in the face of price rises. It needs to be sustained and not overly to rely on social media and the public being left to seek out digital sources. I am glad that it will contain a couple of TV ads, but you do not get much television advertising for an £18 million budget these days.
The national energy demand reduction strategy that the amendment proposes would be well worth while in bringing these issues together in a co-ordinated way.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 197, 198A, 198B and 212. While I acknowledge that there are some differences between the targets referred to in Amendment 192 and my own, I nevertheless support the principles behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which was so ably introduced. The main purport of my amendments, and part of her Amendment 192, relates to energy efficiency and the important, urgent need to improve that in some 19 million homes across the UK. which are currently classed as energy inefficient—those rated below EPC band C. I say in passing to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I entirely agree that we urgently need to address the way we take the measurements that we currently use in our very out-of-date EPC system.
I have raised the issue of energy efficiency on numerous occasions in your Lordship’s House and have arguing for a crash programme of energy efficiency to reduce fuel consumption and fuel bills for years to come. Yet, sadly, even in the past year, work on home energy efficiency has plunged by 50% and is now at its lowest level since 2018. A decade ago, 2.3 million homes had energy-efficiency measures being installed; now it is nothing like that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow that tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, who is your Lordships’ House’s acknowledged expert in this area. I will add just a couple of small points to what he said. In case anyone is wondering, all those withdrawn amendments to the noble Lord’s original amendments were me saying, “Please, Government, can we have some more?”, because that is the Greens’ role in life.
The arguments just presented by the noble Lord for the Government putting their own existing targets into the Bill are overwhelming. I would be very happy to come behind his amendment on Report, if needed, although I should note that I will also be speaking in favour of Amendment 192, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It has full cross-party support, including from the Conservative noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, so there was no space for my name.
I shall make just a couple of points and point to a couple of sets of stats that I think are quite useful here. One is a study by Friends of the Earth, which found that nearly 9,000 neighbourhoods in England and Wales—just over a quarter of all neighbourhoods—have less-than-average incomes but higher-than-average energy bills. This picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that EPCs take us only so far and can be misleading. It is looking at actual energy figures that really shows us where some of the greatest need lies. These neighbourhoods are occupied by 15 million people. Although it is not explicitly written into Amendment 192, it could be in the strategy to target help at those who need it most and fastest. We could make that a priority area, which would certainly seem to be a logical part of an energy strategy and, again, very much in line with the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
One other point to make is that we tend to feel that we have done all the easy stuff and now we have to think about ground source heat pumps and high levels of insulation. We still have an estimated 4.4 million homes in England that do not have cavity wall insulation but could have it, and 4.8 million homes without the absolute basic of loft insulation. There is a lot of basic stuff to be done.
Coming back to Amendment 192, I will spare the Minister another debate on video advertising screens but it is worth stressing—I see this in my social media feeds all the time—that we are now subsidising business energy use. Surely the Government want to cut government spending as much as possible. It may not be the biggest scandal in the world but, boy, it annoys people to regularly drive past an unoccupied building site and see it, or unoccupied or barely occupied office buildings, lit up like a Christmas tree 24 hours a day—and we are all paying for it. Surely this is something that the Government would want to tackle in an energy strategy to make sure that we are not subsidising unnecessary energy use.
I probably will not make myself very popular with the Government by saying this, but I want to point to a report, which came out at the weekend, by Another Europe Is Possible and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, a well-respected group in Germany. The report points out that the EU already has a much higher rate of home energy efficiency measures, so is starting from a much better base, and is aiming to double its annual rate of renovation and reduction in energy use over the next eight years to 2030. If the EU can do it, why can we not?
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, so much has already been said that there is little for me to add. I have put my name to Amendment 192.
The only thing I want to say is that the Government need to understand the strength of feeling across the Committee on the complete lack of emphasis in this Bill on something that is doable, that is within our grasp and that the Government have recognised needs to be done but have done nothing whatever to implement it. Noble Lords are trying to help the Government here by tabling what I think are very sensible amendments; I hope that the Government will take note of them.
We have had lots of briefings on this issue. There is huge depth of feeling in the communities of Britain on this. One of the NGOs that we received some briefings from, the UK Green Building Council—sorry, it is not an NGO; it is, however, a body that knows an awful lot about this matter—published a scorecard assessing the Government’s progress since they published their Heat and Buildings Strategy in October 2021. The council concluded that
“most of the Government’s proposals or plans fail to deliver progress towards—or even actively hinder—a net zero carbon built environment.”
In its Review of Energy Policy 2022, the UK Energy Research Centre is equally scathing.
I hope that the Government will take note of these telling criticisms and do something in the Bill to rectify that.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate so far. We on the Labour Benches certainly welcome Amendment 192 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Hayman, and others, which would create a requirement to publish a national energy demand reduction strategy. It seems an obvious point to make.
We received some information from Energy UK. It says that, although we cannot deal with the current crisis in this Bill, it can ensure that long-term strategies are put in place to tackle the energy efficiency of the UK’s housing stock. This powerful point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster. If we do not have targets to measure it against, we cannot really manage it; we just have—I do not quite know what—a sort of wish list, I suppose. We support the targets suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Foster.
The Bill outlines its intention to create powers to remove the European energy performance of buildings directive, or EPBD, requirements in the UK. Those requirements are not perfect, but they have been in place in the supply chain, effectively delivering energy efficiency measures and low-carbon technologies. How will the Government safeguard against the potential for the UK to roll back on energy performance of buildings regulations when we remove the European energy performance of buildings regulations? We risk falling behind the rest of Europe, if we have not done so already, in this space.
We also need to see the detail regarding how the Government will safeguard against the potential for the UK to fall behind the rest of Europe. We need clarification on what measures the Government will take to ensure that all buildings are fit for the future, given the lack of measures in the Bill to reform planning and building regulations. The latter requirement could also be backed by the introduction of a net-zero test, as previously set out, but what measures will the Government take to ensure that all buildings are fit for the future, given the lack of measures in the Bill to reform planning and building regulations or set specific targets for delivery?
Finally, in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said about the 19 million homes requiring energy efficiency measures to be put in place pretty quickly, I recommend to the Government Labour’s warm homes plan, which will deliver fully costed upgrades to 19 million homes, cutting bills and creating thousands of good jobs for the future.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate on energy efficiency, which is very much a matter dear to my heart. Noble Lords may have noticed that I was delighted to launch the Government’s £18 million “It all adds up” energy saving campaign on Saturday—it is almost as if it was designed especially for this debate—with advice that could help UK households cut hundreds of pounds off their bills. The campaign features tips on simple, low or no-cost actions that households can take to immediately cut energy use and save money while ensuring that people are able to stay safe and warm this winter.
We know that warmer homes and buildings are key to reducing bills and will create jobs along the way. That is why the Government are committed to driving improvements in energy efficiency, with a new ambition to reduce the UK’s final energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030. Existing plans that we already have in place are expected to deliver around half of this new ambition. To go further, we will need to work together as a country to reduce waste and improve the way we use energy. As has been referenced in this debate, a new energy efficiency task force is being established to lead this national effort.
First, Amendment 192, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, requires the Secretary of State to publish a national energy demand reduction strategy to provide for the delivery of low-carbon heat and energy efficiency targets for all UK homes and buildings. Again, while I understand the reasoning behind this amendment, we do not consider it necessary to ensure that our commitments to improve the energy performance of buildings and our net-zero targets are met.
We already have a heat and buildings strategy which sets out the actions the Government need to take to increase the energy efficiency of buildings in the near term and provides a clear long-term framework to enable industry to invest and deliver the transition to low-carbon heating. Just having another strategy document does not make the policy decisions that are required any less difficult. As I have already mentioned, the Government are launching the energy efficiency task force with the key objectives of developing a long-term strategy to drive improvements in energy efficiency and reduce national energy demand.
As I have repeated many times in the House, we are investing £6.6 billion over this Parliament on clean heat and improving energy efficiency in buildings, reducing our reliance on fossil fuel heating. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referenced, the Autumn Statement also recently announced a further £6 billion of funding to become available from 2025. In the context of spending reductions and a difficult economic environment, I was delighted to see that announcement from the Chancellor. The Government also recently announced—and we are now consulting on—a further energy efficiency support scheme through ECO+. The scheme will be worth about £1 billion and shall deliver an average household saving of around £310 per year through a broad mix of affordable insulation measures, including loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, draught-proofing and heating controls.
Amendment 197, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, requires the Secretary of State to set an average energy performance certificate target for mortgage lenders of EPC C by the end of 2030. It also gives the Government the power to make regulations that relate to the disclosure of energy performance information on properties in their portfolio. I have met with many of the lenders, and I agree that they have an important role to play in improving the energy efficiency of the UK’s housing stock. However, as we highlighted in our consultation on improving home energy performance through lenders, the Government are concerned that the amendment may have unintended consequences for the mortgage and housing market. I am sure that this is not the noble Lord’s intention, but there is a danger of disincentivising mortgage lenders from lending to energy-inefficient properties. We would then end up with a load of unmortgageable homes in the UK, which I do not think anybody wants to see.
It is imperative that mortgage lenders are not disincentivised from lending to any particular group while home owners are under unprecedented financial pressure. The Government are using the feedback from the consultation to refine the policy and will publish a response once the policy matters have been resolved.
The noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, all mentioned the importance of skills. If anything, that is key to this area, probably even more so than the availability of funding. We understand that scale-up requires consistent long-term deployment streams via government funding and regulation, which is what we are attempting to do, so that companies working in these markets can make the investments needed and individuals can choose to upskill.
To grow the installer supply chain, we are investing in skills and training. In 2021, the Government invested £6 million in the BEIS skills training competition, resulting in almost 7,000 training opportunities being provided across heat pump installation and wider retrofit skills. In fact, we have another training competition out for bids at the moment.
Amendment 212 in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would require the Secretary of State to collect and publish a list of those public buildings that hold display energy certificates, commonly referred to as DECs, and those that do not. I really do not believe that it would be cost effective for the Government to identify and inspect all public buildings that require a DEC, nor to record this information. The energy performance of buildings report published in 2020 cited an estimated DEC compliance of about 83%. We currently publish DEC data as part of our register. I hope noble Lords agree that this demonstrates that the existing system, which we intend to continue and keep under review, is working well in respect of DEC compliance.
Finally, Amendments 198A and 198B from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would require the Secretary of State to ensure that all households achieve an energy performance certificate band C by 2035, with specified exemptions, and require regulations relating to energy performance in existing premises. The Government remain committed to our aspiration of improving as many homes as possible to reach EPC band C by 2035 where practical, cost effective and affordable. That is why, as I mentioned, we are investing £12 billion during this Parliament into the various Help to Heat schemes, some of which the noble Lord referenced, to make sure that homes are warmer and cheaper to heat, including £1.5 billion to upgrade around 130,000 social housing and low-income properties in England. However, we need to retain flexibility to choose the best approach, rather than being restricted to the regulatory requirement.
Regarding existing premises, the Government have consulted on raising the minimum energy-efficiency standards for the domestic and non-domestic private rented sectors. We are in the process of considering our responses to both consultations. However, it is important to stress that improving existing buildings is a complicated issue and requires striking a balance between improving standards and minimising impacts on the housing market, and, for the private rented sector specifically, ensuring that the final policy is fair to both landlords and tenants. That is a particular dilemma that we face with the PRS regulations.
Similarly, regarding the social rented sector, the Government have committed to consult within six months of the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill receiving Royal Assent. By prescribing specific targets without any opportunity for landlords to offer views, the proposed amendment would be at odds with this commitment.
I thank all noble Lords who contributed during this debate, but given what I have set out and the Government’s long-term commitment to drive improvements in energy efficiency, I hope that they will not press their amendments.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, could he clarify whether the Government believe that the 2017 Clean Growth Strategy, which talks about achieving EPC band C by 2035 for all homes where this is feasible, affordable and cost-effective, is a target or now just an aspiration? Could he be clear on the language? He used “aspiration” a minute ago. In the documentation, and in every letter he has written to me and in every answer, it has been described as a “target”. I just want to be clear.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think we are getting into semantics here. I am not sure there is a huge difference between them. My point is that it is not helpful to embed it in primary legislation. It is a target; it is an aspiration; it is something we are working towards that we want to try to deliver, but it is a complicated area with a lot of difficult policy choices and potentially a huge amount of expenditure.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
In the light of that, if “aspiration” and “target” are the same and the Minister is not therefore resiling from the 2017 document, could he tell me why the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, and, more recently, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have argued that there is merit in putting environmental targets into legislation? I do not understand where the problem comes. The Minister says the Government need flexibility in the way this is delivered. I do not disagree with that. I am sure that new technology will come along that will perhaps help to do this more efficiently, effectively and quickly. I hope that is the case, but the way in which a target is achieved is totally different from having that target. The industry has been absolutely clear that it is very keen to see a statutory target to give it the confidence it needs.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I disagree with the noble Lord. I have had many discussions with businesses and companies in this area, and we are providing the policy certainty they need. It is clear what direction the country is going in. We have listened to a lot of the feedback, have set out longer delivery programmes for the various schemes that we fund directly and are giving the certainty that people need. It does not make any difference to the industry, in terms of the policy landscape, to enshrine a target in primary legislation as opposed to it being an aspiration, a target or whatever other language the noble Lord prefers.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to everything the Minister said in response and, as I said earlier, it is great that the Government are moving strongly on this and all these matters, particularly skills and many other areas. However, there is still a need for a joined-up strategy and for some of these targets to be in statute. We have learned from the green homes grant, for which one of the issues was the lack of the long-term thinking that a strategy would provide.
The real issue here, as noble Lords have powerfully articulated, is that we have picked all the low-hanging fruit—the decarbonisation of our electricity system, and vehicle and transport electrification—and now we have to move much higher up the tree to more difficult matters, such as the decarbonisation of heat. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, powerfully articulated the challenges in that area. We will have many more discussions on this leading to Report but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
“Part 9AEnergy Savings Opportunity SchemesEnergy savings opportunity schemes(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations (“ESOS regulations”) make provision for the establishment and operation of one or more energy savings opportunity schemes.(2) An “energy savings opportunity scheme” is a scheme under which obligations are imposed on undertakings to which the scheme applies for one or more of the ESOS purposes.(3) The ESOS purposes are—(a) enabling or requiring the energy consumption for which an undertaking is responsible, or the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from that consumption, to be assessed, audited, reported and published;(b) enabling or requiring possible energy savings or emissions reductions to be identified and recommended;(c) enabling or requiring the costs and benefits of possible energy savings or emissions reductions to be assessed;(d) encouraging or requiring undertakings to produce plans or set targets for achieving energy savings or emissions reductions;(e) encouraging or requiring undertakings to take action for the purpose of achieving energy savings or emissions reductions;(f) encouraging or requiring undertakings to achieve energy savings or emissions reductions.(4) An energy saving is a reduction in the energy consumption for which an undertaking is responsible.(5) An emissions reduction is a reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions that result from the energy consumption for which an undertaking is responsible (whether or not that consumption is also reduced).(6) ESOS regulations may make provision about determining—(a) the energy consumption for which an undertaking is responsible;(b) the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from that consumption.(7) ESOS regulations may—(a) impose requirements on any person;(b) confer functions on any person;(c) provide for a person to exercise discretion in dealing with any matter.(8) The provision made by this Part is without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1).(9) For the purposes of this Part—(a) the scheme established by the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/1643) is to be treated as having been established by provision made under subsection (1);(b) a reference to a scheme administrator includes a reference to a compliance body within the meaning given by those Regulations.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause is the first Clause in a new Part 9A of the Bill (also containing the 12 other new Clauses inserted after Clause 201 by amendments in the name of Lord Callanan) making provision about Energy Savings Opportunity Schemes. The new Clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations about Energy Savings Opportunity Schemes.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I have some more government amendments for his delectation. I will also speak to Amendments 200 to 211, 243 and 244, 246 and 247, which all stand in my name.
Amendment 199 introduces a new Part 9A to the Bill which relates to the existing energy savings opportunity scheme, commonly referred to as ESOS. I committed at Second Reading to table these new clauses regarding improvements to ESOS. For those noble Lords who do not know, ESOS is a mandatory energy audit scheme for large organisations, covering their buildings, transport and industrial processes. ESOS provides businesses with cost-effective recommendations on energy efficiency measures. The existing scheme is estimated to lead to £1.6 billion of net benefits to the UK, with the majority of these benefits applying to participating businesses as a result of reduced energy costs.
The power in the amendment would replace the repealed power in the European Communities Act 1972 under which the UK established ESOS in 2014. Without this, ESOS is a frozen scheme and cannot be updated. The changes are aimed at encouraging businesses to take action on recommendations to increase their energy and carbon savings.
Lord Teverson (LD)
Can the Minister clarify: did he say that this Bill revokes that EU legislation? Is that what he just said?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The power in the amendment would replace the repealed power in the European Communities Act 1972, which I presume was repealed after Brexit, or rather the end of the implementation period.
The changes are aimed at encouraging businesses to take action on recommendations to increase their energy and carbon savings. The benefits to existing participating businesses are estimated to be savings of £1.12 billion from 2023 to 2037 through reduced energy bills. The savings would of course help to support businesses to keep the costs of their products and services affordable for consumers.
Amendments 200 to 202 outline some of the details of the ESOS regime and associated powers to make regulations. They include provisions regarding which undertakings ESOS should apply to; provisions regarding when, how and by whom an ESOS assessment should be carried out; and ESOS assessor functions and requirements.
Amendment 203 enables regulations to introduce a requirement for ESOS participants to publish an ESOS action plan covering intended actions to reduce energy use or greenhouse gas emissions. This requirement aims to increase participants’ engagement with ESOS and stimulate greater uptake of energy efficiency measures. Amendment 204 enables regulations to impose requirements for ESOS participants to take actions that directly or indirectly support the reduction of energy use or greenhouse gas emissions.
Amendments 205 to 207, 209 and 210 concern the administration and enforcement of the scheme. They enable regulations to make provisions about the appointment of scheme administrators and their functions, including compliance monitoring and enforcement, provisions on penalties and offences, and rights of appeal. These amendments also enable the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance and to give directions to a scheme administrator, with which it must comply.
Amendment 208 concerns procedures for making regulations. It requires the Secretary of State to consult appropriate persons considered likely to be affected by the regulations and, where provisions relate to devolved matters, the respective devolved Administrations. It describes where affirmative procedure would be required, for example if extending ESOS to smaller businesses, mandating action by ESOS participants or creating offences.
Amendments 211 and 243 define certain terms used in the ESOS provisions, explain where provisions fall within devolved competence and set out the extent of the ESOS provisions to be England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendments 244 and 246 clarify when the amendments will come into force. Amendment 247 inserts into the Title of the Bill a reference to the new clauses on ESOS, introduced by Amendments 199 to 211. With that, I beg to move Amendment 199 in my name.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, given the hour I will ask one very simple and direct question on government Amendment 210, which is about financial assistance. The second part of it says:
“‘Financial assistance’ means grants, loans, guarantees or indemnities, or any other kind of financial assistance”.
Can the Minister give us any indication of what the Government’s intentions are here? That is a very broad range and we know, for example, how wrong loans have gone in the past and how schemes based on loans have really not worked out. Given what interest rates are now, that is obviously a challenge. To tackle the kind of issues I raised earlier about the most disadvantaged areas having particular problems with the quality of housing, do the Government intend to look towards grant-type schemes?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The clause enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to scheme administrators and ESOS participants. It does not, of course, compel us to do so but we are taking a power to have that option. If we decide to provide financial assistance, I will inform the House accordingly.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, there was a reason for my question. I absolutely agree that the Minister warned us that we would have these amendments coming down the track, and on ESOS I welcome that fact because it has been a very good scheme. Although companies occasionally bitch about it, as he says, it has caused actual change.
As the Minister will know, being a former MEP and so on, the ESOS scheme at the moment is based on the energy efficiency directive of 2012, which was updated in 2018. It came into force in the UK in 2014 and, as the Government’s website says:
“Government established ESOS to implement Article 8 (4 to 6) of the EU Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU).”
The reason I asked him for a clarification on his opening statement is that nowhere in his amendments could I see anything that repealed the existing directive or regulations that related to the energy efficiency directive.
Is this a sort of parallel scheme to the one that still exists, or is it still based on the original EU directive? If it is still based or relies upon the original EU directive, what happens if ever the retained EU law revocation Bill becomes a statute? Does all this fall away because it still relies on that EU legislation? If it is a parallel scheme, when does the existing one stop under the EU directive and this one actually start? That is what I am trying to understand. The Minister may well have explained this—forgive me if he has—but I do not get a flavour for what the big difference is between this one and the existing one. What would he see as the big positive change?
My last question is a more general one. I have not counted the non-government amendments that have come forward, yet—despite having on this side, and even part of that side, combined brains the size of a planet, excluding mine—the Government have not seen one amendment worthy of thinking, “Yes, that could be useful and might be something that could improve the Bill.” I just ask the Minister before the end of the year—and I wish him and the Bill team a very enjoyable Christmas and break—why has none of the brainpower on this side has been worth taking notice of in terms of the Bill going forward?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I shall be very brief. There are many aspects of this that are to be welcomed, but I am just intrigued. The Minister mentioned the section on finances. I am concerned about the capacity of the lead assessors and professional bodies to do this work, with particular reference to the intention to expand the scheme to, I think he said, small and medium-sized enterprises. I understood that it was medium-sized: I do not know quite where the definition lies, which would also be interesting. That is a major expansion, and I wonder whether an assessment has been made of how many additional businesses we could be talking about, and how the work is going to be done in those circumstances.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me respond first to the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He and I know each other well; I have taken a number of Bills through this House, and I think that if he talks to the Official Opposition as well, he will find that I have a reasonable record of listening carefully throughout Committee on Bills and, where I can, within the confines of government policy—he will know how the process works within government—I try to take on board, where possible, the concerns of the Committee. On some Bills, that does mean accepting opposition or Back-Bench amendments directly, and I have done so on a number of occasions.
I am not giving any commitments on some of the amendments we have been debating in this Committee but, as always, I will take careful note of comments, discuss them with the Bill officials and other departments where it is required to do so and, if there are matters on which we can move, then of course we will do so. We will seek to discuss these matters before Report and, as always, I am listening to comments that noble Lords are making and trying to assess the will of the Committee.
ESOS is an important scheme that was originally implemented on the back of the energy efficiency directive, but there were specific parts of it that were UK legislation. We did not directly copy the energy efficiency directive and we will seek to do the same with the new scheme as well. The BEIS Select Committee made recommendations on energy efficiency, including that ESOS should require reports to be made public and should mandate participants to take action to reduce energy review. There was also a post-implementation review of ESOS in 2020, which found that it was largely achieving its original aims and that businesses were unlikely to carry out energy audits unless mandated to do so, but that the scheme could be helpful in producing that. I think that covers most of the points that were discussed and I thank noble Lords for their attention.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The Minister did not respond to my question about the capacity and extent of extending the scheme.
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is not our intention to extend it to small businesses at the moment. We are obviously always concerned about the impact on small businesses in particular but, if these amendments are accepted, we would have the regulation-making powers to extend it to businesses of different sizes. I think it is very unlikely that we would ever extend it to small businesses but that would be the subject of secondary legislation, which would, of course, be debated in the House.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I raised that because I may have misheard what the Minister said in referencing small businesses. I understood that this extended to medium-sized businesses but, even so, that is a significant increase. Have the Government taken on board the additional workload and whether the capacity will be there, assuming that the work is taken on?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are not proposing to extend it to medium-sized businesses at this stage. We would want to work with stakeholders on the detail of any potential future implementation, which would be subject to a further consultation and, ultimately, a cost-benefit analysis. This is a complicated area and there are a number of different views. We have had a couple of consultations on this. With these amendments, we are taking the powers to implement the scheme. Of course, the regulations would be subject to further debate in the House.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I just want to check something with the Minister. Are we saying that, if the retained EU law Bill became an Act, with its sunset clause of 2023, this scheme would still remain in force and there would be no legal ambiguity about it? Also, I believe that the next deadline for reporting is December 2023. Can I check that this still holds?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is asking for commitments on a different piece of legislation. When that Bill arrives in the House, we will no doubt have a full discussion on it. My understanding is that it is at Report stage in the House of Commons now. The sunset date is still set at 2023 although there are powers in that Bill to exempt particular pieces of legislation and Ministers have the option of extending the sunset date for pieces of retained law that it is not possible to update or review in the short time available. I am sure that we will have a long, involved discussion on the retained EU law Bill when it arrives in the House and that I will get déjà vu from the Brexit withdrawal Act, with many of the same people no doubt making many of the same points they made during that time.
Lord Callanan
“Application of energy savings opportunity schemes(1) ESOS regulations may provide for—(a) an energy savings opportunity scheme to apply to specified descriptions of undertakings;(b) specified descriptions of undertakings to be excluded from the application of the scheme.(2) ESOS regulations may make provision about circumstances in which—(a) two or more participants are to be treated for the purposes of the regulations as if they were a single participant;(b) an obligation imposed under the regulations on one participant is to be treated as if it had been imposed on a different participant.(3) The provisions of this Part relating to energy consumption apply to energy consumed by assets located, or activities carried on—(a) wholly or partly in the United Kingdom;(b) wholly or partly in an offshore area;(c) where subsection (4) applies, elsewhere.(4) ESOS regulations may make provision about circumstances in which the energy consumption for which a participant is, for the purposes of the regulations, responsible may include energy consumed by—(a) assets located elsewhere than in the United Kingdom or an offshore area, or(b) activities carried on elsewhere than in the United Kingdom or an offshore area.(5) The provisions of this Part relating to greenhouse gas emissions apply to the emissions resulting from energy consumption to which this Part applies whether such emissions occur in the United Kingdom, in an offshore area or elsewhere.(6) ESOS regulations may make provision about the attribution of energy consumption to participants, including in particular provision about the treatment for the purposes of the regulations of—(a) a participant’s consumption of energy generated by that participant;(b) energy consumption by a person over whom a participant has control or influence;(c) energy consumption shared between a participant and one or more other participants or other persons;(d) energy consumed by assets held on trust by or for a participant.(7) In this section, “offshore area” means—(a) waters landward of the seaward limit of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom,(b) any designated area within the meaning of section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, and(c) any area for the time being designated under section 41(3) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,and includes the places above those areas and the bed and subsoil of the sea within those areas.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision about the application of regulations made under the first of the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan inserted after Clause 201.
“Requirement for assessment of energy consumption(1) ESOS regulations may require the carrying out of assessments of—(a) a participant’s energy consumption;(b) the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from that consumption.Such an assessment is referred to as an “ESOS assessment”.(2) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes in particular provision about—(a) the frequency of ESOS assessments;(b) the period or periods to which assessments must relate;(c) how assessments are to be carried out;(d) the information that must be provided or obtained for the purposes of an assessment;(e) the matters that must be taken into account in an assessment;(f) record-keeping in relation to an assessment.(3) ESOS regulations may make provision requiring an ESOS assessment, or specified parts of an ESOS assessment, to be carried out, approved or audited by a person appointed by a participant (referred to as “an assessor”).(4) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1) may include provision enabling or requiring an ESOS assessment to include recommendations relating to energy savings or emissions reductions.(5) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (4) includes in particular provision about—(a) the matters about which recommendations may, must, or must not be made;(b) the matters that must be taken into account in making a recommendation;(c) the carrying out of a cost-benefit analysis before including a recommendation in a report.(6) “Cost-benefit analysis”, in relation to a recommendation or requirement to take action, means—(a) an estimate of the likely costs to a participant of acting in accordance with the recommendation or requirement;(b) an estimate of the energy savings or emissions reductions likely to result from such action;(c) an analysis of the costs referred to in paragraph (a) together with an analysis of the savings or reductions referred to in paragraph (b) and of any other benefits likely to arise.(7) ESOS regulations may make provision about the reporting of ESOS assessments, including in particular provision—(a) about the production of written reports;(b) about the form and content of such reports;(c) about the dissemination of such reports within an undertaking and between related undertakings.(8) ESOS regulations may make provision requiring a participant to notify a scheme administrator of specified matters relating to the participant’s compliance with requirements imposed by virtue of this section and may in particular include provision—(a) about the procedure for giving such notice;(b) about the form and content of notices;(c) about the publication of certain information contained within a notice;(d) requiring a participant to justify its choice of assessor.(9) ESOS regulations may provide for any requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (1)—(a) to be treated as having been complied with by a participant in specified circumstances, or(b) not to apply to a participant in specified circumstances.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause enables regulations made under the first of the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan inserted after Clause 201 to make provision about the assessment of the energy consumption of participants in an energy savings opportunity scheme and of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from that consumption.
“Assessors(1) ESOS regulations may confer functions on an assessor in relation to assessing, monitoring and reporting on compliance with requirements imposed by the regulations.(2) ESOS regulations may provide that a participant may only appoint as an assessor a person of a specified description.(3) A description may be specified for the purposes of subsection (2) by reference to any criteria, including by reference to—(a) a person’s competence, qualifications or experience;(b) a person’s inclusion in a designated list or register;(c) a person’s membership of a designated body;(d) a person’s participation in an designated accreditation scheme;(e) a person’s relationship to a participant.(4) For the purposes of this section, “designated” means designated by the Secretary of State or a scheme administrator in accordance with ESOS regulations.(5) A body may only be designated for the purposes of this section if the body is willing to be so designated.(6) ESOS regulations may make provision about—(a) the giving of designations for the purposes of subsection (4);(b) reviewing such designations;(c) circumstances in which such a designation may be removed;(d) maintaining and publishing a list of such designations.(7) ESOS regulations may make provision enabling a list or register of persons who may, or who may not, be appointed as an assessor for the purposes of subsection (2) to be maintained by—(a) a designated body;(b) a scheme administrator;(c) the Secretary of State.(8) ESOS regulations may confer functions or impose requirements on a person responsible for maintaining a designated list or register and may in particular include provision—(a) about the process for including a person in a list or register;(b) about the details to be included in a list or register;(c) for ensuring those details remain up to date;(d) about the publication of a list or register;(e) for the purpose of ensuring that a person included in a list or register continues to meet the criteria for appointment as an assessor;(f) for the purpose of ensuring the quality of ESOS assessments;(g) about the temporary or permanent removal of a person from a list or register in specified circumstances.(9) The regulations may make provision authorising a scheme administrator to share reports, notices or other information relating to an energy savings opportunity scheme with a designated body for the purposes referred to in subsection (8)(e) or (f).(10) ESOS regulations may make provision—(a) enabling the Secretary of State or a scheme administrator to give a direction relating to the maintenance of a list or register;(b) requiring a person responsible for maintaining a list or register to comply with such a direction.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause enables regulations made under the first of the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan inserted after Clause 201 to make provision about the persons who may be required to carry out, approve or audit some or all of an assessment carried out for the purposes of an energy savings opportunity scheme; and about the maintenance of lists of persons who may be appointed for those purposes.
“ESOS action plans(1) ESOS regulations may require participants to produce ESOS action plans.(2) An “ESOS action plan” is a written statement of—(a) any action a participant proposes to take for the purpose of achieving energy savings or emissions reductions;(b) any energy savings or emissions reductions targets a participant intends to achieve.(3) Where an ESOS action plan does not include any proposals for taking such action or any such targets, provision made by virtue of subsection (1) may require that a participant include an explanation in the plan.(4) ESOS regulations may make provision about the production of ESOS action plans, including in particular provision about—(a) when a participant must produce a plan;(b) the period to which a plan must relate;(c) the form and content of a plan;(d) the matters that must be taken into account in producing a plan.(5) ESOS regulations may make provision about the publication of ESOS action plans.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause enables regulations made under the first of the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan inserted after Clause 201 to make provision about action plans for achieving energy savings or emissions reductions.
“Action to achieve energy savings or emissions reductions(1) ESOS regulations may make provision—(a) imposing requirements (other than the requirements referred to in paragraph (b)) on participants so as to encourage them to—(i) take specified action for the purpose of achieving energy savings or emissions reductions, or(ii) achieve specified energy savings or emissions reductions, or(b) requiring participants to—(i) take specified action for the purpose of achieving energy savings or emissions reductions, or(ii) achieve specified energy savings or emissions reductions.(2) The kinds of action that may be specified for the purposes of subsection (1) are—(a) taking action in accordance with a recommendation made in an ESOS assessment;(b) taking action in accordance with an ESOS action plan;(c) taking any other action of a specified kind;(d) taking action to achieve a target included in an ESOS action plan;(e) taking action to achieve any other specified outcome;(f) adopting processes, practices or systems of a specified kind;(g) conforming to specified standards.(3) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) includes in particular—(a) provision requiring a participant to report—(i) on whether the participant has taken the specified action, or on the steps taken by the participant towards doing so, or(ii) on whether the participant has achieved the specified energy savings or emissions reductions, or on the progress made by the participant towards doing so;(b) provision requiring a participant to provide an explanation for any of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a).(4) Provision made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) may include a requirement for a participant to report on action taken or energy savings or emissions reductions achieved.(5) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1) may make provision—(a) requiring participants to produce and retain evidence;(b) about the verification of matters about which the participant has reported;(c) about the publication of reports.(6) ESOS regulations may—(a) specify the requirements imposed on a participant by virtue of subsection (1) by reference to a cost-benefit analysis;(b) specify circumstances in which a participant is required to take action;(c) impose a requirement to take a specified action on all participants in an energy savings opportunity scheme, or on all participants of a specified description.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause enables regulations made under the first of the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan inserted after Clause 201 to require, or to impose requirements to encourage, participants in an energy savings opportunity scheme to achieve energy savings or emissions reductions.
“Scheme administration(1) ESOS regulations may appoint one or more public authorities to carry out functions with respect to—(a) administering an energy savings opportunity scheme;(b) monitoring compliance with, and enforcing requirements imposed by, the regulations.(2) A person appointed by virtue of subsection (1) is referred to as a “scheme administrator”.(3) The regulations may make provision for a scheme administrator to authorise another person to exercise specified functions of the scheme administrator.(4) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1) may in particular include provision about—(a) the obtaining of information by, and the provision of information to, a scheme administrator;(b) the determination by a scheme administrator of information in default of its being provided;(c) the auditing and verification of information;(d) the keeping, production and inspection of records;(e) the determination by a scheme administrator of whether an undertaking is a participant in an energy savings opportunity scheme;(f) cooperation and information sharing between scheme administrators.(5) ESOS regulations may make provision imposing requirements on a participant relating to the provision of such facilities and services, including transport and accommodation, as may be necessary to facilitate the carrying out of any of the scheme administrator’s functions.(6) ESOS regulations may confer functions on a scheme administrator in relation to the publication of information relating to an energy savings opportunity scheme or its participants.(7) ESOS regulations may make provision—(a) about the giving of guidance by a scheme administrator or the Secretary of State in connection with the operation of an energy savings opportunity scheme;(b) requiring specified persons to have regard to such guidance.(8) ESOS regulations may make provision requiring the payment by participants to the scheme administrator of fees for or in connection with the carrying out by the scheme administrator of the scheme administrator’s functions.(9) ESOS regulations may confer a power on a national authority to require a scheme administrator to provide the authority with such information—(a) relating to an energy savings opportunity scheme, and(b) relevant to the exercise of the authority’s functions,as the authority requests.(10) In this section—“national authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the Welsh Ministers;(c) the Scottish Ministers;(d) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland;“public authority” means a person with functions of a public nature.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause enables regulations made under the first of the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan inserted after Clause 201 to make provision about the administration of energy savings opportunity schemes.
“Enforcement, penalties and offences(1) ESOS regulations may authorise a scheme administrator—(a) to require the production of documents or the provision of information by any person;(b) to question the officers of an undertaking;(c) to enter premises with a warrant;(d) to inspect premises and anything on premises and when doing so—(i) to take measurements, photographs, recordings or copies;(ii) to seize documents or records;(iii) to require any person at the premises to provide facilities and assistance to the extent that is within that person’s control;(e) to issue a notice requiring a participant to take steps specified in the notice for the purpose of—(i) demonstrating compliance with requirements imposed by or under ESOS regulations, or(ii) remedying a failure to comply with such requirements.(2) ESOS regulations may make provision requiring a participant to give notice to a scheme administrator where the participant is unlikely to comply, or has failed to comply, with a requirement imposed by or under the regulations.(3) ESOS regulations may provide that a person is liable to one or more penalties in respect of—(a) a failure to comply with a requirement imposed on the person by or under the regulations;(b) making a false or misleading statement in connection with an energy savings opportunity scheme.(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (3) includes provision—(a) for the publication of specified information relating to the failure to comply;(b) authorising a scheme administrator to impose a financial penalty.(5) Where by virtue of subsection (3) ESOS regulations provide for the imposition of a financial penalty, the regulations—(a) must provide for the penalty to be paid to the scheme administrator or such other person as the regulations may specify;(b) may specify the amount of the penalty or provide for the amount to be determined by the scheme administrator in accordance with the regulations;(c) may provide for the payment of a further penalty (of an amount specified by or determined in accordance with the regulations) for each day on which the failure to comply is not remedied;(d) may specify how the penalty may be recovered.(6) ESOS regulations may create offences relating to energy savings opportunity schemes.(7) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (6) may provide for an offence created by the regulations to be triable—(a) only summarily, or(b) either summarily or on indictment.(8) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (6) may provide for an offence created by the regulations to be punishable with a fine.(9) Regulations may—(a) provide for defences against offences;(b) make provision about matters of procedure and evidence in proceedings relating to offences;(c) include provision about the liability of a director, manager, secretary or other officer of a body corporate, or a partner of a Scottish partnership, or of a person purporting to act in such a capacity, where an offence under the regulations—(i) is committed with the consent or connivance of such a person, or(ii) is attributable to neglect on the part of such a person.(10) References in this section to a scheme administrator include references to a person authorised by a scheme administrator in accordance with provision in ESOS regulations made by virtue of section (Scheme administration)(3).”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause enables regulations made under the first of the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan inserted after Clause 201 to make provision for the enforcement of those regulations.
“Appeals(1) ESOS regulations may confer rights of appeal against—(a) decisions made in relation to an energy savings opportunity scheme, and(b) penalties imposed or enforcement action taken for failure to comply with the requirements of the regulations.(2) The regulations must specify the court, tribunal or person who is to hear and determine an appeal.(3) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes, in particular, provision about—(a) the grounds on which an appeal may be made;(b) the procedure for making an appeal (including any fee which may be payable);(c) suspending the effect of any decision, penalty or enforcement action pending determination of the appeal;(d) the powers of the court, tribunal or person to which an appeal is made.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause enables regulations made under the first of the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan inserted after Clause 201 to make provision about appeals.
“ESOS regulations: procedure etc(1) Before making ESOS regulations, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) such persons likely to be affected by the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;(b) to the extent that the regulations contain provision within Welsh devolved competence, the Welsh Ministers;(c) to the extent that the regulations contain provision within Scottish devolved competence, the Scottish Ministers;(d) to the extent that the regulations contain provision within Northern Ireland devolved competence, the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.(2) Subsection (1) may be satisfied by consultation before this section comes into force (as well as by consultation after that time).(3) ESOS regulations may make consequential provision including provision amending or repealing primary legislation.(4) ESOS regulations may create exceptions to any requirement imposed by the regulations.(5) ESOS regulations may—(a) make provision about application to the Crown;(b) to the extent that they bind the Crown, restrict or modify the application of the regulations.(6) ESOS regulations containing any of the following (with or without other provision) are subject to the affirmative procedure—(a) provision extending the descriptions of undertaking to which the regulations apply;(b) provision made by virtue of section (Action to achieve energy savings or emissions reductions)(1)(b) of a kind not previously provided for in ESOS regulations;(c) provision conferring on a scheme administrator enforcement powers of a kind not previously provided for in ESOS regulations;(d) provision creating penalties;(e) provision increasing the amount of financial penalties by more than is necessary to reflect changes in the value of money;(f) provision creating an offence or increasing the fine for an existing offence;(g) provision for the payment of a new fee;(h) provision amending or repealing primary legislation.(7) Any other ESOS regulations are subject to the negative procedure.(8) In this section,“primary legislation” means—(a) an Act,(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,(c) a Measure or Act of Senedd Cymru, or(d) Northern Ireland legislation.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision about the procedure for making regulations about Energy Savings Opportunity Schemes under the first of the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan inserted after Clause 201.
“Directions to scheme administrators(1) The Secretary of State may give directions to a scheme administrator.(2) The power to give directions under this section includes a power to vary or revoke the directions.(3) A scheme administrator must comply with any direction given to it under this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause enables the Secretary of State to give directions to a scheme administrator under an Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme.
“Financial assistance to scheme administrators and participants(1) The Secretary of State may give, or arrange for the giving of, financial assistance to—(a) scheme administrators;(b) participants.(2) “Financial assistance” means grants, loans, guarantees or indemnities, or any other kind of financial assistance.(3) Financial assistance under this section may be given subject to such conditions as may be determined by, or in accordance with arrangements made by, the Secretary of State.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to scheme administrators under, and participants in, an Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme.
“Interpretation(1) In this Part—“assessor” has the meaning given by section (Requirement for assessment of energy consumption)(3);“cost benefit analysis” has the meaning given by section (Requirement for assessment of energy consumption)(6);“emissions reduction” has the meaning given by section (Energy savings opportunity schemes)(5);“energy consumption” has the meaning given by ESOS regulations;“energy saving” has the meaning given by section (Energy savings opportunity schemes)(4);“energy savings opportunity scheme” has the meaning given by section (Energy savings opportunity schemes)(2);“ESOS action plan” has the meaning given by section (ESOS action plans)(2);“ESOS assessment” has the meaning given by section (Requirement for assessment of energy consumption)(1);“ESOS regulations” means regulations made under section (Energy savings opportunity schemes)(1);“greenhouse gas” has the meaning given by section 92 of the Climate Change Act 2008;“participant” means an undertaking to which an energy savings opportunity scheme applies;“related undertaking” , in relation to a participant, means a fellow subsidiary undertaking of, or a group undertaking in relation to, that participant;“scheme administrator” has the meaning given by section (Scheme administration)(2);“specified” means specified in ESOS regulations;“undertaking” , “group undertaking” and “fellow subsidiary undertaking” have the meanings given by section 1161 of the Companies Act 2006.(2) For the purposes of this Part, provision—(a) is within Welsh devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006);(b) is within Scottish devolved competence if it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;(c) is within Northern Ireland devolved competence if that provision—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision about the interpretation of the new Clauses in the name of Lord Callanan to be inserted as a new Part 9A after Clause 201.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Verdirame
Introduction: Lord Watson of Wyre Forest
Hospital Beds: Social Care
(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 of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
There are around 13,000 people in hospital who do not meet the clinical criteria to reside, including, but not limited to, people waiting to go home and people awaiting access to residential care. We constantly look to reduce these delayed discharges to ease flow in the system, and we have provided a £500 million discharge fund to support people to be discharged at the right time, to the right place and with the right support.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering the Question. Does he understand that many of us will think it is a complete disgrace that, for a long time now, hospital beds have been blocked by people who could be discharged into the community or residential care? These people would be better off and have a decent quality of life. Should we not be making this a high priority, instead of saying that we are planning to do this? We have heard that for so long.
Lord Markham (Con)
It absolutely is a high priority. Noble Lords have heard me say many times that the key to the whole system is flow through the system, to relieve times in A&E and ambulance wait times. That flow depends on us discharging the 13% of beds that are currently held up. That is why we put the £500 million discharge fund in place and will put £2.8 billion of funding next year, and £4.7 billion the year after, to solve exactly this problem.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I currently serve on the Joint Committee that is scrutinising the mental health Bill. Could my noble friend the Minister outline whether that 13,000 includes those who are perhaps in secure mental health beds, awaiting discharge? That of course causes backlogs, and not only into A&E: currently, some of those people could be being held in a police cell, which is not an ideal place if you need admission for assessment to a mental health bed.
Lord Markham (Con)
I will happily write on the detail, but, yes, it includes everyone who could be provided a space, either in a care home or a mental health home, and those who are fit to go home but need domiciliary care.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Our Plan for Patients, which was published at the end of September, says:
“This winter, the NHS will open up the equivalent of 7,000 beds so that every hospital has space to see and treat patients more quickly.”
Winter is clearly here, so how many of those virtual beds are in operation now?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right that the target of 7,000 beds is a key part of this. All Ministers have been talking about it with every ICB over the last few days to see exactly where they are on the target for both real beds and virtual beds. I will happily provide exact information on the target, but I know that we are making good progress.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, an estimated one in four hospital beds is occupied by people living with dementia. Many of the admissions would have been avoidable if they had had better community support. Of course, their stay in hospital is typically twice as long as those of other people who are over the age of 65. Does the Minister acknowledge that those dementia patients need to be discharged to a place of their own, or their carer’s, choosing, after a holistic assessment? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that this happens, so that people with dementia do not experience discharges that are inappropriate and unsafe?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. We are all seeing different shapes and forms of describing how we need a local care system set up by the integrated care boards that can have an overview of all the needs in their area. That is exactly what we are doing, and exactly what the Patricia Hewitt review is reviewing. It will give advice on how best to do that by looking at the best needs of mental health care patients, or any other kind of patient, to make sure that the proper institutions and places are set up to give them the up-front support so that, as the noble Baroness said, they never need to go to hospital in the first place.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, while recognising the current problems caused by bed blockages in NHS hospitals due to capacity and social care issues, does the Minister agree with the report from the Health Foundation, which, looking ahead, suggests that, because of changing demography and disease patterns in future, we will require between 25,000 and 40,000 more beds in the NHS if we are going to cope with the pressures on both the NHS and social care? What plans do the Government have to address that?
Lord Markham (Con)
We are absolutely aware that we need long-term plans and forecasts. That is also one of the things that the healthcare workforce plan will take into account: it will look at exactly where the capacity needs to be on a regional basis going forward so that we have the right number of hospital beds and social care places for an elderly and growing demographic in terms of age groups.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that patients are stuck in hospital because social care staff are leaving in droves? They are leaving because they are not respected, not given a career and not paid sufficiently. Should we not be doing something about retaining these vital social care staff?
Lord Markham (Con)
The number of care workers is key to all this and I delighted to say that the latest data shows that we are back to the levels of April 2021. Too many people have left, but we have managed to fill the gaps with the international recruitment fund and other measures. We all agree that we need to progress that further, but we are now making the increases that are needed in this space.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, we have heard how important a sustainable workforce is, both in social care and healthcare. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to listen to the concerns of health and social care workers about patient safety and their own working conditions at this time?
Lord Markham (Con)
Clearly, if we are going to retain and recruit the key staff in this area, it has got to be a good career, and that means that we must listen to their concerns. I know that Minister Whately is talking to and visiting them all, so it is a key part of the plan. As I say, the fact that we are managing to grow the workforce again shows, I think, that we getting on top of it—but absolutely we need to keep close and make sure it is a good place to work.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that there are main concerns in some hospitals that dialysis patients are having to be retained in hospital over the Christmas period because of their deep concerns about transport arrangements, partly through the threatened ambulance strikes but also in other ways? Is this not another problem with regard to the bed blocking that we are looking at at the moment?
Lord Markham (Con)
The best hospital trusts I have seen have got that absolutely organised. We see a difference in different trusts between as low as 6% bed blocking for social care and over 30%. That depends somewhat on local demography and the amount of care homes, but also on how quickly they can arrange transport, and that is what the best ones are doing, so that cases such as the ones brought up by my noble friend do not exist.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the report from the Adult Social Care Committee that was published just a few days ago—which I commend most warmly to the Minister—highlights that in the past 10 years there has been a 29% real-terms reduction in local government spending power. This is despite the increase in the population during that period. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking seriously the reality of life in social care?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. Yes, we are, and I think that is shown by the investment we are putting into place. As I say, that will be up to £2.8 billion next year and up to £4.7 billion the year after, which will be a 22% increase. That shows that we are very serious about this.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, we have already heard about the crisis in the social care workforce. NHS leaders are calling on the Government to introduce a new national minimum care worker wage of at least £10.50 an hour to stem the flow of social care staff to other sectors. Can the Minister say what plans they have to introduce such a minimum wage, which could hardly be said to be stoking inflation at that level?
Lord Markham (Con)
Of course, the noble Baroness is aware that it is the third parties, whether it be the local authorities or the private sector, that employ them. But what we have done in terms of setting the national living wage, which I believe is around that amount, is exactly making sure that there is a minimum amount that these people can get. About 65% of the funding going into the system goes through to wages, so the £2.8 billion increase next year will flow largely into wages and salaries.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
Every one of the interventions we hear about points to the inadequacy of the social care system and every one of the interventions that the Minister makes, however well intentioned—and I do not dispute that they are well intentioned—concerns piecemeal reforms. Will the Government ever accept that the only thing that is going to solve this ongoing problem, which is only going to get worse, is a wholesale reform of the social care system?
Lord Markham (Con)
There are a lot of questions that we need to answer in this space—I absolutely accept that—and lots of things that need long-term thought. I think and hope that noble Lords are starting to see that thinking emerge. A lot more needs to be done at the moment, but I think that we accept that this is a long-term issue that needs to be resolved with help from all sides of the House.
Prime Minister: Trade Unions
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans the Prime Minister has to meet representatives of the Trades Union Congress, as well as individual trade unions, in the light of the current economic situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is responsible for labour relations and works closely with trade unions. Engagement is essential to developing and delivering our policies, and during the pandemic it helped to support jobs and to keep workers safe. For example, the unions and business worked together to help deliver a package of economic support through the job retention scheme that has protected millions of jobs.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister request his colleagues to make clear what the basis is for the Government’s current policy, which comes across as rather dismissive and uncaring in view of the rapid rise of inflation? Can I ask him to encourage the Government, in view of the sharp rise in inflation since the last pay review body reports, to ask the pay review bodies to reconvene and bring forward in January proposals for an interim settlement that takes account of the recent rapid rise in inflation and of staffing levels, such as the 600-midwife shortfall reported to me by the Royal College of Midwives this morning?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question but, as he knows, the Government have said that they will accept the recommendations from the independent pay review bodies in full. We certainly hope that the trade unions will call off the actions that are causing so much misery to billions of people all over the country.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
As the former leader of Unite the Union, let me tell noble Lords that no worker wants to go out on strike, as it costs them wages that they can least afford to lose. But workers, such as our marvellous nurses and others, are being driven to despair and desperation; their must-go place before Christmas is the local food bank, unfortunately. Pay the nurses and other public servants proper wages covering inflation that is not of their making, and stop hiding behind the farcical and outdated review body’s recommendations. It is corporate profiteering that is driving inflation. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It will not surprise the noble Lord to know that I do not agree with him. The reason we have independent pay review bodies is to try to take the politics out of these settlements. The Government have said that we will accept those recommendations in full. Frankly, some of the increases that are being asked for are unaffordable.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, over the weekend several senior government spokespeople have justified not increasing the offer on public sector pay because it would fuel inflation. I believe that the Minister here is more economically literate than those spokesmen, because he knows well that public sector pay does not fuel inflation, neither is it driving private sector pay—you have only to look at the discontinuity now. Will the Minister please disabuse his colleagues of this specious argument? Will he urge them to sit down with the nurses and settle this dispute?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course we want to see the action ended and the dispute brought to an end, but it remains the case that, if above-inflation pay rises are accepted, that will mean less money for the services that everybody wants to see expanded. There is a limited pot of money that can go only so far.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, at some point the Government are going to have to find a way out. The Minister’s noble friend has suggested a very elegant way—by asking the review body to review the evidence. Would he confirm that the report of the review body for nurses came out in July, based on evidence submitted three months before? Surely there is a unique case here to ask the review body to look again.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making but the problem is that, once you make an exception for one group, I imagine that lots of other deserving groups will also want exceptions made for them. Pretty soon, the exception becomes the rule. We are sticking to the position that we asked the pay review bodies to look at the appropriate level of remuneration; they have done so and we have accepted their recommendation.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, is it not true that, in the National Health Service, there are many different grades that nurses can achieve? They can go on doing the same job but be promoted up the grades and get more pay.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not overly familiar with the pay grades in the National Health Service—perhaps my noble friend Lord Markham could have answered that on the previous Question better than me.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government have lost the public opinion battle? Nobody believes that the independent pay review is independent or the Government’s figures about how much it will cost per household. The Government frittered away billions on the PPE scandal, so people just do not believe them any more. Will the Minister accept that it is time to sit down and talk money with nurses, posties and railway workers?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is very easy for Opposition Members to say that we should grant this and that pay rise, but only a limited number can be funded. The noble Baroness talks about PPE; I seem to remember that, when we had these debates in the House at the time, the Opposition Benches were united in telling us that we needed to procure more of it as quickly as possible and not let other things get in the way of delivering essential PPE for our health service professionals. That is what we did.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, does not the independent report predate a further surge in inflation? What do the Government consider to be appropriate to deal with that further surge?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not familiar with the details of the negotiations. I can tell the noble and learned Lord only that the Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the pay review body. I assume that, when it reports again next year, it will take account of the inflation that has taken place this year.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government understand that this pay review body made its award when there was low inflation? Inflation is now at 10% or higher. Is it not time that we asked it to look at this again and give a fair offer? It might not be above inflation, but it would be a lot fairer than the one being offered.
Lord Callanan (Con)
No matter how many times Opposition Members ask the same question, they will get the same answer. We have accepted the recommendation from the pay review body. The next step is that another pay review body will presumably look at the issue again next year and take account of the impact of inflation and workforce patterns on availability and recruitment, et cetera, for this year. That is the appropriate time to do it.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, during the recent crisis, the mood of the nation was clearly that we were all in it together and people observed common rules—with a few exceptions in Downing Street and Barnard Castle. However, that is not the public mood in the current cost of living crisis; the mood is much more divisive, and the burden is falling almost totally on public servants. Is this not a recipe for strikes and for key workers leaving the essential services on which we all depend? Will the Government adjust their position and discuss with the TUC and relevant unions how we can recreate that mood of being in it together, come through this crisis and put an end to the damaging disruption?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We sit down with the TUC and others to discuss these matters, and we worked together during the pandemic. I remind the noble Lord that the TUC does not represent all workers; 75% of workers in this country are not in trade unions.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that it is very difficult to imagine, and in some cases to remember, what it is like as a family to look towards Christmas not knowing how you will meet your responsibilities? Does that not put a particular cast on the current rail strike, which is aimed not at fat cats but at the young, the weak, the sick and, in particular, old people—grandparents who want nothing more than to get home and join their families for Christmas? Does he agree that the rail strike is looking less like a normal industrial dispute and more like one man’s ego trip?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. It is almost as if the rail unions, in particular, are seeking to punish the public at this difficult time and exploit the monopoly position that they have to make life as difficult as possible for people wanting to join their friends and family for Christmas. It is appalling behaviour.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, on Tuesday the UK quarter 3 growth figures will be published. They are expected to show that the economy has contracted by 0.2%, as well as real falls in household disposable income as wage increases fail to match inflation. These pressures on working people will have a severe impact, with families already cutting back on food and heat. What discussions have the Government had with the trade unions on policy options which will give families the support they will need to get through the crisis in the winter months?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We have given extensive levels of support. We are spending tens of billions of pounds on direct support to households over the winter on energy bills, cost of living payments, et cetera. This Government have an excellent record of standing by people, both in the pandemic and since then. We all know it is a difficult time; public expenditure is tight and, if what the noble Lord says is true and the economy has contracted, then there is even less money to go around because tax receipts will collapse as well. We have to keep all of these matters under consideration. We will stand by families as much as we can, and I think our record proves that.
Military Personnel: Strike Action Cover
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Robathan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the deployment of military personnel over Christmas to replace Border Force staff, ambulance drivers, and other public sector workers taking industrial action; and what plans they have to give those military personnel additional pay.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, defence always ensures that military assistance to civil authorities does not incur unacceptable impacts to defence outputs. Any request for military support is governed by the military aid to civil authorities, or MACA, principles. These set out that military support is to be called on only when aid from elsewhere in government or from the commercial sector is not available. The issue of additional pay is under consideration and is being explored with the Treasury.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, it is the role of the Armed Forces to defend and support this country and its people in difficult times, including times like this. Many of us will remember the serried ranks of Green Goddesses parked up in 1977-78 under the Callahan Government, when they were fighting the firemen’s strike. That is absolutely fine. However, while the Government praise the Armed Forces so often, not only are we cutting numbers but we are not paying them sufficiently—and we have just been discussing public sector pay. Kipling’s Tommy Atkins springs to mind: you might rephrase it as “Saviour of the Government when the unions go on strike”. The people who are going to be working over Christmas are probably paid a lot less than those who are on strike and whom they are replacing—and, by the way, they do not get overtime in the Armed Forces. Will the Minister ensure that every soldier, sailor or airman who works, say, five or six days over the holiday period is given extra-duty pay, which I say should be in the region of £1,500 a head?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I can reassure my noble friend that the Ministry of Defence is acutely conscious of the sacrifice our Armed Forces are making this winter to ensure the smooth running of essential public services amid widespread industrial action. As he may be aware, arrangements already exist to compensate Armed Forces personnel for short-notice disruption and the changing of leave arrangements, because that is not uncommon. They are compensated for it as a part of the military X-factor that they receive in their pay, and a number of other benefits have been given to our Armed Forces personnel. However, I have great sympathy with the point made my noble friend, and decisions are currently under consideration by the Government, although none have yet been made.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the announcement that consideration will be given to additional payments for members of the Armed Forces. At a time when there is widespread—and potentially even more widespread—industrial action, and the British Army is at its lowest since the Napoleonic wars, will the Minister weigh heavily on the words of the Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that we should not fall into a practice of regarding the Armed Forces as surplus labour to cover every contingency? In that context, will she—as someone who I know has the respect of the Armed Forces—distance herself from the comments this morning from Jacob Rees-Mogg, paraphrased in the Daily Mail as telling the Armed Forces to shut up and just do as they are told? That is no way for a former failed Minister to speak to people who have pledged their lives—even until death—for this country. I hope she will make it plain that that is not the view of Ministers.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I have detected frequently in this Chamber—I do not think it necessary to seek that reassurance again—that there is huge respect and affection for our Armed Forces, a respect and affection which I personally try to embody and observe. While we are committed as a Government to protecting people from strike disruption during a challenging winter, we are sensible to the fact that repeated employment of our Armed Forces in routine domestic tasks, for which civil authorities are responsible, is not a viable long-term solution. There, I agree with the noble Lord. We are also very conscious of our public obligation to keep core services running. That is why I applaud the Armed Forces who are responding to the MACA request and will do their level best to mitigate the suffering that is currently so widespread.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches as well, we support our Armed Forces. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the size of the Army? As the Chief of the Defence Staff said, our Armed Forces cannot be “spare capacity” in times of strikes. Are our Armed Forces really large enough for everything that the Government expect them to do?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness and the House that I and my ministerial colleagues are clear about the primary task of the Armed Forces: defence of the realm. We would not approve a request for military aid if it put our ability to undertake that task at inappropriate risk or if we felt it compromised our operational effectiveness. We would not allow that to happen.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as a serving member of the Armed Forces. As a Minister responsible for many MACA tasks a few years ago, two things became very clear. First, while the Treasury rules are there, the MoD sometimes did not help itself by failing to send a bill to the other department, meaning that we created a dependency culture and were often the first port of call and not the last. Secondly, other government departments simply failed to have adequate contingency plans in place, meaning they always came back to the MoD—to echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Reid. Will my noble friend ensure that other government departments have appropriate contingency plans in place to limit the call on the Armed Forces?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Ben Wallace, is very clear about his primary obligation to the MoD and our Armed Forces, whom we depend on and on whom we are calling. He is very sparing in agreeing to MACA requests. I again reassure the House that there is a very fine filter through which such requests have to pass. My noble friend is quite right: the commissioning department has to pay the bill, but my right honourable friend is very keen on sending out bills.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, bringing in the military to break strikes is, in my view, an appalling use of our Armed Forces. As my noble friend Lord Reid said, top military brass are saying that this is, at the very least, slightly perilous. Does the Minister agree that our public sector heroes, the same people we banged pans for every week as they kept our vital services running through the pandemic, deserve the same pay rise as Unite members at Rolls-Royce, who have just secured a 17.6% increase in wages? My advice is to pay the nurses what the public think they deserve or pay the price at the next election.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will appreciate that I am here to answer questions on behalf of the MoD. However, I can say that despite the complex range of national security threats we face, our Armed Forces are also heroes of the public sector. We will always be the ultimate guarantor of national resilience. That applies equally when industrial action compromises the safe operation of core functions of the state as when flooding or fire threatens the homes and lives of British citizens. That is once again why we are so thankful to have the dedication and commitment of those professional and skilled people.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, given that the Armed Forces are trained to obey orders regardless of the circumstances, will the Government be sure not to take advantage of that situation?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I indicated earlier, we exercise a robust test when we get a MACA request from another government department. Strict principles have to be observed, and we would never willingly offer help if we felt that it was available elsewhere in government or, indeed, from the commercial sector.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, MACA requests—that is, military aid to civil authorities—are being used routinely, when guidance states that military assistance should be used
“responding to emergencies or in maintaining supplies and essential services”.
Such requests create increased domestic pressure on our Armed Forces at a time when the Government are pushing ahead with cutting a further 10,000 troops from the size of the Army. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s refresh of the integrated review will take account of this and halt any further cuts?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
To reply to the first part of the noble Lord’s question, it is the case that a proportion of our Armed Forces have been identified to be deployed to MACA tests—the figure I have at the moment is a total of 1,455. That is a relatively small proportion of our combined Regular Army and reservists. As I said earlier, we are comfortable with offering that help in terms of not compromising national security and not in any way impacting on our ability to do our fundamental task, which is the security of the realm.
As for the integrated review refresh, we are always vigilant about the nature of the threat, the character of the threat, and what we think we need to respond to it. We will be flexible and open-minded as to how to we submit our views to that integrated review refresh.
Plastics: Health Research
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to fund research into the health impact of plastic through a new National Plastic Health Impact Research Fund.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government are funding a broad portfolio of research in this area through UK Research and Innovation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research; both funders welcome applications for research into any aspect of human health. Since 2018 the Government have committed over £100 million for research and development and innovation support, to tackle the issues that arise from plastic waste.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and assurance that the private sector and trusts and others are investing in this area. But when almost four-fifths of people in this country have plastic particles in their blood, which means most of us in this Chamber if you think about it, and when these particles are associated with cancer, diabetes and other, serious, chronic illnesses, does the Minister accept that this really is a priority? Does he accept that a proportion of the Government’s R&D spending—we suggest 0.1%, which is hardly great—should be allocated as a priority to investigating the impact of plastic particles on human health, and how to tackle the problem?
Lord Markham (Con)
I have had the opportunity to speak to the chief scientific officer in this space, so I am guided by the science here, and I have also heard the impact from the Food Standards Authority, which considers it unlikely that the presence of plastic particles in food would cause harm. Further research in this space will be reporting in March 2023, but currently there is limited evidence to suggest that there is any harm.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the Environment Act includes the power to be able to charge for single-use items, including plastics, to reduce consumer consumption. Can the Minister tell the House whether or not the Government intend to use this power and, if so, when?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am mindful that my brief as Health Minister is fairly large but maybe not quite that large. But I note that in this space we have already replaced plastic bags, very successfully introduced a usage charge, and reduced consumption by 95% in the main supermarkets, so that is a tool that we know works. But currently there is limited evidence suggesting that it is a health hazard.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, while the global production of plastics continues to grow, the literature tells us that there is still very limited information about their long-term health effects. As we are trying to shift behaviour so that people and businesses reduce their use of plastic, for a variety of reasons, would the Minister agree that more research into the health effects would be helpful to support that public awareness effort?
Lord Markham (Con)
We have set up a research fund; as I say, £100 million has been spent around plastic waste in the last few years. Again, I have spoken to the chief scientific officers on exactly this, and if there are good research proposals in this space, they are ready to look, assess and commission them if they will be valuable here.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, air pollution is the largest environmental risk to public health. Can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the contribution to that risk by the burning of plastic in landfill?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, my understanding from the science is that that is not a concern here. The presence of nanoparticles in the bloodstream has not caused concern to date. However, again, if there are good research proposals in this space, that is exactly what the research council was set up to look at.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister has said a number of times that there is limited evidence, yet we know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, that there are microplastics in our blood. There is evidence that nanoplastics cause change and inflammation in skin and lung cells, and plastics also contain additives, including bisphenol A, phthalates and polychlorinated biphenyls, which are endocrine disruptors and alter reproductive activity. Is a lack of knowledge, in the light of the Government’s supposed attachment to the precautionary principle, an excuse for not acting while all these risks are clearly evident?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, the research bodies are very happy to look at any good proposals. The only place I would disagree with this is on whether you would want to ring-fence a certain amount to a space when you do not know whether there is a health risk there. Therefore, if there are good research proposals, we are definitely ready to take that forward. I will caution against some of the quotes where they are based on a sample size of 22 people, in terms of the common-sense study. That is why we place caution on this, but if there are good research proposals, I say: absolutely, please bring them forward.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, while welcoming the plastic packaging tax in April this year, I noted an alarming OECD report recently that plastic waste entering the oceans is set to treble in the next 40 years. What are our Government doing to fund credible plastic alternatives so as to mitigate the problems at source?
Lord Markham (Con)
I understand that this is part of the £500 million Blue Planet Fund that we put in place to help developing countries support the marine environment, and we are a contracting party to the OSPAR convention to participate in marine-limited monitoring programmes.
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the Department of Health and Social Care moves towards prevention, is my noble friend the Minister aware of initiatives within the National Health Service and across the health and care system to reduce the use of plastic across our system?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. Yes, the NHS is committed to a 10% reduction in clinical single usage by 2045, and these plans are set out in the NHS long-term plan document, Delivering a “Net Zero” National Health Service.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has said several times that there is no credible evidence that this is harmful. I just ask him to contemplate whether it really can be good for the human body to be pumped full of foreign material in this way. Would he have given the same answer in respect of smoking, which, when it was first promulgated and mass-marketed, was also seen as beneficial to health?
Lord Markham (Con)
The phrase I used was that there is “limited evidence” in this space. I reiterate that if a good research proposal is put forward, funds are available there. The only point of difference on this is that I do not believe we should ring-fence a definite amount each year when the evidence does not yet exist that it is a health risk.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the Minister suggested that his scientific advisors told him that there was no evidence. Finding “no evidence” does not scientifically prove that there is no evidence. It has been said several times that if a scientific proposal was put forward, it would be looked at. Accepting that plastic pollution is a problem, should the NIHR not put out tenders inviting research proposals?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, my wording was “limited evidence”. There are many demands. It feels as though every day I am up here being asked to spend money on something else. As a responsible Minister, I must prioritise spend in areas where it is needed. At the moment, I am being guided by the science, which tells me that there is very limited evidence in this space. If a good proposal is put forward, we will welcome it and look into it. Until then, this is not good use of public money.
Public Contracts (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 November be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.
South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (Transfer of Functions) Order 2023
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 November be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.
Product Safety and Metrology (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 and 21 November be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.
National Security Bill
Monday 19th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 68-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (19 Dec 2022)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to tighten the scope of the offence in Clause 1.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed. Before speaking to them, I make a general observation which is applicable to nearly all the amendments we have put down for debate today.
Broadly, Part 1 of the Bill is aimed at updating and clarifying the law against espionage, sabotage and subversive behaviour which threatens the safety, security or defence of the United Kingdom. We and the whole House support that aim, which is clearly described in the Long Title: to
“Make provision about threats to national security from espionage, sabotage and persons acting for foreign powers.”
However, as I said at Second Reading, we on these Benches wish to ensure that the Bill sticks to that remit and is not so wide as to damage individual liberties which our security and defence services are there to protect.
The amendments in this group would ensure that guilt of the relevant offences could be established only on the basis of actual knowledge of essential facts, and not merely what is often called imputed knowledge. The Bill talks of what a person ought reasonably to know rather than what they might be deemed to know. However, we object to the addition of
“or ought reasonably to know”
after “know”.
I shall remind your Lordships briefly of the offences covered by these amendments and the sentences proposed for them. The offences in Clause 1, “Obtaining or disclosing protected information”, and Clause 12, “Sabotage”, both attract a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. All four offences in Clause 2, “Obtaining or disclosing trade secrets”, Clause 3, “Assisting a foreign intelligence service”, Clause 4, “Entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK”, and Clause 15, “Obtaining etc material benefits from a foreign intelligence service”, attract a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. The offence in Clause 5, “Unauthorised entry etc to a prohibited place”, is in a different category because it is a summary offence, but, apart from that Clause 5 offence, all these offences are treated very seriously indeed.
Yet in order to be guilty of the offences, the defendant does not actually have to know essential facts. It is enough if they “ought” to know them. In Clause 1, the offence is committed if the person
“obtains, copies, records or retains protected information, or … discloses or provides access to protected information”.
Clause 1(b) provides that the person’s conduct has to be
“for a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
In the next group, I will make the point that the interests of the United Kingdom concerned ought to be the “security or defence interests”, not just interests in general. But in this group, our point is that, in order to be guilty under this clause, the person should actually have to know that their conduct was for a purpose that was prejudicial to the UK. It should not be sufficient to constitute guilt that they merely “ought to have known” that, even if they did not. That is the point of our Amendment 1.
Another unsatisfactory feature of this and other clauses is that the clause presupposes an actual purpose—that purpose, presumably, being the reason for the defendant’s actions. It would be very odd if, the prosecution having established the purpose, the additional requirement of knowledge could be met not by showing that the defendant knew that that purpose, which was his or her own, was prejudicial to the national interest but merely that they “ought” to have known that.
Under Clause 2, which is the trade secrets offence, the defendant’s conduct, under the Bill, has to be “unauthorised”. However, as drafted, the defendant does not have to know that the conduct is unauthorised; it is enough if the defendant “ought” to have known that. Our Amendment 7 would change that.
Under Clause 3, “Assisting a foreign intelligence service”, it should be required, we say, that to convict a person of this offence, they actually knew—the Bill says that they ought to have known that it was “reasonably possible”—that
“their conduct may materially assist a foreign intelligence service”,
not merely that they should have realised that the possibility existed. Amendment 14 would address this. We also say that the word “likely” would be more effective than the words “reasonably possible”, but that is addressed in a later group.
In Clause 4, the offence of entering a prohibited place suffers from the same inherent problem as the Clause 1 offence. The purpose has to be proved, but the defendant does not actually have to know that the purpose was prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom; it is enough that they “ought reasonably” to have known. The clause heading, “Entering etc a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK”, highlights the illogicality. How can you have that purpose if you do not actually know that the purpose is prejudicial at all? Yet the clause as drafted says that you can; that should go, and our Amendment 17 would remove it.
Clause 5 is the summary offence of unauthorised entry to a prohibited place. Under the Bill, proof of actual knowledge of the lack of authorisation is unnecessary; again, merely the defendant “ought” to have known that. Our Amendment 22 addresses that.
Regarding Clause 12, the very serious sabotage offence, the same point applies to the purpose as in Clauses 1 and 4. Again, we say that guilt ought, crucially, to depend on actual knowledge that the purpose was prejudicial. Amendment 36 addresses that.
Amendments 46 and 48 make similar points about the defendant’s knowledge of the source of benefits provided by a foreign intelligence service. Amendment 65 would amend the application of the foreign power condition in Clause 29, which states that
“the person knows, or ought reasonably to know,”
that the conduct is carried out
“on behalf of a foreign power.”
The foreign power condition in the Bill is a very important condition for liability for a number of these offences. How can it possibly be just for the law to provide that the condition can be met if a person does not know that their conduct is carried out on behalf of a foreign power and naively does not catch on, just because it is later decided that even if they did not know at the time, they should have realised? Juries can, and frequently are asked to, come to a conclusion about what defendants know or knew or even what they believe or believed. Juries are good at determining actual states of mind, drawing conclusions from the evidence they hear and see.
To take a simple example, the Theft Act defines receiving stolen goods as:
“A person handles stolen goods if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods”.
But here we are concerned with the proposal that juries should decide cases not on the basis of conclusions they reach about an actual state of knowledge or belief but on views they may take about what the defendant did not know but should have done. These are value judgments, not true decisions of fact.
We are not suggesting that imputed knowledge is never used in the criminal context, but where it is the context is very different. It is used, for example, for insider trading in Canada, where professional insiders receiving tips are able to be found guilty on conclusions that they ought to have drawn. It is used in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in respect of defendants who should have known their own conduct would amount to harassment. In the Official Secrets Act 1989 the reference is broadly to unlawful disclosures by Crown servants and contractors or others to whom confidential information was entrusted. They have a defence to unlawful disclosures if they show they did not know and had no reason to believe that the disclosures were unlawful. The burden of proof is reversed, I accept, but I suggest that is because of the positions the defendants hold or held. However, lack of knowledge or of the reason to believe in a state of fact amounts to a defence even then, so that liability is a long way from these cases because these provisions may catch anyone with no special relationship to the Government on an assessment that the defendant did not know the relevant facts but ought to have done so. Our position is that that is unjust. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I venture a few thoughts on this phraseology. The crucial question is: how much would the prosecutor have to prove about the state of knowledge of the defendant? In some contexts, when phraseology of this kind is used, it is necessary to show what the individual knew was the state of the law and what information that individual had at the relevant time from which a conclusion should be drawn.
The problem with the phraseology here is that it is so general that it is not clear whether the knowledge the individual had is to be the actual knowledge which that person had, which is one thing, or, as has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, imputed knowledge. If we are dealing with imputed knowledge, the situation becomes much more serious, particularly having regard to the fact that one is concerned with not just the safety of the United Kingdom but the interests of the United Kingdom, which itself is an unfortunately vague expression. I think it would help the Committee if the Minister would explain exactly what a prosecutor would be expected to have to prove in order to establish the offence.
Putting myself into my former position of prosecutor, I would find it quite troublesome to have to face up to proving not only what the individual knew about the law but what the individual knew about the facts. But it would be quite reasonable for me as a prosecutor to have to do that. To impute knowledge of facts to an individual with an offence as serious as this is to take the matter a long way from a reasonable punishment with the extreme penalties mentioned in this clause. It would be helpful if the Minister would explain exactly what would need to be proved in order to establish the offence so that the noble Lord and those supporting know exactly where they are.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend and have added my name to these amendments. I apologise to the Committee that I was not present at Second Reading. The Minister knows that I was in Malawi supporting the launch of a parliamentary programme and explaining to our colleagues in Malawi the benefit of line-by-line scrutiny of legislation, which I know the Minister will be relishing over these coming days in Committee. As my noble friends indicated at Second Reading, and as my noble friend has indicated today, we take threats to our country very seriously, and we will work constructively with the Government in the scrutiny of the Bill.
I was struck by the remarks of the former head of the SIS, Sir Alex Younger, when he gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the Commons and said that the need to address the changing threats was in front of us. He said:
“What I would call grey threats … often presented us with real challenges, particularly when actors or states felt themselves at war with us and we did not feel ourselves at war with them, for good reason. My career saw less emphasis on conventional threats and more on grey space. Most of my career was devoted to counter-terrorism, which was the dominant example, but subsequently we saw state actors working in sub-threshold space—operations short of conventional war—to harm us.”—[Official Report, Commons, National Security Bill Committee, 7/7/22; cols. 11-12.]
In many respects, it is that grey space that we are seeking to address. I understand the Government’s challenge ahead but, as my noble friend indicated, casting the net so widely without a sharp mesh, I am not sure we will have the kind of security the Government are intending for us to have in this area.
This will be very apparent when we get to Part 3, when it comes to foreign interference in the registers, and other parts. I know the Minister will be in listening mode for a lot of Committee, but I hope he will consider pausing at that part of the Bill for further consultation, because what was apparent at Second Reading—many other noble Lords have, I am sure, received representations from a wide variety of groups, as I have—is that more consultation on that part of the Bill is necessary. Pausing that and bringing it back for the economic crime Bill may be an appropriate way forward. That is a debate we are yet to have, but I just wanted to give the Minister foresight of the case we are making.
As my noble friend indicated—and I defer to his legal knowledge and that of others with extensive legal knowledge who will be participating in Committee—I am struck that because of the Government’s choice not to reform the Official Secrets Act 1989, we will have two competing offences with two contradictory defences. Under this Bill, as my noble friend indicated, anyone who discloses protected information is committing an offence. In the 1989 Act, if an intelligence officer or former intelligence officer discloses any information relating to security or intelligence, they can be imprisoned for up to two years.
Under this Bill, anyone disclosing protected information to a foreign power or a body under the authority of a foreign power faces life imprisonment. However, as my noble friend indicated, in Section 1(5) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 there is a form of defence:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question related to security or intelligence or, in the case of an offence under subsection (3), that the disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of that subsection.”
There is no equivalent in this legislation, and I would be grateful if the Minister would outline in very clear terms why.
Part of the rationale given by the Minister in the House of Commons was that the difference between this and the Official Secrets Act is that with this, for any prosecution, three tests have to be met. I suspect we will hear quite a lot in Committee about the three tests. The Minister, Stephen McPartland, indicated that the three tests for someone to be prosecuted under this part of the Bill were,
“conducting harmful activity with regard to information that is protected effectively, knowingly prejudicing the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and acting in a way that benefits a foreign power.”—[Official Report, Commons, National Security Bill Committee, 12/7/22; col. 80.]
But “harmful activity” and “protected effectively” are not specified in the Bill and “benefits a foreign power” is not necessary in Clause 29.
Because of the breadth of Clause 29, in some areas it is opaque. For example, does someone have to prove objectively that they did not know they were providing a service to a foreign power because they were providing it for an authority of a power? That means that the objective test, on a subjective element under this clause, is problematic.
The Minister in the Commons was not clear with regard to what the three tests are, and Clause 29 is broad. It would therefore be preferable for there to be a far more objective approach, as there is in the 1989 Act, rather than what is in this Bill. On that basis I support the amendments in my noble friend’s name.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Purvis, intend to tighten the scope of offences in Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 15 and 29. This is achieved in these amendments by leaving out
“or ought reasonably to know”
from the relevant clauses, meaning that an offence is committed under these clauses only if the person
“knows … that to be the case.”
The practical effect of these amendments is therefore that offences are committed only when a person knows that their actions are damaging. Given that the offences in the Bill could carry significant sentences, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the Committee is right to probe to what extent a person must know that they are committing such an offence, especially as it will otherwise be up to the courts to determine whether a person ought reasonably to have known that they were committing the offence.
However, it is not unusual for offences to be committed when a person ought reasonably to know. There is a recent example of this, which includes the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. I was recently googling it, and it seems that the Act was passed by the coalition Government.
Further to this, if an offence is committed only when a person knows it to be the case that their actions are damaging, it could be difficult to get a successful prosecution. None the less, it is right and helpful that the Committee should ask the Minister to expand on the points we have heard in this short debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, juries often decide on the state of somebody’s mind when an action is committed, and the decision as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty can easily turn on their perception of the state of the person’s mind. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke about the difference between knowledge and imputed knowledge. As he said, it would indeed be helpful if the Minister could expand on the level of imputed knowledge that may be expected to secure a conviction.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, reminded us of the complexity of dealing with “grey space”, as he referred to it. This is an opportunity for the Minister to try to clarify the situation so that prosecutions can be appropriately brought and reasonably thought to have secured an appropriate conviction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their broad support for the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for introducing these amendments.
The test that a person
“knows, or ought reasonably to know”
the effect of their conduct recurs throughout the offences and measures in Part 1 of the Bill. Failing to include an element of objectivity in this test would risk seriously undermining the offences and not criminalising behaviour for which we consider individuals should be culpable. Those conducting state threats activity are likely to be skilled at their tradecraft and will be adept at hiding their activities from our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. It is important that we do not hinder our ability to prosecute in these cases.
We consider that knowledge is an appropriate threshold for these offences and the foreign power condition. However, we believe it is also right to include constructive knowledge in these provisions. Given the seriousness of the offences to which this test applies, it is essential that an element of objectivity is included to ensure that offences can still be prosecuted where individuals are unjustly claiming not to have known the relevant consequences or circumstances. It is, of course, right that those who could not have seen those consequences or circumstances should not be criminally liable under these offences.
I think it is helpful at this point to draw noble Lords’ attention back to the 1911 Official Secrets Act, which we are replacing with this Bill. The offences under that legislation cover certain actions, such as obtaining information, by a person
“for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests”
of the United Kingdom. Those offences require a no-fault element to be proved in relation to the prejudice to the safety or interests of the state. The proposed amendments to Clauses 1, 4 and 12 contain the same requirement for prejudice to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, but, importantly, and as recommended by the Law Commission, introduce a subjective fault element. We agree with the Law Commission that these offences should contain a subjective fault element. Crucially, the offences would not capture a person who genuinely could not reasonably have known the effect or nature of their conduct.
Perhaps I might provide a hypothetical scenario of how the proposed amendment could affect the foreign power condition in Clause 29. It is possible that an individual is unaware that they are working for an undercover foreign agent. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, made a very good point about the grey area in which much of this activity takes place. Let us imagine that the security services tell that individual that the person they are working for is, in fact, a foreign agent but the individual refuses to believe it despite clear warnings. At this point, it would be reasonable to make that individual culpable should they continue activities at the behest of the foreign agent, whereas it might prove difficult to successfully prosecute the individual if knowledge had to be proved.
To be clear, the individual in this example would still need to meet all the other tests in any given offence to be charged with that offence. Meeting the foreign power condition is not in itself wrongdoing.
The same logic applies to other amendments tabled. In Clauses 3 and 15, I am sure the whole House would agree that it is not right that an individual should escape liability when they reasonably should have known that their conduct could assist a foreign intelligence service or that they were receiving a benefit from a foreign intelligence service. A purely subjective test would make these offences very difficult to successfully prosecute.
Constructive knowledge is applied by the courts in other circumstances and the Government are confident that this test is appropriate. There will be a range of culpability between those who have actual knowledge and those who should have known, but that is something that is appropriate for sentencing rather than conviction. I hope that goes some way to answering the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—ah, apparently not.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I want to make it quite clear that, for the reason that was expressed earlier, I do not object to the idea of objectivity here, because it is sometimes extremely difficult to prove that someone knew something. The phraseology being used is pointing in the right direction, but there are two different levels of knowledge. The first is the knowledge of the background facts, and then there is the knowledge that flows from the conclusion based on those facts. Both of those are built into the rather short phraseology of this clause.
Taking those as two separate things, I can agree that the conclusion to be drawn from those facts can be looked at objectively. My question is: how much is the prosecutor going to be dependent on imputed knowledge of the background facts? It would be consistent with some other contexts in which reasonable knowledge is used to say that you look to see what information is possessed by the individual. Taking that as a given, you look at what facts the individual knew, and then you look at the conclusion that ought to be drawn from those facts. I hope I have made it clear that there are two stages here and my concern is about the first stage—whether the clause is imputing knowledge to the individual which that individual does not have. If it is going that far, it is taking a very serious step.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for that clarification. I do not think the clause is imputing that but I will read Hansard very carefully and, if I may, I will come back to him in writing on this point.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will pick me up if I do not address the Official Secrets Act 1989, but that is due to be discussed in group 33 on a subsequent Committee day, so I ask if we can come back to that detail then, if that is acceptable.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Of course, as long as it is on the basis of the point that my noble friend raised—that we will have two pieces of legislation. The 1989 Act will cover serving or former members of the intelligence services, but this Bill means that there will now be two competing pieces of legislation. I do not know which the Government intend will trump the other.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. I commit to making sure that we explain that in considerable detail at the appropriate time, if that is acceptable.
For the reasons I have given, the Government cannot accept the tabled amendments and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment at this stage at the end of what I have to say, and will then consider it and my other amendments with the Minister and others between now and Report.
I am grateful for the incisive consideration of imputed knowledge by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, supported, as I understood it, by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who clearly articulated the difference between the basic knowledge that you must have and the conditions for imputing knowledge. That is what the Government’s drafting of all these clauses in the Bill simply does not address.
My noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed pointed out the very difficult coexistence of the Bill with the Official Secrets Act 1989, which I think the Minister accepted and said that we are going to come back to. It is difficult precisely because it is not simply a competition between offences that involve serving or former intelligence officers and those involving any person; it is also that there is a carefully defined defence under the Official Secrets Act that does not apply here, and the offences can be made out on the basis of imputed knowledge.
The point made by the Minister, that the requirement for actual knowledge might hinder prosecutions, would be a good one were it not for the fact that juries are very good at determining whether or not people who deny knowledge actually have it, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out. With the exception of the Clause 5 offence, these are all indictable-only offences, as you would expect, carrying very serious penalties. A defendant who denies knowledge will have that denial very carefully considered, and the underlying facts that he knew, or can be shown to have known, will be considered to enable a jury to decide whether he actually knew.
On that basis, I suspect that, at the end of the deliberations on the Bill, the House may well want to ensure that, for a conviction to stand, it is a question not of hindering prosecutions but of whether a conviction on reasonable evidence is a likely outcome. When that is considered, I believe that actual knowledge should be required, although I of course wish to consider this over the intervening stages of the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to clarify the definition of “interests of the UK”.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, our amendments in this group would all tighten the definition of the
“interests of the United Kingdom”
that are to be protected under the provisions of the Bill. They would make it clear that the interests to be protected from damage or prejudice by this National Security Bill should be the “security or defence” interests of the United Kingdom.
In opening group 1, I made the point that the aim of Part 1 was set out in the Long Title: the Bill is about “threats to national security”, not general concerns about the interests of the United Kingdom. This reflects a point, made by me and others at Second Reading, that the interests of the UK in the Bill as drafted are not restricted to the defence or security interests of the UK at all but that any interests of the United Kingdom are to receive protection.
For example, under Clause 1, obtaining records or disclosing “protected information” is to be criminalised. “Protected information” includes any information that is “restricted in any way”, or may be reasonably expected to be so restricted, for the purpose of protecting any interests of the United Kingdom, not just security or defence interests. There is no requirement that a genuine threat to the UK be shown, and there is no restriction on which areas the interests of the UK might be held to cover.
As the Minister said in responding to the Second Reading debate, the phrase “interests of the United Kingdom” has been interpreted by the courts as meaning
“the objects of state policy determined by the Crown on the advice of Ministers”.
He also said:
“This is notably different from protecting the particular interests of those in office.”—[Official Report, 6/12/22; col. 152.]
In a personal sense, that may be so, but the interpretation that he recited, which I accept is correct in law, means effectively that the interests of the UK are synonymous with government policy at a particular time. So if the Government of the day are pursuing a particular policy on environmental protection, for example—I mentioned fracking at Second Reading but it could just as easily be immigration or any commercial interest covering transport, planning, housing, safety standards, employment rights or whatever—then investigation and disclosure would be at risk of being criminal.
Under Clause 4, photographing, recording or even looking at any prohibited place for a purpose contrary to any interests seen as those of the UK—these interests are effectively determined by the policy of the Government of the day—would all be criminal. Worse still, the photography or the recording could all be from outside the prohibited place.
Under Clause 8, the Secretary of State may designate anywhere in the United Kingdom—or for that matter any vehicle—as a prohibited place if they consider it necessary to protect the unlimited and undefined interests of the UK. That would hand an unscrupulous Government the power to choke off much of the investigative journalism and broadcasting that is fundamental to our democracy. Consequently, informed discussion of what the national interest requires would be similarly choked off. The dissemination of information about government policy on almost any topic that the Government could claim bore on the national interest could be stifled by the imposition of government restriction at will.
As drawn, many of these provisions have nothing whatever to do with national security. All of our amendments in this group are designed to restrict the interests to be protected by the Bill to “security or defence” interests. That is sufficiently wide, and it is the aim of the Bill, as demonstrated by the Long Title. We therefore hope that the Government will accept these amendments, because we find it hard to believe that they would wish to arrogate to themselves such wide-ranging protection of all possible interests that could be designated as interests of the United Kingdom in a Bill that is rightly concerned with the protection of national security. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will make some simple arguments, because there are other noble Lords who can make much more complex arguments. I say very clearly that the Bill we are debating is the National Security Bill and, therefore, it ought to be about national security. The offences should not be able to be translated to other areas. The offences are drawn so badly and broadly that they will criminalise a huge range of conduct which might only vaguely affect the interests of the UK. The wording should be changed to “security or defence”, as the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Purvis, have suggested in their amendment. It is a dangerous piece of legislation, because it is so broad that the police and security services will be able to turn it into something they can use against far too many people.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, I have reservations about this amendment, because it seems to me that, for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, we are talking about a grey-zone threat from foreign powers and not just the traditional threat which focused almost entirely on national security and defence in the traditional sense. If we are to have legislation which is fit for purpose for the current hybrid warfare that we face as a country, it needs to enable the intelligence and security services to take the appropriate action against not only narrowly defined national security and defence interests but the wider interests of the country—that is what the grey zone is about. While we may be talking about, for example, economic or political interests, it would be an error to focus solely on national security and defence, because, unfortunately, that is not the only area on which our opponents and enemies are focused.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I understand entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has said about the grey area, and we may need to look at that. However, because of how the clause is drafted, it goes far broader than that: as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, it allows for any interests of any Government at any period of time. What does the Minister think is the purpose of “interests”?
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, there is an important principle at heart here. While I appreciate the description of the zone as grey, the problem is that, when you are criminalising conduct, particularly with the penalties that are mentioned in the clause, absolute clarity is needed so that the individuals at risk of being prosecuted can judge whether or not they are at risk of prosecution. Therefore, some attempt at changing the wording—not necessarily following the exact wording in the amendments—is needed to clarify the situation in the interests of the members of the public who are at risk of being prosecuted. I quite understand the greyness of the area, but that is a challenge that must be faced by finding a way, though some form of wording, to avoid the broad reach—indeed, the broadest possible reach—which is at risk if the wording of the clause is kept as it is.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I agree absolutely with the Government’s aim in that there are certain British interests that they wish to protect. However, the way the Bill is drawn leaves an area of opacity and inconsistency with other important and analogous publications. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the revised version of the integrated review produced in 2021, which refers to:
“Our interests and our values: the glue that binds the”
nation. It continues:
“The Government’s first and overriding priority is to protect and promote the interests of the British people through our actions at home and overseas. The most important of these interests are: … Sovereignty … Security … Prosperity”—
and it explains each of those terms. The explanation of prosperity is extremely vague, but the descriptions of both sovereignty and security are quite clear. Those two descriptions are different from “the safety or interests of the United Kingdom” in the Bill, at least as I understand it. My plea to the Minister is for him to accept that there may be some opacity in what we are presented with, and for him to go back and consider this—alongside other publications that the Government have produced, including the integrated review—so that we can have something which is consistent across the board by the time we complete the Bill.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, one of the considerations of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is, of course, a fairly familiar debate parallel to this one which is about the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. Many of the powers exercised by security services can be exercised to defend the United Kingdom from physical threat, but they can also be used to defend the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. I have always been worried about the potential growth of that term, not its actual use. It is very easy to think of things that perhaps ought not to attract intelligence activity but which affect the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. The achievement by a particular firm of a particular contract in competition with another firm is a simple example.
We have some experience of trying to deal with this, and to move to an even wider definition of United Kingdom interests seems to me to open the door to criminal cases being mounted with serious potential penalties in circumstances which Parliament will not have envisaged, except in this short debate, when the matter arises in real life. I can see the intelligence agencies being put at some disadvantage by there being a suspicion that they can do things to favour one group of people over another in the economic interests of the United Kingdom or, as in this case, in the wider interests of the United Kingdom. There is a problem, and I think it needs to be addressed by tighter wording.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. I respect the issue of the grey area of tactics, but I equally acknowledge that if we are seeking to secure convictions beyond reasonable doubt for life sentences and sentences of 14 years, then the burden has to be, in my view, on having the primary legislation as clear as it can be. I will come back to the wider areas of concern.
The Government have referenced that this is an update not a wholesale replacement of the 1911 Act, which states in Clause 1:
“safety or interests of the State”.
But that is a very specific reference to the penalties for spying. It does not go beyond that, so the reference for the understanding of the interests of the state with regard to that penalty and that part of the 1911 Act are very clear. The difficulty with this Bill, as my noble friend indicated, is that the Government are now using that across a series of different offences which are very broad in nature. We will no doubt come back to some of those within the Bill.
The Government have also said that we do not need to have it clarified in the Bill because they are relying on case law definition for this; they cite Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions—1964 AC 763—as far as that is concerned. I looked at that case, which was specifically about a decision that was made about protesters seeking to access a site where nuclear bombers were going to be taking off. The court found that it was not for the courts to decide what were national security interests; that was a responsibility of the Executive. That is very understandable.
That decision has also been looked at in other cases including Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman in 2001. In that case, with regard to Chandler v DPP on national security issues, Lord Steyn said:
“But not all the observations in Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions … can be regarded as authoritative in respect of the new statutory system.”
So purely relying on the definition of case law on a whole breadth of different offences under this Bill is not sufficient.
I was slightly concerned by what the Minister, Stephen McPartland, told the House of Commons in Committee. He seemed to imply that the real reason why the definition was so broad in this Bill was that the evidential threshold had to be low to secure prosecutions. He said of any further restrictions, as in my noble friend’s amendment:
“That would create a higher evidential threshold to secure prosecution in an area that is often difficult to evidence due to the sensitive nature of the information that may have been obtained or disclosed. Put simply, we would have to explain why it caused damage, which may require evidence that compounds the damage. That would provide challenges to our law enforcement agencies and courts”.—[Official Report, Commons, National Security Bill Committee, 12/7/2022; cols. 81-2.]
I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that our courts are fairly well equipped to handle such cases, which are sensitive or relating to national security, as they have in the past. I was troubled to read that the Minister gave the argument that we needed to keep the definition so broad to create a lower evidential threshold, but the penalty is life imprisonment. That surely cannot be right.
More alarmingly—this goes to the noble Lord’s point about wider interests—the Minister referred to the wider elements, not just national security but economic interests. He also referred to public health interests, saying that these areas would be covered in the Bill, and not just when they are used to threaten national security. So it is not just the grey tactics that concern us with regard to national security grounds, but the greyness of how, potentially, Ministers and prosecutors will seek to define that wider national interest. On the public health interest, I can understand that a malign interest may wish to use such a tactic, as I understand the North Koreans tried to do with malware and the NHS. Those are all tactics but, ultimately, these are national security concerns and not public health concerns.
Fundamentally destabilising our economy should be a national security interest. The examples my noble friend Lord Beith gave of undermining certain sectors or competition are not sufficient to meet a trigger for national security. Therefore, I believe that that triggering should be in the Bill, which is why I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments which in many ways goes to the heart of much of the debate that will take place on a number of amendments. It reminds the Committee that the heart of the issue is Clause 1(1)(b), which says that to commit an offence
“the person’s conduct is for a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.
Fundamental to that is that what we are discussing here, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, ably set out, is what we actually mean by the interests and safety of the United Kingdom. It is to the great credit of our country that we can debate that here to try to decide what it should be.
I agree with the majority of noble Lords who have said that it is important that we try to understand how to make sure that defending the interests and safety of our country is about national security and defence. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, reminded us that there are grey areas in that respect. That is not a criticism of having the debate, but it means that we have to decide where we want to draw the line. I have mentioned this to the noble and learned Lord Hope, and I pray him in aid. He mentioned it with respect to the Public Order Bill, and again with this one. It is an abrogation of this Parliament’s responsibility if it does not seek to answer these difficult questions and just leaves it to the courts, saying that it is for the courts to decide and determine. We ourselves should try to give greater clarity to what we as legislators think that phrase actually means.
It is incumbent on the Government to say what they will do to try to define this, as Amendment 2 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my Amendment 3 seek to do. Either they should say “We don’t need to do that”, lay out why it is not necessary for Parliament to determine it and why they think we should leave it to the courts, or say how we will get some sort of definition that makes sense and gives greater clarity. To be frank, that is a real problem for the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out in his interesting and incisive remarks, along with other noble Lords, the Government say at paragraph 62 of the Explanatory Notes:
“The term safety or interests of the UK is not defined”.
They have already made up their mind that they do not need to define it. The basis of these amendments is that we think they do. We do not oppose the Bill or think it is not important that we protect the safety and interests of the United Kingdom, but somewhere along the line our Parliament should try to say what that means. The Government say in the Explanatory Notes that it is not defined and, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned,
“case-law has interpreted it as meaning, in summary, the objects of state policy determined by the Crown on the advice of Ministers (see the Court’s view in Chandler v Director Public Prosecutions (1964)”.
I remind noble Lords that in that judgment, the House of Lords—constitutional arrangements were different then—essentially rejected the idea that it was for a jury to determine or decide whether something was in the interests of the state. As Lord Pearce’s judgment stated,
“the interests of the State must in my judgment mean the interests of the State according to the policies laid down for it by its recognised organs of government and authority, the policies of the State as they are, not as they ought, in the opinion of a jury, to be.”
I am not a lawyer—I have been a politician all my life—but I would argue with that. It may be quite correct from a legal point of view, but sometimes Parliament has not caught up with public opinion or where people are. Often, juries are an important way of determining what the public think, and they work.
We have seen recent examples of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, reminded us well of all the different issues that have arisen with protests. They are irrelevant to the Bill, but let me give another example: assisted dying. Time and again, juries have refused to convict on assisted dying, because they will not convict somebody in those terrible circumstances and do not believe that Parliament has caught up with the reality of where we are.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I entirely understand why the noble Lord is concerned about any uncertainty in these provisions, given the significant penalty, but is he at all reassured by the fact that it would be necessary for a jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a defendant knew or ought reasonably to have known? That is quite a high threshold to be crossed before you even get on to this definition.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree; I am just making the point that a definition would also help and give us certainty and clarity. It is important for a Bill that seeks to address issues of national security that it seeks to define that. The debate has already taken place in Parliament; the noble Lord takes the view that it is unnecessary, but I think a definition would be helpful. A number of noble Lords have said that, in the Bill as drafted, it appears that not only national security or defence issues will fall under the Bill but a whole range of other potential offences which have nothing to do with national security or the defence of the realm.
That is the clarity we seek, and it is right to explore it in Committee. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says as to why my amendment or those of the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Purvis, are unnecessary. Maybe he will use the argument the noble Lord put forward to say that that is what makes it unnecessary—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord’s argument. I was just reflecting on the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. Of course, the jury will have to reach beyond reasonable doubt whether the individual knew. The question is what the mechanisms are of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the person knew what those interests of the Government were, if those interests are not specific and linked to national security. If the Government have made a case that those interests are as broad as the Minister in the House of Commons indicated—that they were linked with public health or economy—that makes the task in the courts much harder, I would have thought. Therefore, it is in the interest of securing better prosecutions that those restrictions are on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has indicated.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is quite right. As I said, the problem with the Bill is that there is no indication of what else may be covered by the “safety or interests” of the state, or what the limits of those terms might be. As I have been arguing, and as others have said, as well as the prevention of terrorism and espionage, they could extend to policies on energy, national infrastructure, the protection of water, power, food, health services, transport, law and order, organised crime and immigration controls. The extent of the powers that may be taken in the Bill could be used in relation to a wide range of state interests, not just state interests related to national security or to the defence of the realm. The interests of the state clearly are ensuring that we have enough energy, but should that be covered by a National Security Bill? These are questions that the Minister needs to answer, and it will be interesting to hear his answer.
I will make a couple of final remarks. Like many, I am somebody who has never read the Official Secrets Act 1911, but in preparation for Committee—and knowing the depth of knowledge, experience and wisdom that we have around—I thought it was necessary to make sure I was quoting. The Official Secrets Act 1911 says under “Penalties for spying”:
“If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State—”.
The Official Secrets Act 1911 says that it has to be for a purpose “prejudicial” to the interests of the state. Logically, should not defendants or people have the right also to argue that their act was not prejudicial to the state? The Act says that your act has to be prejudicial, so surely you have a right and a responsibility to prove that it was not prejudicial. That argument could take place within the courts or wherever. This argument about someone’s actions in relation to the safety or interests of the state, and whether they were prejudicial, needs some sort of definition. Without it, how on earth do we know whether somebody is going to commit an offence under this Act? It would be for somebody to interpret.
Can the Minister clarify what the Government mean by “safety or interests” of the state? Who determines what they are? How can anybody act against that in a way which does not break the law, whether it be through protests or actions? If I take action outside of an RAF base, protesting against it and trying to disrupt things going in or out, or if I am at the peace camp at Faslane, will that be classed as a protest? Where does it become something that falls foul of the Bill? In other words, where do you draw the line? That is an important question for the Government to answer.
My amendment and those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others say to the Government that it is not good enough just to say the “safety and interests” of the state. What does that mean? People have challenged that over the decades. They have stood up and said that the safety and interests of the state are something that they challenge or do not agree with. Through history, that is how progress and reform have taken place. At the time, those protesting, taking action or conducting various activities have sometimes been accused of undermining national security or acting against the interests of the state.
We do not want to pass a law which leads to more confusion or a greater inability for Parliament to say that these are the sorts of actions we mean. That is the whole point of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which I support. It says that if it does not relate just to defence and national security, where is the grey zone that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, mentioned? Where do we draw the line? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, keeps reminding us, we should not abrogate our responsibility on that. It is our fundamental responsibility to try to answer that question.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, once again, this was a helpful debate, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I thank all those who participated. These amendments seek to limit the “interests” element of the “safety or interests of the United Kingdom” test which applies to many of the clauses in Part 1. As noted by many noble Lords, this concept was explored extensively in the other place.
The majority of these amendments change the “interests” element to cover only security or defence interests. This moves away from the safety or interests of the UK test that already exists and is understood in current espionage legislation. Indeed, the Law Commission noted its support of the Government’s decision to retain this term. At the oral evidence session to the Public Bill Committee, it noted that
“safety or interest of the state is consistent with a lot of the wording that already exists within the Official Secrets Act”—
those of 1911 and 1920—and
“avoids what might risk being an unduly narrow focus on national security”,—[Official Report, Commons, National Security Bill Committee, 7/7/22; col. 52.]
as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, noted.
The experience of the Government and the Governments of allied states is that espionage is frequently targeted at and can result in significant damage to all sorts of national interests, some of which may fall outside the scope of security or defence interests. Indeed, any attempt to narrow or define the interests to the UK risks creating a test that is quickly outdated, as the UK’s interests naturally and properly evolve.
A number of noble Lords referred to the Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions case that was heard in this House in 1964. It concluded that the interests of the state meant the objects of state policy, determined by the Crown on the advice of Ministers. That is noticeably distinct from protecting the particular interests of those in office. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others said in relation to the 2001 case. However, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the Government do not think it can be defined in legislation. It needs to retain flexibility for future threats as they evolve.
For this reason, it would also not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to attempt to define the UK’s interests in a Statement to Parliament, as in the proposed amendment to Clause 1. Notably, these amendments do not include economic interests, interests related to public health, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, noted, or interests related to preserving our democracy—to name just a few areas that would be overlooked by them. We know that these areas are targeted by hostile actors, and they should rightly be protected.
I was asked what safeguards are in place to prevent the Government using this legislation inappropriately—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to test the issue with regard to economic activity. If the Minister is saying that the Bill will be broad and go beyond national security economic activity, then presumably that brings into its remit all significant areas of major trade disputes where we have mechanisms for reciprocal action for penalising, having punitive tariff responses, et cetera, when effectively there is economic warfare. If the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and the Minister are correct, anyone involved in any trade competitor which is engaged in dumping or activity that may lead to reciprocal trade actions will now be under the remit of the Bill. It is criminalising an offence with potentially 14 years’ or life imprisonment, rather than going through the approach of what other economic trade activity is concerned. Part of the concern is that the Government will be able to decide that all these different areas would now come under the remit of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
If noble Lords will bear with me, I am going to address that point.
I was saying what safeguards are in place to prevent the Government using the legislation inappropriately—for example, by deciding that someone is acting against government policy but where there is no national security impact. Each offence under this legislation includes tests that must be met in order for the offences to be committed. For example, for a person to commit the Clause 1 offence, they must obtain or disclose information that is “protected” for a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and the activity must be conducted for, or on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit, a foreign power. The limits to the type of conduct that is capable of being caught under this offence, in particular the foreign power condition, ensure that there is a state link. Designing the offence in this way clearly focuses the offence on harmful state threats activity.
Additionally, Attorney-General consent must also be obtained before prosecution can be pursued for the majority of offences under Part 1—in the case of Northern Ireland that is the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland—and the Crown Prosecution Service must apply the public interest test.
I understand the intention of these amendments. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that obviously individuals and groups might not agree with government policies, and the noble Baroness makes it very clear that she falls into that category on a regular basis, but they nevertheless represent the policy of the Government who have been elected to act for the country, and disclosing information to a foreign power can never be the right response to that.
As I say, I understand the intention of these amendments, but the Government cannot support them and respectfully ask for them not to be pressed.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I entirely understand the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, but, with respect, the fallacy that he falls into, and the fallacy into which the Government fall—the Minister has articulated it—is that, in the interests of being able to prosecute a wide range of activities, they threaten to lower the threshold for such prosecutions to a point where the responsibility for the decision on guilt lies not with a jury considering guilt or innocence but with those who decide to prosecute because they perceive a threat to the interests of the United Kingdom, and the interests of the United Kingdom are very wide.
I agreed with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said; the one thing he did which I did not agree with was that he misquoted the Bill. The Bill is not about prejudice to the safety “and” interests of the United Kingdom. Everywhere that the phrase occurs, it says the safety “or” interests of the United Kingdom”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right; I should have said that, and I meant to. I apologise to the Committee; that is what I meant to say. I thank the noble Lord for clarifying that.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am quite sure that no apology was needed for what was plainly a slip in a detailed speech made without reference to lots of notes. But the point is an important one, because the protection of the interests of the United Kingdom is free-standing, and the point that almost every noble Lord who has spoken has made is that, because they are defined, there is no clarity at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about opacity. It is not just opacity; it is that no one can know what is criminal. The prosecutors are there to decide what they will charge—certainly with the consent of the Attorney-General where that is required. However, where they make that decision, the jury is left with an impossible position. The judge is bound to direct the jury properly, under the terms of Chandler—that the interests of the United Kingdom are effectively what the Government of the day determine those interests to be—and the offense is left effectively without any clarity at all. That is our objection. I take it a little further, but it is an objection that illuminates the danger of going down that path. It is unjust not to have clarity about what behaviour is criminal, particularly where the sentences are so serious. It is also damaging to public confidence in the criminal law itself if prosecutors and defenders cannot know what is criminal and what is not.
Baroness Ludford
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is recommended by the JCHR and would confine the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information to information that has been classified as secret or top secret (rather than to all information access to which is restricted in any way).
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the debate on Amendment 4 flows fairly naturally from the previous debate. The amendment flows from the report by the JCHR, which I am a member of, and is designed to
“confine the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information to information that has been classified as secret or top secret (rather than to all information access to which is restricted in any way).”
As the offence relates to the sharing of information, freedom of information—which is of course protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights—is engaged, including the potential that it could catch journalism, political expression or whistleblowing activity. This could potentially capture a wide range of information, not least given the uncertainty we have just been discussing as to how the words
“safety or interests of the United Kingdom”
might be applied in a given case.
The requirement that the information be “restricted in any way”, or even that it might be “reasonable to expect”—that also harks back to the preceding debate—that information be restricted in any way, lacks clarity and legal certainty. As your Lordships can see, common themes are emerging. It would of course catch information that was not protected but it was reasonable to expect that it would be. The Government’s Explanatory Notes set out that it would cover non-classified information accessible in a building with restricted access, such as a government building.
I recall the severity of the offence; with a potential punishment of life imprisonment, it might be reasonable in the light of that to expect that it would attach to a clear type of information such as that categorised as “Secret” or “Top Secret”. It seems unreasonable and disproportionate that the offence should attach to information simply categorised as “protected”, or indeed official information that is not restricted at all.
The offence as currently drafted in Clause 1 does not make it sufficiently clear what information is considered to be protected for the purpose of this offence. It creates an unacceptable level of legal uncertainty, raising concerns about compliance with rights to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of expression, as protected by Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the ECHR.
As proposed by the JCHR report, in the interests of improving legal certainty and proportionality, this amendment proposes that the clause be amended to say that it applies only to information at a certain level of categorisation and therefore sensitivity, such as “secret” or “top secret”. The report suggests that the details of what could be included could be contained in a non-exhaustive indicative list or specified in a statutory instrument, but this amendment is designed to tighten up the offence so that it does not spread too far or impact too much on freedom of expression, journalism and other lawful activities. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, our Amendment 6 would omit Clause 1(2)(b). Your Lordships will know by now that Clause 1(2)(a) deals with protected information as being when
“access to the information, document or other article is restricted in any way”,
as my noble friend Lady Ludford has explained. However, Clause 1(2)(b) goes on to say that
“it is reasonable to expect that access to the information, document or other article would be restricted in any way”—
that way being entirely unspecified.
It is our position that the inclusion of Clause 1(2)(b) takes the clause far too wide. There is no answer to who would be doing the restricting, or what the determinant would be of when and how it would be reasonable to expect restriction. It might be completely reasonable to expect a mad authoritarian Government to restrict the most innocuous but possibly controversial informational document for the purpose of saving public or national embarrassment. Yet that would not make the entirely unjustified restriction on the information or document any less unreasonable; nor would it make the removal of the document from the public domain more justifiable.
This is a misplaced provision, and it should go. We agree with my noble friend Lady Ludford on the JCHR’s Amendment 4, that the restriction of prohibited information ought to be limited to “secret” and “top secret” categories as a matter of definition.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being present at Second Reading. I cannot even claim, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that I was broadcasting the benefits of line-by-line scrutiny to a foreign power. I was performing a long-arranged judicial function in the Channel Islands.
I am well disposed in principle to Clause 1, and I entirely understand why the concept of protected information is not limited to “secret” or “top secret”, as the JCHR recommended. However, in the interests of obtaining a little more clarity, perhaps I might press the Minister on this point. Paragraph 63 of the Explanatory Notes states:
“Protected information includes, but is not limited to, classified material.”
Three examples are given. One is about information on the identity of police officers working with security and intelligence services. One is about information on intelligence officers operating in a foreign state. I suspect that they do not get much more classified than that. One is classified information on a defence system.
Bearing in mind that those examples appear to relate to classified information, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain, first, what circumstances he can envisage in which it should be an offence to obtain or disclose information that is not classified, or that could not reasonably be expected to be classified, applying Clause 1(2)(b). Secondly, how is one supposed to know that non-classified information is protected, given that the only controlling factor, other than the purpose of protecting the safety or interests of the United Kingdom—which, as the Committee has just heard, is very broadly framed—is that access should be restricted in some way? On one view, “restricted” could apply to anything, however innocent, that is not actually published. I assume that such a broad meaning is not intended, but could the Minister give us more of a clue as to where the line is drawn?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group relates to the new offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information. Both amendments pertain to what information should be included in this offence. While the offence currently applies to all restricted information, Amendment 4, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, would confine the offence to “secret” or “top secret” information. This amendment reflects recommendations by the JCHR.
His Majesty’s information assets may be classified into three types: “official”, “secret”, and “top secret”. The practical effect of the amendment is therefore to exclude the disclosure of “official” information from the offence. However, according to a 2018 Cabinet Office paper, official information could have
“damaging consequences if lost, stolen or published in the media”
but is
“not subject to a heightened threat profile.”
The Official Secrets Act 1989 includes offences on the disclosure of each classification of information. Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, put his name to, leaves out part of the definition of protected information, which states that
“it is reasonable to expect that access to the information, document or other article would be restricted in any way”.
As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and in the Explanatory Notes, this is a subjective view of the information.
Given that security officials and civil servants would likely have knowledge of whether or not information is restricted, the inclusion of this line, which would create an offence for when a person should reasonably expect it to be restricted, could impact journalists and civil society. I therefore think that this is an opportunity for the Minister to clarify how he expects that people should be able to reasonably expect that information is restricted or not. I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, for their contributions to this short debate. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its report and its close scrutiny of the Bill. I take the opportunity to confirm that the Government’s response has been published today, and I have asked for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.
The Government consider that limiting what can be captured under “protected information” to specific security classifications, as the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to, risks creating loopholes within the provision that could significantly undermine the operational utility of the offence. There are already limits to what “protected information” covers: protected information is any information, document or other article, where, for the purpose of protecting the UK’s safety or interests, access to it is restricted, or it is reasonable to expect that access would be restricted. I therefore suggest that there lies the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Moreover, the current definition of protected information would cover instances where information may have been misclassified but would still be extremely harmful if shared widely.
In contrast to the proposed amendment, the current definition of protected information also includes instances where seemingly less sensitive unclassified information or lower-classification information from within a government building or on a government computer system was obtained but could undermine the safety of the United Kingdom if disclosed to a hostile actor.
To answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, this could include the floor plans of a government building or even an organisational chart of a team working within that building. There are many examples of official documents at lower classification levels that may also be harmful if disclosed, such as information about a UK trade deal with another country. It is imperative that this breadth of information is also covered within the definition.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The “foreign power” test, which we will come on to later in the Bill, is extremely broad. Under Clauses 29 and 30, the “foreign power” test can cover the public service broadcaster of Canada. So, if someone who believes that our Government are committing wrongdoing provides a document to the public broadcaster in Canada because they believe that our Government are doing wrong, which is in the global interest, would that be covered, with potential life imprisonment, under this Bill?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It would be the case only if those three tests that I have just described are met for the purposes of the offence in the Bill. So it would have to be that the information was protected, that the person ought reasonably to know that, and that its disclosure was prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. I imagine that will be the topic of some debate in the context of the hypothetical example that the noble Lord mentioned. It also has to be done with the intention to benefit a foreign power. I cannot see that, in the hypothetical situation the noble Lord mentioned, that issue realistically would arise because the combination of these tests means not only is the proposed offence proportionate but an appropriately high bar has to be met to bring a prosecution under this clause. The Government therefore consider that the definition of protected information is justified and cannot accept the proposed amendments. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Following up on my noble friend Lord Purvis’s question, would it not probably be in the interests of Canada in the example he gave to expose wrongdoing on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom? The Government of the United Kingdom might define the interests of the United Kingdom in accordance with government policy in a way which was inimical to the interests of Canada and the offence would still be committed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I find the hypothetical example that the noble Lord postulates hard to follow, because it seems difficult to envisage a situation where a prosecutor could conclude in those circumstances that there was a prejudice to the Government of the United Kingdom and a benefit to the Government of Canada, and that the other elements were present. It seems a most unlikely scenario.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I would just like to make sure the Minister is very clear with the Committee. All the decisions that would take place would have to have an objective view that that foreign power benefits. But in my reading, the Bill does not state that. It is simply that providing information to an authority of a foreign Government, which could be a public sector broadcaster such as CBC, is under this Bill. No one has to make the decision that that public broadcaster is then seeking to benefit the Canadian Government. That is not in this Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is the intention to benefit that foreign power that is in this Bill, and it seems to me that that is a sufficiently clear and adequate definition to afford protection under the proposed section.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I was just looking up to see whether the words “intended to benefit a foreign power” were actually in the Bill, but I did not have time. In skimming through, I did not see them.
The Minister’s response has not really reassured me. The lack of definition of “interests of the UK”, with a question mark over what that means and how you could conflate the interests of the country and the interests of the current Government, coupled with the potentially wide definition of “restricted”, suggests, to myself and my noble friends on these Benches at least, a lack of precision and an opportunity that is too wide, especially considering that the penalty that could be faced is life imprisonment. Surely, there is an onus on us to secure a tight definition of offences in this Bill.
The other missing element, which we will come to in further discussions, is the lack of a public interest defence or a whistleblowing defence. What we are facing here is considerable uncertainty about what the real scope of the offence could be. As my noble friend Lord Marks said, the term “restricted in any way” is so undefined, it could cover innocuous but controversial documents, which could be restricted to prevent embarrassment. That is the discussion we keep having on journalism and whistleblowing: we should not open the door to the criminalisation of obtaining or publishing material that could be embarrassing to the ruling party.
I scribbled some notes, but I am afraid I cannot remember which noble Lord made this point. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. How are we meant to know what non-classified information is protected? It could apply to anything, however innocent, that was not published. If the Government have a document that they regard as restricted, even though it is not classified, the fact that it has not been published would mean it was restricted, although it may not be damaging except possibly to the reputations of the Government or Ministers.
If I were to get hold of a document saying that a Bill—for the sake of plucking something out of the air, let us say the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill—is designed to assuage some elements of political opinion in the party in power but is highly damaging to the diplomatic and economic interests of the United Kingdom, would that fall within the terms of the offence under Clause 1? In those circumstances, what is the nature of the restriction? What is the harm committed and what is the test of UK interests?
We keep coming back to the considerable grey areas in this whole package around Clause 1 and other clauses. I think we will want to explore this matter further. Otherwise, we are driving a coach and horses through the exercise of freedom of expression and other rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which for the time being the UK is still a party to.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I think my noble friend and I are reading the same version of the Bill, but I am not sure the Minister is. There is no reference to benefiting a foreign power with intent, so I hope that at some stage during Committee the Minister will be able to clarify this position.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank my noble friend very much for that extremely useful intervention. I think we will have further discussion on this whole lack of precision in definitions in the Bill, especially considering the nature of the potential penalty: life imprisonment. You cannot afford to be vague about definitions in that context. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Ludford
“(ca) the person’s conduct is significantly prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is recommended by the JCHR and would narrow the scope of the offence of obtaining or disclosing trade secrets so that it applies only to trade secrets that would prejudice the safety or interests of the UK.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this is a JCHR-recommended amendment under Clause 2, which is about making it an offence to obtain or disclose trade secrets, punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Again, the JCHR feels that, as the offence is about the sharing of information, freedom of information—protected under ECHR Article 10—is engaged, including the potential that it may catch journalism, political expression or whistleblowing.
It is difficult to justify this as being in the interests of national security because no element in the offence has a link to the interests of national security, or indeed to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. In their human rights memorandum the Government did not address the compatibility of this offence with ECHR Article 10. In the offence there is no requirement for there to be any detriment to the UK or to the public. As such, this seems to be really an offence of theft affecting a private actor. It does not really belong in a national security Bill.
The examples given in the Explanatory Notes relate to artificial intelligence and energy technology, which suggests that the Government envisage industries with links to critical infrastructure and national security concerns for this offence, rather than mere commercial secrets—important but not relevant in the Bill—relating to industries that pose no risk to national security. But as drafted the offence risks catching all trade secrets, no matter their relevance or lack of relevance to national security. As I say, that is more properly governed by the offence of theft. In his reply, perhaps the Minister can tell me why it is not covered by the offence of theft.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to disagree with these amendments, for reasons that I will try to give briefly. Amendment 8 and, indeed, all the others in the group are concerned with intellectual property. My entry in the register of interests discloses involvement with a strategy consultancy. In that role, we sometimes make ourselves available for the investigation of imposter frauds, for example. Many of those frauds can be connected with the attempted theft of intellectual property, not just by individuals and companies but by nation states. Some of those nation states are extremely big and powerful and have the capacity to make full use of the secrets they steal to become world leaders in the marketing of such goods.
I would suggest, with respect, that Amendment 8 shows a misunderstanding of the issue by the JCHR. Indeed, the reason why the proposed Clause 2(1)(ca)—Amendment 8—is not needed is that the reasons for this provision are well set out, in subsection (2)(b) in particular. This is for the protection of some very important and extraordinarily valuable intellectual property, which is created in, and in the interests of, this country. Indeed, if one looks at the other amendments, in particular those seeking to amend subsection (2), one has to think for only a moment to see the problem, and that these amendments defy that problem.
Let us take the example of a university computer science or physics laboratory where leading-edge research is being done or, to take something extremely topical, a vaccination laboratory where research is being done that could make a huge difference to humankind in general. As it happens, it could also make an enormous amount of profit for those creating the scientific inventions and, given the advantages they gain through taxation, for the Government.
It seems to me that the provisions in the Bill are absolutely needed to protect those scientists and inventors. There is a stage between the idea—which may come to someone in the bath or shower—and the production of a patent or copyright during which that idea is not protected by registration. These provisions precisely protect that intermediate area between the idea coming into the scientist’s head and its being registered and protected under the intellectual property legislation, which can be quite slow, very expensive and very complex.
So I respectfully suggest to those who have tabled these amendments that they are not needed and that, in fact, the Bill gives the right sort of protection precisely where it is needed, in the clause in question.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. He may well be able to make a compelling case that there is a mischief that here needs to be addressed, but it is surely nothing whatever to do with national security, which is the subject of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is right that it is puzzling that there is no requirement in Clause 2 that it be established that the conduct in question is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. The desirability of improving intellectual property law is really not an appropriate subject for a Bill of this nature.
Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says that if one looks at Clause 2(2)(b), that paragraph ensures the protection. I remind the Committee that all that Clause 2(2)(b) does is define a “trade secret” as information that
“has actual or potential industrial, economic or commercial value which would be … adversely affected if it became generally known”.
That is the loosest possible definition of a commercial trade secret. It is impossible to understand why matters of that sort should be dealt with in the Bill; indeed, that information may be enjoyed or owned by a foreign individual or company.
Trade secret law is very well developed. It includes remedies for damages and for injunctions. To include Clause 2 in the Bill would attract not just the considerable criminal penalties that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to, it would invoke Clause 16, on the criminality of preparatory acts—
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, if this is an intervention, could the noble Lord make his point, please?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The noble Lord asked to make an intervention, which is why I allowed him to, and I regret that he used the procedure of the House to make a speech. He will be free to make a speech if he wishes to do so.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
No, I am not letting the noble Lord in now. I am sure he will make a speech if he wishes to in a moment.
I will respond to the noble Lord’s intervention, if I may be allowed a moment to do so. His intervention completely misses the point. He seeks to impose upon us his definition of national security. I do not share his definition of national security. If there is theft by a major state overseas of important intellectual property that has yet to be registered and which could make a huge difference to this country, in my view that falls well within the definition of national security. Indeed, that is why the Government have chosen to include economic issues in the broad definition of national security. So I respect my noble friend’s intervention but I disagree with it. I shall listen very carefully to any speech that he makes—after I have sat down.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very sorry. I apologise to the noble Lord and the Committee; I thought he had sat down, and I was not the only Member of the House who thought so.
I have made my speech. The only point that I was going to add was that if we retain Clause 2, it includes the preparatory acts under Clause 16 and the powers of search under Clause 21. For all those reasons, I think Clause 2 should not be included in the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord obviously did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, had not sat down, but he perhaps ought reasonably to have known.
This exchange has focused my mind much more on the following question: part of the grey zone that we are dealing with is whether or not economic security is now part of national security. To a considerable extent, it is. I have not yet fully understood the relationship between the Bill and the National Security and Investment Act, passed last year, which deals with, among other things, some aspects of intellectual property. There may well be—but I am not sufficiently expert on it—a degree of overlap between that Act and what is proposed here.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The National Security and Investment Act 2021 deals with investment and the transfer of more than 25% of the equity in certain types of companies, and it is very clear. A unit has been set up, in two departments at least, to deal with those provisions. There is no real relationship between this provision and the NSIA.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I am reassured. I declare a certain interest: I have a number of relatives in aspects of scientific research. My son tells me that he is a systems biologist, but I note that engineering biology and synthetic biology are defined in the NSI Act among the strategic areas, and they are in some ways very similar to systems biology. So that is part of my active interest in this area. I am well aware that, in our universities, we have a large number of multinational teams working on the cutting edge of advanced science in a number of different areas. That is part of the grey zone with which we are now dealing and which it is extremely difficult to come to grips with.
I will speak to my Amendment 11, which is very much a probing amendment, raising the question of how we handle the very substantial number of dual nationals we have in this country, both living here and living in other countries—in some cases, they are long-term residents in other countries. If we are moving towards an increasingly unfriendly and difficult international environment, as we are already seeing, dual nationals will come under increasing pressure, not just from what we may do, mildly, within the Bill but from the other countries of which they have citizenship and with which they have connections. We have seen the pressures that the Iranian Government are willing to push on to the family members of dual nationals or single British citizens living in this country, and we have seen the same in China. Therefore, there are a number of questions about whether we need to take on board the presence and complexity of our dual-national citizens as part of the complications of the Bill.
I am also conscious that, unless the Minister can reassure me, we have no idea how many dual nationals we have, who they are or where they are. All the questions I posed during the passage of the Elections Act about our overseas citizens, and potential overseas electors, have told me that we have very little idea of who and where they are. I raise this because I simply do not know whether there is a problem or how serious it may be. But it seems to me that we should pay more attention to a world in which some hostile foreign states will do their best to bring all the pressures that they can on British citizens with origins in their country or dual citizens.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
I will not take very long; I will just correct the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that economic pressures on national security are a new addition. The Security Service Act 1989—the noble Lord, Lord Beith, who is not in his place, referred to this—talked about protecting the
“economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.
This is not a new issue. That is a point of clarification, for which I have not taken too much time.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, on the minor tiff between the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, both of whom I have great respect for, I am inclined to side with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I have no doubt at all that economic well-being is an aspect of national security. It is worth observing that Clause 2(1)(d) requires that
“the foreign power condition is met in relation to the … conduct”
in question. In Clause 29, the “foreign power” condition is:
“For the purposes of this Part the foreign power condition is met in relation to a person’s conduct if … the conduct in question, or a course of conduct of which it forms part, is carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power, and … the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that to be the case.”
That is the sort of conduct that we are talking about. We are not talking simply about one commercial organisation stealing a science secret from the University of Oxford; we are talking about this conduct being carried out at the behest of a foreign power, which rather colours the matter in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, described.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I had two points to make, the first of which, about foreign power, has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, so I will not repeat it. The second is more of a question. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked, “Why not charge theft?” I have no doubt that I will be advised by the Minister, but is there not a requirement that you have to deprive somebody permanently of something to constitute the offence of theft? I can see some potential argument that somebody charged under that offence would say that they had no intention to deprive that person permanently of that information.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I have not yet spoken to Amendments 9 and 10, which I was proposing to do before my noble friend spoke for us. Before doing so, I join my noble friend Lady Ludford in opposing the protection of all trade secrets without any requirement for there to be prejudice to the interests of the United Kingdom. That amendment, which has been proposed on behalf of the JCHR, seems to me to be sensible. I also share her bemusement, and that of others, that trade secrets are included in the Bill, because the way in which they are included is extremely wide.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has pointed out that Clause 2(2)(b)—he read it aloud, but I will not repeat doing so—is so wide that it effectively covers any information which has any commercial value of any significance. Of course, that information is important, and, to that extent, I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. However, state actors may also steal, or act nefariously in respect of, trade secrets—as may others, be they state actors or not. They may be from the United Kingdom or abroad. They may be connected to national security, but if the Bill will deal with trade secrets, they need to be defined in such a way that it is confined to trade secrets that present a threat to national security. The Bill goes far too wide if we include wide threats to trade secrets in the criminal proceedings—which, as my noble friend Lady Ludford said, carry very heavy sentences—without the need to prove the threat to national security as an element of the criminal offence. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, threats to trade secrets are normally dealt with in the civil courts, where the protection to intellectual property is customarily and very frequently dealt with every day.
It is absolutely right, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, pointed out, that there is a requirement that the foreign power condition must be met. However, the foreign power condition in Clause 29 is not a very difficult hurdle to surmount. The present drafting does not require any prejudice to the security, defence or other interests of the United Kingdom. It is met if conduct is carried out not by a state Government but by any entity controlled or financially assisted by a foreign power—so that could be a commercial organisation that happened to be state-controlled. For “foreign power”, we have to read that as any power or any other state, including any friendly Government from anywhere in the world.
Our Amendments 9 and 10 tighten up the wording on trade secrets in Clause 2, but only in a limited way: by requiring that a trade secret must be subject to measures to prevent it becoming generally known or available to rival experts in the field. We suggest that it is simply not satisfactory—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I have been listening very carefully to the noble Lord, whom I always listen to with great respect. Can I take it that he or his party will put down an amendment to the Long Title of the Bill in due course? Perhaps he has not read the Long Title in full, because, as far as I can see, it covers all these amendments in the exact way in which they are intended. We are in danger of over-sophisticating a non-existent definition of national security.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am bound to say that I discussed that before the noble Lord came in. Since, in my opening speech on the first group of amendments, I quoted specifically from the Long Title of the Bill dealing with Part 1 offences, I do not accept the criticism that I have not read it. Nor do I accept the criticism that it is apposite to threats that have nothing to do with national security, because the Long Title—which starts by dealing with Part 1, as far as the first semi-colon—is about making provision about threats to national security. My point is that, if you protect trade secrets in these very wide terms, it may include threats to national security, but it is not limited to threats to national security and it may go far wider.
It is not satisfactory for trade secrets to qualify for protection just because the information in those secrets might be reasonably expected to be subject to measures to prevent them becoming known generally. What would the measures be? Would they be imposed by a court, by government or by regulation? That is undefined. Perhaps the Minister, in replying, would explain what those measures might be. How does it help to protect trade secrets that are not subject to any protective measures, as the Bill specifically envisages? The clause raises far more questions than it answers.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I will very briefly follow my noble friends to agree with that proposition. There has been reference to the foreign power condition, and I will refer to that too.
First, I take the opportunity to say that I am grateful to the Minister for what he said to me earlier by highlighting Clause 29(5). Yes, it does include that the foreign power condition can be met,
“if the person intends the conduct in question to benefit a foreign power”,
without necessarily identifying that foreign power. However, that is not an exclusive meeting of the test, as my noble friend Lord Marks has indicated. The test can be met, for example, if one of two business partners who has some intellectual property or something of commercial value is in negotiations with, say, a sovereign wealth fund in the Gulf and then there is a dispute between the two business partners. While one wants to sell that to the sovereign wealth fund in the Gulf, the other says, “You can’t do that, because that is now in breach of the National Security Bill, because I believe that this is a trade secret.” That is because a foreign power, under Clause 30(1)(c), is
“an agency or authority of a foreign government”,
so a sovereign wealth fund seeking investment could be within that definition. Therefore, I have sympathy for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but a counterpoint has been raised by asking whether the Bill is the most appropriate way for national security to cover those aspects—and, on balance, I do not think that it is.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret is unlawful where the acquisition, use or disclosure constitutes a breach of confidence in respect of confidential information. As I understand it, that was the thrust of his argument. That is also the law: we have transposed the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018 into UK law, so we have that intellectual property legislation—including a nine-page trade secrets regulation. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said, and all of it, I think, is covered within existing legislation. The question then arises as to what the intent would be if one is either selling a trade secret or giving a trade secret to a foreign power to advance that foreign power.
That could absolutely be included in the Bill. The concern is that, given the way the Bill is drafted, so many other aspects could also be. That is the point we are trying to tease out: whether the Government intend that trade secrets are, as the noble Baroness indicated, some form of economic warfare, espionage or tactic. That is where the interest of the Bill should lie. It should not be the mechanism whereby trade disputes, commercial disputes or intellectual property disputes are resolved. Ultimately, that is where the Bill could be used. I do not think there are any in this Committee, but I am certain there are creative lawyers who might look for the most appropriate vehicle for the less appropriate cause. I am worried that the Bill would become one of those.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the new offences of obtaining or disclosing trade secrets. We support these new offences and agree that the Government should safeguard against threats to the UK’s trade policy. We see them as important amendments. None the less, we have had an interesting and important debate today. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has outlined, Amendments 8, 9 and 10 are about trying to understand why the Government believe that the offences need to have such a wide scope and whether narrowing them down would really have the unintended or bad consequences that the Government believe they would.
I have a couple of specific questions for the Government. The Bill says that there has to be a direct link to a foreign power, but suppose somebody obtains information such as a trade secret and sells it not to a foreign power but to a competitor business. Is that covered under the legislation? Is it the case that, under the Bill, to prosecute there would need to be a link from the individual to a foreign power and not just to a competitor within the UK?
The measures in Clause 2(4) to (7)—I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to this in his Amendment 11—are really quite important. Why can the offence take place only outside the UK if it is in respect to possession by a UK national, as opposed to a UK national and/or a UK resident, or any other description of persons? Having talked about a narrow definition, I wonder why the Government have restricted the measures in subsections (4) to (7) to a UK national. I would be interested to hear the Government’s answer to that.
An interesting discussion and debate has taken place within the Committee about the JCHR recommendation. It is an interesting point that we will all want the Government to clarify. What is the Minister actually saying to the points from the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford? The JCHR quite clearly states that:
“The theft of trade secrets that pose no risk to national security is more properly governed by the offence of theft (and other breach of confidence and intellectual property rules) than through new espionage offences.”
It would be interesting to understand whether the Government think the JCHR is wrong or whether it has a point. If the JCHR is wrong, why do the Government believe it is wrong? Maybe the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, have greater relevance with respect to this Bill. With those few remarks, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in another lively and entertaining debate. Amendment 8 seeks to add a “safety or interests of the UK” test to Clause 2. Amendments 9 and 10 seek to narrow the definition of a “trade secret” so that it captures only information which is actually subject to measures to protect it. Amendment 11 seeks to expand the scope of a “UK person”. The Government reject these amendments and I will try to explain why.
The offence of obtaining or disclosing trade secrets targets threats designed to undermine our economic prosperity, tackling the whole-state approach to national security adopted by state actors. The Government believe that economic prosperity and national security are inherently linked. You cannot have one without securing the other, and Clause 2 seeks to protect both.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am not going to disagree with the Minister, but on the question of the letter—and I am pleased that he is writing to me—could he put it in the Library, and do that with respect to all the letters, so that every noble Lord can see his answers to the various questions?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Yes, I am happy to give that reassurance. This is just me flying somewhat solo, so I shall clarify that, but I can think of a number of circumstances where it would very much depend on the corporate. But I shall seek official clearance on that. In light of all those answers, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, that was another interesting debate. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for defending the honour of the JCHR against a charge of naivety from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which I reject. I am sure that the JCHR is capable of understanding the noble Lord’s points.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there is a mischief here. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said, economic espionage can be against national security—and it can be, but I think that the Minister went further than that. He said that economic prosperity and national security were synonymous. That is a very broad assertion. For instance, the shareholders in Tesla apparently believe, because the share price of Tesla has dropped rather fast, that Elon Musk has neglected the economic prosperity of Tesla by his concentration on Twitter. I do not think that any of us would regard the share price of Tesla as affecting the national security of the United States. I believe that the Minister is wrong in saying that economic prosperity and national security are synonymous, but of course I accept that economic espionage can certainly damage national security.
As my noble friend Lord Marks said, my Amendment 8 intends precisely to put in a test or condition that the theft of a trade secret is prejudicial to the “safety or interests of the United Kingdom”, preferably with that term redefined by amendments from these Benches. Without that condition, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, Clause 2 does not belong in this Bill. I conclude that I am really not persuaded by the arguments against Amendment 8. When damage to economic prosperity is also harmful to national security, that would be satisfied, if a test of that was added—and I have not heard an argument as to why that test is missing from Clause 2. If the Minister is correct that economic espionage and damage to national security are synonymous, what is the harm of putting in a definition, as the amendment suggests? But I have not yet persuaded the Minister, or indeed some other Members of the House, so for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(c) intends that the conduct will prejudice the safety or security or defence interests of the United Kingdom.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a further intentional element to the offence in Clause 3.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group would add a mental element of intention to prejudice the safety and security or defence interests of the UK to a number of offences in the Bill—those in Clause 3, assisting a foreign intelligence service; in Clause 4, entering a prohibited place; Clause 5, unauthorised entry to a prohibited place; and Clause 16, preparatory conduct to any of the offences in Clauses 1, 2, 4 or 12. The amendments also add, importantly, a similar mental element of intention to prejudice to the foreign power condition that we discussed in the last group, in Clause 29.
The Clause 3 offence of assisting a foreign intelligence service would require intent to prejudice the safety, security or defence interests of the United Kingdom to be proved. That would answer my criticism at Second Reading that the Bill would criminalise a private citizen who helped Mossad to trace possessions looted by the Nazis from their victims, or criminalise the private citizen who helped the CIA to trace war criminals and bring them to justice from whatever theatre. Noble Lords may remember that the only answer that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, gave to my example of a citizen working for Mossad was that
“we would expect that the UK would have been made aware of such activity and it is possible that the UK would have made an arrangement with Israel. As such, the activity would have a defence in Clause 3(7)(c)(i)”.—[Official Report, 6/12/22; col. 156.]
On analysis, that is no answer at all. There is no legitimate reason why a British citizen should not assist the intelligence service of a friendly nation to achieve ends which are not remotely inconsistent with the interests of the United Kingdom. It is entirely wrong, not to mention high-handed and often either impractical or impossible, to suggest that the citizen should have to go through one of the hoops set out in Clause 7 of demonstrating a legal obligation, carrying out a UK public function, or being in accordance with an agreement with the UK or a proxy of the UK to make his or her conduct lawful.
The proper way out of this difficulty is to criminalise assistance to a foreign intelligence service only if it is intended to prejudice the safety or security or defence interests of the United Kingdom—although, as I pointed out in an earlier group, I am not wedded to those words. But it must be clearly defined, and that is the point of the proposal in Amendments 12 and 15. That is consistent with the aim of the Bill, which the clause as drafted, with its breadth, is not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has Amendment 16 from the JCHR in this group, which we support, but we stress the need for the interests of the United Kingdom to be defined by reference to national security; the disjunctive safety or interests of the United Kingdom generally is not enough.
Amendment 19 adds a similar requirement to the Clause 4 offence of entering a prohibited place. That clause is less offensive as it stands, because it already requires knowledge or imputed knowledge that the conduct in question is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. If our amendments in groups 1 and 2 were accepted, as they have not been as yet, all Amendment 19 would add is a positive intention requirement, which we say is justifiable and needed but which would not cause great problems by its omission if those amendments were accepted.
Amendment 20 to Clause 5, the summary offence, is more in need of change, even if our amendments in groups 1 and 2 were accepted. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has Amendment 21 in this group, with a similar change to Amendment 16 of requiring the intention to prejudice, which we support, subject to the same proviso regarding the definition of UK interests.
Amendment 47 adds an intentional prejudice element to the Clause 15 offence of obtaining a material benefit from a foreign intelligence service. Again, as drafted, this is far too wide and ill defined. If a journalist is paid to investigate or write a story for the intelligence service of a friendly nation, entirely compatibly with the national interests of the United Kingdom, he should not be guilty of a criminal offence unless the benefit derived was, in the words of the Bill,
“reasonable consideration for the provision of goods or services”,
and so was within the so-called excluded benefits in Clause 15(4).
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I have watched quite a number of debates in your Lordships’ House and am always struck that the Government invariably reject all the wonderful advice they get from their KCs and former judges. I appreciate that it is much harder when they disagree, but perhaps they ought to look a little more closely at these amendments, read Hansard and think about changing some of the Bill.
These are extremely serious offences. They are meant to protect national security, but currently they do not need intention to be proven. That is incredibly important. A person could unwittingly commit a serious criminal offence without having the foggiest clue that they were doing anything wrong. That is not to suggest that ignorance is a defence, but unintentional consequences to the UK’s interests should not be a serious criminal offence.
One example that is extremely important to me is journalists and whistleblowers exposing government wrongdoing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said in the previous group, it is a perfectly legitimate activity that risks being criminalised by this legislation. The intention of journalists and whistleblowers is not to harm national security but to hold power to account. That is partly what your Lordships are doing in this House, so we should take every opportunity to support journalists and whistleblowers who do it too. I am concerned that they might be trapped by this legislation.
Likewise, the offence in Clause 15 risks criminalising people for receiving a benefit from an intelligence service. Those benefits include receiving information. A person could commit a criminal offence simply through a foreign intelligence service telling them some information which they may not want to hear, potentially completely against their will. Overall, these clauses are deeply flawed and need substantial rewriting.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 16 and 21. I will get a bit repetitive in the debates on this Bill, since I am speaking to amendments stemming from the JCHR, whose job is to pay attention to human rights.
The problem that Amendment 16 seeks to address is that the conduct that could be criminalised is very wide and could include conduct that engages a number of human rights, most obviously freedom of expression, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said—journalism, other political expression and possibly whistleblowing—but also freedom of association and the right to protest. The Government have not sought to justify any interference with human rights in respect of this new offence in their human rights memorandum. It seems difficult to argue credibly a national security justification for bringing proceedings under this clause when there is no prejudice to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom in the test of the offence.
Conduct outside the UK is not caught unless it is
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”
but that test does not apply to conduct within the UK. I hope the Minister can explain why. The JCHR gives the example that the offence would seem to criminalise a French national in the UK who alerts the French intelligence authorities to a terrorist threat in the UK. Let us posit that they do not know how to alert the authorities in the UK. It does not seem very sensible to criminalise such behaviour. Amendment 16 suggests a requirement that the conduct must have the potential to harm UK interests—
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness, so perhaps she would be kind enough to clarify. Did she say that the French intelligence service would not know how to contact the British authorities about an incident in the UK? It may be my fault for not hearing—I apologise if it was.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
It is possible that I gabbled. I would not suggest that the French intelligence authorities would not know how to contact their UK counterparts; I think we all hope and believe that there is close collaboration between them.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
I assure the noble Baroness that they absolutely would.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Of course; the example in the JCHR report was of a French national in the UK—an ordinary person working in a bar or a bank who alerts the French intelligence authorities to a terrorist threat in the UK. It may or may not be hugely realistic, but that would be criminalised, which does not seem very sensible. The focus of Amendment 16 is to add a test of
“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”,
always with the caveat that we want that test to get further attention and elaboration.
Amendment 21 concerns the offence of entering a prohibited place, which is punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Clause 5 is about accessing a prohibited place where
“the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that their conduct is unauthorised.”
There is no requirement in this offence for any prejudice to the safety or interests of the UK. The JCHR suggests that it is more akin to an offence of criminal trespass—it will have nothing to do with national security, unless there is some sort of test of national security.
All the amendments I have spoken to today are about tightening up definitions so that we do not inadvertently catch what ought not to be criminalised behaviour and avoid any clash with human rights under the HRA and the ECHR.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about the breadth of Clause 3, particularly Clause 3(1), and the absence of any requirement that the defendant intends that the conduct will prejudice the safety or security or defence interests of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave a practical example relating to Mossad which I will not repeat. I have a concern because of my professional interest as a practising barrister, and I would welcome advice from the Minister as to whether I will be committing a criminal offence under Clause 3(1) if I give legal advice to a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities. Clause 3(1) refers to “conduct of any kind”; it is a criminal offence, punishable with 14 years’ imprisonment, for me to materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities. My advice, of course, may be to say to that foreign intelligence service, “You can’t do this in the United Kingdom, it would be unlawful, and you should be aware of that”, but what are the potential defences if I am prosecuted? Under Clause 3(7), it is a defence for me to show that I am acting
“in compliance with a legal obligation under the law of the United Kingdom which is not a legal obligation under private law”.
I am very doubtful that my actions as a practising barrister fall within that provision. It is a defence, however, under Clause 3(7)(b)
“in the case of a person having functions of a public nature under the law of the United Kingdom”.
I do not have that; I am a mere practising barrister. Clause 3(7)(c) relates to some agreement with the United Kingdom; that does not apply.
The only other defence that I could offer when I am prosecuted at the Old Bailey for giving legal advice is the exemptions for legal activity which are in Schedule 14, but they seem to me—and I would be delighted to be corrected if I am wrong—to be exemptions confined to the provisions to which we will come which concern requirements to register foreign activity arrangements and foreign influence arrangements. We are not talking about that; Clause 3 is not concerned with any of that. My question to the Minister is please can I be told whether the legal advice that I give as counsel to a foreign intelligence service falls within the scope of Clause 3(1). I raise this not just because I am very concerned not to end up at the Old Bailey but because that demonstrates that Clause 3(1) is far too wide. It really needs to be redrafted to ensure that it addresses only matters of national security.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to define and narrow this part of the Bill. To a degree, I have some sympathy with him. I would like to answer the Mossad point and make a second point. For Mossad to operate in the United Kingdom, there would be an understanding that it should declare its activity. Therefore, I do not think this problem would arise unless it deliberately chose to conceal it, because it would be seeking support and help.
The second point is that if we make it too narrow about what British interests are, we will exclude those foreign intelligence services—including some of our friends—who act against their own citizens in this country, which we would regard as against British interests in the broadest sense though it does not directly threaten British interests. There is a range of activity that this Bill seeks to capture which is not absolutely directed against the UK but may be directed against other people here and which is unacceptable.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I have been out of the House for about three months, and it is very refreshing to come back to your Lordships’ House and one comes back with a rather clear mind. If one just reads the contents of Amendment 12—I have not had time to study the other clauses that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, is addressing—and the simplicity of it, one wonders what the Government could be objecting to. I, of course, share the concern that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, should not go to the Old Bailey and be sent to prison.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we all hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will not be criminalised by this Bill, but we look forward to the Minister’s response and for the exemptions to which the noble Lord referred to cover him.
I want to make a couple of brief remarks, again supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is trying to do, which is to narrow the focus—that has been the subject of much of the debates have had on the various amendments. This amendment would require an intention that the conduct will prejudice the safety or security or defence interests of the United Kingdom and apply that to a number of clauses. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has outlined quite adequately why a discussion about that and a decision for the Government are needed. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government do not think it is necessary rather than just dismissing it.
I wanted something to be clarified, notwithstanding the fact that it may be a simple response. On visiting many military bases, one finds people outside them taking photographs and numbers and watching the activity because it is a pastime; it is something that is of interest to them. I do not think that the Bill will criminalise that, but on behalf of people who have an interest in something that I personally would not have an interest in doing, I wonder whether the Minister could clarify it. I have seen people taking photographs at RAF bases of the planes taking off. It is simply something of interest to them. It would be helpful for the Minister to clarify that they would not be caught by the Bill, even if unintentionally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was right to remind us about intention. It is important. We will come to the public interest debate later, but she referred to journalists and whistleblowers, who risk being criminalised even though their intention is not to undermine national security. That will take us to the public interest defence debate that we will get to later in the Bill.
In answer to the points and amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I think that the JCHR amendments—whether or not they are all right, and we heard a debate earlier on about them—are really important for the JCHR to have put before the Committee. What it is essentially saying is, “We think this is possibly something which impacts on the freedoms that we enjoy in our democracy”, freedom of expression being the one that the noble Baroness just referred to. The Government seek to modernise the national security law, which we all agree with—there is no disagreement in the Committee about that—but the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, should not apologise for the JCHR; rather, we should congratulate it on coming to all of us and asking us to justify what we are doing and on asking the Government to justify what they are doing in the name of national security. There is a compromise to be made sometimes between national security and complete freedom to do X, Y or Z. All of us accept that. The debate, as we heard on earlier amendments, is where you draw the line. I, and other noble Lords, think it is important—whether in respect of this group or others—that a debate takes place in this Parliament, and we should attempt to do better at defining what we actually mean rather than just leaving it to the courts.
I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Jones, and to others who continually remind us about the JCHR that I am sure it is sometimes immensely irritating to the Government, but that is the job. That, in a non-flippant way, is important, because there are compromises with freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to do X, Y or Z, and freedom for people to go about doing things exactly how they want to. It is a price we pay for our national security; how high that price should be is something we should not flinch from debating in this House.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, seek to put intent into these offences. If the Government do not believe that is important, it is necessary to argue the case as to why. On whistleblowers, journalistic freedom and so on, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned, I am sure we will come to that debate later when we discuss the public interest defence. I finish by saying again to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford: more power to your elbow.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for another very interesting short debate. These amendments seek to amend or add a safety or interests test to the various offences throughout the Bill. I will address each offence separately, given the different effect each amendment will have on each offence.
Amendments 12, 15 and 16 would narrow the scope of the offence of assisting a foreign intelligence service, so that the offences would apply only to assistance that would, or is intended to, prejudice the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. The Government reject these amendments. We believe that any activity taking place in the UK on behalf of a foreign intelligence service that the UK has not even informally agreed would be inherently prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. I pause, as here lies at least some explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who none of us want to see in the dock in Court 4 of the Old Bailey.
Creating an additional legal test to prove beyond reasonable doubt why that activity is prejudicial would add an unnecessary hurdle for a prosecution. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked why the Government are criminalising assisting a friendly foreign intelligence service in the case of Mossad. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, also dealt with this example. I would say that we are criminalising covert assistance and I highlight the additional safeguard of the public interest test in the prosecution. We believe that any activity taking place in the UK on behalf of a foreign intelligence service that the UK has not even informally agreed to would be inherently prejudicial.
We would be happy to consider further the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the drafting of Clause 3, but need more information about that hypothetical situation. Who would counsel be advising and when? For example, is he advising a foreign intelligence service which has an agreement to operate in the UK? In those circumstances, the prosecutor’s options would of course be very different.
On Amendment 16, the existing distinction between activities taking place inside the UK and those taking place overseas was deliberate. For activity taking place overseas, Clause 3(4) requires the conduct to be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. This has been done to ensure that we target activity overseas which has an appropriate link to the United Kingdom. On this amendment, and Amendments 12 and 15, it is the Government’s view that activity taking place inside the UK, where not covered by the defences in Clause 3(7) and without even informal agreement or consent, is inherently prejudicial to the UK’s safety or interests.
As I understood the example from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, of a French citizen working in a bar or a bank, surely the answer is that they could simply call 999. I do not think there is any need to tighten up the definition in the context of the example she gave. In further response to the points the noble Baroness raised, I quote from paragraph 43 of the Government’s formal response to the JCHR report:
“Alerting a foreign intelligence service to a potential terrorist plot against the UK would not be conduct in relation to UK activities by that intelligence service. If the UK and France have an agreement to work on such activity together in the UK then that would fall under one of the defences available.”
Regarding Amendment 19, it is the Government’s view that an individual who knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that their conduct has a purpose that is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom should not be outside the scope of the offence simply by virtue of it not being the intention behind the activity to cause harm to the UK. To require the higher level of intention that this amendment seeks to introduce would create gaps that would jeopardise our ability to prevent harmful activity at the sensitive sites these provisions seek to protect. The Government consider it correct to penalise such conduct irrespective of the specific intention of the perpetrator, so long as they have, or should have, knowledge of the damage their action could cause. The Government therefore cannot accept the proposed amendment.
I will address Amendments 20 and 21 together, given that they both would add some variation of the safety or interests of the UK test to Clause 5. For the current Clause 5 offence to be committed, a person must engage in specified conduct in relation to a prohibited place that is unauthorised. They must know, or ought reasonably to know, that their conduct is unauthorised. This therefore protects those who have no reason to know that the activity they are conducting at that specific location is not authorised. There is no requirement to prove intent against the United Kingdom, as the offence is aimed at circumstances where activity is unauthorised but it cannot be established that a person had a purpose they knew, or reasonably ought to have known, was prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. For example, if a person trespasses on a site that they know is a prohibited place and steals something from it, that is not on the face of it damaging to the safety or interests of the UK. This is reflected in the lower maximum penalty for this offence of six months’ imprisonment.
The Government consider that including a further condition to prove that conduct is prejudicial to the safety, security or defence interests of the UK significantly reduces the utility of this offence and creates an unhelpful overlap with the Clause 4 offence. This would result in these provisions not being able to capture the full range of potentially harmful activity that prohibited places face. I add that it would seem clear that the innocent photographer taking pictures of RAF aircraft at an air show would not be caught by this offence for the reasons I have set out.
Amendment 47 would add an additional condition to the offence provided in Clause 15(1). The Government reject this amendment because it would create an additional and unnecessary evidential burden to overcome, severely limiting the efficacy of the offence at preventing hostile foreign intelligence activity against the UK. I suggest that no one would ever be prosecuted in the hypothetical situation advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Marks.
The effect of the amendment would be to require the person committing the offence to know, in all circumstances, what the foreign intelligence service intended to do through the provision of the relevant material benefit. Furthermore, the prosecution would be required to prove that knowledge in court on the basis of admissible evidence, which would be a difficult task.
Were this offence to be amended as suggested, it could be simply circumvented by the foreign intelligence service ensuring that the person who would otherwise commit the offence is not told what is intended. In such circumstances, conduct as set out in the offence as drafted would not be a crime. It is the Government’s view that a foreign intelligence service funding operations in the UK is inherently prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
As to Amendment 49, noble Lords seek to include an additional element of intent as part of the preparatory conduct offence under Clause 16, through the addition of a provision requiring proof that persons engaged in preparatory conduct were acting with a purpose that they knew would prejudice the safety or security or defence of the United Kingdom. In the Government’s view it is unnecessary to include this additional element; if a person engages in preparatory conduct with the intention that it will lead to one or more such offences, the preparatory conduct offence will be committed only if the person has the intention that each element of those offences will be met in the future. I do not accept that the offence could be unintentionally committed in the manner postulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The Minister has the advantage of having read the Government’s response to the JCHR report. As a mere member of the JCHR, I know that, unfortunately, two months after Report, it did not come in time for this Committee, let alone Second Reading. I look forward to reading it.
I did not follow every detail of what he read, but could the Minister tell me what guards against someone being prosecuted under Clause 5,
“Unauthorised entry etc to a prohibited place”?
The clause raises worries about protestors, journalists, photographers and so on, and does not have a test of breaching national security because the criteria in Clause 4—where there is a test of prejudice to the safety or interests of the UK—are not met. It could look as though you have the lower offence, with the possibility of six months imprisonment, where there is no purpose to assist a foreign power and no prejudice to the interests of the UK, but the catch-all of Clause 5, where anyone who wanders on to Ministry of Defence land can attract a six-month prison sentence, whether or not they have done any espionage or harm to the security of the UK. What is the defence to Clause 5 being some sort of compensation for not being able to charge under Clause 4?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I sought to explain to the Committee, the Clause 5 offence can be committed only where a person engages in the specified conduct in relation to a prohibited place that is unauthorised, and they must know, or ought reasonably to know, that their conduct is unauthorised. It is specifically the point, as I hope I alluded to in my remarks earlier, that the Clause 5 offence is the summary-only offence, which is intended to preclude unauthorised entry to prohibited places to avoid the risk of national security consequences.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can I respectfully ask the Minister to write to me before Report, and place a copy in the Library, with a fuller explanation of why I would not be committing a criminal offence by giving advice to a foreign intelligence service? The noble Lord asked what advice; the very simple example I gave was being asked by a foreign intelligence service to advise it whether certain conduct would be unlawful in this country. Would it be a criminal offence for me to advise it on that? Grateful though I am to the Minister for his expression of the hope that I do not end up at the Old Bailey, I would like greater comfort than that. He did perhaps go a little far in suggesting that that would be the view of all noble Lords, but I am grateful for his personal assurance.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will endeavour to make sure that that letter goes to the noble Lord as soon as it is prepared.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I have a genuine query. The Minister referenced a number of times, as I think was cited, that if a foreign intelligence body is operating in the UK unauthorised, it is now considered to be prejudicial to the safety and interests of the United Kingdom. Why is that activity not unlawful?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The activity itself is made unlawful in the provisions of the Bill. Is that the point that the noble Lord is making?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
So it is unlawful for a foreign intelligence service to carry out any activities within the UK if they have not been prior approved by UK intelligence services. Is that correct?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Lord is aware, it is the effect of Clause 2 to prohibit the offences of espionage and assisting a foreign intelligence service. Therefore, those offences in Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill would have the effect of criminalising activity of the type described by the noble Lord.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister; I am purely seeking clarification for the benefit of my own ignorance. I am concerned that it is not very clear. If a friendly intelligence service is carrying out UK activities, which is not espionage against the United Kingdom, the Government are saying that this is prejudicial against the safety and interests of the United Kingdom but it is not unlawful, but a UK citizen advising on that basis is unlawful. Would it not be clearer to state that that activity is unlawful?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I note the noble Lord’s remarks. I am not entirely sure that I follow the logic, but I will study Hansard carefully and take it back to the department.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has given no quarter. I suppose that is to be expected on the first day of a Committee on a Bill, with the Government defending their position as thoroughly as he has done. I hope that when he does read Hansard, as he has just promised to do, he will realise that there are a great many areas in which flaws in the Bill have been exposed—and exposed in particular by this group of amendments—where it is quite plain that conduct that ought not be criminal runs the risk of being criminalised. The question asked by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed just a moment ago exposed the danger for people working for a foreign intelligence service if they are British citizens; they are plainly caught. There are a number of areas where assisting a foreign intelligence service, for instance, gives rise to particular difficulties.
Before I go on to any detail, let me say that it is a dangerous path for a Government to say that they do not believe that there would be many unjustified prosecutions because the public interest test for a prosecution would not be met. Let us remind ourselves that the prosecution services have to consider two things: first, whether there is a reasonable chance of a conviction on the evidence, and, secondly, whether it would be—
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
“Realistic” is better than “reasonable”; the noble Lord knows far better than I what the test is.
The second point is whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute. That is a decision made by prosecuting authorities. What we are concerned about in this Committee is what conduct is criminal and merits a conviction in a criminal court. That carries with it the question of how a judge will be constrained to direct a jury as to what criminal conduct is. We have to get that right. Nowhere is that better shown than in this group of amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, was referred to jocularly in an earlier group by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who said that she often does not agree with government policy and the interests of the United Kingdom as defined by government policy. Of course, he is right that she often does not agree with government policy, but she is right to point out the danger of ill-thought-out laws that go too wide, criminalising behaviour that is no more than the democratic expression of dissenting views. That is one of the evils at which this whole suite of amendments that we have tabled is directed.
An example of how the Bill goes too far was highlighted by the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, to my Mossad example. She said that, of course, Mossad operating in the United Kingdom would be—I forget the phrase she used—notifiable activity, or it would notify of the activity. That is not the concern I was expressing. The concern that I and others were expressing is that a private citizen helping a foreign intelligence agency in the interests of the United Kingdom or compatible with them, without a government sanction and without working for the Government, would be criminalised. I suggest that it is wrong for that private citizen to be dependent on the Government, prosecuting authorities or the Attorney-General taking the view that the public interest test was not met.
In connection with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we simply heard no answer to his question about the tendering of legal advice. I know the Minister said that consideration would be given to that, but that calls into question the whole gamut of queries raised in this House, in this Committee and elsewhere about where the Bill goes too far. I suggest that where a Bill is too wide because it offends against human rights so that human rights are infringed and obviously infringed, the law can become positively dangerous—that is why the JCHR position taken on a number of these amendments is so important; I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on this. We do not just have to consider a benign and friendly Government steeped in the traditions of British democracy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who is not here today, often says, you have to consider the possibility arising of a Government who are wholly against the traditional freedoms that are protected by our law on human rights. I suggest that that is the danger that we are concerned to defeat.
I therefore invite the Minister and his colleagues to go away and think very carefully about the breadth of these clauses and about the strength of the amendments that we have suggested to them, and to discuss with those people who have proposed amendments—we will all be willing to discuss these amendments and any refinements there should be; we are not wedded to the wording as it is the principles that are involved. Thus, by the time the Bill comes back on Report, they can be far more clearly defined, and the intent to prejudice national security—the subject of the Bill—should be clearly made out before anyone is subjected to serious criminal consequences as a result of misguided prosecutions and convictions that will inevitably flow from the misguided wording of the Bill. Having said that we will discuss it, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a higher threshold to be met for the offence in Clause 3.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this group contains only Amendment 13. That said, there ought to be two amendments, because a further amendment in exactly the same terms is required to Clause 3(2)(b).
Clause 3 deals with assisting a foreign intelligence service, and Clause 3(2)(a) provides that a person commits an offence if they engage in conduct
“that it is reasonably possible may materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities.”
For some reason that I cannot explain, we did not propose that Clause 3(2)(b), which provides that the person
“knows, or ought reasonably to know, that it is reasonably possible their conduct may materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities”
should be similarly amended. If this goes further, there will be such an amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I too have a question to ask about this. I thank my noble friend for introducing these amendments so comprehensively. My question relates to Clause 3(2)(a) because it is so broadly scoped.
I am fully aware that there are many extremely professional UK-based organisations that provide training, support, advice and consultancy on security matters. In fact, it has become part of an industry for those who used to serve in some of our Special Forces and intelligence industry. By and large, it is done extremely professionally, which is to their credit. However, under the Bill, presumably, all that activity now needs to cease because it is criminalised. A person will commit an offence where
“it is reasonably possible their conduct may materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities”,
which would mean training within the UK. Therefore, any consultancy—for example, a privacy sector security concern that trains allies in the Gulf and carries out any of that activity here in the UK—presumably is now liable for 14 years in jail. Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, mentioned, there should be a second amendment to go with Amendment 13. There is only one amendment in this group.
Clause 3 means that for the first time it will be a criminal offence to be a covert foreign agent and engage in activity that assists a foreign intelligence service. While the clause currently states that an offence is committed when a person engages in conduct that
“it is reasonably possible … may materially assist a foreign intelligence service”,
this amendment would mean instead that an offence is committed only if it is likely materially to assist a foreign intelligence service. The impact of the amendment is that it increases the threshold for the likelihood of whether an action assists a foreign intelligence service, reflecting concerns raised by the JCHR. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, this would be punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment, so we look forward to the Minister clarifying why the offence is not more tightly drawn.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a very interesting question about the large group of consultants with experience of the security services and forces who provide training to any number of actors across the world, and how they may be caught by this provision. I look forward to the Minister’s answer.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 13 seeks to narrow the scope of the offence provided for in Clause 3(2). For brevity, I will refer to a foreign intelligence service as a FIS.
The Government reject this amendment because we do not consider it to be necessary. Clause 3(2) provides for an offence where a person engages in conduct which it is reasonably possible may materially assist a FIS in carrying out UK-related activities. Amendment 13 seeks to change this to “likely materially to” assist a FIS. We do not consider there to be a difference between the two terms. I recognise the spirit in which this amendment has been made, to raise the bar for this offence being conducted, but I assure noble Lords that for this offence to apply, a person not only needs to engage in the conduct that it is reasonably possible may assist a FIS but must know, or ought reasonably to know, that it will assist a FIS in carrying out UK-related activities.
To ensure that we do not capture legitimate activity, there are defences in Clause 3(7). Not only will we not criminalise activity conducted in accordance with an agreement to which we are a party—such as agreements with our Five Eyes partners based in the UK—but we will exclude law enforcement and others who are legally obliged under UK law to assist a FIS. That goes some way to answering the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. Additionally, where someone with public functions—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My reading of it is that, taking the defence in Clause 3(7)(b) as an example, if I was providing Special Forces training—unlikely though that might seem—because I have functions of a public nature, I would be fine, although I do not think anyone would wish to receive Special Forces training from me. I was asking specifically about UK private sector bodies—consultancies and those that carry out those functions. I am happy for the Minister to write to me if he does not have an answer now, but I do not think that private sector enterprises are covered by any of the defences in Clause 3(7).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my reading of it is not the same as the noble Lord’s, but I will seek clarification and happily write to him on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised a hypothetical about assisting foreign intelligence services. I am happy to provide a few more which may clarify the scope of this clause. Hypothetical examples of a person assisting a foreign intelligence service in carrying out its activities could include aiding intelligence-gathering operations or providing a financial benefit to a foreign intelligence service, or someone working for a foreign intelligence service to entice an individual into working for them. I hope that clarifies it to some extent.
It is important to note that the threat posed by espionage, as we have said in previous groupings, is constantly evolving. It is important that our legislative provisions withstand the test of time. We must safeguard against a rapidly changing and complex threat landscape in which foreign powers and their intelligence services use a whole-of-society approach to conduct hostile activity against the UK. That is why Clause 3 is such an important part of the Bill. We therefore reject this amendment and respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I was going to ask the Minister something before he sat down, but he sat down so fast.
My concern with the Government’s approach, and the Minister’s approach in his response, is that it describes activities without reference to the legal definition of the activities concerned. Clause 3(1) involves the person committing the offence if the person
“engages in contact of any kind”.
Under Clause 3(4):
“‘UK-related activities’ means … activities taking place in the United Kingdom”.
It is not necessary to identify the service. As my noble friend pointed out, Clause 3(7) does not cover the private sector.
My amendments are very simple and very short, but even that raising of the threshold the Government resist. We are at a loss to understand why the Government are not prepared to bring a more forensic approach to the definitions in our criminal law. I quite appreciate and agree that the offence, in principle, of assisting a foreign intelligence service to the prejudice of the interests of the United Kingdom—which we say should be clearly defined—is a very important part of the Bill. But it is wrong to draft the law in such a way as to catch any conduct that attracts the displeasure of our intelligence services, our prosecuting authorities or government policy. It is important to define criminal conduct in such a way that it criminalises only conduct that ought properly to be a criminal offence when committed not only by United Kingdom citizens but by others who have absolutely no intention of assisting a foreign intelligence service to the detriment or prejudice of the United Kingdom. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is recommended by the JCHR and would remove the power of the police to order a person to leave an area “adjacent to” a prohibited place.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the offences and powers in Part 1 of the Bill, which are about entering a prohibited place, are incredibly wide and were detached to significant areas of the British countryside such as Ministry of Defence land covered by public footpaths frequented by tourists, hikers and dog walkers. My amendments in this group aim to guard against innocent members of the public inadvertently committing a criminal offence and to tighten up the conditions for the police to exercise their powers.
It does seem disproportionate to apply the restrictions, and police powers and criminal offences, to land, vehicles and buildings which do not disclose any significant risk to the safety or interests of the UK. Of course, under Clause 8, the Government would give themselves powers to declare additional land, buildings or vehicles to come under the definition of prohibited places. It may not be possible for the public even to know how much of this land and how many vehicles and buildings are Ministry of Defence property and prohibited places. They could risk committing an offence without being aware that they were approaching a Ministry of Defence car, which may have no markings at all, or walking along a coastal path which was Ministry of Defence property. My noble friend Lord Marks was talking in the previous group, or maybe the one before, about how dangerous it is to have wide definitions in criminal law. That is intrinsically bad but imagine if we got a truly authoritarian Government in this country.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. I suppose I should declare interests in relation to the amendments of my noble friend Lady Ludford. I have been stopped by the MoD police twice in my life: outside RAF Fylingdales when walking with a local Liberal Democrat councillor, and outside RAF Menwith Hill, where I had stopped to address a meeting of splendid Quaker women who constituted the Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases. We were watching American servicemen in the ceremony in which they took down the union jack. There are no British servicemen on the base most of the time.
I want to talk about the probing amendments I have put down on why the Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories do not appear here. I explain my interest—and form—on this, which dates back to the Royal Commission on the Constitution of 1970-74, on which I was a very junior witness. I learned about the deep ambivalence surrounding the relationship between the Crown dependencies and the UK in particular, and about the British Overseas Territories.
I note that, in the Procurement Bill, which we have just passed through this House, the Crown dependencies are included under the definition of “a UK supplier”. However, under a number of other Acts that we have passed through this House in the last few years, they exclude themselves. They move in and out in various different ways.
In a number of these territories and dependencies, there are places of considerable concern to our security and interests: the Falkland Islands, the British Indian Ocean Territory, Ascension Island, Saint Helena, et cetera. The Crown dependencies I am much less sure about, although I know there is a Territorial Army base on Jersey. The last time I looked at the official Guernsey website, it still said that Guernsey’s contribution to British defence is the maintenance of the Alderney breakwater. That is a very interesting conceit. When, nearly 20 years ago, I asked the Ministry of Defence a Written Question on the importance of the Alderney breakwater, an official phoned me up to say, “We don’t understand your question”. On further investigation, he said that they had ceased to be concerned with the Alderney breakwater at the time of the Second World War.
There are many ambivalences here but surely, they should be part of this Bill. They are neither foreign nor entirely British. They are of importance to the UK, in financial terms and, when it came to the Falklands, in military terms. I am assured that there are some facilities on Ascension Island. There are certainly facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory, although they are of course primarily American, and I think there are fewer than two dozen British servicemen there. However, they should be in the Bill and are not. I merely wish to ask why.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, anybody watching a wonderful BBC documentary series about Ordnance Survey maps a few years ago would have seen the rather amusing part about a gap in the centre of London on the Ordnance Survey map as result of the Official Secrets Act. That was because it was forbidden to have the Telecom Tower on the map because it was a prohibited place for national security, so none of our foes were able to know where it was by studying the Ordnance Survey map. I hope that we avoid such absurdities with this Bill.
In Committee in the Commons, the Minister stated that there is not, nor will there be, a register of prohibited places. I hope the Minister can provide some more clarity with regard to that today. The offences under the Bill are so significant and potentially draconian that some of the issues that my noble friend Lady Ludford indicated might well come about, because the Minister in the Commons was unable to state in clear terms how people will know where a prohibited place is. Some might be perfectly obvious, such as some of the bases which my noble friend Lord Wallace approached with a Liberal councillor, but others are not. I understand entirely that there will be some areas where the Government do not wish to promote the activities or make it clear where they are, but how will they approach inadvertent activity, given that someone statically observing a prohibited place through an iPhone lens or a binocular lens could inadvertently be committing a criminal offence? I simply do not know how the Government intend to ensure that people are aware that they are potentially falling foul of this legislation.
Not only that but the Bill allows Ministers to move quickly to extend prohibited places. It does so by general description, as the Minister said in the Commons. Prohibited places do not have to be specified, as I understand it. They can be categorised, so that all areas that meet the general specification will become prohibited places. Is there a mechanism so that local authorities or local police are informed, even if no local communities are going to be informed? The Minister in the Commons said
“some sites will not want people to know exactly where they are and what they are doing because they will become targets. Once again, there is a balance to be struck in relation to provision for the intelligence community”.—[Official Report, Commons, National Security Bill Committee, 12/07/22; col. 107.]
Of course there needs to be a balance but, as with some other elements of the Bill, we see no other part of the balance. We see no mechanism that will protect the interests of people who are inadvertent.
The Government have also indicated that they might have to move very fast. There is of course merit in understanding that if there has been an alert about a threat, certain areas might need to be prohibited. I am not advocating it, but I am curious about the choice that has been made. The Government have not chosen to go down the route of the “made affirmative” procedure, which other legislation has if something has to be done urgently. They say that if there is a threat risk, to allow a prohibited place to be put in place they will bring it forward using the negative procedure and consult on it. It does not really ring true as far as how urgent a response that would be to a national security threat.
However, there are significant wider concerns when it comes to the powers that the Government are seeking. Where are the limits for the extension of prohibited places? Would it be, for example, that an immigration centre could not become a prohibited place under this Bill? Would it be that local government department buildings could not be prohibited places? What is the limit? Unless there is a limit, notwithstanding if there is an immediate threat—I think there are procedures anyway with regard to securing areas where the police think that offences are to be carried out, and for the safety of the public there are mechanisms that can secure places under existing legislation—how do we know how far Government want to extend those prohibited places? Unless we are clear, that raises the considerable concern that they can be used to prevent peaceful protest or concern.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group span Clauses 6 to 11 and cover the new offences of
“Entering and inspecting places used for defence etc”.
These clauses are intended to update the prohibited places provisions which fall within the century-old Official Secrets Act 1911. Given that technological developments, such as the use of drones, are providing new methods of accessing protected sites, it is right that the Government are evolving the offences, and it is right that this Committee is probing how these new offences will be implemented.
The 12 amendments in this group are probing and were recommended by the JCHR. They seek to tighten or narrow the offences and definitions. Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raises the unintended consequences of these provisions on the right to protest and on journalism. This will be a common theme throughout Committee stage, and my Amendment 88, which will be debated at a later date, will consider the implications of later clauses for journalists and civil society.
Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and Amendments 27, 28 and 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raise questions about where prohibited places may be located and probe why they may include any MoD land and why Crown dependencies and overseas territories are excluded. Given the sentences which offences may carry, it is important that the Minister clarifies the type of locations which will be included. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford said, the purpose of this group of amendments is to give greater certainty and narrow definitions. She asked the rhetorical question—perhaps it is not a rhetorical question; it is a literal question—of how people will know whether they are in prohibited places.
The noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Purvis, explored quite interestingly why overseas territories are not included within the definitions, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked other questions about who will be informed. If it will not be the general public, will it be local authorities or police forces, and which police forces will it be? The purpose of this suite of amendments is to look at the limits on the extension of prohibited places and at who should expect to be informed about any such extension. I look forward to the Minister’s answer.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I will first speak to Amendments 23 and 33 at the same time, given the argument is much the same for both. I am happy to provide the clarity sought by noble Lords and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Harmful activity relating to prohibited places or cordoned areas around military aircraft can take place directly outside the boundaries of a place or cordon. This could include conducting surveillance, such as taking video or photographs of the sensitive place or aircraft, monitoring the activities of staff located at the site or conducting close-range information technology attacks from outside the place. It is therefore imperative that, where the police believe a person to be conducting such activity, they should be able to order them to move away. None the less, recognising that a cordon may be imposed at short notice, it is a defence provided for in the Bill for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a cordon under Clause 11. The effect of these amendments would be to reduce significantly the ability of the police proactively to stop damaging activity from taking place.
The police guidance that is being developed in collaboration with the College of Policing will provide further advice to forces on the use of powers in respect of an area adjacent to a prohibited place or cordoned area. I can confirm that this is addressed directly in the Government’s response to the JCHR’s report at paragraph 52 and onwards, and I again thank the committee for its close consideration of this Bill.
Amendment 24 adds a requirement that a police officer obtain authorisation before exercising a Clause 6 power. Due to the inherently sensitive nature of prohibited places, and the threats that they face, it is likely that the Clause 6 powers will be used rapidly to prevent serious and harmful activity from taking place—activity that could well jeopardise the safety of those working within the site itself. Policing often requires the judgment of officers to take quick and decisive action to prevent harm and keep the public safe. It is important that we continue to empower our officers to make these decisions where appropriate. Introducing a requirement for a constable to seek approval from a senior officer may add an extra layer of confusion as to when constables may or may not use their powers, potentially allowing harmful activity to be completed before the police can respond. We recognise that every effort should be made to help ensure that these powers are not used in a disproportionate manner, and, as such, we are working closely with the College of Policing to develop guidance that the police should use before exercising the powers granted under Clause 6.
Amendment 25 seeks to provide that it is an offence to fail to comply with a Clause 6 order only if the order was necessary and proportionate to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. The legislation is clear that a constable may exercise a power under Clause 6 only if they reasonably believe that doing so would be necessary to protect the safety or interests of the UK. The Government therefore consider that this amendment is unnecessary. As with any such situation, where it is alleged that a constable has acted outside the scope of their powers, a decision to give the order is rightly open to challenge. As it is an important point, I will stress again that the Government are working closely with the College of Policing on the guidance which should be used prior to making any decision to exercise powers under Clause 6.
On Amendment 26, it is crucial for national security that the UK continues to protect all areas used for defence purposes and by the UK intelligence community. Carving out certain places over others within these categories in the way this amendment proposes risks creating gaps that hostile actors could exploit. It could require the Government to pinpoint their most valuable defence and intelligence sites in order to establish that they are indeed prohibited places and so put these places even more at risk of harmful activity—the very opposite of what the prohibited places regime is setting out to achieve. Moreover, the proposed amendment focuses only on the risk posed by entry to such sites, which fundamentally undermines the protection being given to these sites against a range of harmful activity. It also, in inserting this condition around potential risk, significantly reduces clarity on the face of the legislation as to what constitutes a prohibited place.
I understand the intention behind this amendment, which is to ensure that land that might already be accessible, or where there is not perceived to be a significant risk, is not covered by the provision. I want to assure noble Lords that Ministry of Defence land that can be lawfully accessed by the public and such areas of the British countryside with public footpaths do not need to be excluded, nor do the public need to be given authorisation to be in that area. Therefore, they will not commit an offence under Clause 5. They will be committing an offence under Clause 4 only if the conduct is a specified activity with a purpose that they know, or reasonably ought to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. It is important we are able to catch such harmful activity, even on publicly accessible land. Ministry of Defence land that can lawfully be accessed by the public is still used by our Armed Forces, often for purposes that are sensitive in nature, and it is critical they should be afforded the protections granted by the prohibited places provisions.
I will address Amendments 27, 28 and 30 together, given they all seek to extend the prohibited places provisions to the Crown dependencies and the wider British Overseas Territories. The Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories are not a part of the United Kingdom, of course, but self-governing territories with democratic Assemblies able to legislate for themselves, including on national security. Should any British Overseas Territory or Crown dependency consider it necessary to designate prohibited places within their territory, they may make similar provisions in their own legislation.
It is of note that the Government consulted with the Crown dependencies on their inclusion within the prohibited places regime, and they have advised it would be preferred if they looked towards mirroring these provisions under their own law and legislation. It is only right and proper that the United Kingdom respects these decisions. I hope that addresses the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I am sure the Bailiwick of Guernsey will think long and hard about the Alderney breakwater. As the grandson of an Alderney girl, I can tell noble Lords how much that breakwater is a feature of conversation.
It is important to address why the Government have chosen to include land or buildings within sovereign base areas—particularly those of Akrotiri and Dhekelia—in the prohibited places regime. Sovereign base areas are critical for UK defence and have special constitutional status among the British Overseas Territories in that their administrator, who also holds the title of “Commander British Forces Cyprus”, is vested with all the executive and legislative authority. This unique context of the sovereign base areas is precisely why, at their request, we are also including the option to extend the provisions in the Bill to the sovereign base areas. As such, it is right that the UK continues to afford protections specifically to the sovereign base areas through the National Security Bill.
Amendment 29 creates a legislative requirement to inform the public of prohibited places. The safeguards in place within Clauses 4 and 5—namely, that a person must either have a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom or know, or ought reasonably to know, that their conduct is unauthorised—protect those who have entered, or are in the vicinity of, a sensitive site without having any knowledge that they have done so.
The Government agree that, where it is reasonably practicable, every effort should be made appropriately to notify the public of areas designated as prohibited places through the use of signage surrounding these places. However, the Government consider that making it a legislative obligation to notify the public of the location of every site designated a prohibited place is not proportionate, given that Clause 7 already makes public the types of sites that will be prohibited places. Equally, any designation under Clause 8 will set out in law any further types of sites that will be prohibited places. Furthermore, and crucially, there will be a number of sites which, due to their highly sensitive nature, it would be harmful to UK national security if they were publicly declared as prohibited places.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I have two quick questions for the Minister. I was grateful for his response to me with regard to local authorities. Can he clarify which lands will be categorised under the Crown interest? Under Clause 7(4)(b), they are
“an interest belonging to a government department or held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department”.
It is not singled out, so is my assumption correct that these government departments include devolved Administration departments—the Scottish Government, et cetera?
Similarly, I was grateful for the Minister’s reference to the College of Policing, which was also referenced in Committee by his counterpart in the House of Commons. I have heard no reference to the Government working with the Scottish Police College, which is the relevant body north of the border because the College of Policing is only for England and Wales. This is important, because many of these lands are north of the border, where I live. If the Government are consulting, they need to consult with the Scottish Police College as well. I would be grateful for that assurance.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Yes. My suspicion is that both answers are in the affirmative, but I am afraid I do not know for sure. I will find out from my officials and write to the noble Lord. I thank him for raising that.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am quite disappointed by the Minister’s responses on this. There are considerable dangers in this part of the Bill. The Minister referred to the fact that the offence under Clause 4 is committed only if
“the person knows, or ought reasonably to know,”
that their conduct
“is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.”
We have been around those houses before. Ought ramblers reasonably to know that they are
“in the vicinity of a prohibited place”?
Again, what does that mean? It is like “adjacent”. I do not think the Minister replied on the meaning of “adjacent”; forgive me if I missed that. It is all very difficult for some normal, uncriminal person to know that they are committing an offence under Clause 4. Clause 5 also says they “ought reasonably to know”. It is all rather reminiscent of being “in the vicinity” or “adjacent”. The Government also have powers to designate more places as prohibited.
The Minister drew our attention to the defence
“to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for that failure”
under Clause 11 in relation to a cordoned area. As far as I can see—I might have missed it—there is no such reasonable excuse defence in relation to the offences under Clauses 4 and 5 on entering or unauthorised entry to a prohibited place. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will be able to write to correct me.
This all seems quite reminiscent of the Covid restrictions. In the last couple of days, the human rights barrister Adam Wagner did a review of Matt Hancock’s diaries, or so-called diaries. Presumably, as he is an ex-Cabinet Minister, this publication would have been vetted by the Cabinet Office. This is the Minister who would have signed off all the SIs on Covid restrictions—200, or however many there were. The publication by Mr Hancock says that these were all SIs under the Coronavirus Act, which is not true; they were under the public health Act 1984, if memory serves. It went through the Cabinet Office with no one picking up that the reference was to the wrong law. This is reminiscent of the chaos among the police in applying the restrictions, their failure to distinguish between guidance and law, and the general outrage among the public at being told they could not do things that actually were not illegal. This did not help the reputation of and trust in the police.
I foresee similar echoes from the provisions of this Bill, of an outraged Middle England—or middle UK—where people find themselves adjacent to or in the vicinity of a prohibited place on Ministry of Defence land having had no reason to know about it. The Minister said he would try to consider putting up notices, but I do not think there has been any guarantee. So someone might not know that they were in the vicinity of a prohibited place that is defence land, committing an offence with potentially draconian penalties. This is inadequate as law. The Minister did say that there would be guidance, but there was guidance for the Covid regulations and that did not always solve the problems.
So, while I hear what the Minister says, I will want to return to some of the issues in this part of the Bill. The proposed law is sloppy. It could find innocent people either criminalised or dissuaded from taking their normal walk because they are not sure whether they are allowed in an area, and there could be a general chilling effect on people’s leisure activities. That said, and with the intention of having another look at all of this on Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
Monday 19th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 View all Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 December 2022 - large print - (13 Dec 2022)
Central America: Trade and Investment
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hooper
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve trade and investment relations with countries in Central America.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, this is a short debate but an important one as it is the first to be focused on central America for a very long time—and that is not for want of trying. I am happy to have the opportunity this evening and most grateful to all those participating in the debate, as well as to those sufficiently interested to have remained in the Chamber to listen. I welcome our relatively new Minister to his first outing on Latin America. I hope—indeed, I will make sure—that it will be the first of many. I declare interests as a former president and now vice-president of Canning House, as president of the Central America Business Council, part of the Caribbean Council, and as current vice-chairman of the Latin America and Central America All-Party Parliamentary Groups.
My intentions in asking this Question for Short Debate are: to draw attention to this important and dynamic region of the world, where we have historic as well as current links on which to build; to emphasise some of the opportunities for trade and investment in the region for UK entrepreneurs, given that the balance of trade is not in our favour at the moment; and to refer to my role as trade envoy to Panama, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, which have been identified as target countries within the region by the Department for International Trade.
I was shocked recently to hear from the British Chambers of Commerce that only 10% of British companies export their products. I believe, therefore, that we should be working hard to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. I feel that they would find it easier to take their first steps in a relatively small country.
Central America as a region consists of seven countries: Guatemala, Belize—which, of course, is also a Commonwealth member—Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, which, together with the Dominican Republic, have a system of integration known as SICA, of which Guatemala currently holds the pro tempore presidency. Each country may be relatively small in terms of population, but the SICA countries have a combined population of 60.7 million, a substantial market for our exports; and the population is young, dynamic and digitally aware.
I wish to emphasise, however, that, in spite of the integration system and a common language, each country has a very individual sense of identity. A UK-Central America association agreement was signed in January 2021, post Brexit, setting provisions on trade in goods and services, intellectual property and general procurement. It also includes provisions on preferential tariffs, tariff rate quotas, rules of origin and so on, to ensure continuity with the previous European Union agreement.
CABEI, the Central American Bank of Economic Integration, is the banking arm of SICA, based in Tegucigalpa in Honduras. It aims to promote the economic and social integration and development of the region across sectors such as infrastructure, renewable energy, agriculture and commerce, as well as to reduce poverty and inequality. The United Kingdom was invited to become a non-regional member of CABEI, which has recently opened a European office in Madrid. Could my noble friend the Minister tell us what the current relationship is between the UK and CABEI, given the benefits that a strong and vibrant collaboration could bring?
With all that as background, with our embassies in-country at the ready, with the Department for International Trade providing back-up services such as UK Export Finance, British expertise, helplines and roadshows, and with an active trade commissioner based in the wider Latin America region, it seems to me that the stage is set for progress, especially in priority sectors such as education—edtech in particular—infrastructure such as airports, roads and water treatment, and services, where I want to highlight the issue of green finance.
In saying that, I appreciate that central American countries are still recovering from the consequences of the Covid pandemic, just as we are, while natural disasters, increased by climate change, have taken their toll; for example, in Honduras. I appreciate also, and I understand that others may speak to these, the issues that have to be faced, such as human rights abuses, violence and corruption, which certainly exist in some of these countries.
In the few minutes that I have left, I shall touch on the three countries for which I act as trade envoy, and which I visited in that capacity in May this year. Happily, I had been to them all previously, which has been an advantage. I shall start with Costa Rica. When we think of Costa Rica, we may think of delicious pineapples and other tropical fruits, and even coffee, but very few realise that medical devices are Costa Rica’s main export, or that AstraZeneca recently opened its splendid regional headquarters in San José, the capital.
We may also think of Costa Rica in terms of ecotourism, without realising that Costa Rica’s green credentials extend to an exemplary reforestation programme and that it won the first Duke of Cambridge Earthshot award in the “protect and restore nature” category last year. The support from its then President—incidentally, a former Chevening scholar—for COP 26 was very much welcomed by this country, especially my right honourable friend Alok Sharma, so British companies would be pushing at an open door in the whole environmental field, especially perhaps in the area of green finance.
In Panama, where many major British firms are already established in the free zone area, I was able to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Foreign Minister on clean and sustainable growth. We had fascinating meetings between the Panama Canal Authority and British companies about the recycling of freshwater in the canal locks, and other technical matters that we hope will lead to further collaboration. Education, particularly edtech, is also a top priority in Panama.
I must mention Buddi, a British invention that was originally a wristband to monitor elderly people but is now established in El Salvador by its inventor as an electronic monitoring device in prisons, and looks set fair as a project to be taken up now in Panama. In relation to Panama, perhaps the Government could also be persuaded to support the Panamanian candidate to be secretary-general of the International Maritime Organization here in London, as a new appointment is about to materialise.
Last but by no means least, I refer to the Dominican Republic, the fastest-growing economy in the region. Last month saw the eighth Dominican Republic Week in the UK, when the largest, most senior and most diverse delegation of business leaders and investors came to London and Edinburgh to forge new, and enhance existing, links—a most successful event. Again, there are huge possibilities in the education sector and in infrastructure projects, especially water treatment, while we have much to learn about the successful management of free zones from the Dominican Republic.
I understand that we have slightly more time than originally anticipated so there are two unexpected facts that I wish to mention. The first is that I discovered that more mozzarella cheese is imported into the Dominican Republic from the United Kingdom than from Italy. Think of that.
Secondly, a meeting with the Minister of Industry and Commerce revealed the problem, caused by climate change, of the sargassum seaweed that is invading the Caribbean, fouling the beautiful beaches and having a major impact on the thriving tourist industry in the Dominican Republic and elsewhere. Upon inquiry, I learned that both the National Oceanography Centre at Southampton University and Exeter University are working on this issue, and that a plan is under way to take a group of British experts and companies to the Dominican Republic to discuss ways of solving the problem and perhaps recycling this noxious weed for energy, cardboard and other useful purposes.
My time is up. I wish to say simply that much has been achieved and, if the Government could now free up the visa requirements affecting those countries and encourage more direct flights, we could be well on the way to doubling that 10% figure for companies exporting to central America.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on securing this debate. It is a welcome and rare opportunity to debate a region of the world that is so often overlooked when it comes to foreign policy, trade, investment and security.
I recently returned from an IPU delegation to Mexico so I will focus my contribution on that country. Of course, I am aware that Mexico defines itself just as much as north as central America, although the term “Mesoamerica” encompasses Mexico as well as the central American countries. In addition, drug cartel activity and people trafficking from central America through Mexico en route to the US have implications for legitimate trade and investment. As His Majesty’s Government are currently engaged in negotiations on a free trade agreement with Mexico, a topic also covered in the helpful Library briefing for today’s debate, I hope noble Lords will agree that Mexico is relevant to this short debate. I have a number of questions for the Minister but, if he was not expecting to answer questions on Mexico today, I would be grateful if he might write to me in due course and place a copy in the Library.
First, I know that the second round of the UK-Mexico trade talks have been held but do the Government still expect them to be concluded by mid-2024, as originally announced? I ask this because I am aware that the Mexican ministry of economy has recently fired all its senior officials involved in the negotiations. Does that mean starting over again? What, if anything, does the Minister expect to be different with a completely new set of negotiators?
Secondly, and for me this is by far the most important point, I want to ask about the relationship between trade and investment and human rights. I ask the Minister to set out clearly the Government’s rationale for removing all consideration of a human rights clause from this free trade agreement, and indeed all such new agreements? The original FTA to which the UK was party as an EU member included a human rights clause, as did the continuity agreement. I for one was hoping that our bilateral agreement would go further and better than the merely declaratory clause that we had through the EU, and instead we would want to demonstrate our much-vaunted global leadership in this field and underpin the clause with a mechanism for monitoring and accountability. Sadly, on the contrary, it seems that no human rights clause will form part of the UK-Mexico FTA but that a separate, parallel human rights “dialogue” will take place. The trouble is that although we have already had two rounds of trade talks, the human rights dialogue has not even started and, as far as I know, no start date is in sight. Will the Minister please tell the House why not?
I am familiar with the standard line that establishing a free trade agreement then puts us in a better position to raise human rights concerns with new partners, but this seems a very weak chicken-and-egg sort of argument, and it clearly did not apply in any case when we were happy to include a human rights clause in our previous deals. A more robust and defensible stance would be that being up front on human rights would be a stronger incentive for trade and investment. At the very least, I would welcome a date for the start of a genuine human rights dialogue with Mexico, but I also hope that the Minister will agree to take this issue back and reconsider incorporating a human rights clause in the negotiations.
Should anyone be in any doubt, human rights in Mexico is a critical problem that needs an awful lot more than mere dialogue; it needs urgent action with strong international leverage behind it. Our embassy team in Mexico does sterling work, continuously raising human rights issues and individual cases and contributing to training and other technical assistance. Over 106,000 people are currently known to have disappeared in Mexico—“disappeared” is largely a euphemism for kidnapped and/or murdered. These are mainly journalists, human rights defenders and environmental and indigenous campaigners. Perpetrators enjoy almost complete impunity. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of forcibly displaced people, some of them having been forcibly removed by companies seeking access to natural resources.
This brings me to my next question: does the Minister have any information on whether any British companies are or have been involved in such displacement activity? What specific measures or programmes does the DIT have in place to ensure that UK companies doing, or hoping to do, business in Mexico comply with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, sometimes known as the Ruggie principles? On a related point, what happened to the Pacific Alliance, of which Mexico is a member and with which our Government have said in the past that they were committed to deepening our involvement? For example, do the UK Government still support what they used to call high value campaigns—HVCs—to support British companies in exporting and investing across the sectors where UK industry could add most value?
Finally, can the Minister update the House on what language and cultural support his department provides to UK companies looking to build export growth in central America and Mexico? How many DIT officials and negotiators are competent in Spanish, or are taking Spanish courses at the FCDO language centre?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Hooper on securing this short debate. Her timing is fortuitous in the light of the announcement, made by the Foreign Secretary just last Monday, that the Government will develop stronger relations with increasingly influential countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. I welcome that statement, but the only Latin American country he referenced in his speech was Brazil, and that was simply to support the idea that the UN Security Council might be reformed and make Brazil a permanent member.
I have four questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, what new measures will now be taken to cast a spotlight on Latin American countries in central America with which we have signed an association agreement, of course not forgetting Belize, which is governed by the separate CARIFORUM-UK economic partnership agreement? It was a privilege to meet the members of CARIFORUM when I was a Minister at the FCDO and attended one of its sessions. Additionally, I made ministerial visits to several other countries in central America, primarily in my role as the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict. I also met representatives of UK companies in business in the region. They impressed upon me how they face significant hurdles when they compete for contracts, which are then often routinely awarded to non-UK businesses that have a record of failing to deliver the kind of quality, timeliness and reliability of work that would have been provided by the UK companies.
Over a year ago, the then CEO of UK Export Finance announced that the UK was entering a new era for trade with central America. So my second question is: can my noble friend the Minister please tell the House what increase in support and advice was given, as a result of that announcement, to UK businesses seeking to secure contracts in central America? What new steps will now be taken to build upon that work? By the way, I notice that UKEF currently has an interim CEO; can my noble friend the Minister inform the House when the Government expect to make a permanent CEO appointment?
My third question ventures into the fields covered by trade commissioners and trade envoys. I would be grateful if my noble friend put on the record the respective roles and lines of accountability for both trade commissioners and trade envoys. The Latin American trade commissioner is based in São Paulo, and his deputy is located in Mexico City. Of course, as my noble friend Lady Hooper mentioned, they also cover the Caribbean region. That is quite a stretch for their enormous amount of work. My noble friend Lady Hooper declared her work, for which she is very highly respected, as trade envoy for Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic. Select Committees of this House would benefit greatly from hearing from such experts as trade envoys.
However, I have to inform the House that, when the International Relations and Defence Committee, which I chair, sought to take evidence from one of the trade envoys to Africa in the course of our inquiry into the UK’s relations with the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, the Government refused permission for them to give evidence. That surprised us, to say the least. We had hoped to benefit from learning about their work and achievements on behalf of the UK. I would therefore be grateful if my noble friend could tell the House whether the Government’s policy of preventing trade envoys giving evidence to the committees of this House has changed. If it has not, will they consider changing it? If my noble friend is not in a position to answer any of my questions tonight, I would be grateful if he wrote to me and gave a copy of the letter to the House.
My final question refers back to comments made by both my noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, whom I hope I may call a noble friend. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure me that all those who give advice on trade and investment to companies on behalf of the UK Government will bear in mind the human rights records of countries in central America when doing so? Will he reassure me that they are fully informed of the importance of the Ruggie principles?
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on securing this long overdue and important debate. In addition to her service as trade envoy, she is a distinguished former honorary president of Canning House, as she mentioned. As the current holder of that position, it gave me, and all of us at Canning House, intense pleasure to award the Canning medal to her this summer, in recognition of her outstanding service to UK-Latin American relations and to Canning House. I also pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Anelay of St Johns, two formidable and steadfast advocates.
Central America is part of an increasingly important region of the world for business, and I for one would have been delighted if the noble Baroness had chosen to examine trade and industry opportunities for all of Latin America. As the excellent Michael Stott of the Financial Times reeled off at a Canning House event last week, addressing the whole of Latin America, the region has an economy of $5.5 trillion more than Japan; its area is 19.2 million square kilometres, almost as much as China and the US combined; it has 27% of the world’s forests, 30% of the fresh water and 25% of the arable land; it is home to some 650 million people, 81% of whom live in cities and towns, making it the most urbanised region in the globe after North America; it has 58% of the world’s lithium and 41% of its copper. Of course, Spanish, which is widely spoken in Latin America, is the world’s third-most spoken language. It is a region militarily at peace with itself and with an absence of war.
Latin America will be of increased importance because of resources—and, as usual, China sees the potential there. It contributed to 0% of global trade in the noughties, but it now exceeds Europe’s share and is approaching that of the US, which is declining. It is vital that the Government recognise the importance of central America—and, indeed, of Latin America in its entirety—and allocate resources accordingly. I am sure that we will hear good news of the progress on FTAs. I am very pleased that we have a DIT team that seems to mean business, but I very much endorse the question about the extent of the resources at their disposal. Last week, I met with Cristina Irving Turner, the department’s number two, and was suitably impressed. The region consists of friends, so can anything be done about high university fees, which is a real issue?
I am partly Norwegian, so I know that the Norwegian foreign service expects its ambassadors to be front-line salesmen for Norwegian industry and businesses. Can the Minister consider prioritising information and training for His Majesty’s ambassadors to play a role in growing our exports?
It is not only for the Government to increase their activity and ambition in the areas that earlier speakers have noted and that my successors will note; business must also engage fully with those challenges. There are opportunities for business in many areas, including pharma, infrastructure, food and drink, healthcare, energy, finance and especially fintech, agriculture, mining and education, among others. I want to impress on business the need to visit and visit and visit. A long-term commitment and approach is needed, because nothing else will work; this is not the area for quick results. When I was the lord mayor, all too often I heard the refrain, in different parts of the world, “We love you, Brits, and we love your products, but we don’t see you here often enough”. My experience of travelling internationally throughout my career is that there is enormous good will towards the UK and UK business. I also point out that the smaller countries in central America represent an ideal opportunity for SMEs, a potential that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, acknowledged.
Despite a reputation for inefficiency and procurement opacity, there are many ways in which international expertise can meet the needs of Latin American countries. Latin America—including, not least, some countries in central America—continues to be a region that carries risks with security and corruption, all of which can be managed with careful planning and due diligence. As someone recently said to me, it is easy to overestimate the risks and underestimate the rewards. I believe that Britain now has the strictest anti-corruption legislation in the world, and the right person at the right time might be able to suggest to a potential client that business with UK firms speaks to the highest standards and governance. If the DIT wants to build a roadshow to talk to businesses and trade associates about the opportunities in central America—or, indeed, in wider Latin America—I would be willing to join that enterprise and crusade.
In conclusion, Far Eastern business has the problem of an increasingly assertive China on its doorstep, while eastern Europe has the problem of an aggressive and vindictive Russia on its doorstep. I say to noble Lords, as well as to government, industry and business, that now is the time to engage with the huge potential of Latin America. We must get on with this urgently.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I join your Lordships in thanking my noble friend Lady Hooper for introducing this timely debate.
I will briefly link together three themes: our scope for building up trade and investment relations with countries in central America, while also bearing in mind Brazil in Latin America; the challenges to protect the environment, to reduce poverty and to uphold human rights, as was already highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns; and, in spite of those challenges, the United Kingdom’s present opportunity to take a positive lead within a consensual international community.
In addition to the main trade in food and drink, and as correctly identified by World Bank analysis, there is now a significant potential for United Kingdom companies to export goods and services in other sectors, including those of infrastructure and clean growth. Not least, those future prospects have already inspired a partnership and memorandum of understanding between UK Export Finance and the Central American Bank for Economic Integration.
Following that, for the next five years, which higher percentage figures do my noble friend the Minister and his department predict? What different pattern of exported and imported goods and services does he thus anticipate? Given that, at the moment, the lion’s share is with Costa Rica, to which my noble friend Lady Hooper has referred, to what extent does he expect a reinvigorated deployment of trade and investment affecting the United Kingdom to be spread more evenly over other central American countries? Equally, over the next five years, and considering the same future trade prospects—from infrastructure to clean growth and certain other sectors—from their separate current base, what trade percentage rises does my noble friend the Minister forecast between the United Kingdom and the principal bloc of Latin American countries, in particular Brazil?
Then, to help facilitate this process at all, what assessment have the Government made of certain measures which they might pursue, ranging from encouraging investment, perhaps through regional as well as central banks, to focused, well-advertised and adapted government incentive schemes to be taken up by United Kingdom business and industry?
The EU-Mercosur deal should have begun in 2019 but instead has remained on hold due to European concerns about Amazon deforestation and Mr Bolsonaro’s authoritarian rule in Brazil. His recent defeat, officials claim, has removed those obstacles, while President-elect Lula has said that a trade deal could be established within six months between the European Union and South America’s Mercosur bloc, which covers Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile. Meanwhile, regarding our own enhanced trade partnership proposals with Brazil, Lula has requested that the United Kingdom should revise the component which would impose restrictions on importing Brazilian meat products, especially beef.
If handled in the right way, Brazil’s change of regime can cause dramatic changes for the better, benefiting not just that country itself but also most others within both central and Latin America. These include preservation of the Amazon rather than its piecemeal destruction and a much-improved level of respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Both the United Kingdom and the European Union have a key role to play. This begins with establishing good relations with the new regime in Brazil.
Does my noble friend the Minister therefore agree, first, that in order to achieve these more important wider objectives, we should now renegotiate our ETP terms so that through their revised acceptability the UK starts to gain the confidence of the Brazilian Administration? Secondly, does he assent that thereafter, in co-operation with the EU and countries within both central and Latin America, including Brazil, we should emphasise the priority of this shared and wider agenda? Thirdly, does he concur that, along with other states, the more the United Kingdom is seen and known in South America to put that agenda’s ethical and mutually advantageous international aims first, the more its own, as well as the trade and investment levels of those other states, will also increase, diversify and consolidate?
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, a simple premise for today’s world must surely be that entry into lesser marketplaces by midsized SMEs must be a priority—not just those markets on the beaten track nor those the preserve of big business.
Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is to be supported in her endeavours in the central American region, which build on the high regard in which she is held in South America. Proponents of natural trade corridors might wish to continue the trajectory on from the Caribbean, in which the Dominican Republic sits—a part of the remit of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who is a trade envoy of the Prime Minister—and continue to central America and include Mexico.
I would be curious to know the rationale behind the selection of the 20 FCDO priority countries and would be grateful if the Minister would write to me on this, along with a sense of whether trade corridors might not be a better way to go. Are the DIT and other government departments aligned, for example?
On the question of human rights, my understanding is that an introduction of human rights has been downgraded as an aspiration. Am I right in that regard?
I do not wish to be unseasonal but the view of some is that the Government have adopted a fragmented approach to trade, with no long-term vision, and are short on intrinsic strategic planning. I venture some innovative thinking and that to think holistically, away from the British trait of silo mentality, would do no harm.
A recent discussion with some clear-sighted professionals arrived at two conclusions: first, that things cannot continue as before; and, secondly, that a clearer whole-of-government vision on trade is needed, together with a fully integrated approach across Whitehall to drive global growth in key sectors.
The APPG for International Trade and Investment, which I happen to co-chair, together with the Future of UK Freight and Logistics APPG, are building on the principle of identifying trade corridors. We will be conducting a review of all aspects of the United Kingdom’s export promotion strategy, looking at the role of government, the chamber of commerce movement and regional promotional bodies, including regional champions such as Midlands Engine and Northern Powerhouse, and LEPs, to name but a few. We need the rationale and criteria for trade envoy selection to be explained as some strategically important countries have none.
For the record, these are in addition to the empowerment of intra-UK trade, including supply chain issues. Through my engagement with the International Trade & Investment Center—ITIC—of Washington DC and the International Trade Council, I am working on making available the provision of information and dissemination of multiple datasets, using overlays for analytics of markets and supply chains. These allow for forecasting and prediction of market behaviour, thus allowing for a deepening of relations with New World countries.
That should greatly assist companies searching out and forecasting new markets and UK entities seeking to validate their supply chains, understand market pricing, monitor competitors and assist in locating priority investment FDI targets. Additionally, many emerging countries welcome issue focus, often in the format of round tables and implementing public/private sector workshops on capacity building, tax policy and fiscal economics, with practical initiatives that can make a real difference. Stakeholder engagement is key when on a course to win friends.
It is about co-ordinating individual local content development programmes that can be adopted by investors and government agencies, combined with utilising tax and customs data and the like, to which I have referred, with skills-based professional development and gap analyses.
In concluding, there is an urgent need for government to promote the provisions and benefits globally of the enabling electronic trade process currently on its legislative journey in the UK. What is being done in that regard?
Lord Brennan (Non-Afl)
My Lords, respecting the time constraints in the gap, I have three broad points to make. The first is on the need for international trade and investment for this country. Increasing trade is of the highest importance generally and in the dire economic circumstances that we are in in the moment—and, particularly, because of our Brexit responsibilities. Secondly, as part of this, surely, we should co-operate with international development banks which cover regions. They have the experience, the money and the will—CABEI in central America in particular.
Next, let us do something about it. In August 2021, the then CEO of UK Export Finance, Louis Taylor, signed an understanding with CABEI to co-operate—well over a year ago. He chose to describe it as a robust means of co-operation. What has happened, and what is going to happen this coming year, 2023?
Lastly, surely, we should co-operate with the areas in which we have long-term interests. Belize is a central American country that is a member of the Commonwealth, and it would welcome our participation. After Australia and India—one through complications and the other through delay—let us see action, if not this day, then at least this coming year. Central America and the Panama Canal is a centre of world focus economically. We should be there with them.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
I am told that I am remiss in not having declared my interest as a trade envoy in Panama, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. I thought that I had made it quite clear—but if it is necessary, I hereby declare an interest.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Well, there is no harm in embellishing the point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, has been rightly congratulated on bringing this debate to us on a neglected issue, but one that she does not neglect. She leads for us on this.
I am a member of the Selkirk Merchant Company, established in 1694 and one of the two remaining elements of the Company of Scotland—I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is aware of this. If the Darien scheme on the Isthmus of Panama had gone differently for Scotland, the story of our nation would have gone differently. Our history as a country is entwined with that region, but we continue to punch below our potential weight for our trading relationship.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, introduced the debate so well and set the scene. I have been very fortunate to visit Latin America with her, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. The closest that I get to accompanying a royal party is whenever I accompany the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on a visit in Latin America, or to a Latin American embassy. She does us credit.
The focus of this debate, however, should be on what the Government are doing to promote businesses to take advantage of the potential that is so obviously there. It was referenced earlier that Canning House’s LatAm Outlook process has been illustrative in highlighting the real potential for central America and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean. As it puts it, this is a market of 45.5 million people with a GDP of over $800 billion. It outlines key areas where there is a market and where we should take advantage of that market. This is a region that is demonstrating leadership in green economies, for example, and an eagerness to collaborate with international partners such as the UK. In particular, it highlighted an area that I thought was really interesting: it is seeking companies with expertise in project management and delivery of infrastructure projects to take advantage of that green investment. This is where UK businesses should have an opportunity. Costa Rica is receiving a $700 million loan from the IMF, so there are funds available.
The next area it highlighted was the Inter-American Development Bank, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration—or CABEI, as the noble Baroness referenced—and the Corporación Andina de Fomento. In my view, if the UK took the opportunity to become an early shareholder in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and be part of it from the outset, controversial as it is now, the case to be part of those as willing partners is equally strong. With Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Guatemala investing in rail infrastructure, there are enormous opportunities for the UK here, as well as in water and sanitation projects such as the Dominican upgrades to their infrastructure. The list goes on. The opportunities are there.
The challenge we have now is how to meet that opportunity given that in some respects—regrettably from these Benches—we are now a competitor with the EU and cannot take advantage of wider EU opportunities. Of course we have the rollover association agreement which the noble Baroness referenced, but it is now a decade old. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister whether there is consideration of moving the association agreement into an FTA with central America.
One area where we lost in the move from the EU association agreement to the UK stand-alone one was the removal of the number of committees and sub-committees that were part of the EU agreement that we were party to. There were the Board on Trade and Sustainable Development, which is so critical in that region, the committee on SPS and the very important committees on technical barriers to trade, customs and rules of origin, public procurement, market access and intellectual property rights. Interestingly, there was also a civil society forum. All these have met the EU through CIRCABC, as it calls it, within this year. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether there is any equivalent to those committees in our trade dialogue with central America, especially on civil society and technical barriers to trade. All these are fundamental if we are to see the potential grow.
Reference has been made to Mexico. I have a question about that but, first, I want to say that I am grateful as the Lib Dem spokesperson to receive correspondence from the Secretary of State’s office with very welcome updates on negotiations. The new Secretary of State has been very consistent in providing this, for which I am grateful. She also offered the International Agreements Committee of this House private briefings with the chief negotiator after each round, which is fairly innovative and, I hope, signals openness. I served with great pleasure under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, at the start of the inquiries. I could sense her frustration around trade envoys, which was shared around the table. Hopefully, the sign from the new Secretary of State is one of openness, which we can take advantage of with regard to trade envoys.
It was interesting to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that it is not just Mexico that fires its top people in charge of trade, as I think I am now on my seventh Minister. I am not saying that they were all fired, of course—quite the reverse. I hope that there is no disruption to the Mexico agreement, but clarity on when we can expect to see it finalised will be important. With Anne-Marie Trevelyan as Secretary of State, on the India agreement, having a deadline to work towards was vital; now with Kemi Badenoch as Secretary of State, deadlines are not helpful. Which is it? I would be grateful to know what the Minister thinks is a realistic time for us to see something taken forward with Mexico.
The final issue I wish to raise, which has been raised a number of times, is human rights. Since I have been covering trade in this House, the Government have always said that trade is not at the expense of human rights—that we have tried and tried and will continue to try to get a trade and human rights policy and real clarity as to what role human rights will play. If the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, is correct that this has been downgraded, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, is correct that dialogues are not even taking place, that is an unwelcome sign. I very much hope that the Minister can give us a positive response, and that when it comes to critical areas of trade with this region, human rights and relationships with civil society in the region will be at the core. We will not be able to see trade grow in a sustainable way unless people are involved in that process as well.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for securing this debate and for her enduring commitment to the peoples of Latin America. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, our values, human rights and the protection of human rights must be central to our relationship with the region; they are not secondary. Also, if we focus on cultural, educational and other links and, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, sustain those civil society relationships, that will help improve trade; such protections will make it more sustainable and secure. Of course, growth in central America since the early 1990s has primarily been driven by the growth of the labour market, the rate of which is projected to decrease severely, mainly because of the issues the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, highlighted. The global challenges we face as a country are certainly faced by all the countries in central America. In order to sustain growth, productivity and capital will need to increase, and we need to know how the uncertainty of this happening impacts the UK’s consideration of future trade with the region. Can the Minister be more explicit about what role UK Export Finance will play in ensuring that capital investment maintains this growth?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said during her introduction, we have not debated central America for some time, but we did have an excellent report from the International Relations and Defence Committee on Latin America, the coalition and how we support the Pacific area. We focused a lot on trade and the various opportunities, and I think it was reflected in this debate that there are lots of opportunities we have not been focusing on. Like other noble Lords, I want to ask the Minister about the priorities we now set. Of course, we are going to be re-examining the integrated review regarding our diplomatic efforts, because diplomacy, as the noble Lord said, is an important ingredient of sustaining and introducing trade. I would like to hear from the Minister about that.
Trade between the UK and central America is heavily concentrated on food for import and drink for export. Are the Government’s plans for trade with this region focused on further boosting that sector; or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, on refocusing on some of the new opportunities, particularly technological ones? Certainly, the e-commerce side of things could be expanded.
As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, reminded us, there are large country-by-country discrepancies in the market size of UK trade in central America. The largest export market, Panama, is over twice the size of second placed Costa Rica. In terms of imports, the Costa Rica market is about three and a half times the size of the second placed Honduras. What plans do the Government have to increase imports, and particularly exports, where current markets are significantly smaller? How do we address the discrepancies the noble Earl talked about?
Of course, there are differences between the EU-central America agreement and the current UK-central America agreement. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, but would be keen to hear from the Minister whether there are any plans to negotiate.
The other area we addressed when looking at the International Relations Committee’s report on Latin America was the potential impact of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—I will not use the initials, because I always trip over them. What assessment has the department made of the impact of our decision to join any future trade negotiations with central America?
Talking about the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the DIT’s report on the latest round of talks in October confirmed that negotiations covered
“market access on trade in goods, services and investment, financial services, Government procurement, temporary entry of businesspersons and legal and institutional issues.”
The DIT says that “good progress” has been made, with talks
“set to continue during the rest of the year.”
Have there been further talks since those in Sydney in October? If so, have any different topics come out? The Government previously said that they hoped to conclude these talks by the end of 2022. Assuming that we would know by now if that was still the case, do they have a revised expectation of when the talks will conclude? As with other trade agreements, the advantages of joining the CPTPP will have to be assessed once we see the terms of the offer.
Noble Lords also mentioned Mexico and the continuity agreement which came into force in June 2021. Mention has been made of Kemi Badenoch saying:
“Round two of the UK-Mexico trade negotiations took place from 31 October to 11 November 2022”.
She said that discussions had “remained positive” and reflected the UK and Mexico’s
“shared ambition to negotiate a comprehensive agreement which is better suited for the 21st century and one which strengthens our trading relationship”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/11/22; col. 26WS.]
Like other noble Lords, I ask: what is the timeframe for this? When can we expect stronger and better progress?
I echo my opening remarks about how we ensure that human rights and other relationships are central to those discussions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, highlighted, there are human rights issues, with one of the biggest being media freedom and how journalists have been attacked or disappeared. I know that it is not necessarily within the Minister’s remit to talk about these issues, but it is very important that when we are trying to offer preferential arrangements, we do not ignore our values in those discussions. I hope the Minister will be able to respond on that important point.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely pleased to conclude this short debate highlighting the Government’s work to improve trade and investment relations with central American countries. I am grateful for the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the number of Secretaries of State that he has been engaged with. I think I am not just the fifth Investment Minister, but the sixth as well in the last few months; I hope that position will last a little bit longer. I sense a great sense of urgency about the opportunities that present themselves, and I am very aware of this. In the light of declaring interests, I refer noble Lords to my register of interests, though I do not believe there are any specific interests that cause conflict in this debate today.
I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for tabling this debate and putting the spotlight on this unique region, and for her dedication to developing our relations with the region and the wider Latin America. As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Panama, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, she has done huge work—and I have heard this discussed today—not just in terms of trade but in advancing our quest to grow greater cultural ties and more work for civil society. I thank her profusely for that and I will come on a little bit later to talk about some of the specific work that she has been doing. I would also like to be part of her royal party if ever the occasion so arises.
I should point out that, for the purposes of this debate, when I talk about central America, I am referring to Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and the Dominican Republic, and as a result of the DIT’s operations and our trade envoys’ portfolios, but I am very happy to have a broader debate. It is extremely important—and I am going to cover Mexico and Brazil in my closing remarks—but, yes, we should talk about Latin America, the whole of Latin America, from Mexico down to the southern tip of Argentina. The opportunities there for this country are significant, and the DIT is very well aware of that.
Central America is home to just over 62 million people, with a combined GDP of $918 billion. This represents a sizeable opportunity for UK businesses, as we have discussed, and increasing numbers of British firms are realising this potential. The UK’s trading relationship with central America was worth around £2 billion last year. I have heard your Lordships’ views on how we can forecast further the expectations for our trade with central America and I am happy to revert back to noble Lords on that, but the long and the short of it is that we expect it to grow significantly.
UK firms also do quite well in central America: businesses operating in fields from pharmaceuticals to food and drink have accomplished significant exporting and investment achievements across the region. I was about to go on to talk about recent great successes, but the question I am being asked is: what are we doing particularly to help promote exports to central America and, to some extent, investment from there into the United Kingdom?
The fact is that the Department for International Trade, which I have the privilege of serving in, is totally committed to improving the UK’s relationship with these vibrant markets, and we work hard to enable our firms to access them. We have over 150 people in LATAC, under the excellent leadership of Jonathan Knott—I think my noble friend Lady Anelay mentioned that she had recently met the deputy HMTC and was very impressed, I am grateful for that and will make sure that this is passed on. We have 16 people in central America and 25 people in Mexico, and our international markets teams based across Latin America and the Caribbean are the first point of contact for UK businesses looking to engage with trade opportunities in the region. They are also available to support businesses where DIT may not have a physical footprint—not every country has DIT coverage, and I am sure that noble Lords are aware that we have to differentiate the markets, as has been discussed—but they are then covered by other countries. We have developed a network of relationships with local chambers of commerce and other partners to help UK businesses. On top of that, we have nearly 400 international trade advisers based in the UK.
There was a discussion from the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, about the analysis of markets and the opportunities that we can present through that analysis; I would be very grateful to see more of that. I have not seen the report that the noble Lord was discussing, but as a Minister for Investment I would be extremely keen to see that work if he could share that with us.
There was a discussion about the involvement of ambassadors and the diplomatic element involved in promoting our trade. I am very pleased to say that, as I am sure my colleagues will know themselves, the ambassadorial teams in the FCDO are more focused now on trade than they have ever been. At every embassy I have been to, I have been struck—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, was as a previous Lord Mayor—by the extraordinary level of support that we get. I very much hope that, if any of your Lordships do play a role as trade envoys or visit any of these countries anywhere in the world, you will call upon the ambassadors; they are literally our trade ambassadors as much as they are our diplomatic ambassadors.
A successful trading relationship is a win-win. AstraZeneca is a great example—not only is it exporting to the region, but it has also opened new offices in Costa Rica, representing an investment of $8 million into that country, which will create many jobs in the market. Rapiscan, another great example, provides security scanners for several airports in the region and has recently won a contract in the new Palmerola airport in Honduras. Diageo is a great example of the expansion in Panama, and I was very interested to hear about Buddi, the tagging system for prisoners and also the call system for pensioners; I am sure that many Members of this House will have call to use its services at some point—although, hopefully, the pensioner elderly alarm system rather than the prison tagging system. I know for a fact that we have supported Buddi in the DIT significantly in expanding its sales.
We work with companies of all sizes. I think there was a mention of what we do with SMEs. We are not just helping the multinationals; we really are helping the SMEs. We published a refreshed export strategy in November 2021 which is designed to focus on the barriers faced by SMEs. This is a 12-point plan to support exporters. It includes supporting business to trade with central America in the UK through our innovative Export Academy, a network of over 400 export champions across the country, giving businesses knowledge and confidence to enter new markets thanks to on the ground exports, as well as our “Made in the UK, Sold to the World” marketing campaign. This is very important. SMEs are vital for us.
I have heard a number of comments about culture and the need to encourage people to export in general. I hear that, as does the DIT, and we work hard on that through our various campaigns, but particularly through export champions, who provide invaluable help from one businessperson to another. UKEF, which came up a number of times in this debate, has 24 export finance managers, known as EFMs, based across the UK. These are regional representatives of UKEF, who can act as a local point of contact for exporters and businesses with export potential.
We have dedicated in-market support for buyers in central America. Our LATAC international market team export support service is the region’s universal entry point for UK businesses. Once companies express interest, our teams on the ground can help explain how to enter the markets, highlight potential distributors, partners and customers, and, where feasible, provide direct introductions to help UK firms win and expand their business in the region. This is important. We have a number of people on the ground, and in the UK, who are paid by the taxpayer to help support our businesses to export to central America. I am always keen to hear further advice and suggestions from any Member of this House on how we can do more and how we can do better, but the support is there; it is extremely welcome and the feedback is very good. I am not sure whether or not they can all speak Spanish, but all those I have met do, so I will confirm their language skills to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins.
I will say a few more words on UKEF. The Government are determined to ensure that no viable UK export fails for lack of finance or insurance. My department’s partners in UK Export Finance are focused on making sure that nothing prevents British businesses accessing global markets, and central America is no exception. In advance of this debate I met the acting CEO and was hugely impressed with the team—some of them have been there for an incredibly long time—and the indication he gave to me was that, at some point in the relatively near future, the new CEO would be announced, although that is not confirmed. What is important is that we have a risk appetite of up to £4 billion in some of these markets, so clearly it is incredibly important.
We are discovering ever more varied ways of supporting businesses. For instance, last August—this is important, and it was mentioned today—we signed an MoU with CABEI, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, which is the leading regional development bank in central America. This allows UKEF to support business in all CABEI member countries and to work together to identify joint financing opportunities.
The question of why we have not joined CABEI has been raised. I think my noble friend raised that point. It was a decision taken last year by the Foreign Secretary. However, this does not stop the UK working with CABEI. We have a number of positive engagements ongoing with the bank which I cannot comment publicly on, but we are working very closely with companies in order to joint finance with CABEI in the partnership with UKEF. I take a personal interest in this, so I will come back to your Lordships at a later date, and I will do what I can to support this.
As I have already mentioned, we are fortunate to have my noble friend Lady Hooper as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic. Her excellent work has succeeded in increasing the profiles of British businesses in central American markets through a programme of visits and engagements, and I thank her for that.
It is important to note other things we are doing. My noble friend works alongside two other trade envoys who champion the wider Latin America region. The Minister for Americas and the Caribbean, Minister Rutley, has invited the UK’s trade envoys to Latin America to discuss their recent visits to the region—tomorrow morning, I believe. He will meet my noble friend Lady Hooper, Mark Menzies and Marco Longhi. No doubt he will reflect on his own visits to Colombia, Panama and the Dominican Republic last month during that meeting. I was very interested to hear the comments on the Dominican Republic and its free zones, and the enormous quantity of mozzarella it imports from us.
I commend noble Lords on their engagement with Canning House, the UK’s leading forum on all cross-cutting Latin American issues, and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, on his work leading that organisation.
I will touch on two other areas that came up. The first is education. We know that Governments across the region are investing heavily in education. We are supporting UK firms with expertise in English language tuition to seize these opportunities; for example, Pearson is working in Costa Rica with local government to develop a programme, “English for Employability”, helping students achieve the necessary skills to become more employable.
The second is clean growth, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Countries in central America are acutely aware of the risk posed by climate change and are developing plans to have greener economies. The UK has the potential to become the partner of choice in central America for activity relating to clean growth and, alongside this, we are doing an enormous amount of work on infrastructure, particularly related to clean water supply. In May, the UK signed a memorandum of understanding with Panama on sustainable growth, looking at areas such as marine pollution, energy transition and water management. I thank my noble friend Lady Hooper again for her involvement in getting the MoU signed, in her capacity as the PM’s trade envoy.
I also mention something that I think the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, would like to be involved in: the annual Latin America and the Caribbean UK roadshow, which will be returning in March 2023. The teams will be visiting London, Belfast and Bristol to share the commercial opportunities for UK businesses across the region, including in central America and the Dominican Republic. Going back to my point about how we get more companies to export, I ask your Lordships to act as champions, to sing from the rooftops the opportunities that we have as exporters to this region.
We successfully secured trade agreements for central American countries through our continuity programme, which was discussed during the debate, the UK-central America association agreement. We have also signed the CARIFORUM economic partnership agreement, which includes the Dominican Republic. Both provide important continuity and certainty for businesses by maintaining the UK’s access to preferential tariffs and facilitating access to businesses from the region in the UK. I am pleased that the FCDO will host the first central American association council, inviting Ministers to the UK, and that DIT will host the first ministerial joint council, under the CARIFORUM economic partnership agreement. A huge amount is being done in these international fora.
There are two more countries to focus on. Mexico was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. We are now in round two of our FTAs. It is very important that we do not rush to a false conclusion. My esteemed Secretary of State, Kemi Badenoch, has already said very clearly that we do not need to set artificial deadlines. As far as I am aware, the entire firing of the negotiating team has had no effect on our plans to come to a conclusion over the next few years. That is a reasonable timeframe in which to conclude this FTA. It was mentioned that in Brazil the political environment allows us to have new discussions with the Government. I am pleased to say that we will be. Officials will engage with Lula’s new team once they are appointed, to understand the new Government’s position on an ETP.
I will finish by talking about the challenges in the region. This is not a region that is completely straightforward. On human rights, I stress that we have not downgraded the Government’s commitment at all. We are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights, and we continue regularly to address, support and engage, through support for projects and local partners, public diplomacy and diplomatic dialogue, on a broad range of human rights topics, bilaterally and in the multilateral fora. However, we do not necessarily believe that FTAs and trade agreements are the best mechanisms for aligning our values on human rights. We have been assiduous in working to ensure that individuals whom we believe are particularly culpable have had sanctions taken out against them.
Regarding corruption, the UK takes very seriously allegations of corruption. My noble friend Lady Anelay spoke about businesses finding it difficult to compete in local markets where there is a high degree of corruption. This is often the case in many emerging markets, but we have worked extremely hard; in this instance, to sanction two Venezuelans under the global anti-corruption sanctions regime. We work closely with local Governments to reduce levels of corruption and UKEF complies strictly with anti-bribery and corruption policy.
I will come to a conclusion. As I have set out today, central America is a region bursting with potential. As George Canning famously proclaimed, let us call in the New World,
“to redress the balance of the Old”.
The Government are doing all they can to take their trading relationship with the region to new heights. In turn, this work will enable British companies to share their expertise, enjoy the opportunity presented by these markets, and provide lasting economic and social benefits.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, he made the point that taxpayers’ money is used to compile assessments. It is not for the want of trying over the years. Will the Minister request the Secretary of State to finally release the trade commissioners’ annual reports, which should be public information and would help assess exactly where and what the opportunities are? I have been trying for years to have this achieved, with absolutely zero results.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for that request. The Department for International Trade produces a plethora of reports—
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
The trade commissioners contribute to the statistics that we provide as a department. If he has time, I would be perfectly happy to sit down with the noble Viscount and go through the statistics that we produce. If we can find a way to provide more valuable insights, I am sure that we will be delighted to do so.