House of Commons
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 10 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, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The Welsh Government are well-funded to deliver public services in Wales. As a result of the autumn statement, Welsh Government funding is increasing by around £1.2 billion over the next two years. That is on top of the additional £2.5 billion a year on average announced at spending review. The Prime Minister has also been clear that we will halve inflation to ease the cost of living.
Richard Thomson
The Secretary of State says that the budget is increasing by £1.2 billion over the next two years, but inflation has already eroded the purchasing power of the Welsh Government in the current year by £1 billion. Since the UK Government are responsible for approximately 80% of the resource base of the Welsh Government, what further representations does he plan to make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that that purchasing power for essential public services in Wales is made good?
David T. C. Davies
The overall funding amounts for the devolved Administrations, including the Welsh Government, have still increased in real terms over the period despite the impact of inflation. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about dealing with inflation, I hope he will support this Government as they propose to halve inflation over the coming year. In doing so, we will need to carefully control public spending in areas such as pay.
Owen Thompson
The Institute of Welsh Affairs says that budgetary pressures highlight the impotence of Welsh devolution and that tax scheme changes by the Scottish Government are a model that would help Wales’s financial situation. If the UK Government will not provide vital increases to devolved budgets, will the Secretary of State explore devolving similar tax-bearing powers to Wales, as in Scotland, to help the Welsh Government mitigate the Tory mismanagement from this place?
David T. C. Davies
I am not quite sure I follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because of course the Welsh Government do actually have tax-bearing powers. They have chosen not to use them, because the Welsh Government recognise that taxes have already increased as far as is sensible, and that means that all of us have to deal with the constraints that have come about as a result of the very difficult economic situation we face due to covid and the impact of a land war in Ukraine.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Inflation, of course, causes pressure, but it is also true that Wales gets £1.20 per head for public services for every £1 in England. Yet the Welsh Labour-run Government spend less than that on their public services. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that ruinous Welsh Labour Governments should stop wasting money on things like the Senedd expansion and instead spend money where it is needed: tackling backlogs in hospitals and stopping the decline of education in Wales?
David T. C. Davies
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. Money is being wasted in the Senedd, for example on spending up to £100 million on increasing the number of Senedd Members at a time of economic difficulty. [Interruption.] I hope Opposition Members who are chuntering are listening carefully to what my hon. Friend has to say.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I understand that people across the UK are worried about the cost of living, which is why we have taken decisive action to support households and businesses across the UK, while remaining fiscally responsible. That support includes a £26 billion package for the next financial year, which will be targeted at protecting the most vulnerable.
Chris Stephens
Almost half of adults UK-wide say the cost of living crisis is harming their mental health, and that rises to 61% of Welsh adults. Devolved initiatives such as the fuel support scheme in Wales help, but inflation and UK Government cuts put such schemes in jeopardy. How does the Secretary of State justify his Government’s repeated refusal to support devolved Governments in tackling the crisis his party has created?
David T. C. Davies
First, I fully acknowledge that there is a cost of living crisis at the moment. It has come about because the UK Government rightly had to spend hundreds of millions of pounds dealing with the covid pandemic. We then saw inflation increase through the roof as a result of a land war in Ukraine. I recognise that there is a cost of living crisis being faced by countries across the whole of the western world at the moment. The UK Government have certainly not cut funding. We have increased funding for the devolved Administrations. We have increased money for the national health service. It is a shame that in Wales that funding is not being fully passed on to the national health service. Frankly, on the NHS, the Welsh Labour Government are getting more money and delivering a lower service.
Anna McMorrin
My constituent Sarah and her children could not celebrate Christmas this year: they were crippled by the fear of bailiffs and of being made homeless in the minus 2° weather. The toll this has taken on her mental health is unimaginable. She said to me, “My children and I will just break.”
A YouGov poll, out this week, shows that this Tory-made cost of living crisis has had a huge impact on people’s mental health in Wales—significantly more than elsewhere. Thirteen years of Tory Government have crippled this country. Cardiff Council is already £23 million worse off. Is the Welsh Secretary going to push my constituents to breaking point?
David T. C. Davies
There is a cost of living crisis going on all over the world at the moment. This Government have acknowledged that and faced up to it. That is why we have prioritised help for the least well-off. That is why this Government have made sure that the minimum wage has risen in line with inflation, that pensions have risen in line with inflation and that benefits have risen in line with inflation. People on benefits will receive a £900 payment, pensioners are getting a £300 payment and households with a disability are getting a £150 payment. At all times through these crises, which have not been caused by this UK Government, we have targeted our help at the most vulnerable in society.
Ben Lake
The Government have announced that support for homes and businesses connected to the mains gas grid will be extended for another year, but it seems that the single round of alternative funding announced for off-grid homes will be expected to last for the full 18 months. Notwithstanding the fact that the first payment to off-grid homes is still to be made, will the Secretary of State push colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury for a second round of alternative funding to provide support for off-grid premises ahead of next winter?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the UK Government have recognised that those who are off grid are facing an increase in costs. It has not been as sharp as the increase for those who are on grid, and I think that the figures reflect that, but I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the fact that full details of the payment have not yet been made fully clear. I am sure that my colleagues in BEIS will have noted his question and will be coming forward shortly with more information about the payment.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
This month has seen dreadful news for steel businesses and steelworkers in Wales. Steel is an energy-intensive industry, and its operating costs during the cost of living crisis have rocketed. Thirteen years of Conservative Governments have seen decline, offshored jobs and damaged communities.
Steel is integral to a modern economy. Labour will put Welsh and UK steel at the heart of our wider industrial policy, building wind turbines, railways and investing in carbon capture and storage and in hydrogen infrastructure. Other than creating a cost of living crisis, what is the Government’s plan for our steel industry and for steelworkers’ jobs?
David T. C. Davies
First of all, the news from Liberty in Newport was very disappointing and is very concerning for many people. That has not come about as a result of actions by the UK Government, as I think the hon. Lady will recognise; there are other issues pertaining there.
The UK Government are completely committed to the steel industry. We demonstrated that with a £30 million loan to Celsa during the covid crisis, and we have demonstrated it with the various schemes that have been brought forward to support industries with high energy use. We are developing a scheme that will enable those in the industry, such as Tata, to decarbonise. We are also in discussions with Tata about how we can support it further over the coming years.
Jo Stevens
Steelworkers need a Government on their side. The industry needs a partner that can provide stability, not sticking plasters. Floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea is a real opportunity for our steel industry and the wider supply chain in Wales. It would also help to mitigate the impact of the cost of living crisis for many Welsh businesses in the supply chain. If the Government do not provide the necessary stability, we will see platforms being built in France and Spain and floated over to the Welsh coast, which would be absolutely unconscionable. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the Crown Estate leases will use local supply chains in Wales?
David T. C. Davies
I have met the Crown Estate on a number of occasions to discuss the next bidding round for the sites out in the Celtic sea. Obviously we hope to develop the industry. I agree with the brunt of the hon. Lady’s question, which is about the importance of developing a floating offshore wind industry off the coast of Wales. I have been trying to ensure that the supply chain is as local as possible. That is why we have supported the conversations between developers and the Crown Estate; it is also why I have personally visited Pembrokeshire to ensure that the growth deal there supports the new infrastructure at the dock that can allow those projects to be floated out to sea. We are actually doing a great deal to support the floating offshore wind industry in Wales.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
For Harlech Foodservice, a key business in my constituency, last week’s news that the UK Government were slashing their energy support for businesses was devastating. The company is already struggling under soaring energy bills and interest rate hikes in coronavirus business interruption loan scheme repayments. Can the Secretary of State clarify the position? Will any support be forthcoming on CBILS repayments, and will any savings made by the Treasury as a result of falling wholesale gas prices be ringfenced for targeted support for small and medium-sized enterprises and vulnerable households?
David T. C. Davies
I hope the right hon. Lady will recognise that over the last year the Government have done an enormous amount to support businesses through the energy price guarantee. They have made it clear that that support package cannot continue at the current level after April, when the next financial year begins, but they have said that they will also make clear, fairly shortly, what the new package will look like. Unfortunately, no Government anywhere in the western world will be in a position to completely underwrite and subsidise energy costs for all businesses for an indefinite period, so we have to confront some realities, but I hope the right hon. Lady will be supportive of the efforts that the Government have made to do more to develop energy security in the United Kingdom. Perhaps she should talk to some of her colleagues in the Scottish National party about their opposition to opening up further oil and gas projects in the North sea.
Liz Saville Roberts
I would have appreciated an answer about the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme as well.
We all know that extortionate energy costs are part of this Tory winter of discontent, which bookends 13 years of deliberate austerity. Key workers are striking and real incomes are in freefall. Following the last Budget, funding for Welsh public services will be worth £3 billion less over the next three years. Enough is enough, and cutting key workers’ salaries is not the right answer. Will the Secretary of State urge the Treasury to reverse this decline by establishing a truly fair funding system for Wales that recognises our nation’s needs, taking into account age, disability, and poverty levels?
David T. C. Davies
The right hon. Lady will surely be aware that the Welsh Government are receiving £1.20 per head for public services for every pound that is spent in England. That is why it is so difficult to understand why not only are the waiting lists longer in Wales but educational outcomes are lower, after more than 20 years of a Labour Government. Perhaps it is time that Plaid Cymru started to stand up for the people of Wales and hold the Welsh Labour Government to account, rather than propping them up in the Senedd.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on research funding for universities in Wales. We are committed to making the UK a science superpower, backed by nearly £39.8 billion, the largest ever research and development budget. Last week I was pleased to visit Bangor University—at the suggestion of the hon. Member—and to observe the cutting-edge research being done there. I remain committed to Welsh universities capitalising on the funding opportunities that are available.
Hywel Williams
The Secretary of State has seen for himself that Welsh universities can and do deliver world-class research, but I think he will accept that their research funding is perhaps less than would be expected. I accept that this is not a simple matter—it is not a matter of counting heads—but what practical help can the Secretary of State give to increase research support in Wales, particularly for new and innovative projects such as those he saw in Bangor?
David T. C. Davies
In terms of practical support, I want to visit every single university in Wales over the next few months. I have already met representatives of UK Research and Innovation to make clear my concern about the relatively low percentage of grant funding that is going to Welsh universities for research projects. I want to bring UKRI and those Welsh universities together at an event at Tŷ Gwydr later in the year, and given the hon. Gentleman’s own commitment to this particular issue, I will try to ensure that he is invited and is able to attend.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain, including Wales, has a proud history of international collaboration? Will he continue to keep up the pressure on the European Commission to allow us to associate ourselves with the Horizon programme, which would make such a difference to the future of British science?
David T. C. Davies
I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I would support the Horizon programme, but if that is not possible for any reason, such as intransigence in the European Union, I will be making the case to UKRI that Welsh universities can produce some of the best research in this country and should be receiving a higher percentage of the money that is currently available.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
Let me first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his knighthood in the new year’s honours list.
We remain committed to working with the Welsh Government on the delivery of investment zones for Wales. That is alongside the freeports programme, which will facilitate growth and innovation through benefits such as tax relief for businesses.
Sir Chris Bryant
That is all very well, but the Government have basically completely binned their investment zone policy. I have had a letter from a Government Minister saying that it is all being refocused and is not about housing and planning any more but about productivity, improving growth and job creation. But no details are available, and all the bids have been binned. Is that not further evidence that we do not have a Government in this country anymore, just a bunch of rapscallions squatting in ministerial offices?
Dr Davies
I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, many elements of the policy are devolved in Wales. Therefore, discussions continue with the Welsh Government on those aspects. I would highlight that there are 5,400 similar zones in other parts of the world. We must deliver growth for Britain in a similar fashion.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) on his knighthood. One of the lessons of industrial policy over the last 30 years in Wales, certainly given the number of failed food parks, science parks and technology parks, is that taxpayers’ money alone does not create economic activity out of thin air. Does the Minister agree that whatever interventions we or the Welsh Government make must work with the grain of the private sector? To that end, does he recognise that the overriding strength of the Celtic freeport bid is that it works with real projects and real industry to deliver floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea?
Dr Davies
My right hon. Friend is a strong campaigner for the offshore wind possibilities in south-west Wales. He will know that decisions on awarding freeports are ongoing, with at least one due in Wales and an announcement to be made shortly.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
Over the spending review period the UK Government are providing the Welsh Government with 20% more funding per person than equivalent UK Government spending in other parts of the UK. As a result of the autumn statement, Welsh Government funding is increasing by around £1.2 billion over the next two years, on top of the additional £2.5 billion-a-year average over the three-year spending review.
Dame Nia Griffith
The UK Government shared prosperity fund short-changes Wales by £1 billion over three years, even though the Secretary of State and his predecessors repeatedly promised that Wales would receive not a penny less when replacing EU funds. Those funds were used by the Welsh Government to deliver 5,000 apprenticeship year. Why is the Minister letting down young people in Wales in this way?
Dr Davies
The hon. Lady will know that the shared prosperity fund is extremely generous to Wales and replaces all the money that came from the European Union. There have been fantastic announcements in recent weeks about how the fund will progress. She will also know about an array of other funding schemes through UK Government, including the growth deal. I hope to be in her constituency in early February for the groundbreaking, milestone event for Pentre Awel, I hope she will join me at that.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Despite the Welsh Government receiving the largest devolution funding settlement, it has the worst performing Labour-run NHS. Instead of spending on what matters, they plan to spend £32 million on a 20 mile-an-hour blanket speed policy. Such a policy will cost the economy £4.5 billion. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and 94% of my surveyed constituents that that is another example of a Labour waste of money?
Dr Davies
My hon. Friend is quite right that the policy is not a good way to spend money, and is not deliverable either. As an NHS GP working in north-east Wales, I can tell her that the delivery of NHS services is shocking in many senses. We need the Welsh Government to improve their performance.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) has just reminded the House, the Secretary of State, the Minister and their predecessors repeatedly promised that Wales would receive “not a penny less” to replace EU structural funds to Wales. Not only have they failed to deliver on that promise, but the record inflation that their Government have presided over has resulted in a double whammy to the Welsh Government’s budget. Is the Minister aware that higher education has been shut out of his Government’s flagship levelling-up process and that hundreds of jobs are now at risk, possibly as many as 600? Why are his Government continually letting down people, including young people, across Wales?
Dr Davies
I joined the Secretary of State on a visit to Bangor University last week and it is important that we ensure there are funding mechanisms for higher education. There is an array of schemes through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and it is important that the hon. Gentleman and the Government work on ensuring that the university sector is supported in Wales.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet members on a range of transport measures. More than £340 million has been provided for rail enhancements in Wales, including at Cardiff Central station and for the electrification of the Severn tunnel.
Wendy Chamberlain
The Government’s failure to end rail strikes impacts all of us across the UK. Like in Scotland, transport is devolved in Wales, but we need people coming from England into our countries to get much-needed revenue for tourism and hospitality. In Wales, a pay agreement has been reached but its own railways cannot function on strike days because of UK- managed maintenance responsibilities. Can the Secretary of State outline what he is doing to resolve these damaging strikes and get railways up and running again?
David T. C. Davies
I must confess that I failed to hear much of that question, and I apologise for that. I heard the hon. Lady ask what I was going to do to get railways up and running again, but I am not certain which ones she was referring to. This puts me in a slightly difficult position as far as answering is concerned, but I can honestly say to her that we have spent £340 million on railways over this control the period, including £125 million on the core valley lines, £4.7 million on St Clears station, £4 million on the Bow Street station and £2.7 million on the Cambrian line. In addition to that, we have spent money on projects such as the electrification of the south Wales line. The Cardiff capital region South Wales Metro is funded partly by the UK Government through a growth deal, and our commitment to the railways is—
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Direct train services between south Wales and Devon are a key part of our rail infrastructure, yet most are operated using older, less reliable rolling stock. What prospect does the Secretary of State see for getting new, more modern trains operating on these routes?
David T. C. Davies
I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that more modern stock is being rolled out on those particular routes, so he will be able to benefit from more comfortable carriages that will also emit less carbon and be better for the environment.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)
Roads are a devolved matter and the decision to close the Menai suspension bridge was therefore made by the Welsh Government. Work has commenced on the emergency replacement of brittle hangers dating back to 1938, and this will be followed by additional maintenance works. Welsh Government Ministers assure me that, subject to safety assessments, the bridge is due to reopen at the end of this month.
Jerome Mayhew
The Menai bridge supplies the lifeline of tourism to Anglesey and the wider region. Given Welsh Labour’s negligent handling of the maintenance of the bridge, and now its closure for months, how does my hon. Friend think Welsh Labour is doing on its manifesto commitment to rebuild tourism in Wales?
Dr Davies
Quality road infrastructure is vital to unlocking the potential of the north Wales visitor economy. I believe that there are questions to be answered about the specification of the contracted private finance initiative maintenance schedule for the bridge, which was awarded by the last Labour UK Government in 1998, and about the stalled consideration of a third crossing on the Menai strait. I urge the Welsh Government to publish the findings of the roads review and resume the improvement of the north Wales road network.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with the Welsh Government on increasing investment in Wales and supporting the Welsh economy. Our plans for at least one Welsh freeport alongside our investment in infrastructure will act as a catalyst for further investment from the UK and beyond.
Michael Fabricant
A number of Welsh nationalists—not all but some—used the opportunity of covid and the closure of the Welsh border to incite anti-English feeling. Now we hear that Plaid Cymru, working with Labour, will introduce a hotel tax and other taxes. What does my right hon. Friend think that will do for English investment in Wales?
David T. C. Davies
I want to see people from England, and from all over the world, visiting Wales, and I am sure that all who do will appreciate the natural beauty and all that Wales has to offer to the tourism industry. I was disappointed that some people appeared to be indulging in anti-English rhetoric during the covid crisis. I hope all Members of this House would condemn such behaviour. I want to do more to encourage tourism, which is why I regret the fact that the Welsh Labour Government are bringing in a tourism tax. A tax on tourism is an attack on the tourist industry.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
On the subject of investment between England and Wales, progress on speeding up the Wrexham to Bidston line is about as slow as the trains on the Wrexham to Bidston line. What has the Secretary of State personally done to improve rail connections between north Wales and Liverpool?
David T. C. Davies
I am sure I speak for the whole Government in saying that we are completely committed to better rail connections across the United Kingdom. I am well aware of the line between Wrexham and Bidston. I am also aware that it went through a business case procedure that was not completely positive. I can assure the hon. Lady that a number of projects in the rail network enhancements pipeline will be discussed shortly by the Department for Transport.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I know Members across the House will be as shocked and appalled as I am about the case of David Carrick. The abuse of power is truly sickening, and our thoughts are with his victims. The police must address the failings in this case, restore public confidence and ensure the safety of women and girls. There will be no place to hide for those who use their position to intimidate women and girls, or for those who fail to act to reprimand and remove people who are unfit for office.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Kate Kniveton
As the project champion for the north midlands manufacturing corridor, next week I am bringing together businesses, leaders and local councillors from across the region in Parliament to set out to Department for Transport officials the importance of the A50/A500 corridor. The Prime Minister understands the importance of investing in our infrastructure and unlocking the potential of our towns and cities, so will he urge Government colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to attend the meeting to hear more about the benefits this investment would bring to our region?
The Prime Minister
The Government recognise the strategic importance to the midlands of the A50/A500 corridor. Final decisions on the scheme will be made in the third road investment strategy, which will be fully published next year, but I know my hon. Friend will be contacting Ministers in the relevant Departments to invite them to hear her case.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in his comments about the dreadful case of David Carrick.
It is three minutes past 12. If somebody phones 999 now because they have chest pains and fear it might be a heart attack, when would the Prime Minister expect an ambulance to arrive?
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely right that people can rely on the emergency services when they need them, and that is why we are rapidly implementing measures to improve the delivery of ambulance times and, indeed, urgent and emergency care. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares about ensuring patients get access to life-saving emergency care when they need it, why will he not support our minimum safety legislation?
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister can deflect all he likes but, for a person suffering chest pains, the clock starts ticking straightaway—every minute counts. That is why the Government say an ambulance should be there in 18 minutes. In this case, that would be about 20 minutes past 12. I know he does not want to answer the question I asked him, so I will ask him again. When will that ambulance arrive?
The Prime Minister
Because of the extra funding we are putting in to relieve pressure in urgent and emergency care departments, and the investment we are putting into ambulance call handling, we will improve ambulance times as we are recovering from the pandemic and indeed the pressures of this winter. But I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman again, because he makes my case for me: he describes the life-saving care that people desperately need, so why, when they have this in other countries—France, Spain, Italy and others—is he depriving people here of that care?
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister obviously does not know or does not care. I will tell him: if our heart attack victim had called for an ambulance in Peterborough at 12.03 pm, it would not arrive until 2.10 pm. These are our constituents waiting for ambulances I am talking about. If this had happened in Northampton, the ambulance would not arrive until—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Bristow, I hope you want to see the rest of the questions out. I want you to be here, but you are going to have to behave better.
Keir Starmer
I am talking about our constituents. If they were in Northampton, the ambulance would not arrive until 2.20 pm. If they were in Plymouth, it would not arrive until 2.40 pm. That is why someone who fears a heart attack is waiting more than two and half hours for an ambulance. That is not the worst-case scenario; it is just the average wait. So for one week, will the Prime Minister stop blaming others, take some responsibility and just admit that under his watch the NHS is in crisis, isn’t it?
The Prime Minister
I notice that the one place the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention was Wales, where we know that ambulance times are even worse than they are in England. Let me set out the reason that is the case, because this is not about politics; this is about the fact that the NHS in Scotland, in Wales, in England is dealing with unprecedented challenges, recovering from covid and dealing with a very virulent and early flu season, and everyone is doing their best to bring those wait times down. But again, I ask him: if he believes so much in improving ambulance wait times, why will he not support our minimum safety legislation?
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister will not answer any questions and he will not take any responsibility. By 1 pm, our heart attack victim is in a bad way, sweaty, dizzy and with their chest tightening. [Interruption.] I am talking about a heart attack and Conservative Members are shouting—this is your constituent. By that time, they should be getting treatment. But an hour after they have called 999 they are still lying there, waiting, listening to the clock tick. How does he think they feel, knowing that an ambulance could be still hours away?
The Prime Minister
The specific and practical things we are doing to improve ambulance times are clear: we are investing more in urgent and emergency care to create more bed capacity; we are ensuring that the flow of patients through emergency care is faster than it ever has been; we are discharging people at a record rate out of hospitals, to ease the constraints that they are facing; and we are reducing the call-out rates by moving people out of ambulance stacks, with them being dealt with in the community. Those are all very practical steps that will make a difference in the short term. But I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this again and again, although we know why; the reason he is not putting patients first when it comes to ambulance waiting times is because he is simply in the pockets of his union paymasters.
Keir Starmer
This is not hypothetical; this is real life. Stephanie from Plymouth was battling cancer when she collapsed at home. Her mum rang 999, desperate for help. Stephanie only lived a couple of miles from the hospital, but they could not prioritise her. She was 26 when she died, waiting for that ambulance—a young woman whose life was ended far too soon. As a dad, I cannot even fathom that pain. So on behalf of Stephanie and her family, will the Prime Minister stop the excuses, stop shifting the blame, stop the political games and simply tell us: when will he sort out these delays and get back to the 18-minute wait?
The Prime Minister
Of course Stephanie’s case is a tragedy. Of course, people are working as hard as they can to ensure that people get the care that they need. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about political games. He is a living example of someone playing political games when it comes to people’s healthcare. I have already mentioned what has been going on in Wales. Is he confident that, in the Labour-run Welsh NHS, nobody is suffering right now? Of course they are, because the NHS everywhere is under pressure. What we should be doing is supporting those doctors and nurses to make the changes that we are doing to bring care to those people. I will ask him this: if he is so concerned about making sure that the Stephanies of the future get the care that they need, why is he denying those families the guarantee of emergency life-saving care?
Keir Starmer
So, that is the Prime Minister’s answer to Stephanie’s family—deflect, blame others, never take responsibility. Just like last week, he will not say when he will deliver the basic minimum service levels that people need.
Over the 40 minutes or so that these sessions tend to last, 700 people will call an ambulance; two will be reporting a heart attack, four a stroke. Instead of the rapid help they need, many will wait and wait and wait. If the Prime Minister will not answer any questions, will he at least apologise for the lethal chaos under his watch?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the minimum safety levels. We will deliver them as soon as we can pass them. Why will he not vote for them? We are delivering on the people’s priorities. As we have seen this week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will just say anything if the politics suits him; it is as simple as that. He will break promises left, right and centre. He promised to nationalise public services. He promised to have a second referendum. He promised to defend the mass migration of the EU, and now we are apparently led to believe—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I expect those on the Front Bench to keep a little quiet. If they do not, there is somewhere else where they can shout and make their noise.
The Prime Minister
If we are to deliver for the British people, people need to have strong convictions. When it comes to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he is not just for the free movement of people; he also has the free movement of principles.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for his review, and also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his work in this area. I am pleased that the report recognised the UK’s leadership in tackling climate change and catalysing a global transformation in how other countries are dealing with it. We have, as the report acknowledged, exceeded expectations to decarbonise, and we will respond to the full range of the review’s requests and recommendations in the coming year.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
To promise is ae thing, to keep it is another. Well, the Scottish Government kept their manifesto promise to the people and, thanks to support from Members of all political parties in Holyrood, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed. Surely in that context, the Prime Minister must recognise that it is a dangerous moment for devolution when both he and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition seek to overturn a promise made between Scotland’s politicians and Scotland’s people.
The Prime Minister
Let me be crystal clear: the decision in this case is centred on the legislation’s consequences for reserved matters. This is laid out in the Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament—the hon. Gentleman talks about that and, at the time, it was supported by the SNP. This Bill would have a significant adverse effect on UK-wide equalities matters, so the Scottish Secretary, with regret, has rightly acted.
Stephen Flynn
Let me be crystal clear—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] This is the Conservative party seeking to stoke a culture war against some of the most marginalised people in society, and Scotland’s democracy is simply collateral damage. On that issue of democracy, let us reflect, because on Monday the UK Government introduced legislation to ban the right to strike, against the express wishes of the Scottish Government; on Tuesday, they introduced legislation to overturn the GRR Bill, against the express wishes of the Scottish Government; and this evening they will seek to put in place legislation that rips up thousands of EU protections, against the express wishes of the Scottish Government. Are we not now on a slippery slope from devolution to direct rule?
The Prime Minister
No, of course we are not. This is simply about protecting UK-wide legislation and ensuring the safety of women and children; it is not about the devolution settlement. I urge the hon. Gentleman and his party to consider engaging with the UK Government on the Bill, as we did before the legislation passed, so that we can find a constructive way forward in the interests of the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I know that this is a topic my hon. Friend knows very well from his background. He is right that it is essential to access quality childcare, which is why we provide every eligible three and four-year-old with at least 15 hours a week of free childcare and are considering new plans to improve the cost, choice and affordability of childcare, whether through consulting on ratios or supporting more people to become childminders.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
A Transport Secretary implying NHS workers are deliberately putting people in danger, a Health Secretary pitting dedicated nurses against vulnerable patients—does the Prime Minister really expect the public to believe that the very people who have dedicated their lives to saving life and limb are so reckless? Is it not the case that this Government have pushed them to their absolute limit and they have no other option but to strike?
The Prime Minister
We have enormous respect and gratitude for all our public sector workers, especially those in the NHS. That is why we have backed them with not just record funding, but record investment in more doctors and nurses, with 15,000 more doctors, 30,000 more nurses and more lifesaving equipment that will help them to do their jobs. We continue to want to engage constructively in dialogue with them.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend rightly points out that transport in London is devolved to the Labour Mayor of London. It is disappointing that the Mayor, backed by the Leader of the Opposition, is choosing not to listen to the public and expanding the zone against the overwhelming views of residents and businesses. I urge the Mayor to reconsider properly and to respond to those serious concerns.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It was the Labour party that showed its cards this week when it came to backing working people. [Interruption.] What I would say—[Interruption.] What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that if he really cares about supporting patients, if he really cares about children getting the education they receive, if he really cares about working people being able to go about their lives free from disruption, he should join in supporting legislation which is prevalent in many other countries to ensure minimum safety levels in critical public services, and get off the picket lines himself.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent and powerful point, and he is right to highlight that the Labour Mayor is imposing that tax on a public who do not want it. Expanding that zone is not something that communities want. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to urge the Mayor to consider and respond properly to all views and stop that unfair tax.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important case, and I am very sorry to hear about the specific families he mentions. We recognise that dog attacks can have horrific consequences, and I want to assure him that we take the issue incredibly seriously. That is why we have established a working group between police, local authorities and other key stakeholders to consider all aspects of tackling irresponsible dog ownership. That working group will make its recommendations later this year, and of course, the Government will respond promptly.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Conservative-run Staffordshire Moorlands District Council has an excellent track record of delivering for my constituents while keeping council tax low. We have put in a bid to the levelling-up fund, and I know that that money would make such an incredible difference to my constituents. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to encourage the Department for Levelling Up to look on us favourably this week?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has been a stalwart champion for her community and, in particular, for their levelling-up fund bid, which I know will make a massive difference to them. I wish her and her constituents every success when we announce the next round of successful bidders for that fund.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I want to assure the hon. Lady that Ofgem has specific regulations in place regarding the use of prepayment meters and how energy companies should treat those who are struggling with their bills. I am pleased to say that her constituents will receive, at a minimum, around £900 of support with their energy bills this winter as a result of this Government’s actions.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute and giving thanks to the several thousand people at Ministry of Defence Equipment & Support at Abbey Wood in my constituency, who work tirelessly to ensure that the military equipment and supplies that we have pledged to the people of Ukraine are dispatched quickly and efficiently? Does he agree that events in Ukraine are a reminder, yet again, of the need to invest more in our own sovereign defence manufacturing capability?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am happy to join him in paying tribute to his constituents at the MOD facility. The work they are doing is making a critical difference in the fight to combat Russian aggression in Ukraine. I know it is extremely appreciated, both by the President of Ukraine and his people. My hon. Friend is also right that it highlights the need for more investment, which is why we are putting £24 billion of investment into our armed forces and increasing the amount of kit that we manufacture here at home.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
First of all, let me say that my thoughts are with the company’s employees and families at this time, and we stand ready to support those impacted. Let me just outline to the hon. Gentleman what exactly has happened. We did offer significant support to Britishvolt through the automotive transformation fund—a considerable amount of funding—but entirely reasonably, and this is not something I expect the Labour party to understand, that support was conditional on the company receiving private investment as well, which is a sensible protection for taxpayers. Unfortunately, that did not materialise. It is completely wrong to take from that what else is happening in the north-east. Across the north-east, there is new investment in the new N-Vision and Nissan plant in electric vehicle manufacturing. That is a £1 billion investment in the north-east. Look at what is happening in Teesside on clean energy. This Government are committed to the north-east, and we will deliver more jobs and opportunity under this Conservative Administration.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The Prime Minister has long been a friend to business. As Chancellor, he listened to businesses in Stoke-on-Trent Central about their issues. Stoke-on-Trent has a wide range of manufacturing fabrication and engineering excellence. Does he agree with me that growing these activities is a vital strand of our levelling-up ambitions? May I invite him to re-visit my constituency to meet these businesses?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is an excellent champion for her constituents, particularly her advanced manufacturing businesses, which I have had the pleasure of visiting with her in the past. It is important that we support those businesses on energy prices, which we are doing through the announcement that the Chancellor recently made, particularly in regard to generous support for energy-intensive industries. Indeed, they can also apply for up to £315 million-worth of capital grant funding to help them make the transition to net zero.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
At the turn of the year, the Government wrote to all unions, including the RCN, to invite them for frank, open, honest, two-way dialogue with the relevant Secretaries of State. I am pleased that those meetings are happening in a range of sectors, and I hope we can find a constructive way through this.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As we approach Holocaust Memorial Day, colleagues can sign the early-day motion and the book of commitment, and they can attend the various commemorative services. I have to report some very sad news to the House. The well-known holocaust survivor Zigi Shipper died at the age of 93 in the early hours of this morning. [Interruption.] He was a survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Stutthof concentration camps. He spent his life in this country spreading his message of hope to young people. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Zigi for his life and for his message? It is vitally important as we sit here today: do not hate.
The Prime Minister
I am very sorry to learn that Zigi has passed away, and my thoughts are of course with his family. I know he was a man with wonderful energy and humanity. I pay tribute to him for his work, and indeed to all holocaust survivors who have so bravely shared their testimonies. We must never forget the holocaust. As my hon. Friend rightly said, I know the whole House will join us in echoing Zigi’s poignant and accurate message: do not hate.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
This Government are investing record sums in transport infrastructure across the country but especially in the north and midlands, with a £96 billion integrated rail plan that will improve journey times east-west across the north and connectivity across the east midlands. It is a record we are proud of, and now we will get on with delivering it.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
There has been a 40% increase in patients on roll with GPs in Biggleswade in the past 15 years, but last week, proposals for a Biggleswade health hub were not progressed, despite financial support from the Conservative-controlled Central Bedfordshire Council. Can my right hon. Friend advise me of the status of our manifesto commitment to “infrastructure first”, and will he and his Ministers work with me to bring together the various parts of the NHS to bring the Biggleswade health hub back on track?
The Prime Minister
I would be happy to organise a meeting for my hon. Friend to discuss how to progress his project. He is right about the importance of primary care. There is more investment going in, but we want to ensure it works for his constituency, so I look forward to arranging a meeting with him and the relevant Minister.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman’s proposal would also increase Bills for many millions of families, so I am not sure it is the right approach. What we are doing is providing around £900 of specific support for all families’ energy bills this winter, and there is further targeted support for those who are most vulnerable, which is absolutely the right thing to do. As the Chancellor has already announced, we are also consulting on the best thing to do going forward, including options, as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, such as a social tariff, as part of our wider reforms of the retail energy market.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
Every single country in the G7 requires some level of minimum service to be provided when strikes take place in essential public services, often with laws that go much further than that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British people should be entitled to the same basic level of protection when strikes take place in these services, and does he think the former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair had a point when he said last year that the “big defect” at the birth of the Labour party was its ties to organised labour?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend put that very well. She is right to make the point that what we are proposing is in line with the vast majority of other countries around the world. Indeed, many countries ban strikes in blue-light services altogether, which we are not doing. We are joining countries across continental Europe in having minimum safety laws, as I think the public would reasonably expect a level of emergency life-saving care in the event of strikes. That is a common-sense, reasonable position to take, and we all know why the party opposite cannot bring itself to support it.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has already addressed the matter in full and there is nothing more that I can add.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I begin by putting on record the House’s heartbreak at the tragic death this morning of our friend Denys, the Interior Minister of Ukraine, and his deputy, and all those who were killed in that tragic accident. I am sure the House is united in its feeling on that.
On more local affairs, as many hon. Members have pointed out, I understand that the Government are in the final furlongs of giving out the levelling-up bids. I must ask the Prime Minister to look kindly on building the Borough Market of the midlands and a future meditech hub in Rutland. Can he assure me that not just urban, but rural areas will be levelled up?
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the family of the Interior Minister of Ukraine—our thoughts are with them at this difficult time. I confirm that the Government believe that levelling up should apply equally everywhere across our United Kingdom. Urban and rural communities up and down the country will get the benefit of the investment that they deserve. We will ensure that we spread opportunity and that everyone takes pride in the place that they call home.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Some 347 Acts have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, which is undeniably one of the most powerful devolved legislatures anywhere in the world. In this exceptional case, it is clear that the Bill has adverse consequences on UK-wide equalities legislation. In those exceptional circumstances, the Scottish Secretary has regretfully taken the decision to block passage of the legislation. As I said previously, however, we want to engage in a dialogue with the Scottish Government to ensure that we can find a constructive way through.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The British people rightly expect us to control our borders, so I was pleased that the Prime Minister made the need to stop the boats in the channel one of his five priorities. Can he reassure me and my constituents that we will not only bolster the patrols on the French beaches, but ensure that people who make that dangerous journey and arrive are removed?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that that is a priority for all our constituents, and he is right to highlight our new deal with France, which increases funded patrols on French beaches by 40%. As he said, we must go further to solve the problem once and for all, which means introducing new legislation that makes it unequivocally clear that if someone enters the UK illegally, they should not be able to stay here, but will instead be swiftly detained and removed.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Last night, the BBC revealed that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office knew the extent of Narendra Modi’s involvement in the Gujarat massacre that paved the way for the persecution of Muslims and other minorities that we see in India today. Senior diplomats reported that the massacre could not have taken place without the “climate of impunity” created by Modi and that he was, in the FCDO’s words, “directly responsible” for the violence. Given that hundreds were brutally killed and that families across India and the world, including here in the UK, are still without justice, does the Prime Minister agree with his Foreign Office diplomats that Modi was directly responsible? What more does the Foreign Office know about Modi’s involvement in that grave act of ethnic cleansing?
The Prime Minister
The UK Government’s position on that is clear and long standing, and it has not changed. Of course, we do not tolerate persecution anywhere, but I am not sure that I agree at all with the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman has put forward.
Electric Vehicle Battery Production
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the UK’s gigafactory capacity given the announcement of Britishvolt entering into administration.
The Minister for Energy and Climate (Graham Stuart)
Britishvolt entering into administration is a regrettable situation, and our thoughts are with the company’s employees and their families at this time. The Government are entirely committed to the future of the automotive industry and promoting EV capability. As part of our efforts to see British companies succeed in the industry, we offered significant support to Britishvolt through the automotive transformation fund on the condition that key milestones, including private sector investment commitments, were met. Unfortunately, the company was unable to meet these conditions and as a result no ATF funds were paid out. Throughout the process, we have always remained hopeful that Britishvolt would find a suitable investor and we are disappointed that this has not been possible. We want to ensure the best outcome for the site, and we will work closely with the local authority and potential investors to achieve this.
The automotive industry is a vital part of the UK economy, and it is integral to delivering on levelling up, net zero and advancing global Britain. We will continue to take steps to champion the UK as the best location in the world for automotive manufacturing as we transition to electric and zero-emission vehicles.
Despite what the party opposite may claim, we are not giving up on the automotive industry: on the contrary, our ambition to scale up the electric vehicle industry on our shores is greater than ever. We are leveraging investment from industry by providing Government support for new plants and upgrades to ensure that the UK automotive industry thrives into the future. Companies continue to show confidence in the UK, announcing major investments across the country including: £1 billion from Nissan and Envision to create an EV manufacturing hub in Sunderland; £100 million from Stellantis for its site in Ellesmere Port; and £380 million from Ford to make Halewood its first EV components site in Europe. And we will continue to work through our automotive transformation fund to build a globally competitive electric vehicle supply chain in the UK, boosting home-grown EV battery production, levelling up and advancing towards a greener future.
Jonathan Reynolds
When the Britishvolt site was first announced in 2019, with the promise to deliver the UK’s second ever gigafactory and create 8,000 jobs in Northumberland, it was lauded by the Government as their flagship example of levelling up: the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), then Business Secretary, said that Britishvolt is
“exactly what levelling up looks like”,
and Government Ministers fell all over themselves to take the credit, so now they must also accept accountability for its failure, because, much like their levelling up strategy, all we have been left with is an empty space instead of what was promised.
The collapse of Britishvolt into administration is in no uncertain terms a disaster for the UK car industry, but what is even more worrying is that this is a symptom of a much wider failure. The automotive manufacturing sector currently employs over 182,000 people, and if we are to continue to make cars in this country we must make electric batteries in the UK. The Faraday Institution says we need 10 factories by 2040 to sustain our automotive sector, so even if Britishvolt was going ahead we would still be nowhere near where we need to be. These factories are being built in competitor countries, and that is because they have Governments with the vision and commitment to be the partner that private firms need to turn these factories from plans on paper into a reality. Surely the Government must accept that we need an industrial strategy.
Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s plans to urgently increase UK battery-making capability? Can he tell us when the Government first had concerns about Britishvolt’s ability to deliver the factory, and why did these concerns not come to light when the Department conducted its extensive due diligence investigations into Britishvolt’s plans? What conversations has he had with other companies to secure the site and ensure the factory is built in Blyth? And will he now commit to Labour’s plans to build eight new gigafactories across the UK and expand the roll-out of charging points to support electric vehicle manufacturing?
Wherever we look the Conservatives are failing this country, whether in public services or our iconic industries. Unless this Government wake up to the scale of the transition required, we will not only risk many of the good jobs that so many of our communities rely upon, but we will miss out on one of the greatest economic opportunities this country has ever had.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right about one thing: there is a tremendous opportunity. That is why we have the automotive transformation fund. That is why we did thorough due diligence on Britishvolt. It is because we set conditions around milestones that it had to meet that not a penny of that fund was dispensed to Britishvolt. However, I make no apology for supporting companies that are going to be part of that opportunity. The idea from the Labour party is that, if it were in power, it would build these factories. That is not how the economy works. That is why, in 2010, after 13 years of Labour Government, we saw youth unemployment up by more than 40%. That is the truth. We saw communities such as Blyth left behind and ignored. We saw an economic strategy that did not work for our young people and did not contribute to net zero in the way that it should. On the underpinning energy system, a bit more than 7% of our electricity came from renewables when Labour left power. Now it is more than 40%.
The net zero strategy announced £350 million for the automotive transformation fund. That was in addition to the £500 million announced as part of the 10-point plan. That is why we are seeing investment. That is why we have nearly full employment. That is why we have factories and manufacturing going ahead in a way that would never happen under Labour.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As we are very short of commitments to assemble more EVs in the United Kingdom, which would be needed to create battery demand, will the Minister pause the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles until our EV capacity has caught up? Otherwise, the industry will shrink too much.
Graham Stuart
I thank my right hon. Friend, whose economic insights I always value and appreciate. However, we are committed to electric and zero-emission vehicles and we will not stimulate investment in those sectors by removing the mandates that drive consumer choice and have led to such a significant change in our road transport emissions. We are going to have even more ambitious steps.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I express sympathy with all those affected by the job losses, but this is an abject failure of the mythical levelling-up agenda. Unfortunately, that should not come as a surprise. It has always irritated me that the Tories claim that they are the ones to level up communities—the very communities that they devastated in the first place.
Just over a year ago, the former, former Prime Minister was boasting about the construction of Britishvolt’s gigafactory. He said that it would create 3,000 direct jobs and 5,000 supply-chain jobs, and support the production of 300,000 batteries for car production. That meant putting our faith in a company with no pedigree, no assets except a field and no products to deliver a £4 billion factory—and that with one owner with a conviction for fraud. We know that the Government do not care about paying taxes, but that is akin to awarding a ferry contract to a company with no ferries. When did the Government do due diligence? When did they realise that there was a problem and what actions did they take? When will we see a coherent strategy for battery production, EV manufacturing, the roll-out of charging points across the UK and, importantly, hydrogen vehicle manufacturing and green hydrogen production?
Graham Stuart
I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the opportunities that come from net zero. That is why we are moving so hard on nuclear, which of course anybody who is not a prisoner of some ideological opposition and is genuinely committed to green energy would support. We are supporting that across the piece. I do not think that Conservative Members will take lessons on industrial intervention from Scottish nationalists after their shipbuilding enterprises in the north.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, no cars with internal combustion engines can be sold after 2030, so, if we do not have battery manufacturing in this country, we risk not having car manufacturing in it. Do the Government have a strategy, as they did until 2019, to ensure that we manufacture batteries and cars? In the case of Britishvolt, will they work with the administrators, as they did when British Steel went into administration, to find a buyer who can take it out of administration and into production?
Graham Stuart
I thank my right hon. Friend, before whom I appeared this morning on the subject of delivering nuclear power, for which I noticed there were no Scottish nationalists present. He is absolutely right about the need to have those batteries in place and, as I have said, that is what the automotive transformation fund, among others, is designed to do. The automotive sector generated £58.7 billion in turnover and £14 billion in GVA in 2021 and we are committed to ensuring that it goes forward successfully. I look forward to working with the former Secretary of State to make sure that we do have those factories in this country, which is absolutely vital to make sure that, on British roads, there are zero-emission vehicles that are produced here and that jobs are created here as a result of that.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The Americans have announced significant subsidies for industry under the Inflation Reduction Act, and the European Union is responding by streamlining state aid rules and announcing its own subsidies for industry in the European Union. Surely the Minister must recognise that businesses are being attracted to the US and the EU, away from the UK. What is he going to do about it?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman, who is himself a distinguished Chair of a Select Committee, is right to highlight some of the pressures from IRA in the United States and the response from the EU. We have to ensure that we have policies in place and I look forward—[Interruption.] In the coming weeks, we will be coming forward with our green finance strategy and our response to the Climate Change Committee. In hydrogen, carbon capture and so many of these industries, the UK is world leading. We are determined to ensure through a raft of different policies—I know his Select Committee will be scrutinising them—that we retain that position, which has transformed the UK from where it was in 2010, when there was higher unemployment and so little progress on net zero.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
To have secure battery production, we need a secure supply of lithium, so the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee was very concerned to hear last year that 95% of the world’s current supply of lithium is processed in China. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government will be doing to increase the resilience of the UK’s lithium supply chain both in boosting production at home and in creating partnerships with allies, because we cannot continue this over-reliance on China?
Graham Stuart
As ever in this area, I know my hon. Friend’s insights on security issues more broadly and specifically on critical minerals are well founded. The critical minerals strategy sets out our plans to improve the resilience of supply chains and increase the supply by accelerating the growth of the UK’s capabilities, as she suggested—there is a development and investment in my own constituency, at Saltend, in critical materials—as well as by collaborating with international partners and enhancing international markets to make them more responsive.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
On the benefit of clarity and accuracy, the Britishvolt site is in Wansbeck—my constituency. Will the Minister give my constituency some guarantees that the jobs promised with Britishvolt—3,000 plus a further 5,000 in the supply chain—will not be forgotten, and can he say what support he will give to any potential investor to continue a gigafactory project on the site in Cambois in my constituency?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is a fantastic site, and we will continue to work with investors and encourage them to go in that direction. As a champion of workers, he must be delighted that we have seen this transformation over the last 12 or 13 years, from the high unemployment left behind, sadly, by the Labour Government to the nearly full employment that Britain enjoys today.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Minister has been clear today, and indeed the Prime Minister was clear at Prime Minister’s questions earlier, about the need for private sector investment in Britishvolt being supported by public sector and Government investment. From the Minister and his Department’s discussions with potential private sector investors, could he set out what appear to be the missing ingredients that stop them investing more in this company and in the broader supply chain, and what is being done by him and his Department to help fill in and provide those missing ingredients so that we can improve the resilience of the EV supply chain as a whole?
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Britishvolt is in the best position to judge what happened with its investors. We set milestones, as I have said, for our funding, and we were prepared to put in significant British Government support, but it was dependent on Britishvolt fulfilling its business plan, with its offer to investors that it would bring forward, and then we were going to co-invest with them. That was the plan, and it is not for me as a Government Minister to second-guess the work of that company, or indeed others.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The collapse of Britishvolt is a huge blow by any measure. Owning and running an electric vehicle will continue to be financially out of reach for many or most UK households, and the lack of enough EV charging infrastructure compounds the problem. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the mandatory phasing out of petrol and diesel cars, but how can that successfully happen without having a good charging infrastructure, which currently is woefully inadequate?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The Government have prioritised securing investment in battery cell gigafactories. As Members have been right to say, this is key in anchoring the mass manufacture of electric vehicles in the UK, safeguarding jobs and driving emissions to net zero by 2050. On 1 July 2021, Envision AESC announced investment in its gigafactory in Sunderland. On 18 July last year, Johnson Matthey confirmed investment in the construction of a factory for PEM—proton exchange membrane—fuel cell components for use in hydrogen vehicles to be located at its existing site in Royston, Hertfordshire. We have to keep on going with that and, as she says, build that investment and make sure we have the policies in place to bring that investment here.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is aware that, last month, electric vehicle sales overtook diesel and were one third of all new vehicle sales in the month. There is demand for electric vehicles, and we need to ensure that there is an automotive industry here making them. We have lithium in Cornwall, and members of my Environmental Audit Committee visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) and saw the lithium mine there. We have natural assets. We have the site that the Minister is interested in and I encourage him to visit it. We visited Blyth and met the Britishvolt management there, who pointed out that the interconnector that serves the site provides electricity from Norway that is 100% fossil fuel-free. So there is a considerable asset in that site, and I urge him to do all he can to engage with the automotive industry to re-establish a credible proposition.
Graham Stuart
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the site, and we are absolutely committed to working with potential investors to ensure that it is developed.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister will know that many in the industry have never actually taken Britishvolt as a serious proposition. The fact is that the Advanced Propulsion Centre has forecast that we need 90 GWh to 100 GWh production by 2030; we stand at 2% to 2.5% currently. Without UK battery manufacture, we do not have an automotive manufacturing industry supporting 180,000 employees. The UK is way behind France, Germany and other countries, and we are in danger of missing out. He will know that, under rules of origin changes, without those batteries, our products will not be competitive. What are the Government going to do?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of this and of ensuring that we get policies that put us on track for that kind of transformative change; we are not currently on that track. I look forward to myself and colleagues coming back to the House to talk about that because we have to get it right. He is right to highlight that it is an important strategic interest for the UK.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on grasping this difficult nettle. I have the massive Toyota factory in South Derbyshire, and it is hugely important to us that we have these batteries built in the UK—and preferably near me. Would my right hon. Friend kindly agree to a meeting at which we can discuss future international inward investment in that sector?
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I would be delighted to have that meeting. As I say, as part of the green finance strategy, about which I had a cross-Whitehall ministerial meeting just this morning, we are determined to make sure that this is the most investable place on earth for the net zero transition and the best place for companies to build businesses, including gigafactories.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The announcement today is a tragedy for those who have jobs in this company and those who were looking forward to having jobs there in future. It is also a hammer blow to the Government’s levelling up policy. The support for this company seems to have been driven more by the desire, in the words of the former Prime Minister, to be
“at the helm of the global green industry”
than a robust economic case. Is the Minister concerned that the company mentioned ballooning energy costs? BMW is moving its production of the Mini to China because it can get cheap energy there. How many more jobs will be sacrificed on the altar of a high energy cost net zero policy?
Graham Stuart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and his consistency, but if he looks at energy costs at the moment he will find that it is the sky-high prices of fossil fuels that are causing the problems. There is consensus across the House, of which he is not quite a part, that renewables and the Government policy of building them at scale are bringing the lowest cost energy to the grid. The contract for difference companies are paying hundreds of millions of pounds into subsidised bills because under the CfD mechanism, while they were guaranteed a figure with high prices that are driven by gas prices, they are now contributing and lowering bills. It is precisely more renewables and more green energy that we need in order to have a more affordable grid for our industry and our residents.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
About 40% of the components of an electric vehicle are contained within the battery. That matters because of the definition of “British made” when we export to the European Union and elsewhere. The Britishvolt site is a fantastic site with great renewable electricity and it is ready to go. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what the Government are doing to ensure that an alternative battery manufacturer takes advantage of that great site and creates employment locally?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am working closely with the Department for International Trade, the Minister with responsibility for investment and others, and I am delighted to have the Minister for Trade Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), here beside me. We are absolutely determined to sell the opportunity of the site to contribute to the wider goals we have discussed, and to ensure local jobs and employment. The site offers a tremendous opportunity.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Luton has long been associated with the motor manufacturing industry at the Vauxhall plant in my constituency. Workers there will tell you that their futures are under threat without battery factories. Another major worry in the automotive sector is the semiconductor supply chain. We have waited two years for the Government’s review. Can the Minister tell us when we will finally get it?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of semiconductors to the automotive industry. I hope we will see that coming out as soon as possible.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
As an unashamed enthusiast of UK electric vehicle production, there is understandable sadness on all sides of the House that Britishvolt is not proceeding. It was good to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister talk about four or five significant investments here in the UK, but I hope his Department will come back to the House shortly to further outline the UK strategy in this area, in particular on critical mineral supply chains—they have already been raised—which are so key to this part of the UK’s economic future.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend takes a close interest in these issues. He is right that we need to do more and critical minerals are a part of that. A whole series of elements need to come together, as another hon. Friend said, to form that battery and to be the vital component in a successful British automotive manufacturing industry for the future.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Is it not the case that, in this crucial industry, this is just yet another example of the lack of confidence in the UK economy? Part of the reason for that is because there is no strategy. When will the Government come forward with a strategy for industry, so that external partners can have trust and build business confidence in these sorts of proposals?
Graham Stuart
Opposition Members lose no opportunity to talk down the UK. It is quite extraordinary, especially in the week when we have just seen evidence come out that the UK is seen by—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady, instead of chuntering from a sedentary position, were to stop her rant against the UK and its position in the world and hear the answer, she would hear that global CEOs have identified the UK as the third most attractive place in the world in which to invest. If she was as committed to helping workers as her party claims to be, then instead of talking this country down she would be highlighting those issues, celebrating the fact that we have nearly full employment and celebrating the fact that we are not in the position we were in, with so many young people on the dole, in 2010.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals. As others have mentioned, it is vital that we step up not only the domestic supply chain but collaboration with friendly nations such as Australia, Japan, the US, Canada and so on, to ensure that we get all the minerals we need for our British-made battery production, starting with, but not limited to, Cornish lithium.
Graham Stuart
I thank my hon. Friend, who is always championing her constituency and its interests, and emphasising the fact that yes, quite rightly, critical minerals are important, and that working with partners and trusted allies is absolutely critical. Colleagues in the Department for International Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are absolutely alive to that and we use our posts around the world to make sure we build a consensus and a common approach. We want security not just for ourselves, but for our democratic partners too.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Battery production and electric vehicle roll-out counts for nothing if the EV battery charging infrastructure is not adequate. England still lags well behind Scotland in its charging network. This Government have a target of 300,000 chargers by 2030. Last year, they installed just under 8,000 chargers and that was a ramp up in installation. The Government are not going to meet their target, are they?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of charging infrastructure. We need to do more and we need to do it faster. We are absolutely focused on delivering that.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly protected taxpayers’ money as milestones were not met, but will he confirm to potential investors that the £100 million is still on the table for firms that can get the private sector investment and the orders that Britishvolt was sadly unable to?
Graham Stuart
In the net zero strategy it was announced that there would be £350 million of funding for the automotive transformation fund, in addition to the £500 million announced as part of the 10-point plan.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
This is clearly deeply disappointing news, both for the workforce and the wider UK economy. As we heard earlier, the electrification of vehicles is slipping backwards under this Government’s watch. Will the Minister update the House on what action he will now take to try to improve this very worrying situation?
Graham Stuart
In terms of vehicles on the road, as one of my hon. Friends mentioned, we are actually seeing record sales. We are seeing that transformation going ahead. [Interruption.] As the shadow Secretary of State rightly says from a sedentary position, we want to make them here—that is a shared aspiration. Today is not good news, but I make no apology for, with conditions, making that offer to Britishvolt because we wanted to help it. We did thorough due diligence and we wanted it to succeed, but it was unable to do so. If we want an enterprise economy, we will have failures as well as successes. We cannot have some kind of monolithic approach. We must keep going to deliver the industry we want, so that we can have the outcomes the hon. Gentleman and I desire.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
Clearly, this is unwelcome and sad news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government must keep a constant eye on ensuring that the UK remains an attractive place for new investors and, alongside that, ensure that we retain the ability to make other materials that are essential for net zero, such as steel?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend would never miss an opportunity to promote Scunthorpe steel, and I applaud that. That is why she is rightly seen as a champion for her constituents, protecting their interests. Steel, like energy, is at the heart of almost every product and needs to be a fundamental part of our system if we are to have a successful economy.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I agree with the Minister that this is a most regrettable situation. It is a blow to the automotive sector in the United Kingdom. Battery integrity for the UK is essential if we are to save the industry, but if we are in a race to beat China, it is a race that we cannot win. To follow on from the question that the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) asked, is the Minister engaging in roundtable talks with other suitors who could step into the shoes of the failed directors and try to reinvest in and reinvigorate opportunities in the sector? Is this also an opportunity for the Minister to look afresh at the opportunities for hydrogen, in which we are ahead of China?
Graham Stuart
We are engaging with the Department for International Trade—as I hope the presence in the Chamber of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy indicates—to make that case to investors. We have the green finance strategy, as I say, and our response to the Climate Change Committee and to the judicial review are coming up in the coming weeks, sending a real signal of the investability of the UK in the green sectors. I know that the hon. Gentleman, perhaps unlike the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), is an enthusiast because he can see the economic opportunity; if the hon. Gentleman can use the few feet between the two of them to educate his right hon. Friend, he will be an even greater politician than I thought he was already.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Last month, I spoke at the launch in London of the Indo-Pacific Net-zero Battery-materials Consortium, which brings together British and far eastern businesses, working with the support of the British and Indonesian Governments, to secure materials essential for battery production, such as nickel. Some politicians here today have talked about sprouting battery factories in the UK as if they were mushrooms, but the reality is that they depend on sources of materials. That is precisely what our Government are helping to facilitate.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is a shining example of how the trade envoy programme can allow Members of this House to gain a deep understanding of other countries, engage with their Governments, and see in context how engagement with another country and its industries can contribute to the success of our own, to the mutual benefit of both countries concerned.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers to all those questions and for the industrious method that he is using to try to find a way forward. Will he outline how he intends to secure production of batteries for the industry and secure access for the future, as we are paying an excess because of our reliance on foreign entities? British battery production must be supported at all times. In my constituency of Strangford there is much interest in battery storage, and indeed in production, if possible. Northern Ireland wants to be a part of that. Will the Minister outline how all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can play their part in electric battery production?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his—as ever—courteous question. He is right about the importance of Northern Ireland playing its part in the automotive industry as we move to zero-emissions vehicles. I look forward to having the opportunity to discuss this issue and others later this week when I visit Strangford lough with him to hear about that particularly successful technology.
Points of Order
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may have heard that today the Church of England bishops have recommended no substantial change to the Church’s current ban on same-sex couples being married in church in England, although of course it is already possible in Scotland and will soon be possible in Wales. Many Members across the House—the majority, I would judge—believe that by continuing to exclude lesbian and gay people from its full rites, the Church is no longer compatible with its established status, which confers the duty to serve the whole nation. Has the Second Church Estates Commissioner indicated to you whether he will come to this House and make a statement on this very serious state of affairs and its potential constitutional consequences?
Mr Speaker
The answer is no—nobody has come to speak to me—but the Second Church Estates Commissioner is here with us and may wish to answer the right hon. Gentleman.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I hear exactly what the right hon. Gentleman says. He will know that I will be answering questions in this House next Thursday, and I will willingly take questions on that. I should also point out that the Church of England has not yet made a formal, full statement on the matter. That will happen on Friday; I myself am only being fully briefed on it tomorrow. I am available to this House next Thursday and at any time at your discretion, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Unless the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) can get a question, he may not be able to get in as easily, so it may be appropriate for the Second Church Estates Commissioner to come forward with a statement rather than waiting for Church Commissioners’ questions. It would be helpful to have that statement on Monday; I would encourage that, because it is a topic that the House will wish to know about. I will leave that with the Second Church Estates Commissioner.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you will forgive me for a boring, but important, administrative point of order—nothing new, do I hear you say?
Yesterday, we asked the Vote Office and the House of Commons Library for a copy of a Government report by Ben Goldacre for a meeting today. It is a very important report. We were told that it was too long for the Vote Office to print, so it was sent off-site to Waterloo. We were also told that the House of Commons Library does not keep copies of Government reports, which rather astonished me. When we received the report from the off-site printers, it arrived in random order—page 1, page 7, page 3, page 15 and so on—so it was a little difficult to use. When we called them, they said that that was because the Government had provided the document in the wrong format. It is important in this House that we have access to printed copies of Government documents, so can the House do anything to ensure that that happens in future?
Mr Speaker
Thank you for making me aware of that. I would have automatically assumed that the Library of the House of Commons would keep reports. “If not, why not?” would be my question to the Library, and I hope that it can review that. I am disappointed that the right hon. Member was not able to get hold of those papers; I am sure that that will be rectified very quickly, following his point of order.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wanted to notify the House at the earliest opportunity that I have written to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) to acknowledge that the tone of my remarks in the Chamber yesterday was a mistake. I stand by the words that I said, and I profoundly disagree with the comments that the hon. Member made, but our job as MPs is to channel passion and anger into considered debate to win our arguments—in this case, on the trans community and devolution. I recognise that I failed to control that passion during what was an emotional debate. I should have expressed my deep disagreement on what I believe is an abhorrent view in a more appropriate way. I want to particularly apologise to Madam Deputy Speaker, who had to preside over the debate.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice that he wished to come and make that point of order. It allows me to take this opportunity to remind hon. Members of the importance of good temper and moderation in contributions from all sides and all Members. We will disagree, but how we express that disagreement is important. Please, let us have moderate and temperate language going forward.
Bill Presented
Local Electricity Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
David Johnston, supported by Peter Aldous, Hilary Benn, Sir Graham Brady, Alan Brown, Simon Fell, Wera Hobhouse, Ben Lake, Clive Lewis, Selaine Saxby, Mick Whitley and Sir Jeremy Wright, presented a Bill to enable electricity generators to become local electricity suppliers; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 231).
Fertility Treatment (Transparency)
Wednesday 18th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fertility Treatment (Transparency) Bill 2022-23 View all Fertility Treatment (Transparency) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require providers of in vitro fertilisation to publish information annually about the number of NHS-funded IVF cycles they carry out and about their provision of certain additional treatments in connection with in vitro fertilisation; to require such providers to publish a report about their provision of NHS-funded IVF treatment in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
It is an honour to speak on this Bill about a subject that colleagues will know is very close to my heart. I thank the Bill’s sponsors, many of whom are here today, for their support. Indeed, I am extremely grateful to have support from colleagues across the House who have recognised that there are currently gaps in IVF policy more widely.
Ask anyone who has experience of IVF, whether personally or from watching loved ones go through the process, and they will tell you that IVF is one of the most emotionally and mentally challenging processes that someone can ever undertake. My own IVF journey began in 2018, and I have been very open about the fact that I knew from the start that my road to pregnancy would be difficult. While I am certainly one of the very lucky ones—after only one round of IVF, I was blessed with my beautiful son Sullivan—I still had many eye-opening experiences during my fertility journey that have led me to this point today.
Let us be clear: the current state of the IVF offering across the UK is far below what would-be parents deserve. I will be honest with the Minister: none of the devolved nations, or England, is currently getting it right.
It was those first-hand experiences that brought me to this issue and prompted me to introduce the Bill. Since I was elected three years ago, I have campaigned extensively to “right”' the “wrongs” that I have experienced at first hand as an IVF patient. I passionately believe that many of the problems that currently affect patients seeking IVF can be addressed by an improvement in the transparency requirements to which clinics must adhere.
In my view, there are two areas in which inadequate transparency levels are most pressing. First, there is an unacceptable lack of transparency in respect of the number of NHS-funded cycles that IVF clinics are offering. We need to be able to hold the clinics to account for their failures to adhere to guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence which clearly state that NHS England should offer three full cycles of IVF to all women under 40 if they have been trying unsuccessfully to have a child for more than two years. The reality is that across the UK fewer than half of all IVF cycles for under-35s were funded by the NHS, and in England it is even worse: just 36% of IVF cycles are funded by the NHS. The result is a patchwork of different IVF services across the country, with unacceptable regional disparities. Not only will compelling clinics to publish the extent to which they are abiding by NICE guidelines empower patients to make informed choices about paying for treatment, but we will be holding clinics to account over where they fall short. Because of these regional disparities, the vast majority of clinically eligible patients ultimately face funding their own treatment. Such a high proportion is plainly and simply against NICE guidelines. Some couples are having to pay up to £15,000 for a single IVF cycle, and that cannot be right.
The second transparency issue that the Bill seeks to address relates to the controversial “add-on” treatments that IVF clinics market to their patients, often without sufficient information about their efficacy. Different clinics call these products by a wide variety of names. Some refer to them as “supplementary” treatments or “adjuvant” treatments, or, most ambiguously of all, simply “embryology treatments”. These add-ons often add thousands of pounds’ worth of extra “treatment” to the overall cost of IVF, and the science behind them is often murky, or at least unclear.
The mis-selling of IVF add-ons is an issue of particular importance to me. I know at first hand that for many would-be parents seeking IVF treatment, especially those on low incomes and those who have endured several rounds of IVF already, being offered these additional products can often mean making heart-wrenching decisions. When you feel that you would do anything just to increase your chances of successfully having a baby, perhaps even by just 1%, shelling out thousands of pounds for procedures including “endometrial scratching”, “preimplantation genetic testing” or perhaps an “intrauterine culture” seems a reasonable—perhaps even routine—step to take, but the reality is that none of those add-ons has a solid evidence base to support its effectiveness, no matter how scientific they sound. We know that they lack solid clinical evidence because of the work of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and its “traffic-light” system for rating add-ons.
Of course that rating system is useful to many thousands of IVF patients and I commend the HFEA for its work, especially its calls for clinics to be more open about the add-ons they provide, but I strongly believe that we need to do more, which is why the Bill’s second primary purpose is to mandate that clinics publish data on the number of add-on treatments that they sell. We cannot allow a situation in which desperate would-be parents are not properly informed about the efficacy of eye-wateringly expensive add-on treatments, and are exploited and seen as cash cows by clinics that just want to make money. As with the regional disparities issue that I mentioned earlier, by requiring the publication of data on add-on services we can hold clinics to account far more easily, and use that data as a key tool to improve the way in which IVF services are offered across the country.
Put together, the transparency issues that plague our IVF services contribute to what is commonly known as the “postcode lottery” of IVF. Up and down the country, IVF clinics are offering vastly different levels of NHS-backed IVF, often in breach of NICE guidelines, and all with differing approaches to selling add-ons. The NHS’s new integrated care systems, introduced by the Government’s Health and Care Act 2022, were set up specifically to tackle inequalities in access and health outcomes, including IVF outcomes, but if the issues of transparency are not addressed, those inequalities will simply continue to persist. That is why I believe that the Bill is a vital step in ensuring that ICSs fulfil their obligations.
This Bill is a starting point. With the useful data that it will provide, we will have the tools to address the issues that I have raised today. In no way is it trying to fix all the problems that prospective IVF parents currently face. Indeed, I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House who have campaigned tirelessly on other important issues relating to fertility access. I pay particular tribute to one of my co-sponsors, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for her work on her own Private Member’s Bill requiring employers to provide paid fertility leave.
We have much more to do if we are to improve the way in which our country provides IVF, and improving our cultural attitudes to it, including attitudes in the workplace, is no exception. I believe that the Bill is an important starting point. From transparency will come accountability, and with accountability we can finally address the IVF postcode lottery once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alex Davies-Jones, Nickie Aiken, Tonia Antoniazzi, Steve Brine, Stella Creasy, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Christine Jardine, Dame Diana Johnson, Justin Madders, Siobhain McDonagh, Charlotte Nichols and Caroline Nokes present the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 230).
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Wednesday 18th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 View all Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 18 January 2023 - (18 Jan 2023)
17:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 239 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 239 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 238 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 295 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly agreed to.
At or before the end of 2023 | After the end of 2023 |
|---|---|
Retained EU law | Assimilated law |
Retained case law | Assimilated case law |
Retained direct EU legislation | Assimilated direct legislation |
Retained direct minor EU legislation | Assimilated direct minor legislation |
Retained direct principal EU legislation | Assimilated direct principal legislation |
Retained domestic case law | Assimilated domestic case law |
Retained EU case law | Assimilated EU case law |
Retained EU obligation | Assimilated obligation |
The Minister for Industry and Investment Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Conditions for bringing sections 3, 4 and 5 into force—
“(1) None of sections 3, 4 or 5 may be brought into force unless all the following conditions have been satisfied.
(2) The first condition is that a Minister of the Crown has, after consulting organisations and persons representative of interests substantially affected by, or with expertise in the likely legal effect of, that section on a draft of that report, laid a report before each House of Parliament setting out, with reasons, the Minister’s view as to the likely advantages and disadvantages of bringing that section into force, setting out in particular the effect of that section on:
(a) the rights of and protections for consumers, workers, and businesses, and protections of the environment and animal welfare;
(b) legal certainty, and the clarity and predictability of the law;
(c) the operation of the Trade and Cooperation agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and UK exports of goods and services to the European Economic Area; and
(d) the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement.
(3) In relation to section 4, that report must take into account any regulation made or likely to be made by a relevant national authority under section 8(1).
(4) The second condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since that report was laid before Parliament, with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
(5) The third condition is that, after the end of that period, both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section come into force.
(6) If both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section should not come into force unless it is amended in a way set out in that resolution, then the Minister may by regulation amend that section accordingly, and that section may not be brought into force until that amendment has been made.”
This new clause requires Ministers to analyse, and to explain their analysis of, the effect of the removal of retained EU law rights, the principle of supremacy of EU law, and of the general principles. It also includes opportunity for Parliamentary approval and timeframes for laying reports before both Houses.
New clause 3—Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16—
“(1) The first condition is that the relevant national authority has consulted such organisations as appear to it to be representative of interests substantially affected by its proposals, and any such other persons as it considers appropriate, on a draft of those regulations.
(2) The second condition is that the national authority has, after that consultation has concluded and after considering any representations made to it, laid a draft of the regulations before each House of Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd or Northern Ireland Assembly), together with a report setting out, with reasons, the authority’s view as to the likely advantages and disadvantages of making those regulations, setting out in particular:
(a) a summary of the objectives and effect of those regulations as compared to the instrument that they will revoke, replace or modify;
(b) any difference as between that instrument and the proposed regulations in terms of protections for consumers, workers, businesses, the environment, or animal welfare;
(c) any benefits which are expected to flow from the revocation or replacement of that instrument;
(d) the consultation undertaken as required by subsection (2);
(e) any representations received as a result of that consultation;
(f) the reason why the national authority considers that it is appropriate to make those regulations, having considered those representations;
(g) the reasons why the national authority considers that section 15(5) (overall reduction in burdens) does not preclude the making of the regulations, explaining what burdens are reduced or increased as a result of the making of the regulations;
(h) the compatibility of the revocation, modification, or replacement of that instrument with obligations in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and the likely effect on UK exports of goods or services to the European Economic Area; and
(i) the likely effect of the revocation, modification, or replacement of that instrument on the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement.
(3) The third condition is that a period of sixty days has passed since those draft regulations or that report were laid as required by subsection (2) with no account to be taken of any time during which Parliament (or, as the case may be, the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or Northern Ireland Assembly) is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House or that body is adjourned for more than four days, and where they were laid before Parliament, paragraph 8(11)(a) of Schedule 3 shall apply in determining the commencement of that period.
(4) The fourth condition is that the national authority has considered any representations made during the period provided for by subsection (3) and, in particular, any resolution or report of, or of any committee of, either House of Parliament (or, as the case may be of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or Northern Ireland Assembly) with regard to the proposals, and has published its reasons for accepting or rejecting any such representations, resolution, or report.”
This new clause requires the relevant national authorities to consult with key stakeholders on proposed regulations revoking or replacing REUL, and to show Parliament their assessment of the impact of the changes
New clause 5—Powers to revoke or replace: application to environmental law—
“(1) This section applies in respect of provision which may be made by a relevant national authority under section 15 where the provision is in respect of secondary retained EU law which is environmental law.
(2) No provision may be made unless the relevant national authority considers that the provision will contribute to a significant improvement in environmental protection.
(3) The relevant national authority must—
(a) have regard to international environmental protection legislation and international best practice on environmental protection,
(b) comply with the requirements and objectives of the Aarhus, Bonn, Bern, Ramsar, OSPAR and Biodiversity Conventions, and
(c) comply with environmental principles and the policy statement on environmental principles.
(4) The relevant national authority must—
(a) seek advice from persons who are independent of it and have relevant expertise,
(b) seek advice from, as appropriate, the Office for Environmental Protection, Environmental Standards Scotland, a devolved environmental governance body or other person exercising similar functions, and
(c) publish a report setting out—
(i) how the provision will contribute to a significant improvement in environmental protection, and
(ii) how the authority has taken into account the advice from the persons referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).
(5) In this section—
“Aarhus Convention” means The UNECE Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus, 25 June 1998);
“Bern Convention” means the Council of Europe's Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1979) [ratified / signed];
“Biodiversity Convention” means the UN Convention on Biodiversity (Rio, 1992);
“Bonn Convention” means The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 1979);
“devolved environmental governance body” has the same meaning as in section 47 of the Environment Act 2021;
“environmental law” has the same meaning as in section 46 of the Environment Act 2021, but without the exception set out in section 46(3) and (4) (devolved legislative provision);
“environmental protection” has the same meaning as in section 45 of the Environment Act 2021;
“environmental principles” and “policy statement on environmental principles” have the same meanings as in section 17 of the Environment Act 2021;
“Environmental Standards Scotland” has the same meaning as in section 19 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021;
“international environmental protection legislation” has the same meaning as in section 21 of the Environment Act 2021;
“Office for Environmental Protection” has the same meaning as in section 22 of the Environment Act 2021;
“OSPAR Convention” means The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (1992);
“RAMSAR Convention” means The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 1971).”
This new clause creates additional conditions to be satisfied before the powers set out in clause 15 can be exercised where the subject matter of their exercise concerns environmental law.
Amendment 33, page 1, line 2, leave out clause 1.
This amendment deletes the sunset clause.
Amendment 18, page 1, line 4, leave out “2023” and insert “2026”.
This amendment moves the sunset of legislation from 2023 to 2026.
Amendment 28, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Amendment 37, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly.
Amendment 38, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—
(a) would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) could be made in subordinate legislation by the Welsh Ministers acting alone.”
This amendment restricts the automatic revocation or “sunsetting” of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation under Clause 1 of the Bill so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the Senedd.
Amendment 19, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018 and
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996.”
This amendment would exclude certain regulations which provide for workers’ protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
Amendment 21, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The REACH Regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008,
(b) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(c) The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(d) The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994,
(e) The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010,
(f) The Bathing Waters Regulations 2013,
(g) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,
(h) The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (also known as the Farming Rules for Water),
(i) The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010,
(j) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007,
(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017,
(l) The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1107/2009,
(m) The Sustainable Use Directive Regulation (EC) 396/2005,
(n) The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018,
(o) Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (2019),
(p) Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
(q) Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,
(r) Regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof, and
(s) The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for environmental protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
Amendment 24, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005,
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations,
(c) The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012,
(d) The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016,
(e) The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011,
(f) The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012,
(g) The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015,
(h) The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003,
(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012,
(j) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, and
(k) The Bauer [C-168/18] and Hampshire [C-17/17] judgements.”
This amendment would exclude certain retained EU law which provides for consumer protections from the sunset in subsection (1).
Amendment 36, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must, no later than three months before the date specified in subsection (1), publish a list of all legislation being revoked under this section (the “revocation list”) and lay a copy before Parliament.
(3B) With each update of the revocation list up to the date specified in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay an updated copy of the revocation list before Parliament.
(3C) Any legislation not included in the revocation list, as updated, on the date specified in subsection (1) is not revoked.
(3D) At any time before the date specified in subsection (1), the House of Commons may by resolution amend the revocation list by adding or removing instruments specified in the resolution, and the Secretary of State must accordingly lay the updated revocation list before Parliament.
(3E) At any time before the date specified in subsection (1), the House of Lords may by resolution propose amendment of the revocation list by adding or removing instruments specified in the resolution.
(3F) If the House of Commons does not pass a motion disagreeing with a resolution of the House of Lords under subsection (3E) within ten days of the date of that resolution, the Secretary of State must amend the revocation list in accordance with the resolution of the House of Lords and lay the updated version before Parliament.
(3G) If the Secretary of State does not amend the revocation list when required to do so by paragraphs (3D) or (3F) before the date specified in paragraph (1), the revocation list will be deemed to have been amended as specified in the resolution of the relevant House of Parliament, and the relevant legislation will be treated as though the change has been made.
(3H) Any legislation to which section (3C) applies is not to be considered as either retained EU law or assimilated law.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish an exhaustive list of every piece of legislation being revoked under the Sunset Clause, and allow for Parliamentary oversight of this process so that it is the House of Commons which has the ultimate say on which legislation is affected.
Amendment 29, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to provision which is within the competence of the Scottish Ministers as if, after “A Minister of the Crown”, there were inserted “or the Scottish Ministers”.
(1B) A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament, or
(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone.”
This amendment clarifies what provisions would be devolved and therefore under the competence of Scottish Ministers for decision, rather than a Secretary of State.
Amendment 39, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) has effect in relation to provision which is within the competence of the Welsh Ministers as if, after “A Minister of the Crown”, there were inserted “or the Welsh Ministers”.
(1B) A provision is within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of this section if—
(a) it would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Welsh Ministers acting alone.”
This amendment clarifies what provisions would be devolved and therefore under the competence of Welsh Ministers for decision, rather than a Secretary of State.
Government amendments 1, 3 and 6.
Amendment 26, in clause 7, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
“(d) the undesirability of disturbing settled understandings of the law, on the basis of which individuals and businesses may have made decisions of importance to them;
(e) the importance of legal certainty, clarity and predictability; and
(f) the principle that significant changes in the law should be made by Parliament (or, as the case may be, the relevant devolved legislature).”
This amendment adds further conditions for higher courts to regard when deciding to diverge from retained EU case law.
Government amendments 7 to 17 and 2.
Amendment 20, in clause 15, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
(b) Children and Young Person Working Time Regulations 1933,
(c) Posted Workers (Enforcement of Employment Rights) Regulations 2020,
(d) Part Time Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000,
(e) Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
(f) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
(g) Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004,
(h) Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005,
(i) Working Time Regulations 1998,
(j) Agency Workers Regulations 2010,
(k) Maternity and Parental Leave etc Regulations 1999,
(l) Trade Secrets (Enforcement etc) Regulations 2018 and
(m) The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for workers’ protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 22, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The REACH Regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008,
(b) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(c) The Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,
(d) The Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994,
(e) The Water Resources (Control of Pollution) (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil) (England) Regulations 2010,
(f) The Bathing Waters Regulations 2013,
(g) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017,
(h) The Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations 2018 (also known as the Farming Rules for Water),
(i) The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010,
(j) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007,
(k) The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017,
(l) The Plant Protection Products Regulations 1107/2009,
(m) The Sustainable Use Directive Regulation (EC) 396/2005,
(n) The National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018,
(o) Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order (2019)
(p) Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes,
(q) Directive 1999/74 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens,
(r) Regulation 139/2013 laying down animal health conditions for imports of certain birds into the Union and the quarantine conditions thereof, and
(s) The Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for environmental protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 25, page 17, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following instruments—
(a) The Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005,
(b) Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations,
(c) The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012,
(d) The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 2016,
(e) The Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011,
(f) The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012,
(g) The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015,
(h) The Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003,
(i) Commission Regulation (EU) No 748/2012 of 3 August 2012,
(j) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, and
(k) The Bauer [C-168/18] and Hampshire [C-17/17] judgements.”
This amendment would exclude certain legislation which provides for consumer protections from the power to revoke without replacement in subsection (1).
Amendment 34, page 18, line 12, at end insert—
“(4A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the conditions set out in section [Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16] have been complied with.”
This amendment ensures that the powers to revoke or replace would be subject to restrictions as laid out in NC3.
Amendment 23, page 18, line 13, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
This amendment will remove the restriction on the replacement of EU law that states it must not add to the regulatory burden.
Amendment 35, in clause 16, page 19, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) No regulations may be made under this section unless the conditions set out in section [Conditions on the exercise of powers under section 15 and 16] have been complied with.”
This amendment would ensure that the power to update would be subject to the restrictions laid out in NC3.
Amendment 30, in clause 20, page 20, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not include in regulations under this Act any provision which is within the devolved competence of any devolved authority as defined in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.”
This amendment adds protection for devolved competence, denying any Secretary of State the chance to revoke REUL within devolved competence.
Government amendments 4 and 5.
Government new schedule 1—“Assimilated law”: consequential amendments.
Amendment 31, in schedule 3, page 34, line 38, at end insert—
“Consent of Scottish Ministers
8A Before making regulations to which this Part of this Schedule applies, a Minister of the Crown must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment modifies the powers which are conferred on Ministers of the Crown in devolved areas so that they may only be exercised with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.
Ms Ghani
It is a pleasure to be here, and I thank all Members who have tabled new amendments and new clauses and who will speak in the debate. I also thank the members of the Public Bill Committee for their work.
I will address the Government new clauses and amendments first, but I will say more about them in my closing speech when other Members have had a chance to contribute. I will also address some of the concerns that have been raised, and some of the misinformation about the Bill.
The Government new clauses and amendments are minor and technical. They cover four areas. The first is updating the definition of “assimilated law” and how it should be interpreted, and, in the case law provisions, ensuring that the High Court of Justiciary is covered in all instances. I thank the Scottish Government for their engagement: there has been engagement between our officials and those in the Scottish Government, and with the Advocate General. Our new clauses also clarify the fact that the use of extension power also applies to amendments to retained EU law made between the extension regulations and the sunset, and clarify the application of clause 14 to codification as well as restatement. These are technical drafting measures, and I ask the House to support them.
Let me now explain why the Bill is crucial for the UK. My explanation will directly cover many of the new clauses and amendments. The Bill will end the special status of retained EU law on the UK statute book by the end of 2023. It constitutes a process. Considerable work has been done with officials across Whitehall and with the devolved authorities; that work has been proportionate, and has been taking place for over 18 months. I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the 2023 deadline. Retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute book indefinitely. It is constitutionally undesirable, as some domestic laws, including Acts of Parliament, currently remain subordinate to some retained EU law. The continued existence on our statute book of the principle of supremacy of EU law is just not right, as we are a sovereign nation with a sovereign Parliament.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
We all accept that the status of EU law must change and that it will have to be reassimilated into domestic law in due course. No one argues with that. Will the Minister not reflect that it is constitutionally unacceptable to create what the Law Society—which might know a little more about the law than politicians and civil servants—described as a “devastating impact” on legal certainty and business confidence? To do so by means of Henry VIII powers so wide that all scrutiny is, in effect, removed from this House is not taking backing control but doing the reverse of what the Government seek to do.
Ms Ghani
I always respect my hon. Friend’s opinion, but he is fundamentally mistaken. We have undertaken a considerable amount of consultation with our courts and have worked with them consistently. It is absolutely right that we deliver Brexit by ensuring that laws made here are sovereign over EU laws.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is fundamentally wrong. The Bill is providing legal certainty. Rather than having a flow of EU law interpreted according to EU principle, from now on we will have a single set of laws within this country. That must be certainty rather than otherwise.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Ghani
Before I take any more interventions, I want to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) about the Henry VIII powers. That is a misrepresentation of what is happening. Each Department will review and then amend, assimilate or revoke EU law. Each Department’s Secretary of State will be responsible for the decisions they take. All the laws are on the dashboard, which will be updated once again, and we will be codifying the retained EU law. In the absence of the application of supremacy, restating a rule in primary legislation could lead to the same policy effect as the rule itself currently has. The Bill just sets out a process to allow each Department to take a decision. Why would we not want to review the EU law that is out there and assess what needs to be assimilated? If we can amend and update it, why would we not do that?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Notwithstanding the charmingly innocent faith in lawyers of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the key thing about our decision to leave the European Union is that sovereignty lies in this place and with the people to whom we are accountable. The point about this measure is that it will allow exactly that sovereignty to be exacted in practice with regard to retained EU law.
Ms Ghani
Absolutely. When decisions are taken either to amend or to revoke, the usual channels will be followed in Parliament. Committees will be put in place and decisions will be reviewed the Leaders of both Houses. Decisions can be taken openly and transparently. We also have the dashboard, which will be updated and already has thousands of EU laws on it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is right that the whole point of Brexit was to take control of our own laws. She is also right that there needs to be a single set of laws across the United Kingdom. But the Bill makes it clear that we will not have a single set of laws across the United Kingdom, because a wide range of laws in Northern Ireland are exempt from the provisions of the Bill. Furthermore, in future when EU law changes and applies in Northern Ireland, the gap between the laws in the rest of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will get ever wider. Does she accept that unless the protocol is dealt with, there is a real danger that Northern Ireland will be treated differently and be constitutionally separated from the United Kingdom?
Ms Ghani
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. As it is sensitive, he must allow me a moment to ensure that my response is accurate. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol and the trade and co-operation agreement after the sunset date. The Bill will not alter the rights of EU nations that are protected, or eligible to be protected, by the relevant provisions in the Northern Ireland protocol. The Bill contains provisions that, when exercised appropriately, will ensure the continued implementation of our international obligations, including the Northern Ireland protocol.
It is our preference to resolve the Northern Ireland protocol issue through talks. The Government are engaging in constructive dialogue with the EU to find solutions to these problems. I must put on record that officials have been working with officials in Northern Ireland for the last 18 months. We know how important and sensitive this issue is.
Ms Ghani
I will just make a little progress before I take more interventions.
I cannot stress enough the importance of achieving the deadline. The retained EU law was never intended to sit on the statute books indefinitely. On 31 January last year the Government announced plans to bring forward the Bill, which is the culmination of the Government’s work to untangle ourselves from decades of EU membership. It will permit the creation of a more agile, innovative and UK-specific regulatory approach, benefiting people and businesses across the UK.
It is a priority of the Government that the United Kingdom will be the best place to start and grow a business. The Bill contains powers that will allow us to make good on that promise. It will allow outdated and often undemocratic retained EU law to be amended, repealed or replaced more quickly and easily than before. It will remove burdens on business and create a more agile and sustainable legislative framework to boost economic growth.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember being on the Back Benches and sitting in statutory instrument Committees in which we had no ability whatsoever to change the legislation going through, because it was driven by the European Union. This is about taking back control by giving democratic authority to this place. Furthermore, on things such as maternity leave, minimum wage, annual leave, product safety and international regulations we are already doing better than the EU minimum standards. This Government will promise to keep those standards and, in many cases, increase them.
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has been a lot of misinformation about the environment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has committed to maintain or enhance standards. He is right that we had very little say over positions taken in Brussels, but now, in the Bill, those decisions are taken by the devolved authorities. That will remain devolved and they will have a say, so why would they want to give away that power?
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The Minister spoke of taking back control, but the harsh reality is that the Government are taking back control from the Scottish Parliament. Yesterday we heard about the UK Government enacting section 35 to strike out a Bill of the Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 contains the Sewel convention, which requires the UK Government to obtain the consent of the Scottish Parliament when they are acting in devolved matters. The Scottish Government are not giving their consent. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why should the Scottish Government not have the right to veto this Bill, which tramples over devolution and our laws in a way that we do not consent to?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Could I gently say to the Minister that in order to facilitate Hansard and hon. Members seeking to hear, it would be helpful if she could address the microphone rather than the Back Benches?
Ms Ghani
My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The question is, why would the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not take the power that the Scottish Government will be given through this Bill when it comes to devolved matters, to look at the EU laws and see whether they want to maintain them or enhance them for their own people? Why would they want to reject the power that they have been offered through this Bill? We remain fully committed to the Sewel convention. It is an essential element of the devolution settlement. The UK Government continue to seek legislative consent for Bills that interact with devolution. The right hon. Member’s argument does not make any sense. My worry is that Scottish Government do not want the powers because then they will have to exercise them. I know it is a little bit of work, but it is worth doing.
This Bill provides the opportunity to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy while maintaining high standards. It will ensure that the Government can more easily amend, revoke or replace retained EU law, so that the Government can create legislation that better suits the UK. This programme of reform must be done. The people of the UK did not vote for Brexit with the expectation that nearly a decade later, politicians in Westminster would continually rehash old and settled arguments, as those on the Opposition Benches so love to do. We must push on and seize the opportunities that Brexit provides. That will ensure that our economy is dynamic and agile and can support advances in technology and science.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On agility, the Minister will know that the majority of the thousands of rules that need to be changed are in the environmental area. Does she think it is a good idea that civil servants are completely distracted and focused on the changes to these rules when we have one in four people in food poverty, 63,000 people dying a year due to poor air quality, sewage pouring into our seas and crabs dying off the north-east coast? Would it not be better if the civil servants and the Government tackled those problems rather than going down a rabbit hole and inventing worse standards than the EU, such as trying to get to World Health Organisation air quality standards by 2040, which the EU is trying to get to by 2030?
Ms Ghani
I think many people coming into the debate today think that this is the start of something, but this process has been in place for more than 18 months, and DEFRA has committed to maintain or enhance standards. The constant misinformation given out over what is happening on the environment is simply incorrect. DEFRA has already taken decisive action to reform areas of retained EU law and it already has flagship legislation on our statute book, including the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020, all on powers that the SNP wants to give back to Brussels. The Environment Act strengthens our environmental protections while respecting our international obligations. It is simply incorrect to suggest that the Government will be weakening any of those protections. The Environment Act has set new legally binding targets, including to halt and reverse nature’s decline. Those targets, with oversight from the Office for Environmental Protection, will ensure that any reform to retained EU law delivers positive environmental outcomes. DEFRA will also conduct proportionate analysis of the expected impacts, so it is absolutely incorrect to misrepresent this Bill.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) talked about statutory instrument Committees. I think all of us have sat on statutory instrument Committees, where we know that it is a question of like it or lump it when it comes to what is being proposed. Under this Bill, Ministers will have powers over key issues that our constituents care about. The Minister talks about the dashboard and admits that it still needs to be updated. As a matter of good democratic practice, will she give us, here and now, today, the exact number of laws covered by this Bill, so Members of this House can at least have some sense of the task that they are voting for? If she cannot tell us how many laws are covered, it is definitely not clear to us how any of us can influence them.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Member was very astute in Committee, and we spent many hours together discussing this. The dashboard is public. It has had more than 100,000 views to date. I was on it only last night. It has thousands of laws on it, and it will be updated again this month. There is a process within each Department, which is why a unit has been established to work with each Department across Whitehall. Every EU law that is identified will be put on the dashboard. So it is public, it is accessible, and all the information is out there.
I must just respond to another point that the hon. Member raised, once again, about scrutiny in this place, because it is being misrepresented—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, it is. The Bill will follow the usual channels for when laws are being either amended or revoked. The Leaders of the two Houses will meet and the business managers will take a decision. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords has already said that it is comfortable with the way the Bill will progress and the laws will be scrutinised, and the European Statutory Instruments Committee has said that it is comfortable with the way the laws will be scrutinised and assessed. So there is a process in place, as there was for a no-deal Brexit. The crunch is: if you do not like Brexit and if you did not like the way the Brexit vote that took place, you are not going to like any elements of this Bill.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Just before that intervention, the Minister was talking about the environment. Is it not the case that Members on this side of the House have delivered the Environment Act, that we are perfectly capable of making our own laws and delivering for the British people and that we do not need guidance from the European Union, unlike those on the Opposition Benches?
Ms Ghani
Absolutely. We on this side of the House have done a tremendous amount of work that did not require us to be directed by bureaucrats in Brussels. This gives me a great opportunity to point out all the fantastic work that we have achieved.
First of all, I must just say again that we will be maintaining and enhancing environmental standards. I want to touch on a list of things that we have achieved, especially on animal welfare, which has been a huge priority for Government Members. We have had the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. Since 2010, we have had new regulations on minimum standards for meat and chickens, banned the use of conventional battery cages for laying hens, made CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses in England, made microchipping mandatory for dogs in 2015, modernised our licensing system for a range of activities such as dog breeding and pet sales, protected service animals via Finn’s law, banned the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens via Lucy’s law, passed the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 and led work to implement humane trapping standards. Our Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill will further the rights of animals outside the EU, including the banning of export of live animals for slaughter and fattening. It is remarkable how much we can achieve when we are left to our own devices.
Ms Ghani
I will just make a little bit of progress.
As I have said, the sunset clause is necessary and is the quickest and most effective way to pursue retained EU law reform. It is only right to set the sunset and the revocation of inherited EU laws as the default position. It ensures that we are proactively choosing to preserve EU laws only when they are in the best interests of the UK. It ensures that outdated and unneeded laws are quickly and easily repealed. It will also give the Government a clear timeline in which to finish the most important tasks. Some retained EU laws are legally inoperable, and removing them from the statute book easily is good democratic governance. Requiring the Government to undergo complex and unnecessary parliamentary processes to remove retained EU law that is no longer necessary or operable, and can more easily be removed, is not good governance.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Surely parliamentary sovereignty is giving Members of Parliament control, not the Executive or bureaucrats in Whitehall.
Ms Ghani
The reality is that Ministers take decisions all the time, and there is a process in place where laws are amended or updated if there is a significant policy change. The same policy process will be in place. If the hon. Member is not comfortable with Conservative Ministers taking those decisions or with the SI process that is already in place, fundamentally he is just not comfortable with the decisions we are taking because we are taking these rules from Europe and placing them here on our UK statute book. That is a different argument altogether.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I want to react to what I think I heard the Minister saying when she suggested that those of us who did not support Brexit in the referendum would not support this Bill. That is not the case. As someone who did not vote for Brexit but who absolutely recognises that democratic choice and respects the referendum, I do support the premise of the Bill. We need to look at the EU law, although there are elements of the Bill we could improve on to give some certainty, and I hope that I will be called to speak later.
Ms Ghani
I would not want to misrepresent my right hon. Friend’s position. The point I was making was that Opposition Members who have complained about the Bill have a particular position that has been long held because of the outcome of the vote that took place.
We believe it is right that the public should know how much legislation there is derived from the EU, and know about the progress the Government are making. For that reason, we have published a public dashboard—perhaps colleagues would like to go on to the site for a moment—containing a list of UK Government retained EU law. The site will also document the Government’s progress on reforming retained EU law and will be updated regularly to reflect plans and actions taken. It will be updated again this month. I was slightly inaccurate earlier: there have in fact been 148,727 visitors to that site. It is not as if people are in the dark. There are many opportunities to be aware of what we are doing.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister for finally giving way. She is suggesting that those of us who oppose the Bill are opposing it for some kind of ideological reason. I draw her attention to the words of the chair of the Office for Environmental Protection, who herself said:
“Worryingly, the Bill does not offer any safety net, there is no requirement to maintain existing levels of environmental protection”.
Not only that, there is actually a requirement not to go on and make the legislation stronger. That is written into the Bill.
On the issue of certainty, I do not know how the Minister can stand there and pretend that this is about certainty when businesses have no idea which laws will be in or out and when she does not know how many laws are on her dashboard.
On democracy, when we were in the European Union we at least had Members of the European Parliament who had a say over these things. When the laws come back here, we have no say over them at all; it is all with Ministers. Is that what she means when she says this is supposed to be a good Bill that is full of opportunities from Brexit?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Lady has got the meme for her Facebook page. Unfortunately, she wholly misrepresents what the Bill is doing. Environmental standards will be maintained or enhanced. At the moment, the laws that come down from Brussels on the environment and land cover everything from the Arctic to the Mediterranean. This Bill is a great opportunity to maintain, to enhance and to review what more we can do to make things better for our environment across the UK. We already have flagship legislation in place: the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020. The Office for Environmental Protection has been fully established to enforce those elevated environmental rules and standards. The water framework directive covers our water. Instead of misrepresenting what the Bill does, why not take the opportunity to ensure that we enhance provision for what we are not maintaining?
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Listening to the Opposition, we might think that the EU is the land of milk and honey when it comes to the environment. This is the same EU that put fossil fuels and gas in last year’s green taxonomy. Getting out of the EU allows us to have our own taxonomies and to make far greener efforts than naming gas as a green technology, which it is not.
Ms Ghani
We can make sure that we have a better focus on renewables, and we can take the decisions that work best for our communities. Fundamentally, we are maintaining and enhancing. We must not forget that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been able to introduce substantial law on water, animals and land. I have covered the dashboard, and I assume colleagues will now be pouncing on it.
Departments have been actively working on their retained EU law reform plans for well over 18 months to ensure that appropriate action is taken before the sunset date. Additional work to lift obsolete laws will inevitably be slow, but that work will continue. We cannot allow the reform of retained EU law to remain merely a possibility. The sunset provision guarantees that retained EU law will not become an ageing relic dragging down the UK. It incentivises the genuine review and reform of retained EU law in a way that works best for the UK. What reforms are desirable will differ from policy area to policy area.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said on Second Reading, the environment is one of the Government’s top priorities. We will ensure that environmental law works for the UK and improves our environmental outcomes. As I said, we will be maintaining and enhancing. The Bill does not change the Environment Act, and we remain committed to delivering our legally binding target to halt nature’s decline by 2030.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Many constituents have been in touch with me with their concerns about habitat protection, maternity leave protection and other issues. The National Archives says that 1,300 additional pieces of legislation are not necessarily in scope. Can the Minister give more clarity on how many pieces of legislation this Bill will cover?
Ms Ghani
We are working across Departments to cover laws that will either be assimilated, amended or revoked. We are finding that a number of those laws are obsolete, and the fact we are still identifying them is good. We are putting them on the dashboard as soon as we can, and we will update the dashboard again this month. It is right that we conduct this exercise to know where we are and to ensure that we refer to UK law where we assimilate, and that we amend it to improve the situation for our communities and businesses. If the laws are not operable in the UK, we can revoke them.
The hon. Lady mentioned maternity rights, which is one of the unfortunate misinformation campaigns on this Bill. I struggle with the fact that colleagues are sharing misinformation, as people who may be vulnerable are made more vulnerable by such misinformation. The UK has one of the best workers’ rights records in the world, and our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU.
Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. For example, UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with the EU requirement of four weeks—we are doing better here. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to shared parental leave. The EU requirement for maternity leave is just 14 weeks—we are doing better here. The right to flexible working for all employees was introduced in the UK in the early 2000s, whereas the EU agreed its rules only recently and offers the right only to parents and carers—we are doing better here. The UK introduced two weeks’ paid paternity leave back in 2003. Who can remember then? The EU legislated for this only recently—once again, we are doing better here. I ask Members please not to hold up Brussels as a bastion of virtue, as that is most definitely not the case.
Ms Ghani
I will make a little progress.
Significant reform will be needed in other areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. The people of the UK expect and deserve positive regulatory reform to boost the economy. Via this Bill, we will deliver reform across more than 300 policy areas. We cannot be beholden to a body of law that grows more obsolete by the day just because some in this House see the EU as the fount of all wisdom.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
My hon. Friend is setting out a very powerful case. On the one hand, she is making the case that in Britain we have many laws that are superior and offer greater benefits and protections to residents, and on the other hand, she is making the self-evident point that we should unshackle ourselves from laws that will become increasingly historical, some of which were assimilated into British statute without scrutiny.
Will the devolved Administrations be able to preserve retained EU law where it relates to devolved areas of competence?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the law is already devolved, the devolved Administrations have the ability to assimilate, amend or revoke, which is why some of the interventions from Opposition Members are slightly absurd. Why would they not want the opportunity to have a review? If the devolved Administrations want to assimilate the law, they can. If they want to amend it, they can. If they wish to revoke it, they have that choice. Why would the devolved Administrations not want to embrace the powers this Bill will give them?
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Minister talks about the devolved Administrations hanging on to their powers. Will she ensure that the dashboard on retained EU law is updated to identify which legislation is reserved and which is devolved, as well as how legislation in Wales might be affected?
Ms Ghani
Yes. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the earlier part of my speech. Government officials have been working with devolved Administration officials for more than 18 months, and that work will continue. When we discover an EU law, we put it on the dashboard. Of course, there are conversations with officials in the devolved authorities, and it is important that we continue to work closely with them.
I was going to say more about the UK’s tremendous work on the environment, because I saw some dreadful, inappropriate coverage in the press, including nonsense about marine habitats. I have just had some information from DEFRA about its fantastic work in Montreal on marine. We have done more work on environmental standards and status outside the EU, including in protected areas such Dogger Bank, to enhance protection by 2030. We are also integrating our ocean and coastal mapping.
Unfortunately, colleagues who are uncomfortable with the Bill have also peddled misinformation about our water bodies and water standards. There is an assumption that the target is being moved, which is absolutely incorrect. Targets are not being moved. It is incorrect to say that the target for the good state of England’s water bodies has been changed—it is still 2027, as outlined in the water framework directive. Hopefully that will cancel out any other misinformation on this stuff being shared on social media sites.
Reform will be needed in other significant areas, which is why the powers in the Bill are necessary. It has been suggested that the Bill will somehow be a bonfire of workers’ rights. We are proud of the UK’s excellent record on labour standards, and we have one of the best workers’ rights records in the world. Our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. I have already spoken about maternity rights, but we can also look at maternity cover, holiday pay and other rights for employees.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice because the Environment Secretary testified to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the water framework directive was subject to change, on the advice of the Environment Agency, but now we are being told that it will not be. So who should we believe?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister is responsible for her own words and statements, and she must take responsibility for them. While I am on my feet, let me say that a significant number of Members wish to participate in this debate and a limited time is available. It is clear that the Minister does not intend to give way, having done so several times, and we should progress with the debate.
Ms Ghani
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. To ensure that the devolved Governments are also able to fully seize the benefits of Brexit, we are providing them with the tools to reform the retained EU law that is within their own devolved competence. That will give the devolved Governments greater flexibility to decide how they should regulate those areas currently governed by retained EU law. The majority of the powers in the Bill are conferred on the devolved Governments, which will enable them to take more active decisions about their citizens and their businesses. The devolved Governments will also have the ability to decide which retained EU law they wish to preserve and assimilate, and which they wish to let sunset within their devolved competences.
Since we left the EU, more powers have already been passed on to devolved Administrations, in areas such as farming, fishing and the environment. Under the Bill, these powers can continue to be there. The question is: why would they not enjoy that power to make sure that decisions are taken that best fit their communities? We have carefully considered how this Bill will have an impact on each of the four great nations and we recognise that it is of paramount importance that we continue to work together as one on important issues, including the environment.
As has been mentioned, we accept that some retained EU law in scope of the sunset is required to continue to operate our international obligations, including the trade and co-operation agreement, the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. Therefore, I am happy to make a commitment here today that the Government will, as a priority, take the action required to ensure that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations. In the near future, we will set out where retained EU law is required. Obviously, as well as sharing things on the dashboard, we are working closely with officials in Northern Ireland.
One amendment relates to carving out devolved nations. This Bill must and should apply to all nations of the UK. The territorial scope of the Bill is UK-wide and it is therefore constitutionally appropriate that the sunset applies across all four sovereign nations of the UK. One of the Bill’s primary objectives is to end retained EU law as a legal category across the UK. Providing a carve-out for legislation that is within a devolved competence would severely impact the coherence of the UK statute book and legal certainty for our public and businesses.
I also commend my Cabinet colleagues who are already making gallant efforts to establish ambitious reform plans that will help to drive growth. We are already in the process of removing outdated retained EU law in financial services, through the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and we have already repealed other outdated rules, enabling us to capitalise on tax freedoms. For example, the Government have ended the tampon tax by removing VAT on women’s sanitary products. We have also been able to embrace other opportunities, such as on vaccines, freeports, gene editing, free trade agreements, EU budget payments, immigration control, fishing and even foreign policy on Ukraine. Outside the EU’s unwritten rules on solidarity in foreign policy, we were the first to send arms to defend Ukraine, ignoring German bans on such equipment. That is unlikely to have happened when we were in the EU.
Ms Ghani
I will finish this point and then I will take some interventions. We also now have AUKUS, where we have signed a nuclear submarine deal with Australia, in opposition to France; we have new agricultural support schemes; and—this is one of my favourites—no MEPs means more democracy here.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that stagnant EU laws are hindering economic growth in the UK and that this Bill will enable us to protect and enhance our important fishing industry, particularly our famous cockle industry in Leigh-on-Sea?
Ms Ghani
It will indeed help the cockle industry. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that it will be maintaining and enhancing when it comes to the environment, including our waters. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is just an enabling Bill. It is a process to enable Departments to review EU law to see what we can do to ensure that regulation best suits us here in the UK and that we are nimble for the sectors we want to promote. Some of the sectors we want to work fast and hard in are incredibly progressive and modern, and we cannot have law that is made for a much larger group of nations overseeing us here in the UK.
Patrick Grady
Is that not precisely the point: any Department, at any time, that identifies areas of retained EU law that it thinks need to be reformed can bring forward primary legislation—that is the point of parliamentary sovereignty—so that it can be properly scrutinised in this place? The Minister does not need the powers in this Bill. This House already has those powers—I thought that that was supposed to be the point of parliamentary sovereignty.
Ms Ghani
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman fundamentally misunderstands the Bill. Many items of law will be assimilated. The idea that we will debate every single one on the Floor of the House is slightly absurd. The idea that we will be debating laws that are now obsolete is absurd. We will use the same process as we did for the no-deal Brexit; the usual programme of work will take place.
The powers in the Bill will allow us to overhaul regulation where it is not fit for purpose and move us away from the EU body of law. However, once powers have been used to replace the retained EU law or assimilated law with ordinary domestic legislation, they cannot be used in respect of that legislation again. This is a far cry from the Executive power grab of which we have been accused.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I chair the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which has been mentioned in this House already. We provide the sifting process, ensuring that there is parliamentary oversight as we review Brexit legislation. Does the Minister agree that comments that there is no parliamentary oversight are plain wrong and that attacks from the Labour party, when it does not even take its Committee places, are entirely—[Interruption.] Does she agree that those attacks are extremely hollow?
Ms Ghani
They are not just hollow, but simply inaccurate. My hon. Friend has mentioned his European Statutory Instruments Committee, but we also have the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; the usual channels, which are managed by our business managers; and Leaders of the House in both Houses. So it is not as though there is not ample opportunity to consult.
Once again, let me say that I know people are amused by the dashboard, but it is there and people who are interested can log on, and it will indeed be updated. Without this Bill, legislation that flowed on to the statute book directly from the EU into 300 different policy areas would, in many cases, have to be replaced via primary legislation. That would take decades to amend and this would mean a marked reduction in our ability to regulate in an adequate and timely manner. Without the powers in the Bill, the UK will remain at a competitive disadvantage. It would be economically irresponsible to leave this body of law unchanged, as the Opposition would wish us to do. As I have set out today, this Bill is of vital importance to the future of the UK. As I am sure colleagues will recognise, the reform of retained EU law must be completed without delay. I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to rise to speak in support of the amendments that appear in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Our amendments, even if they are all accepted, cannot completely cure this fundamentally defective Bill, but we will see where we go with that. Let me add my appreciation, as the Minister did, to those on the Committee for their efforts in scrutinising this Bill and to the Clerks for assisting us in doing that.
First, turning to amendment 18, I have yet to hear any rational justification for the deadline of 31 December 2023 for the jettisoning of all EU regulations. We are told that it is an imperative that we free ourselves of the shackles of these regulations by that date and that we must hurry along and free ourselves of the 2,400 or 3,800 regulations—or however many it turns out to be—that are holding us back.
I understand the importance of having a target to work to, but the date has been plucked out of thin air, seemingly at random, and we should not accept it unless a compelling and rational argument is put forward, especially, as I shall go on to explain, as it carries far greater risks than benefits. We were told by the Minister at the Committee stage that, in essence, the cliff edge is being used as some sort of management tool to ensure that civil servants remain focused and can deliver the work necessary to clear the statute books of all this legislation. What a sad state of affairs it is that the only way that the Government think they can get officials to function properly is to legislate for them to do so. Imagine if we got ourselves into a position where every time the Government wanted the civil service to work to a deadline we had to put it in a Bill. It is an explanation that is as threadbare as the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
As we have heard, the vast majority of policy, from use of harmful pesticides to air quality, that will be impacted by the changes brought through this Bill is with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Does the shadow Minister share my concern that, even if the timeline were extended, that is a lot of work for one Department and its officials to make sure they are getting right so quickly?
Justin Madders
I will go on to explain why that deadline is inappropriate and, indeed, impractical.
The Government are using the Bill as a motivational tool. That message has not got through to DEFRA, which, as we know, is considered to be the Department with the most regulations, although, of course, until we see a definitive list, we cannot know that for sure. At the moment, according to the Secretary of State, there are probably about 1,100 regulations in DEFRA that are subject to the sunset. I will not get into whether the word “about” is good enough in this context, but the number of civil servants that we have been told are working on this in that Department is three. It is no good this Bill being used as a way of focusing Departments’ minds if they do not have the resources to do the job properly in the first place.
This is a serious issue. The House of Lords Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee even complained about a lack of engagement from that Department after not receiving a response from it to five separate letters. We know from a written ministerial answer that the Department itself does not know how much the exercise will cost or how many staff it will need. If the deadline is meant to focus attention, it has not succeeded in doing so yet.
Alexander Stafford
I am listening carefully to the hon. Member’s speech, especially about the timeline. My question is this: when does he want this to end. My constituents in Rother Valley voted in 2016 to leave the EU—lock, stock—not to wait. Even now, I would want to bring the deadline forward, because we should have left fully years ago. When do the Opposition and those who want to stifle our leaving want us to leave—2024, 2025, 2026 or never? I want to leave fully and utterly now.
Justin Madders
If people are going to intervene, they should read the Bill and the amendments, because they would see our suggestion for a deadline. Of course, as everyone else in this Chamber seems to know, we have already left the EU, so this is not about leaving the EU, but about the remaining laws.
The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that setting a deadline is not enough and that a stronger argument is needed for choosing that particular date, and we agree. What is far more convincing than the arbitrary date that we are presented with are the warnings that we have received that there is not sufficient capacity in the civil service for a genuinely effective appraisal of the regulations that the Bill seeks to remove in the timescale allowed. The case for the cliff edge is incredibly weak. The arguments for removing it and putting it on a more realistic footing are much stronger.
The potential for things to be missed is clear. If worse comes to worst and some vital regulation ceases to be law by accident and nobody notices until it is too late, our constituents will rightly ask us, “What on earth were you doing? What were you thinking of?” No wonder the impact assessment on the Bill is silent on the issue of the sunset date.
The Regulatory Policy Committee has made it clear that it believes that the analysis of that sunset date is inadequate. This is a deadline in search of a headline. Presumably, that headline will be, “Free at last”. I would suggest that a more apposite headline might be. “The sun has set on your employment rights, your consumer rights and your environmental protections.” Indeed, the sun has set on parliamentary democracy.
Overall, the Regulatory Policy Committee puts a red rating on the impact assessment of the Bill as not fit for purpose, yet here we are, ploughing on as if it will be all right on the night.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that our first legislation on consumer rights was in 1893, some time before the European Union, and that the Act giving paid holidays was 1938, again before the European Union. We have never needed the European Union for worker and consumer rights.
Justin Madders
I am sure that those were the glory years—the right hon. Member’s favourite period of time. This is about protecting the rights that we have, and this Bill allows those rights to fall by default if no action is taken. That is why we are so concerned about the Bill.
Stella Creasy
I think everybody agrees that, as we have left the European Union, we need to look at the foundation of the laws that we have in this country. One challenge of this legislation is that, because we do not know precisely what laws are covered, we do not know the laws that we need to look at. Does my hon. Friend agree that people are concerned not because the law says “Europe” on it, but because it is about things such as maternity rights and employment rights? [Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. She needs to talk to her colleagues who, when we have asked about these explicit regulations and whether they are going to retain, replace or revoke them, have said that they do not know. They do know on other legislation. Does he agree that, if Ministers have made up their minds on some things but not others, they should be honest with the British public that they are asking us to give them the power to make that decision and take it away from this place? That is not taking back control.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for that intervention. That is exactly the problem here. If Ministers decide to remove laws, there will be no opportunity for us to challenge it, which is why we are concerned. The Minister told us in Committee that the sunset date was chosen because it is the quickest and most efficient way to enact retained EU law without taking up additional parliamentary time—so the Government are doing us all a favour by giving us less work to do.
In this context I refer to the written evidence of the Bar Council, which raised the alarm when it said:
“The setting of an arbitrary, and in all the circumstances, impractical sunset date, with the consequent and entirely unnecessary risk of the disappearance of rules of critical importance to businesses, consumers, employees and the environment (some of which, due to their sheer numbers, may only be missed once lost) without adequate consideration or any consultation, and conferring an entirely unfettered and unscrutinised discretion to Ministers to disapply or delay the sunset provision or not; as well as the attendant risk of rushed replacement legislation”.
That sums up exactly why we should be voting against the Bill.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
When it comes to workers’ rights or environmental protections, does the shadow Minister suspect, as I do, that this is a Government determined to throw people’s rights on to the Brexit bonfire? If this is the future of the United Kingdom, is it any wonder that more and more people in the north of Ireland are looking forward to being part of a progressive new and united Ireland?
Justin Madders
That probably takes us slightly away from the thrust of the Bill. But what is this Government’s record on employment rights? They doubled the time to be able to qualify to claim unfair dismissal, taking millions of people out of being able to claim that right. They slashed the consultation periods for people on redundancy. They introduced employment tribunal fees. Their record on employment protection is not a good one. There is a whole back catalogue of Ministers and Cabinet Ministers saying why they want to get rid of these burdensome employment rights. We are right to be worried about where this is all heading.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Member is being generous and making a powerful case. Does he share my concern that, for all the rhetoric and green wash coming from the Government when they say that this is about keeping high standards, that is completely undermined by a clear clause in the Bill that states that, while Members can replace laws with alternative provisions, those cannot “increase the regulatory burden”. That is clear—it is in black and white. The Bill is an absolute ideological attack on safety and on environmental standards—on the things that keep us safe and our planet safe as well.
Justin Madders
The hon. Member is right. I shall come back to that in a little while.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In essence, when we took back control through the referendum decision in 2016, it was not to a particular party or even to a particular Government: it was to the British people and their sovereign Parliament. I find it inconceivable and rather disappointing that the hon. Gentleman does not have the confidence that this Parliament will do the right thing in a range of legislative areas.
Justin Madders
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what the Bill does. It hands the power to Ministers, not to Parliament—that is why we are so concerned about it. Taking back control was about this Parliament, not giving power to Ministers.
I turn back to the Bar Council’s clear warnings. It is not some sort of anarchist organisation, it is not part of an anti-growth coalition—it is the Bar Council, for goodness’ sake. Anyone who is concerned about parliamentary scrutiny and accountability and who wants to make this country work should listen carefully to what the Bar Council says and its warnings about why the Bill is inappropriate.
The sunset clause is interrelated with the question of Ministers’ powers and the ability of Parliament to effectively scrutinise changes. I do not want to be faced later this year with having to make a choice between a reduction in the number of days’ paid holiday that people are entitled to and their having no rights at all—and that is a choice that this Bill could force upon us, if we are pushed up to the precipice due to timescale.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Following the Bar Council’s recommendations and concerns about protections, I put on record that I have been contacted by a large number of constituents who are concerned about the protection of their rights as workers, which they fought hard for, and their rights as consumers. Furthermore, they want hon. Members, particularly the Minister, to know that they are concerned that no scrutiny will take place on this. Does my hon. Friend agree that, based on this Government’s record, there is no way they will maintain the high standards that our constituents expect or ensure that this Bill adequately represents our constituents?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend articulates well why her constituents and indeed many people across all sectors of society are concerned about the impact of the Bill. It is not about Parliament taking back control. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has said that the
“abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy”.
As the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is here, I will quote his response, when he was Leader of the House, to the Committee’s report on the frequent use of skeleton Bills. He said that it did not necessarily provide
“a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward.”,
and that he would be encouraging Secretaries of State
“to minimise the use of delegated powers where possible.”
For once, I agree with him; I am sorry he does not agree with himself any more.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The shadow Minister has implied that the whole country is very concerned about what is going to happen to the current bulk of EU retained law, but he would have heard the Minister saying that all those laws that come under DEFRA—as he knows, that is probably three quarters of the total EU retained law—will be either retained or improved. Now that the Environment Act 2021 brings them under the remit of the Office for Environmental Protection, the watchdog that is there to make sure that they are enhanced, surely he will accept that that gives huge numbers of people and organisations, particularly in the environmental sector, a lot of reassurance.
Justin Madders
I think we would be reassured if that was what the Bill did, but the Bill does not give Ministers the power to improve the situation: specifically, as we have heard, it prevents burdens from being increased so—
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that, over the 47 years of our membership, we evolved thousands of rules with the EU, that the choice for Ministers in DEFRA and elsewhere will be whether to assimilate, revoke or amend those rules, and that, if they do not have time to go through them all, the rules will simply fall out of bed? The real risk is that employment, environmental and other rights will simply—perhaps accidentally—disappear. Does he therefore agree that this sunset clause is completely ridiculous?
Justin Madders
That is a very good point. If the Government cannot even tell us how many rules are covered by this Bill, how can we be confident that things will not be missed? The 2023 date is a deadline in search of a headline; it is not a serious proposition or the action of a responsible Government, and it should be rejected.
The cliff edge is even more absurd when we consider that the Government do not know what rules will be covered by this Bill. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) in his place; when he was on the Front Bench, he told us, in answer to a written question:
“The dashboard presents an authoritative, not comprehensive, catalogue of REUL.”
He told us in response to a written question on 21 October:
“we anticipate over 100 additional pieces of legislation will be added to the REUL dashboard”.
As we know now, that 100 is probably more like 1,400, so we cannot accuse him of over-promising and under-delivering. He also told us:
“Government officials are currently working to quality assure this data and any amendments to the data will be reflected in an update of the dashboard this Autumn.”
It is 2023 now and, as of midday today, that dashboard had not been updated at all since this Bill was first presented, so it is certainly not comprehensive or authoritative—it is actually not very helpful either. That is undoubtedly not a sound basis on which to be legislating.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am sure many of us have received emails from constituents concerned about this process, or rather the lack of process. Thousands of pieces of legislation need to be reviewed and amended. I am sure our constituents would agree that it seems very undemocratic of the Government not to bring that legislation to the Chamber to be scrutinised, as legislation is processed in this place.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right that we must answer to our constituents about what is going to happen with these rules. That is why we have tabled our amendments.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
There is a huge point of principle here, but there are also issues around pragmatic logistics. I can understand some of the frustrations of Conservative Members about delays in implementation since the referendum, but I must remind them that they have been in Government. Privately, I know of no civil servant who has any confidence that the deadline will be met. We now face a strike by 100,000 civil servants. Even the FDA has gone for strike action. The world may have changed since this legislation was first prepared. May I suggest to my Front-Bench colleagues that we assure the Government that there will be an open door for discussion throughout this process when they want to talk about extending the deadline to ensure proper scrutiny of this legislation? I fear that the parliamentary process will break down, poor decisions will be made and we will overburden an administration that already has enough on its plate.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The deadline was pretty risky to start with, but it now looks completely foolish. That is why we will be moving an amendment later to make sure the deadline is put back three years, to give us confidence that things will be done properly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Justin Madders
If you do not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not going to take any more interventions for a while, because I appreciate a lot of people wish to speak.
Just for a minute, I ask hon. Members to imagine they are a business trying to plan for the next year and having to navigate a dashboard that is not complete, but might be updated at some point. That business is looking at the dashboard just to understand what rules might be changed under the auspices of the Bill, never mind whether they should be changed or whether those changes will affect the business.
If the Government do not even know what the Bill covers, how can they expect anyone looking to invest to do so? That is an absurd way to proceed. No wonder groups as diverse as the TUC and the Institute of Directors oppose this Bill. We do not legislate in this place by website; we legislate by legislation, and the intention of that legislation should be clear.
There is a solution in sight to this rather unsatisfactory state of affairs, in the shape of amendment 36 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), which would at least enable us to see what laws Ministers want to revoke and allow Parliament—yes, Parliament—to express a view on whether it wishes to see those laws taken off the statute book, in the true spirit of taking back control. Crucially, the amendment would require Ministers, at least three months before the cliff edge, to set out which laws they intend to revoke.
One would hope that, by September this year, Ministers would have formed a view on which laws they wanted to keep and which they did not. It would be nice if they had done so by then—it would be even nicer if they let Parliament know, and nicer still if they afforded that courtesy to the rest of the country, so that people were able to plan.
We cannot have the Government changing the law on a whim. There must be proper accountability and scrutiny. We cannot have unaccountable Ministers changing the rules without reference to anyone else—that is not what taking back control was supposed to look like. When this Bill was first mooted and Lord Frost was still a Government Minister, he said that the policy intention behind the Bill was
“to amend, replace or repeal all retained EU law that is not right for the UK.”
I think we need something a bit more detailed than a general feeling that something is not right for the UK. This centuries-old Parliament, having taken a historic decision to wrestle back control from those unelected Brussels bureaucrats, finds itself in the ludicrous position of having another unelected person telling us that laws will be changed if they are “not right”. What that phrase gains in brevity it loses in clarity. It can mean absolutely anything, and of course—crucially for this place—it puts all the power in the hands of Ministers. Surely, as a Parliament, we can do better than that; surely we want to hold ourselves to a higher standard when we change legislation. We should not legislate on a whim, and Parliament should not hand powers to Ministers enabling them to do just that. The Regulatory Policy Committee described the Bill’s impact assessment as either “weak” or “very weak” in every aspect, so any Member who is thinking of handing over those powers should, in the light of that warning, think very carefully before doing so.
Andrew Jones
It is clearly right to have parliamentary scrutiny of these measures and those that will come as a consequence of this legislation, but why has Labour not filled its places on the European Statutory Instruments Committee? If the hon. Gentleman is so keen to see parliamentary scrutiny, why has his party not taken the opportunity that it has?
Justin Madders
I direct the hon. Gentleman to the Whips Office around the corner. He can have a word with them and see what is going on.
I do not accept the characterisation of how these laws were introduced in the first place. As we know, the vast bulk of EU subordinate legislation was adopted by the member states and the European Parliament, of course, both of which had representatives from the United Kingdom—indeed, our MEPs were democratically elected until 2020—so it is simply wrong to say that politicians, stakeholders and policymakers did not have ample opportunity to exert influence on the development of EU policy and secondary legislation.
In fact, there are many examples of where EU legislation was supported and even promoted by the UK Government of the day. One good example is the social chapter, which the Labour party’s 1997 manifesto pledged to introduce. It included rights on parental leave and working hours. Nobody can say that those rules were forced on us without our consent. Conservative Members may not have liked them—that is clear—but there was a clear democratic pathway to their introduction.
Amendment 36 is about Parliament taking back control, but new clause 2, which is on the amendment paper, goes one step further. It would require Ministers to set out their analysis of the impact of the removal of EU laws and the abolition of the application of EU principles to our laws. As our amendment 26 sets out, there needs to be some recognition that tearing up 50 years of legal development overnight might just create a little bit of uncertainty—as, of course, will revoking thousands of laws. New clause 2 would require some thought to be given to what the impact of all that might be and, crucially, would require it to be shared with everyone else.
We therefore think that it ought to be a matter of agreement among everyone who wants to see democracy prosper that the replacement regulations under the Bill should be made by Parliament after proper consultation, public debate and scrutiny, not simply by ministerial decision—or, as the case may be, by non-decision. All we are asking Ministers to do is to publish their work on how these laws will affect our constituents, which they ought to be doing anyway. Or will we have to wait until the end the year to find that some law that has slipped off the books is causing problems with, for example, the trade and co-operation agreement? Is it not better for us to know about that now? Ministers will know what the issues are, so why do they not share that knowledge with the rest of us? New clause 2 would give Parliament sufficient time to express a view on all that, putting power back into the hands of Parliament, which is what I thought all those who campaigned to leave the EU actually wanted to happen.
Likewise, new clause 3 would create a requirement for there to be genuine consultation if the powers under sections 15 and 16 are to be exercised in revoking, replacing or updating a regulation, and, again, for Parliament to be sighted on that consultation and on the Government’s assessment of the proposed changes. I hope that we are not being too revolutionary by wanting accountability and transparency for Ministers’ actions.
While we are on the regulations, why are we tying Ministers’ hands—we have already touched on this—by insisting that anything that replaces them cannot add to the regulatory burden? Why is the language of rights and protections always expressed as a burden? Of course, the whole thrust of the Bill is to reduce the number of EU regulations in our system, which in itself will reduce the regulatory burden, but when Ministers are looking to update or replace these rules, why must we insist that they do not add to the burden? What even counts as a burden? I am saddened that Conservative Members think it a burden to ensure that our workplaces are safe and that people are protected against discrimination, and to protect natural habitats.
If it was thought that reviewing the laws on maternity discrimination, for example, was actually a good opportunity to strengthen protections—possibly along the lines of the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis)— this Bill would not allow that. If my hon. Friend’s Bill navigates the private Member’s Bill lottery, it would extend the time period for protection against unfair redundancy to a six-month period after the return to work from maternity, adoption or shared parental leave. That is, by the way, something that the Government committed to in 2019, but under this Bill they would not be allowed to implement it because it would increase the burden. I am not sure how that circle will be squared, but it illustrates the point that this Bill could prevent the Government from implementing their own policies. Although most of us on the Opposition side would want that to apply to just about everything this Government introduce, when it is confined to things that might actually benefit our constituents, it is a cause for concern.
That brings us neatly to our amendment 20, which deals with workers’ rights. The regulations that it lists represent, as far as we can identify, all the major employment rights within the ambit of the Bill—rights that people enjoy every day; rights that nobody voted to squash; rights that those on the Labour Benches will do everything in our power to protect. To protect them and remove any scintilla of doubt, we need to take them outside the scope of the Bill.
I heard what the Minister said about there being no plans to remove those rights, which ought to mean that she has no problem with voting for the amendment. After all, if that is what the Government are going to do anyway, what is there to lose?
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has already said that the UK’s elected processes already had input into EU laws and protections and rights for workers. I will go one step further and say that this country actually led on a lot of those EU rights and protections for workers, so why does he not believe that this place can enhance those rights and protections, driving them forward for workers in this country?
Justin Madders
Well, a Government who have been promising an employment Bill for five years and allowed the scandal of 800 P&O workers being dismissed without any notice are not a Government who can really claim to be on the side of workers. If the hon. Gentleman is genuine about supporting workers’ rights, he will support our amendment to ensure that they are protected.
Let us look at some of those rights. The first regulations listed in amendment 20 are the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which ensure, among other things, that an employer must perform a risk assessment for all workers, and that there must also be a specific risk assessment if an employee becomes pregnant. I sincerely hope that the requirement to conduct risk assessments to ensure that people work in a safe environment is not something that the Government consider an unnecessary burden. Do we not think that everyone has a right to work in a safe environment, and that employers should take steps to ensure that?
Those regulations ensure that employees have the important right to be consulted on health and safety, and to receive paid time off to carry out health and safety training and other duties. They also have the right to protection from discrimination or victimisation for carrying out health and safety duties. It is just as important as the requirement for a safe working environment that those who put themselves forward as health and safety representatives can do so without fear of reprisal.
In Committee, the Minister talked about modernising health and safety law, which is not, of course, the same as promising to keep those laws. The term “modernising” can mean any number of things—it certainly does not always mean that a law will be improved or a right increased. As we know, the Bill specifically prevents an increase in the regulatory burden. I know that health and safety is often characterised by Conservative Members as a burden. I do not think that; I think it is absolutely essential. If Members agree with me on that, they should vote with us on amendment 20.
On the part-time employee regulations that are included in the amendment, more than twice as many women than men are in part-time employment. Why would we want to open the door to greater discrimination against women by getting rid of protections for part-time workers?
The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 protect women who might be pregnant or taking maternity leave from workplace discrimination, ensure that they have the right to return to the same job once they return from maternity leave, and, of course, make it unfair to sack someone because they are pregnant. Surely Conservative Members want to ensure that those regulations are protected under the Bill?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Member is suggesting that this Government want to get rid of a huge number of workers’ rights. The Minister wrote to all Members this morning making it clear that the Government have no intention of abandoning workers’ rights. Is he suggesting that this Minister is not true to her word?
Justin Madders
If the Minister is true to her word, she will vote with us and make sure that that is exactly what happens. I refer to the impact assessment, which recognises in three separate paragraphs that the Bill contains a threat to equality, so this is not something we are making up out of our own heads; it is something that is there and to be concerned about.
One set of protections definitely in the sights of those who see employment rights as a burden include the working time regulations, the introduction of the right to paid annual leave, limits on weekly working hours and a legal entitlement to daily and weekly rest breaks. They are some of the greatest achievements of the previous Labour Government, and for Members who are not aware, those regulations originated from concern about workers’ health and safety and the risks associated with working excessively long hours. I am proud that my party tackled that. Do we want to turn the clock back to when people worked 70 or 80 hours a week? We know that some on the Government Benches think there is no moral right to annual leave, but on these Benches we could not disagree more. Also included in our amendment are the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
Mike Amesbury
I am after my hon. Friend’s help on this: was it a figment of my imagination, or did those on the Government Benches drive through a piece of legislation that curtailed the fundamental freedom and right to strike in the past few days? I just seek his help on that.
Justin Madders
Yes, I think that Bill also gives employers the power to sack striking nurses, teachers and doctors. Those are not the actions of a Government who want to protect employment rights.
The amendment includes the 2006 TUPE regulations, which ensure that when one business buys another, there is reasonable certainty about which workers transfer to that new business, so that the purchaser knows which employees it is getting and, critically, workers know that they cannot be dismissed or have their terms and conditions slashed just because they are working for a new employer. Let us make it crystal clear that TUPE will stay. That would ensure protection and certainty for employees, but also certainty for employers. How on earth would someone thinking of buying a business in 2023 know whether to proceed with the purchase if they did not know whether they were obliged to take on the workforce with it? We have a stable, settled, well understood framework of law that helps businesses to operate. Why put that in jeopardy, particularly if, as is claimed, Ministers have no intention of removing it?
To make a general point on employment rights, they are not a burden. They are an essential ingredient of a civilised society. If we want our citizens to play an active role in the country moving forward and in future economic growth, our citizens have to be rewarded fairly and treated fairly. Security and respect at work are the cornerstone of any success we will have as a nation. A secure and happy workforce is a productive workforce. Giving people dignity, certainty and fairness in the workplace is not a burden on businesses; it is what good businesses do, and what good businesses will see the fruits of, if they are allowed to operate on a level playing field.
My constituents will be considerably poorer over the next few years as a result of the economic decisions made by this Government. I do not want them to be poorer in terms of rights, as well. Employment rights ensure that people can participate in the labour market without facing unfair discrimination. They give vulnerable workers more job security and stability of income. They help to encourage a committed workforce and the retention of skilled workers. They are not just about individual dignity and respect in the workplace; they also have social and economic value and are an essential component of a healthy, stable and progressive country.
We need a country where people have the security of knowing that if they do a good job and their employer runs its business well, they will be rewarded properly and be able to stay in work. What we have instead is a culture of disposable commodities and fire and rehire, where loyalty counts for nothing. It is time to draw a line in the sand and say, “No further.” Let us not allow this Bill to open up another line of attack on working people. Let us close it off now once and for all and support amendment 19.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Take out your mental editing pens, ladies and gentlemen, because you are going to have to start cutting your speeches in a big way. We have heard two very lengthy opening statements and a number of lengthy interventions. There are some 30 Members still wishing to take part and the wind-up speeches will start at 5.30 pm. I am going to call the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee and the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson, upon both of whom I would urge brevity, after which I shall impose a six-minute time limit on speeches, which may drop further under Mr Evans later on. I call the Chairman of the Select Committee.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Having endured the last 40 minutes, I am bound to say, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, that although I will be relatively brief there are important matters that need to be discussed. I will raise them and give the House the opportunity to reflect on what I have to say.
This Bill was passed by this House without amendment. There were no amendments on Second Reading or in the Public Bill Committee. I have been Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for many years, and I have been on this Committee since 1985. I draw the attention of the House to the European Scrutiny Committee report tagged to this debate, published on 21 July last year. As the Minister said, EU retained law was never intended to remain part of our domestic statute book. I am deeply grateful to the Government for today’s round robin letter to all Members and to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for his work on the genesis of this Bill.
We left the European Union with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 guaranteeing UK sovereignty and democracy, and therefore UK democracy itself. It was the culmination of a process that began with my sovereignty amendment to the Single European Act in 1986, which, at that time, I was not even allowed to debate. In turn, that was followed by the Maastricht treaty and a whole series of treaties, enactments and debates on the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties.
Incidentally, on the question of maternity pay—the only interesting thing mentioned by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—the UK actually has 52 weeks of maternity pay, while the EU has merely eight. On holiday pay, we have six weeks; the EU has four.
The views of the British people, as expressed ultimately in the 2016 referendum, repudiated the idea of our remaining in the EU by democratic vote, and the general election that endorsed that decision, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) as Prime Minister, gave the present Conservative Government a large majority. The democracy that we enjoy is based on our unique and universally envied constitutional arrangements, whereby laws are passed in this House by a simple majority of MPs representing individual constituencies, who derive their authority exclusively from those who voted them into the House of Commons.
Sir John Hayes
This is the essence of the misunder-standing of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The relationship between the Executive and the legislature is such that the Government receive a mandate from the people, but Ministers are answerable to this House. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped that constitutional fundamental.
Sir William Cash
I am grateful for that intervention, because nothing could have been more obvious than the fact that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and indeed many Opposition Members, simply do not have a clue about how the operations of the European Union function. I will deal with them in a minute, as the hon. Gentleman will find out—I would be interested if he would like to intervene and repudiate what I am about to say.
The Lords themselves—unelected, of course—are subject to the Parliament Acts, which may well prove necessary in relation to this Bill. This is therefore an issue of democracy.
I have watched and participated in the evolution of change in relation to European matters both in this House and outside, in referendum campaigns and the like, for the best part of 38 years. It is essential for those who are not so well acquainted with the manner in which EU law is made, which became more objectionable as the competencies in each of the treaties expanded, to appreciate just how undemocratic and unaccountable the EU system unequivocally is. I have to say that my own party is responsible for many of the problems that were created, but I am delighted to say that the democratic decisions of the British people have now demonstrated the need for this Bill, along with the fact that we have left the European Union.
The democratic deficit is one of the most important reasons—if not the most important reason—why we had to leave and why the Northern Ireland protocol arrangements and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill are in need of immediate resolution. That Bill, which has passed all its stages in this House, is now becalmed like the Mary Celeste in the House of Lords, with nobody on board, pending agreement from the European Union to change its mandate and resolve this outrageous democratic deficit immediately.
As Con O’Neill, who negotiated our entry into the European Union, admitted in his 1983 report to Lord Hume—by then, far too late—the Government simply did not understand the undemocratic system that was and remains employed by the European Union. Many people, as is quite obvious from what we have heard in the past 40 minutes, do not have the foggiest idea what that means in practice and the way in which the European Union actually functions.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir William Cash
No. In a nutshell, every single law that goes to the Council of Ministers, which is the ultimate law-making body, does so by a majority vote of the 27 member stated behind closed doors, without even so much as a transcript and in total secrecy. Indeed, I had an exchange with the noble Lord Clarke of Nottingham on this matter when he was still in this House in 2017. He made it abundantly clear in his response to an intervention that the real legislative power of the Council of Ministers was exercised in private, going on to say,
“I used to find that the best business at the European Council was usually done over lunch”,—[Official Report, 14 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 215.]
which is fundamentally different from the way in which we have legislated since we left the EU and in this actual debate today. By contrast, we are conducting business today, and taking democratic decisions, by a majority of this House, which is proof in itself that it works.
In practice, in the context of the sunset arrangements in this Bill, clauses 12 to 16 provide delegated powers to restate, revoke and/or replace and update certain retained EU laws, which are secondary retained EU law and a new category of “secondary assimilated law”. Many of these powers are subject to the negative procedure, but the affirmative procedure is required where primary legislation is being amended or substantive policy change implemented. Some primary legislation is in the Bill. Where the negative procedure applies, the scrutiny system is similar to the work done by the European Statutory Instruments Committee, and it will be for the House to decide how that evolves in line with the democratic decision taken by this House today.
When the original proposals for the first withdrawal agreement Act were brought into effect, at my suggestion—I introduced a Bill on the subject—all EU law was then deemed to be UK law. But then remainers got to work and came up with the concept of retained EU law, which asserted the supremacy of the principles of EU law and decisions by the European Court. We may have left the EU, but a massive ball and chain was embedded in that Act preventing us from making our own sovereign laws on our own terms. I add, by way of parenthesis, that the Prime Minister responsible for that Act resigned—thanks to the Spartans.
Those laws had been made under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. It is certainly true to say that since that date, not one single European law was ever repudiated by this House, because the provisions of that 1972 Act prevented it. We were therefore subjugated to the European Union and decisions of the European Court of Justice by our own irresponsible, voluntary abdication of the inherent and democratic procedures that evolved in this House over the best part of 400 years.
Our entry into the EU in 1972 was therefore a blind step into the void of an undemocratic and unaccountable system of government. These thousands of laws lack inherent democratic legitimacy, and must therefore be removed from and/or replaced on our statute book. The Bill also allows us to move back to the certainty implicit in the UK common-law way of doing things, as compared with the purposive interpretation of law by our judges, as laid down by the principles of EU law. Nobody can dispute that.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been told many times that when we are on Report, we should not make general speeches but refer to amendments. Can you make a judgment on whether what is being said is appropriate?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I have already exercised that judgment. If I thought that the hon. Gentleman was out of order, I would have ruled him out of order.
Sir William Cash
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. So much for that.
Our system has relied uniquely on a large bench of high-quality, independent judges, who address points that are brought before them when people or businesses apply to the courts for remedies for perceived damage or misconduct. Through our traditional decision-making process, which must be interpreted in accordance with what is precisely set out in our sovereign Parliament, the judges must develop what is generally regarded as a fair and equitable system of redress, and set standards of care and determine consequences of breach in matters of responsibility and duty.
We therefore have to strip away vast amounts of inherited EU law, which operates on the constitutional code-based model that is alien to our system, so that we once again have a single common law system in our country—provided, of course, that we have the right people doing it, such as the Brexit opportunities unit, and that the task can be performed smoothly. In addition, economic research shows that this step will considerably enhance the UK growth rate, not by lowering standards but by removing or replacing voluminous, poorly drafted, generalised, purposive EU texts.
If we miss this opportunity, we will have shirked the core and inevitable consequence of the democratic decision that was taken by the people of this country. We must make our own sovereign democratic laws on our own terms, although on occasion, we may well decide to complement laws made in the US, parts of the EU or parts of the Commonwealth. Exchange across different constitutional arrangements sometimes leads to improved ways of doing things and improved laws, which is a good thing.
Ultimately, however, the simple test is what this House decides as the democratic law-making system under which we are governed; what the judges determine in the best tradition of our constitutional arrangements, which have been built up over many centuries; and how they interpret those laws in line with what our sovereign Parliament has decided. The work of the Brexit opportunities unit and of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, to whom I pay tribute, as well as the work of my Committee, is absolutely enormous.
The principle of the Bill was agreed on Second Reading and, as I said, in the Public Bill Committee. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Government for listening to the strong advice that I and others have offered. The Bill not only is justified democratically but, as enacted, will continue to be so. The freedoms that it will provide, in creating new opportunities for legislation, competitiveness and innovation, are self-explanatory.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Bluntly, we do not agree on much, but I do not doubt his enthusiasm for the subject. If what he is on comes in powder form, I would be grateful if he could slip me over some wraps—I think I am missing out on quite a journey.
Much as we disagree with the substance and content of the Bill, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who did much of the heavy lifting throughout its earlier stages and who, for his troubles, was rewarded by metamorphosing into our Chief Whip so he cannot be here today. I am pleased to carry on his work. The fact that he has maintained his sunny disposition and sanity during the process is testament to his fortitude, because when I read the earlier proceedings, I could not help thinking that they were some sort of satirical effort written by Armando Iannucci, Ian Hislop, Paul Foot or—to go back a bit further—Jonathan Swift or Lewis Carroll; I very much enjoyed “Nusrat in Wonderland” during the Minister’s opening speech.
I will focus on our amendments 29, 30, 31 and 33. We will press amendment 28 to a vote, because we believe that it is worth checking the mood of House. I will come on to the detail of that in due course.
I will speak about our philosophy and approach to the Bill, and about its import. I have never been more conscious of the difference in world view between Government Members and my party and country. We did not see the EU as a prison to leave or as undemocratic. EU laws were passed in conjunction with the democratically elected UK Government and democratically elected MEPs in the Council. The hon. Member for Stone talked about the codified basis of EU legislation, and he is right about that in codified jurisdictions, but to enter into the domestic legal framework of these islands, it had to be dealt with via statutory instrument. I really do not think, therefore, that the starting point of the Bill is correct.
I will give our bona fides. SNP Members deeply regret leaving the EU, as does my country, which voted against it. We in Scotland were taken out against our democratic will, so although the hon. Gentleman talks about a democratic deficit, Government Members should worry far more about the democratic deficit in the UK than the one in the EU. I see their smirks, as ever, but it is not just us that they are denigrating—it is the people of Scotland. In the last opinion poll, 72% of the people of Scotland wanted to go back into the European Union. We hear that Brexit has been such a success, but in 2016, the UK economy was 90% the size of the German economy and it is now 70%. If anybody would like to prove me wrong about that, they can try. These are facts.
I accept the democratic mandate that some hon. Members talk about, but in terms of where we are coming from with the Bill, I hope that Government Members respect our pro-EU sentiment, because it is deeply felt. To be clear, this is a matter of deep sadness and anger for us, but I am not interested in fighting old battles. I am interested in fighting future ones, however, and we will have plenty of those.
I say to Government Members: “If you will do this damn silly thing, don’t do it in this damn silly way.” I do not agree with the premise or the intent of this legislation, but it is the content that will quickly come back to haunt the Government, in exactly the same way that many other mistakes that were harrumphed to the rafters in this House came back to haunt the Government who tried to deny that they had anything to do with them.
Robin Millar
The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting and thoughtful points. How, then, did leaving the European Medicines Agency come back to haunt the country, given that we were free to invest in and create a vaccine that has benefited others because we were not part of it?
Alyn Smith
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that often-quoted canard. As a starter, the European Medicines Agency had 700 jobs in London, which were lost. There was also absolutely nothing in the UK’s response to covid that membership or otherwise of it hindered; it is important to get that point across. It is perfectly legitimate to have wanted to leave the EU or the European Medicines Agency, but let us not claim that successes were predicated on things that they were not.
What I find so objectionable about the Bill is that it is unnecessary. I am really not interested in fighting old battles, but the people who voted leave and wanted to take back control of our laws and so on won—it happened, so get over it! They are not so much bad losers as bad winners. Every single law, regulation or standard, however it was derived through the EU channels over the long history of the UK’s involvement in it, is subject to this House and this Government—right now. Any legislative instrument that the UK Government want to amend, repeal or bin is open to that authority in the House right now, so there is a deeply ideological mistake in the Bill that, even at this stage, I urge hon. Members to think hard about.
The fact that we do not know how many legislative instruments will be affected by the scope of this Bill should give a sensible, rational Government pause. I do not dispute the idea that a greater complementarity of the domestic statute book is desirable: I am in favour of the codification of all UK and Scots law. If the UK had a unified Gesetzbuch the way the German Government have, we would have a far more logical legislative framework, but we do not need to set arbitrary deadlines that are going to come back to haunt our own officials and Ministers for the artificial black hole that will open up over various Whitehall Departments. That will not give any legislative certainty. It will give the opposite: there will be a chill effect over deeply held rights.
For those who want to take back control, I do not dispute the logic of the idea. If there is a particular legacy piece of EU legislation that is not fit for purpose, it is open to the Government to get rid of it through the normal legislative process, but this Bill is not the normal legislative process. We have heard much about parliamentary scrutiny, but this Bill is a huge blank cheque for here today, gone tomorrow Ministers who have demonstrated throughout the Brexit process a lack of foresight and competence. That is not a sensible thing to do. I appreciate that there is a degree of scrutiny over subordinate legislation, but it is nowhere near as good as the scrutiny of this House, which is why we will support amendment 38, which would make it clear that this House, and not here today, gone tomorrow Ministers, should be in charge of that process.
The idea is that the abolition of laws will lead to some sort of dynamism and freedom, but it will not. It will lead to legislative black holes into which bad actors will expand very quickly. The idea that the UK Government are properly set up to take due account of that, when they cannot even tell us how many instruments are under consideration, should be of concern.
So I do not like this Bill, and I really fear that the Government are making problems for themselves, because this legislation is neither rational, proportionate nor pragmatic. The idea that particular domestic provisions—they are all domestic provisions now; they have all been incorporated into domestic UK law—should, because of their origin rather than their content, somehow lapse is an utterly flawed premise.
Sir William Cash
I jib very strongly at the suggestion of avoiding the procedures whereby these laws were made. It is not just a question of their origin, because it is the EU and some people do not like it very much. It is rather because of the manner in which the procedures operate.
Alyn Smith
That is a point on which we flatly disagree. These legislative instruments were for over 40 or 50 years accepted by the UK Government in this House and latterly in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and others. They were also incorporated by the hon. Gentleman’s Government into domestic law in order to provide ongoing continuity in legal sentencing. So where there are pieces of legislation that are not fit for purpose—or are somehow holding the country back from this brave new world we are all excited about—then get rid of them, but do not say that vast swathes of legislative instruments on our statute book should just somehow stop without any thought about their replacement or anything else; that is not a sensible way to go.
These are significant points. I accept there has been some hyperbole in describing what is at risk, but what is at risk is fundamental to how the citizens of our countries lead their lives: labour rights; rights to clean air and water; product safety; consumer protection; food quality; protection for women in the workplace; protection of biodiversity; trading standards; and health and safety. I could go on—there is a lot more, and colleagues will come on to that—but there are deeply held principles that our party cherished which under this Bill will be subject to a reversal process which we reject.
Turning to what we are looking to do and focus upon, we will support amendment 36 and also the Labour amendments on workers’ rights and other matters; we need a united front on this. Our focus, however, given that we are the SNP, is Scotland’s democracy. The Minister made a number of points about the increased power for the Scottish Parliament, and there are some powers, but if we are being fully intellectually robust about that process we also need to look at the interaction with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the fact that just yesterday a section 35 order was made by this Government. That is implicit in the devolution settlement; that makes clear that the reality of devolution is that anything done by the Scotland Parliament can be called in by the UK Ministers. I do not like that, but it is the reality of devolution, but the UK Internal Market Act makes clear that any future law of any Scottish emanation of government could be subject to calling in on political grounds in order to maintain the coherence of the UK internal market. That means every single power of the Scottish Parliament and every local authority, health service, university and all the rest is subject to a gainsaying that upends the fundamental principle of devolution.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on the fact of those powers being called in by a Minister, not this House?
Alyn Smith
I agree with that point, but that is the reality of devolution, which is why we think devolution is not suitable for Scotland’s ambitions and wants.
The Act in question was passed by Labour Members, SNP Members, Greens, Liberal Democrats and three Conservative Members, yet it has been called in by the Secretary of State for Scotland. We will fight that; we think it is a bad decision and we will take it right the way through the courts. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 makes it clear, however, that any future decision of any Scottish body is subject to it. The Bill makes it clear that the past is not safe either; existing bits of the domestic statute book are open to reversal as well, and some will fall off the statute book entirely. The Minister says she is keen for more powers for the Scottish Parliament, so I hope she will accept our amendment 28, which we will put to the vote, which makes that explicit. There are opportunities to tidy up EU elements of domestic statute. I fully accept that and I accept it needs to be done, but it is not done by setting fire to the house because we do not like the curtains in the downstairs privy, which is what this Bill does. It is, flatly, a damned silly thing.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a commonality of approach and of concerns, which he has voiced, between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? My hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and I, and indeed Plaid Cymru Members, have tabled similar amendments—amendments 37 and 38, which I am glad the hon. Gentleman is pressing to a vote. Does he recognise that the capacity of our local civil service is constrained, particularly in relation to the “end of ’23” deadline? In Northern Ireland, which does not have a functioning Assembly, we have a particular challenge as none of this might drop off the statute book and no one is in political charge to take control of the situation.
Alyn Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The UK constitutional arrangements in London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were all predicated upon the maintenance of the single market, the customs union and the EU; that was the balance of devolved competences that was struck. All this was upended by Brexit and the actions of the UK Government since. So there is deep consequence for the devolved settlements in all the home nations, and indeed the Brexit process, from this Bill.
If we are serious about protecting devolution—frankly, in light of yesterday’s decision, I do not accept that the UK Government are—we have put forward, as have others, ways to do so. But I do not think the Bill is fit for purpose. I disagree with its purpose; I think it was borne of spite and hubris rather than any pragmatic, rational process. I think it will cause problems for the UK Government—I say that with no pleasure—and in so doing will undermine the devolution settlement and cause grave disquiet to millions of our businesses and citizens.
I say to the Government that if they are going to do this damned silly thing, do not do it in this damned silly way.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I rise to speak primarily about new clause 1, but I will touch on other amendments.
This Bill delivers on the promise of Brexit, but also the practicalities of what that means for this country. The truth is that when people voted for Brexit across the country in large majority, especially at the last election, they wanted—to use a phrase that has been referred to a lot today—to take back control. There is no greater taking back control than having politicians and MPs in this place, and the Government that the people have elected, being able to decide our laws and make sure they are being implemented.
There has been a lot of talk about the idea that this is somehow a burden and a bonfire of rights. Actually, what we have seen in the Conservative party and the Government—I saw it myself last year—is an absolute passion to ensure that workers’ rights are at the heart of what we do. In my own work as a Back-Bench MP in the last year, I brought in a private Member’s Bill so that workers could keep their tips, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) is taking through its stages. On workers’ rights, we have backed private Members’ Bills on extending maternity rights and carer’s leave. We are doing that in lots of ways not because we are being forced to or because the EU has told us to but because we believe that that is the right thing to do. I fully back that.
The truth is that the Bill is about ensuring that, when voters elect us to this place, we have the ability to make changes. At the next election, they can choose to keep us or get rid of us, but, by kicking the issue down the road, which is in effect what some of the amendments are about, that will never happen. We need a deadline that is purposeful and delivers on what people voted for at the last election. We need to ensure that we are delivering in a timely fashion.
There is the idea that somehow we are putting too much work on to civil servants, that it will be too hard and that it is too much effort. Actually, we are voted in to be here to deliver and to ensure that our civil servants are delivering on the promises that we made to the British public. I have to say that civil servants do an amazing job; my experience with them has been fantastic.
I have heard lots of misinformation and, sadly, in some cases, disinformation in the media and in emails about what the Bill will do. It is not about reducing rights or reducing environmental measures. It is actually about looking at what laws are in place and being delivered in this country for the British people.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The hon. Member and I have worked collaboratively on a number of things, including the Online Safety Bill. Given the vast swathe of legislation that has still yet to be determined, what is concerning is that there are difficulties around trust. I think in particular about the rights of workers built up over a number of years, environmental standards, and even several aspects of online safety. If, for such significant changes in existing provision, that legislation could be brought back to the House so that we could see it, that would restore confidence.
Dean Russell
I enjoyed working with the hon. Lady on the Online Safety Bill, which made huge progress yesterday and is now going to the Lords. The key point here is that there are many laws—and many pieces of what I would consider to be red tape—on the statute book, some of which even those who wanted us to stay in the EU do not know exist. We need to go through a process to identify that. The Bill is about amending, repealing or replacing that legislation. One part of that is about ensuring that case law that currently refers to pieces of EU case law and others refers to UK pieces. There is legislation that will become rapidly out of date because it refers to old EU legislation, priorities and policies. That cannot be right. We need to ensure that our legislation is fit for purpose and up to date.
Sir William Cash
On a small point that was just raised, may I mention that the Online Safety Bill is not retained EU law? There is a law in the European Union, but our Bill does not relate to that.
Dean Russell
I agree with my hon. Friend.
I am conscious of time. The bit that I really want to touch on is this legislation’s role with regard to growth and small businesses. In the different world that we live in nowadays, it is essential that our small businesses—I believe that they are about 99% of all our businesses—can be nimble. We used to talk about having a shop on every corner, and we now have businesses that can be in every corner of the world. We need to ensure that they can grow and that they are not burdened with spending most of their time doing admin and back-office stuff to fulfil legislation that is out of date and unnecessary. We need to know what that legislation is.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While most of the United Kingdom will benefit from the Bill, and my party will support the Government when it comes to the votes, Northern Ireland is being left behind due to the protocol, which the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) referred to. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while we do these things tonight, we must ensure that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill goes through so that the people of Northern Ireland have the same rights as the rest of us in United Kingdom?
Dean Russell
I thank the hon. Member—my friend—for his comments. Absolutely, we need to get that sorted, because it is essential that we move forward in the right way.
My point on small businesses is that, at the moment, they need staff to do extra things to deal with Government—admin, processes and all those different things—and if we relieved that stress and enabled them to be more nimble, they could spend more of their time selling and doing rather than filling out paperwork. That has got to be a good thing. When we look at this legislation, we must ensure that everything is fit for purpose, that there is a purpose to it and that we are being purposeful in implementing it.
There are thousands of laws on the statue book that are not essential or necessary. They are just there, and many hon. Members probably do not realise that they exist. That cannot be good for this country. It cannot be good for growth and it cannot be good in particular for small businesses and those who run those small businesses.
There is lots more that I would like to talk about, but I will finish. I absolutely support the Bill and look forward to seeing it go to the Lords. I hope that Opposition Members will see the benefits that it will bring to this country and that, when they talk about taking back control, they realise that this is at the heart of that.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Bill certainly has not improved with age; on the contrary, all of its flaws have become more exposed as the chorus of criticism on it has become louder and louder. We have heard Ministers blame misrepresentation a lot this afternoon. I think that they need to realise that they have brought this mess entirely on themselves. I wonder whether now, on reflection, they regret embarking on a process that has made opponents of so many people they did not need to anger. This morning, I listened to the chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, who was absolutely scathing about the Bill. The Government have brought that upon themselves. Whatever Ministers think it is that they are doing, this is very bad politics—not that it is for me to advise them.
The fundamental problem, as we have heard, is that the Government still do not seem to know what it is that they want to do. Here we are, six-and-a-half years after the referendum, and they cannot tell us precisely what they want to scrap, what they want to amend and what they want to save. They cannot tell us. For my sins, I read the Hansard of the Committee, and found that, despite being asked that question many times, the Minister could not or would not provide an answer. As yet, I describe this as a process without a purpose. In the meantime, as we have also heard, Ministers have created huge uncertainty for business.
It is extraordinary, and that is why I am supporting the amendments that have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). They seek to give substance to what the Government claim, which is that they have no intention of sweeping away lots of environmental and consumer protection and workers’ rights laws; they just refuse to be specific about the ones they are going to keep. The amendments would make it clear beyond doubt which pieces of EU retained law will not be affected by sunsetting.
I am also supporting the cross-party amendment—amendment 36—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) because, whatever differences of view there may be in the House about other aspects of the Bill, surely nobody would argue that it is acceptable to repeal legislation by accident. Nobody can argue for that—that a piece of retained EU law should suddenly disappear from the statute book in just over 11 months because no one noticed its existence.
The Minister argued in Committee:
“Allowing outdated retained EU laws to languish on our statute book where they do not work in the best interests of the UK”—
debate—
“is irresponsible.”––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 22 November 2022; c. 121.]
I would argue that it is irresponsible to propose this legislation, which could cause laws to disappear simply by neglect, given that Ministers cannot even produce a list of the so-called outdated laws—I simply do not understand this idea that all these bits of legislation are dragging the nation down—let alone a full and complete list of all the pieces of retained EU law that come within scope of this Bill. Because of that, the amendment my hon. Friend will be moving is necessary.
Craig Whittaker
First, I would like to put on record my support for this Bill. I fully understand the huge opportunities it presents for UK plc. I do not agree with those who believe this is a Bill to strip away rights and hard-fought-for gains in various legislation. Those who detract seem to forget that, when the UK was part of the EU, often, legislative change was led by this country to improve rights for all people in the EU, and it is because of this country’s input that many of these pieces of legislation are in place today in the EU. On that basis, there is no reason why we cannot enhance some of these laws further. This Bill will give us as a nation every opportunity to do so.
However, I would like to ask the Minister to ensure that, when changes are made, we take every opportunity to enhance laws beyond what we currently see. As well as doing that, can we ensure we have a swift mechanism so that when we do not get it right—in some instances we will not get it right—we can swiftly plug any loopholes? Today, I want to briefly highlight one sector that is being exploited not by the Europeans, but by far eastern countries as a result of us being too liberal—with good intention, I might add—from the outset after Brexit.
Currently, a member of the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys who is EU qualified but does not currently reside in the EU, cannot practise on EU trade marks in the EU, or in this country for that matter. When Brexit happened, the only criteria we adopted to represent a client here in the UK was the need to have a UK address—so the criteria are different from those under which we traditionally operated. The change, while it had every intention of making the system more open, actually has brought huge unintended consequences, with tens of thousands of additional applications clogging up the system. We see far eastern companies and others setting up a PO box in this country, which counts as having a UK address. On the face of it, that does not seem to be an issue, until of course you need to contact them, which you cannot.
Prior to Brexit, if a trade mark was breached in this country, a company would employ a trade mark attorney, who then would negotiate with the company or the attorney of the company breaching the trade mark or trying to apply for a similar trade mark. An agreement generally would be reached before having to go to court and the cost to UK business was more of an irritant than a substantial cost. Now we have a multitude of PO boxes where a company’s attorney cannot even get a reply by email from those so-called companies. That means it has to go to court on virtually every occasion. That is many times more costly for UK companies, not to mention the huge amounts of frustration and irritation that comes with the current process.
To highlight how huge this issue is, these foreign-based firms with PO boxes now account for 39% of all UK trade mark applications at the UK Intellectual Property Office, compared with just 19% prior to Brexit in 2019. If we are not careful, we will have a situation where trade mark-intensive industries, which by the way account for £770 billion of our GDP each year, may be completely undermined by what appears on paper to be a good change of legislation, but which in reality has the ability to totally undermine the sector and a huge part of our GDP.
Without taking any more of the House’s time, I would like to ask the Minister to reiterate what safeguards will be in place to ensure unintended consequences, such as those happening to the trade mark and intellectual property sector, do not happen. What can the Minister do to ensure we have a system in place where legislation can be changed quickly, as in the case of CITMA, when we totally miss the unintended consequences?
Stella Creasy
I rise to raise amendment 36, tabled in my name and in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and many other Members across the House.
As far as I can see, there have been three responses to the Bill in Parliament. First, there are those who have not paid attention because—let’s face it—many years on from the Brexit referendum still anything that involves Europe is cold cup of sick territory. That is understandable but not excusable because it means that those people have not woken up to the fact that this is nothing to do with Brexit and everything to do with an audacious ministerial power grab.
The second group are those who have read the Bill and are completely happy with the idea that the Government should just hit delete on all legislation with the word “Europe” in it, with all the confusion, chaos and complications that will cause for our constituents, because it is a price worth paying. That is not understandable, but it is excusable, because they do not see the laws at stake here—they just see the word “Europe”. There is an honesty in being so hellbent on the idea that anything we have ever shared with Europe is bad and it does not matter whether people value it—employment rights, environmental protections, consumer standards, flight safety rules. For them, if the choice is cake or death, it is death every time.
The third group of people are the people I am trying to appeal to today. They know this is not the right way to deal with retained EU law, but they hope that somebody else will step in and sort it out—the Opposition, other MPs, the Lords or perhaps even some divine intervention from the Lord himself. That is not understandable or excusable, because if the Bill goes through unamended it will stop us doing our job and it is our job to speak up for our constituents.
Today’s debate is not about how the Europeans make legislation. We have left the European Union. This debate is about exactly what taking back control meant, and about whether we will be able to speak up for our constituents on the issues that they care about. The emails in our inboxes show that they care. What was promised during the Brexit referendum campaign was not a sovereign Whitehall or taking back control in Downing Street, but that is exactly what the Bill does—and it does it in a way that is beyond parody. Personally, I think that the dashboard was created as a way to keep the then Business Secretary occupied putting random words into it. It is a farce that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, we are legislating by website.
It matters that the scope of legislation is correct, which is what amendment 36 would ensure. Let me help Ministers out here, because they do not know how many laws are missing. We have already found many, including the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010, the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 and the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006.
In other cases, the dashboard lists regulations that are no longer laws, so some poor civil servant is going through them even though they no longer exist. The Financial Services and Markets Bill seeks to revoke at least four sets of EC regulations that do not appear on the dashboard. Two of the first five statutory instruments that it seeks to revoke are not listed on the dashboard either.
It is estimated that the process will cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds, at a time when we are all being told to tighten our belts because of the Government’s mismanagement of the economy. There are 3,500 pieces of legislation involved—that is the estimate, but there could be more, and I suspect that that is why the Minister does not want to be honest with us—in comparison with the 600 that we made during the Brexit process.
The Minister says that the dashboard will be updated, but it will be updated after the point at which we are being asked to approve the process. I will withdraw my amendment if Ministers can just give us a clear number and a clear list of what is in scope. I do not understand why that is an unreasonable proposition. Frankly, Back Benchers of any political party should be worried about the precedent set by legislation that allows the Government to give themselves an enabling power without defining its limitations.
That is before we even get on to who makes the decision about what happens next. Ministers want to tell me that I am scaremongering when I raise concerns about how they will use these powers—they say, “Of course we wouldn’t get rid of these laws.” Well, let us have a look at that scaremongering. I have been tabling parliamentary questions to try to understand what will happen to rights that all our constituents care about, such as paid annual leave, bathing water quality, sharps rules in hospitals, consumer protection from unfair trading, food hygiene and toy safety legislation. Those are surely things that Ministers would want to put beyond reach, so nobody could say that they might be revoked or accidentally lost down the back of the ministerial sofa, along with the 800 sets of regulations that have no ministerial leads and are quite likely to get lost in the process.
The problem I have is that Ministers are clear that there are some regulations that they are going to revoke and some they are going to keep. So they do know what they want to do with the power that Members are going to hand them; they just do not want to be honest about it. Why do they know that they want to keep the regulations on bird flu, but not those on maternity and paternity leave? The Minister ought to talk to her colleague the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, who wrote back to me clearly saying that the Government were reviewing that.
That is the problem: Conservative Members may trust their Government colleagues to do the right thing, in the same way that they might trust a 17-year-old when they ask for the keys to a Porsche “just to polish it”, but those of us who have been here and seen Governments of different colours, and the temptation that comes with ministerial power, know that the point about taking back control was parliamentary sovereignty. That starts with knowing what we are being asked to hand over: we are being asked to hand over oversight of an unknown number of laws. That is what amendment 36 asks for clarity on.
We also have to hope that our colleagues in the other place will make it clear that we can have influence—and not just in like-it-or-lump-it statutory instrument Committees; don’t kid anybody who has sat on one that they are a good or effective version of parliamentary scrutiny—and that we can speak up for our constituents. It may feel like cold cup of sick territory when we see something with the word “Europe” in it, but with all the rights and regulations up for deletion under the Bill, I promise that our constituents will not forgive us if we do not stand up for parliamentary sovereignty and support amendment 36.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by thanking the fantastic Bill team, some of whom may be listening to our proceedings this afternoon? This was an extremely difficult piece of work to pull together. The hard work that they have put in to achieve that in a timely way shows, it has to be said, the British civil service at its best. I am sometimes quite critical of the British civil service, so it is nice to be able to put on record in Hansard my grateful thanks for the deeply impressive work that has been done.
The Bill is being enormously overinterpreted by Opposition Members, and—it has to be said, as my hon. Friend the Minister did—mainly by people who never wanted to leave the European Union anyway. I think the laws of physics are being rewritten by the opponents of Brexit, because as far as I am aware, things do not expand in black holes; that is rather the point of them. Things are sucked in, and even light is trapped by the gravity.
Ian Blackford
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand this point. Of course there is a difference: we wish to be back in the European Union as an independent country, but by dint of this Bill we are going to have to introduce legislation to make sure that we remain aligned with the European Union. We have no desire to do that, because we are already closely aligned. These measures are going to be forced on us, against our will, by this Parliament.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There will be some work for the Scottish Parliament to do to maintain the status quo. That is a policy decision for the Scottish Parliament, resulting from a decision that was taken by the whole United Kingdom. That is how devolution works, and that is a proper and fair working of devolution. That, actually, is what gives the Scottish Parliament the power to do what it wants to do. It flows from our constitutional settlement, and from the overarching decision made by the British people, as one people, to leave the European Union.
I now come to the entirely bogus point about the threat to rights. In his opening speech on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) made it clear, on the Government’s behalf, that the environmental rights would be maintained. The Government have been and are committed to that. But they will maintain them in UK law. We have been able to that before. I believe Henry Brooke was the Home Secretary who introduced the Clean Air Act 1956. The Conservative party has a pretty good record on that. It turns out that the Sale of Goods Act 1893, to which I earlier referred the Minister, was one of the last Acts of Gladstone, so the Liberals should be proud of their history of doing things in a British way rather than needing the European Union to do it. The Conservatives introduced the Holidays with Pay Act 1938—again, the protection of workers’ rights. That is before we go back to Lord Shaftesbury and the Factory Acts. We do not need to go into the mists of time to see that we can do it ourselves.
Finally, I must mention amendment 36. This is the man upon the stair. We all know about the man upon the stair:
“Yesterday, upon the stair, I met a man who wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. I wish, I wish he’d go away.”
If we do not know what our laws are, how are people supposed to obey them? If the laws are unknown, mystic and possibly imaginary, surely they should not be laws in the first place. They have made the best argument for getting rid of the man upon the stair who was not there in the first place.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I will keep my remarks to the Bill’s impact on laws that fall within the remit of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Government’s dashboard lists only 570 laws that DEFRA identified as within the scope of the Bill. That figure alone would make DEFRA the most heavily impacted Department. However, in Committee it became clear that as many as 1,000 laws may be at risk of being revoked by the Bill’s sunset clause in December.
There are not the resources in DEFRA to enable officials to examine properly each of those laws in turn in the time remaining before the sunset sweeps them away. That is forgetting all the other work on environmental land management, sewage, waste, air quality and our commitments at the nature COP in Montreal. While our nature is depleted further due to the Government’s short-sightedness, we will have a year of navel gazing and the entire Department will be clogged up with months of pointless work reviewing lists of laws that no one wants to drop.
I take umbrage with the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). There are no guarantees. The Government are not guaranteeing that a single law will be retained in UK law. They should prioritise their environmental commitments in the Environment Act 2021 and the 25-year environment plan, including the actions and policies necessary to deliver nature’s recovery by 2030, as well as the environmental targets, the statutory instrument for which will become law next Monday. Those should be the Department’s priorities.
A definitive list of environmentally important measures does not exist. One could say that the Government have played themselves. It is the same old story, but there is still time to change the ending. We know that the list is even more extensive than the comparable list of retained EU law that provides critical protections for workers’ rights and conditions. The inventory of workers’ rights legislation is shorter and more easily identifiable.
There are important differences between the three domains of rights and protections highlighted by Labour’s amendments, all of which would set us back on the right path and change the ending. The Bill is unnecessary and we need to retain all those regulations and laws as minimum standards in this country. The retained EU environmental laws covered by the Bill include major protections that we rely on for clean air, clean water and safe foods. They provide crucial safeguards for the world’s most nature-depleted nation. Those are not my words but the words of Lord Goldsmith, a Government Minister in the other place.
Under the Bill, critical environmental protections face the prospect of being revoked or replaced by weaker regulations. Those are our real, identifiable concerns. Due to the extremely limited time available to consider and draft workable replacements before the application of the sunset clause, and the lack of parliamentary oversight and public consultation, we must focus on those issues if we want the Government to change the direction of the Bill. The Government have said that they are committed to maintaining environmental protections. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset said that
“the Government is committed to maintain all the environmental protections that currently exist and met a number of the environmental lobby groups to confirm this”.
That quote was from an earlier time but I think he just repeated himself. There is no guarantee—it his just words on the record, and he is no longer a member of the Government.
Caroline Lucas
Is it not also the case that, as far as we are aware, the perception of environmental legislation held by the right hon. Member for North East Somerset tends to be very much a narrow thing about habitats, water and so forth? It does not include things like product standards, chemical regulation or efficiency standards, for example, all of which might not necessarily be dealt with by DEFRA but which absolutely affect us every day of our lives.
Alex Sobel
There is a point about REACH—the EU regulation concerning the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—which was mentioned in the Bill Committee, but I want to give other Members time to make their speeches, so I will take on the hon. Lady’s points and I am sure others will pick them up later in the debate.
Alex Sobel
As I have mentioned the right hon. Gentleman twice, I will give way to him.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful. I just want to clarify a point. It is not my word that has any significance in this; it is a Dispatch Box commitment, by which Governments tend to be bound successively. I would point out that, on legislative reform orders, this Government have tended to follow the Dispatch Box commitment given by Paul Goggins when he was a Labour Minister. Dispatch Box commitments are important.
Alex Sobel
I look forward to repeating the words of the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister on the Treasury Bench in December this year, to see if that is true. Only time will tell. Maybe my poor level of trust might be wiped away or eroded, but I doubt it.
I will conclude, to give others more time. The Bill as it stands today gives us no protections and is a charter for a bonfire of rights and protections that the public not only hold dear but need in order to breathe clean air, drink clean water and ensure that our countryside is not ravaged by destruction and extraction. That is why I am supporting our Front-Bench Members and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
Vicky Ford
I want to start by thanking the Minister for the “Dear colleague” letter that arrived last night. It went a long way to myth-busting some of the misinformation that has been put out about this Bill, particularly by clarifying that it will not weaken environmental protections and that the Government are committed to protecting workers’ rights. However, the letter did not mention consumer legislation. Consumer legislation is often dealt with by many different Government Departments, and that might be part of the reason why. I particularly want to focus on consumer legislation.
I worked for many years as a British MEP representing British constituents, and I also chaired the European Parliament’s Internal Market Committee, which is responsible for consumer legislation, so I am very aware of how important much EU consumer legislation is to protecting constituents—British consumers—and this covers many areas, including food safety, product safety and safety when we travel.
But I am also aware that EU legislation is not always perfect in all regards. Yes, the UK played a key part in negotiating much EU consumer law, but that does not mean that every single element of the law perfect fits the UK market or UK consumer needs. In some cases, the UK might have wanted to introduce different or even stronger protections, but to get consensus across all the EU member states, either a one-size-fits-all or a lowest-common-denominator approach was sometimes followed. For example, I sometimes saw larger companies lobbying on specific regulations or product specifications and making them so specific that smaller competitors would find themselves locked out of the market, thus stifling competition and reducing consumer choice. So I agree with the principle of the Bill that all of Whitehall needs to look again at all EU retained law and ensure that it fits UK needs.
Furthermore, where unnecessary regulation produces additional costs, these costs are too often passed on to consumers. In today’s economic environment, so many of our constituents have such pressures on their household budgets, and we need to reduce those unnecessary costs, so I understand why clause 15 has been drafted. However, this does not mean that removing all consumer regulation is in the consumer’s interests, because a well-regulated market can benefit consumers, especially when it comes to safety measures. There might be examples where it would be sensible for the UK actually to increase safety measures and therefore increase regulations in some places.
We also need to make sure that important protections do not inadvertently drop out of our legislation during this process. It is therefore important for Ministers to ensure that equivalent or improved legislation is put in place, so that consumer interests, especially regarding safety, can still be protected. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on that in the wind-ups.
We should also recognise that there are some areas, particularly in fast-moving sectors, where new or deeper regulation is needed. The consumer organisation Which? regularly reminds us that product safety regulations do not fully cover the way in which consumers spend their lives online, and there may be an opportunity to improve that in the forthcoming digital markets, competition and consumer Bill. Product safety regulations could be updated, given that the consultation is shortly to be launched by the Office for Product Safety and Standards. We need to make sure that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill does not cut across those other initiatives.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
One of the loveliest plaudits I have had since becoming a Member of Parliament is to be named as a species champion for the brimstone butterfly. If I had longer, I would tell the House about what a beautiful butterfly it is and how it can be conserved.
This debate reminds me of my daughter’s favourite film, “The Lorax”, which I have seen many, many times. The Lorax stands and speaks for the trees. Today I am speaking not only for the trees but for nature. There are very legitimate concerns about the impact of revoking all retained EU law, and those concerns come from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Butterfly Conservation, Buglife, Plantlife, the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, the Bat Conservation Trust and the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust. These are not radical or militant groups. They are not interested in the rights and wrongs of Brexit, and many were in existence long before the UK even joined the EU. Their intervention is unprecedented. These are mainstream conservation charities that rely on their membership, which I know personally is comprised of people with completely different political beliefs who share a common desire to improve and support nature. When the RSPB calls this Bill “an attack on nature,” we have to listen.
The Government created the category of retained EU law to ensure continuity after leaving the EU, and their deadline is arbitrary. Anyone would think the Prime Minister is more concerned about the upcoming local elections and the impending general election than about doing the right thing. The Bill flies in the face of common sense. Rushing to get rid of legislation without the time or the capacity to consider properly what we might want to keep does not make sense. As has been repeatedly pointed out in this debate, the Minister is not even aware of all the legislation that we might be getting rid of. It feels as though the Government are intent on cutting their nose off to spite their face. This is childish and it is another example of the Prime Minister putting the needs of his Brexit extremists ahead of what is right for our country.
The Environment Secretary had told the Environment and Climate Change Committee that 1,000 pieces of legislation were possibly involved, but we know that that figure has doubled, and the Minister is unable to give a final figure. If we do not know how much legislation is impacted, how can we possibly consider what we want to keep? Let us look at what is at risk. The environmental protections at risk include the highly effective habitats regulations, which protect some of most threatened and rare species and their habitats from the impacts of inappropriate development and persecution; the water framework directive, which regulates water pollution prevention and drives forward quality improvements in rivers and lakes; and the plant protection products regulations, which provide protection for all the environment and human health from pesticides.
Of course, what we want is to strengthen and not destroy, but this Bill makes a nonsense of the country’s environmental targets and commitments, and the Environment Secretary knows it. The confusion in this Government is shown by the fact that, on the one hand we have the new statutory English biodiversity targets published under the Environment Act 2021, which add to the pre-existing target of having 30% of the country protected for wildlife by 2030, while on the other hand DEFRA is consumed by a scramble to redraft regulations that have taken decades of work and expert consultation to evolve, under the direction to “lessen environmental burdens”. Like the rest of government, DEFRA is pulling in two directions at the same time.
Clause 15 prevents redrafting by precluding any that would “increase the regulatory burden”, even if these burdens that we are so worried about increasing amount to only an administrative inconvenience. It is crystal clear that the only outcome can be a weakening of environmental protections for our air, soils and water, and an increase in the loss of biodiversity. I believe that the public really care about this. The membership of all those organisations, right across the whole of our country, in every constituency, care too. We are a nation of animal lovers and we want the air we breathe and the waters around us to be clean. If we do not know what we are getting rid of, how it may have an impact and what difference it might make, how can we be sure we are doing the right thing? I was always taught that if something is worth doing, it is worth doing well. So will the Government just calm down, focus and get it right? Our country will pay the price if they do not.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I will be brief. My arguments will be simple and they will go straight to amendment 36.
When the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) spoke, I had a flash of déjà vu, back to the days when I co-operated with his father, thwarting the Blairite attempts to bypass Parliament some years ago. It came back to me that his father and I also shared a view on the European Union, with both of us knowing that it was undemocratic. We knew that both from ministerial experience and because we had read out history; Monnet and Schuman had designed it to be undemocratic, which was why we wanted to leave.
I say to the Minister, given what was said before from the Front Bench, that I come at this as a convinced and campaigning Brexiteer. I remind the House, given the substance of this Bill, that I resigned from Cabinet to preserve the right to diverge from the EU. So I agree with the aims of the Bill, but I also agree with the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), about its effectiveness in delivering those aims. I voted and campaigned to improve democracy; I wanted to take back control in order to give it to Westminster, not to Whitehall. However, that is what we have here.
When the Minister was speaking earlier, she talked about the consultations, but they were not with us—they were with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Departments of State and not with us. But we are the people who are responsible for this legislation. What is more, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque—one might almost say a pig in a poke—because we do not even know how many pieces of legislation are going through on the back of this Bill, let alone what they are. That, of course, is not democratic. We have heard the anoraks talking about this SI Committee, that sifting Committee and so on. That is not the Floor of this House. These issues are sufficiently important—some of them, not all of them—to be debated in the Chamber. Just glancing down the list, I see: aviation safety; compensation rules; insider trading; protecting a pensioner’s payout when a company goes bust—I cannot think of anything more significant to our constituents than that; and preventing the trafficking of illegal weapons. These are substantive issues that need to come to us.
Stella Creasy
I hesitate to stop the right hon. Gentleman, but does he therefore agree with me that the fact that Ministers have already unilaterally decided to revoke the piece of legislation that protects our constituents getting 50% of a pension pot if their company goes bust, without any consultation with us because they will use the powers in the Bill simply to let it be deleted, makes exactly his case as to why this is not democracy or taking back control?
Mr Davis
If the hon. Lady had given me 30 seconds, I would have made exactly that point. I agree with her. This morning, or last night, we had No. 10 rushing to brief the papers and to write to us saying that the Bill will not remove existing rights and protections, which is plainly not true, and that it will not impinge on environmental rights and so on. That demonstrates what a great hole there is in the middle of this legislation. If those matters were covered in the law, we would not need to have that assurance. All of the non-governmental organisations that are concerned—I do not agree with all of them—would not have had to have their say either.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because I, too, am very much in favour of parliamentary scrutiny and things being done properly. Everything that is covered by this Bill came in by a secondary measure and therefore it is proportional. Primary legislation is not within the scope of the Bill. If anything that came out of Europe came through in primary legislation, it will have to go through consideration on the Floor of the House. Unless my right hon. Friend is against secondary legislation altogether, I do not quite understand why he finds this Bill so shocking.
Mr Davis
I am sorry, but two wrongs do not make a right. The reason why I did not like the European Union was precisely what my right hon. Friend has just described. We had things almost de facto imposed on us. We went down an SI-type route to do things that I thought were important enough to justify discussion on the Floor of the House. The depletion of debate on the Floor of the House, mostly in the years before he came into the House, was one reason I was a Brexiteer.
We have approached this issue in a different way in other respects. Let us imagine that we are talking about 4,000 pieces of law, regulations or whatever. In truth, probably 90% of that may be clunky and may not work very well, but there is one thing in the Bill that I approve of, which is dealing with the superiority of European law—taking those priorities out of it. That is sensible. Once we have dealt with that, things will broadly work and will not justify a rush at this exercise. Let me explain very briefly what I think the consequences of that will be. I said that it is not democratic, but it will also be inefficient and possibly incompetent. I give the House, as a demonstration of this, what we did on 3 March 2020. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that was the day that we gave the Government all sorts of powers under the emergency Coronavirus Act 2020. If we look, we can see how many errors were made in governing the country over the next six months, until we corrected that Act. If we do not bring a Minister to that Dispatch Box to justify what they are doing, the quality of the decision goes down, and that is dangerous when we are talking about measures as important as these.
The right approach is the one that we have actually taken in some areas. For example, we are rewriting the General Data Protection Regulation under a digital Bill. We are rewriting Solvency II and other financial measures under primary legislation, and the same is true for some procurement work. We should be doing similar things with some other software elements and biomedical rules. That is the way to do it: pick off the 10% or the 5% that really matter—that make 100% of the difference—and do that properly, on the Floor of the House, and not by remote control on a ministerial diktat in an SI Committee upstairs.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in this debate. I rise to speak to amendment 36, tabled in my name and the names of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, and to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for her hard work in drafting and tabling it.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I voted for the independence that we gained from leaving the EU, as did many of my constituents. But they and I want to see us take advantage of the flexibility to make our own law that that independence gives us. That is the point of Brexit, and I think that one of the frustrations for people around the country has been in not seeing that taken to its logical conclusion.
The Bill is an overdue but welcome part of that. It is necessary because we are looking to streamline our systems and give them precision and certainty through a full framework of UK law-making, not EU judge-led interpretation and code. We need the Bill for the flexibility and agility that it will give us in being able to promote competitiveness and law that is appropriate to our conditions in these islands, and focus on the things that are important to our constituents. We need those laws to be accountable to them. We need the Bill for practicality and pace in achieving that. We do not need the process of engaging with the review of our retained EU law to be hamstrung by the House of Lords, or for the order paperOrder Paper to be commandeered by interest groups and Opposition Members.
We need to establish this common law framework by which our law can evolve. We do not want it to be subject to enduring purposive confusion and obstruction by European Court of Justice judgments, which inevitably affect the interpretation of law that originated from EU sources. We need the Bill to focus on those things. We need it not to be confused on these matters by arguments from the other, unelected, House. As people have mentioned, there are extensive powers in the Bill to provide that there are no lacunae in our laws by virtue of the revocation and the sunset. There are powers to restate and remake our law should those lacunae appear.
Overall, the Bill is essential to send a clear message to the government machine that it needs to apply itself now and finish the work that it has started. I am confident that it can and will do that. The civil servants whom I have seen working on these things are extremely dedicated and absolutely able to achieve that. After we pass the Bill, we need Ministers in every Department to step up and lead. They absolutely can do that, and they can do it well—there is time, but it will require a coherent process. They need to be focused on triage and prioritisation, with assistance from, at the centre, the Brexit opportunities group in the Cabinet Office, about which we have heard. That group can commission outside counsel to help with that process, to drill down into the most important things to achieve and to achieve them efficiently, and to set up common law frameworks for the evolution, clarification and elaboration of our principles in common law on all these matters.
It is also very important that that process involves practitioners from industry. Sometimes, we listen too much to the CEOs of big companies and the heads of various industry bodies, who often are political in their outlook, rather than thinking about the practicalities of getting from A to B and coming up with proposals that would make a genuine positive difference to how our laws and regulations evolve. We need to ensure that we have those mid-level practitioners present in these discussions to ensure that the practical avenues are taken up.
In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), one thing that Ministers might like to think about is whether, in these things wherechoosing to bring to the Floor of the House those matters that we can make a big practical difference, they might choose to bring those matters to the Floor of the House on, so that we can examine them more, help to champion them and celebrate what we are doing. That might be a thing something that we could all agree on. I am confident that if we pass thisthe Bill unamended, we can together bring more precision and clarity to how our law evolves. The Bill will be of tremendous advantage to all the United Kingdom.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 18, 19, 21, 24 and 36. What is clear from the Government is that this Bill is ideologically driven, lacks common sense, avoids parliamentary scrutiny and puts rights and protections that we have had for many years at risk of being revoked and deleted. In short, thisthe Bill plays Russian roulette with our rights and protections, and the Government cannot even tell us how many or give us an exhaustive list of which ones. When the Government unite groups ranging from the RSPB to the Law Society in opposition to the Bill, they should take note. This Bill creates uncertainty and is careering at great speed towards the edge of a cliff on 31 December 2023.
If the Government want to ensure that workers’ rights and environmental protections are not lost, they will have no problem in accepting amendments 19 and 21, which would exclude those rights and protections from the 31 December sunset clause and stop them from falling off a cliff edge. The Government have adopted 31 December as the date for the sunset clause, but they have not told us why. If they cannot even provide a definitive list of all the EU retained law that will be revoked in time for that date, surely that suggests we need more time to get the list ready.
Considering the wide range and extent of the rights and protections that we know about, surely having a longer sunset clause will help the Government to give greater certainty, which we were told was one of the reasons for thisthe Bill. The Government should therefore have no problem at all in accepting amendment 18, which extends the sunset clause to 2026. It would also allow the Government greater opportunity to bring Bills for primary legislation, allowing greater scrutiny by thisthe House in replacing the retained law that they propose to delete.
The Minister has continually failed to answer the question of exactly how many retained EU laws will be revoked under the sunset clause, and I do not understand why that is a problem. Surely all the retained EU law is there before us, and we should be able to find out exactly which regulations need to be retained and which will be deleted? There is no excuse. No new EU law has come about since we left the European Union, so that retained law should be easy to find. I cannot understand why we do not know which laws will be revoked under this Bill.
Amendment 36 requires the Government to publish an exhaustive list of every piece of legislation that is to be revoked under the sunset clause. Parliament should not be asked to vote on the revocation of these laws when we are not aware of which laws or how many there are. We need to be told, because that is one of the very points of having this Bill before us.
On the Henry VIII powers that the Bill gives to Ministers, which are designed to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, what are the Government afraid of? We should have parliamentary sovereignty; we should be the ones to decide which laws we want to retain and to revoke. Primary legislation should be brought for the laws that are revoked. There is no excuse for the clause to be there. Do the Government deny that there is a need for primary legislation? There will be laws revoked for which there will need to be legislation. Which ones are they and why can they not be put into a Bill and brought before this House? That would be give the House greater scrutiny and allow us to ensure that we do not accidentally lose certain laws.
Sir John Hayes
The great constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey declared:
“The principle of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this...that Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatever”.
When we joined the EU, despite the promise at the time of Europhilic politicians like Edward Heath that it was an economic community, what happened in practice was that this place paradoxically used the very sovereignty it had inherited from generations before to give up sovereignty and surrender parliamentary authority. The promise of Brexit was a repudiation of such international law making. I know that it discomforts the globalist liberal elite that that promise will and must be delivered, but that is how it is and how it will be. The people’s will must be seen and must be seen to be done, and that is precisely what this Bill is all about.
The journey since 2016 has not been easy. The doubters and deniers—the schemers and plotters—unable to let go of their Euro-federal fantasies, have conjured every trick imaginable to try to stymie Brexit. However, this Government are clear: we will deliver on the promise made in 2016 and restore parliamentary sovereignty to this country. In doing so, we will re-empower the people to whom we are answerable.
I will pick up a couple of points made by Opposition Members. I enjoyed the rhetoric of the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), which was as elegant as ever. I particularly enjoyed his criticism of hyperbole, which was immediately followed by a hyperbolic list of all of the things that are now at risk. Do any Opposition Members really believe that the Government or Government Members want less safety for our workers, dirtier rivers and less protection of the environment? If they do, they cannot have listened to what Members on the Tory Benches have advocated and fought for, in many cases, for years.
It is an absurdity that, six years on from the referendum, we remain shackled to thousands of articles of retained EU law. I accept that whether we keep, amend or discard those articles needs to be a thorough process, but there must be a single means of delivering that process, which is precisely what this Bill is. Some claim that this is a power grab, but this process—this business of secondary legislation; this use of statutory instruments —was how these regulations found form in the first place. It is a well-established practice that Governments through time have used to deal with such matters, and will again.
That detailed practice requires a Bill of the kind that has been drafted. Without such impetus, we risk wallowing in the malaise and self-doubt that can too often infect those tasked with grand undertakings. After six years, the British people deserve a deadline by which they can know for certain that Britons will live exclusively under British law, free from the interference of foreign powers. This Bill delivers the very certainty that those who criticised it have called for today. Such self-confidence is anathema to the hon. Members who still balk at the audacity of the 17 million Britons who believed in Britain enough to vote for Brexit.
To hon. Members who have signed amendment 36, I say that it is, by definition, an attempt to dilute, delay and obfuscate. Such efforts must be resisted. There are those who remain unreconciled to the decision of the British people to leave the EU, but any device to perpetuate our legislative connection to the EU is incompatible with our national interest and the common good. The unamended Bill facilitates the removal of our EU hangover through all the necessary, democratic mechanisms.
The Bill is a decisive and unequivocal declaration of self-confidence in self-governance. At last, we have a Government who display such self-confidence, free of the doubt and guilt that has infected politicians on both sides of the House for far too long. Edmund Burke said that what matters
“is not what a lawyer tells me I may do, but what humanity, reason and justice tell me I ought to do.”
What we ought to do now is deliver what the British people missioned us to do in 2016: to ensure that the laws and regulations that affect their lives are made in this House and that their Government are free to lead that process.
I enjoyed the speech of hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), which was rather like a Russian novel—very long but with good bits—but he must know that there are any number of ways in which Ministers are accountable to the House. For example, they can be questioned orally and in writing, and they can be challenged through Opposition day debates, Standing Order No. 24 debates and urgent questions. Ministers should and will be held to account by both sides of the House in all kinds of formal and informal ways, but we could never hold to account those foreign powers that dictated our laws for far too long.
Now, we escape.
Ian Blackford
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) described the Bill as a pig in a poke. I think it is a pig in a poke that the Government have put lipstick on. We have heard about taking back control many times this afternoon, so I am at a loss to understand why Government Members would go through the Lobby in support of this Bill. In effect, a whole range of legislation will be wiped out, but they do not know what it is or what authority they are giving to the UK Government. They do not even know whether it will be 3,000, 4,000 or more pieces of legislation. It is extraordinary that a group of people who want to take back control are giving authority to the UK Government to do what they like without any scrutiny in this House—that is exactly the point of the Bill.
We have heard that we should not worry, because we will have statutory instruments and the ability to hold the Government to account, but the last time that the Government were defeated on a statutory instrument was in 1979—my goodness. Those who want to take back control talk about parliamentary sovereignty and the lack of democracy in the European Union, but all that they are doing is giving untrammelled powers to Ministers to do what they like. There is nothing that the Opposition or Government Back Benchers can do to effectively hold the Government to account. What an extraordinary set of circumstances.
SNP Members have always accepted that it is the right of others in other parts of the United Kingdom to determine their future. They want to leave the European Union, but we reject that—of course, we do not want to leave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said, according to a recent opinion poll, 72% of the public of Scotland want to stay in the European Union. We have a tale of two different Parliaments moving in different directions. It is clear that Scotland is on a journey to independence and we will rejoin the European Union as a member, hopefully soon. To do that, however, we need to remain aligned with the European Union.
This is about democracy. We have referred to the Scotland Act 1998 on many occasions, as we did yesterday in the debate on section 35, and it is worth reflecting on the difference between what happened there and what is happening today. We have a Parliament in Edinburgh that we are proud of. There was a majority in that Parliament for legislation that was passed before Christmas, yet this Government in London can bring in legislation under the Scotland Act that strikes out an Act of the Scottish Parliament and there is nothing we can do about it. In this particular case, the legislation impinges on domestic legislation and devolved legislation in Scotland. The principle was established in the Scotland Act that in order to do that the principle of consent stood—the so-called Sewel convention. That means the devolved Government in Edinburgh, and in Cardiff and in Belfast, have to give consent for matters that affect domestic legislation. Yet we are told to go and stick it—the view of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government that this is not in our interest and we do not consent to it.
We saw yesterday that a UK Government can strike down a Bill of a Scottish Parliament. Why does not the Scottish Parliament have the right to say to this Government that they are doing that without our consent? That demonstrates to the people of Scotland that devolution as it works at the moment means Westminster continues to call the shots. Westminster determines what happens in devolved legislation. It is a wake-up call to the people of Scotland in the debate we are having on independence that, if we want to secure the right to determine areas such as the economy, the environment and consumer protection, we cannot rely on the Westminster Government to protect our rights and we cannot stop a UK Government interfering in what are devolved matters. If we want to secure that protection, if we want to secure our rights, if we want to celebrate the joys we had of European membership from 1973 until now, we need to take the final steps.
Look at what has happened in this House this week: there has been the threat to the right to strike, the threat to democracy in Scotland yesterday, and the threat to the values and protections we have built over many years in the European Union. All are being swept away. This is a United Kingdom turning the clock back, moving backwards. We want to move forwards as a member of the European Union. That is why today we will push our amendments and reject this Bill.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The measures in the Bill are wholly necessary and greatly welcome. The retention of EU law after our departure from the European Union was certainly necessary in order to maintain temporary legal equilibrium and avoid gaps in the UK’s statute book. However, as time has passed, it has become increasingly anomalous for the United Kingdom to have a large body of foreign-derived legislation that is accorded supremacy over our own domestic law.
After almost half a century of EU membership, the United Kingdom has automatically absorbed a vast amount of EU legislation, which was either directly imposed or created by domestic subordinate legislation. Much of that legislation is probably obsolete. It was telling that around 1,400 items of EU law that everyone had apparently forgotten about were recently discovered in the National Archives. It seems self-evident that those pieces of legislation could not possibly have been of much practical utility if everybody had forgotten about them, but despite the fact that those items of law had been forgotten, they continue to have special status in our domestic legal system. Not only do they have supremacy over our domestic legislation, but they are interpreted in accordance with the general principles of EU law, rather than those of our own indigenous systems. They are a kind of EU cuckoo in the nest of the common law and Scots law.
It appears there are in total about 3,800 items of retained EU law, and the Government are entirely right to have decided to review them as quickly as possible and remove or assimilate them as appropriate. Furthermore, the Government are right to set out an ambitious timetable for the completion of that exercise through the sunset provisions of clause 1. Amendment 36 would hamper that process. The sunset provisions of clause 1 are of course intended to encourage and incentivise Government Departments to press on quickly with the exercise of identifying and reviewing individual items of retained EU law that affect them. Those Departments will then make a decision as to whether those items of law should be revoked, pursuant to clause 1, or assimilated into the domestic legal system, pursuant to clause 6. That is an entirely sensible process, which will ensure that those items of retained EU law that are not revoked pursuant to clause 1 become subject to the ordinary processes of the domestic legal system. That will be beneficial to businesses and citizens in that the well-understood principles of common law or Scots law, with their nimbleness and certainty, will apply to assimilated law rather than the unpredictable purposive approach of the EU legal system.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
What is it about the Conservative party and its predilection for avoiding scrutiny in the House? It tried that during the withdrawal Act process, and even to some extent during the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreement debate. Now it is at it again. Of all the concerns that I and hundreds of my constituents have about the Bill, I will focus on a single, central topic: democracy and, specifically, how this legislation directly attacks the very system underpinning our democracy in Westminster.
Some might ask, “How could a Bill that repeals laws attack our democracy?” It is simple. The Bill gives huge and sweeping powers to Ministers to wipe out laws that already exist: important laws that govern everything from our rights at work to protections for our planet. This is not a party political issue—I see that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches have put their names to amendment 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), which I will support along with those tabled by my Opposition Front-Bench colleagues.
As I stand here, I think back 250 years to a predecessor of mine, the hon. Member for Middlesex, John Wilkes, who is famous in Brentford for being the cause of the riot at the 1769 election hustings in the Butts in the centre of Brentford. It is a tree-lined square filled with elegant houses, many of which were probably standing then. John Wilkes was at first a radical journalist with a flair for words and a sharp tongue, but more importantly he fought for both the rights of parliamentarians and the rights of his electors. He stood up repeatedly for the rights of the majority of the electors in Middlesex, who sent him to Parliament as their representative. Despite Parliament repeatedly trying to exclude him, because of his locally popular but nationally unfashionable views, he was re-elected again and again, and Parliament kept trying to exclude him. Parliament won the battle to exclude him but not the war, and six years later he was again elected. In 1782, Parliament finally expunged the orders and resolutions it had passed to try to get rid of him.
Why do I speak about an election held 250 years ago, apart from grabbing for a constituency link in this debate? It relates to a simple and historical right—the right of our voters to elect Members to represent them in this House of Commons, where we vote on and scrutinise legislation. We have seen a remarkable number of changes since Wilkes’s time, and probably one of the most important is that the franchise eventually spread to all women and men. However, a constant is the right of Members of this House, not Government Ministers and their civil servants, to amend and change the law.
The laws that this Bill covers impact on our constituents every single day. We sit in this House not only to try to stop bad laws being passed, but to ensure that much-needed laws remain, such as laws that protect pregnant women from being sacked; laws that protect our planet from toxic chemicals; laws that protect vehicle occupants and other road users, and airline passengers; laws that provide regulatory certainty for business; and much more. Then there are all the laws that the Government are not currently aware of because they do not have a complete list. Yet this Bill removes this power from elected Members and passes powers directly to Ministers, and those powers turn Government Ministers into monarchs—monarchs of old—who are able to remove our laws at the stroke of a pen.
With this legislation we see a bonfire being stoked, on to which we know the Government wish to throw our hard-won rights in order to watch them burn. Tonight this House has a chance to reject this bonfire. I will be supporting amendments that protect these hard-won rights and these good laws, and will ensure that this House has the final say on those that need repealing, amending or keeping, not the petty monarchs on the Treasury Bench.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
There has been a lot of discussion about democracy this afternoon. I would just point out that 70% of my constituents voted to leave the EU, and they did not realise then that six and a half years later we would still be having to have these conversations; that we would still be subject to EU law imposed on them with no democratic right to have any discussion in place; and—horror of horrors—that people in this place would be saying it may be at least 10 years until we can revoke or assimilate these laws. We need to make sure we are delivering for our constituents.
The discussions about this are just absolutely sad and appalling, because I have to say that the only argument the Opposition seem to be making is that there is a lot to do. Well, there really is a lot to do, and we need to get on with it. That should not be a reason for us not actually doing our jobs.
We do not want to be subject to EU laws for longer than we have to be. Our systems work differently, and we want to be a sovereign UK in which we know we are moving back to our own way of working in UK law and our court system.
I have to say, very sadly, that this seems to be “Project Fear 2”. Talking about bonfires and going to the edge of a cliff is a really irresponsible way of dealing with the issue. Our electorate want us to make sure we are getting on with the job. Opposition Members talk about Ministers acting as petty kings. Ministers are elected Members of Parliament who are subject to their own electorate and to us in this place. It is very regrettable that the Opposition talk in that way. The reality is that, when I am knocking on doors, people know that if the Labour party got into government, it would want to take us back into the EU in a heartbeat. Labour Members want this process to take as long as possible because they want to rescind the work that is being done. That is the reason why the Conservatives are in Government and why we have a very strong majority.
The Ministers have worked incredibly hard and have been incredibly clear, despite the tsunami of nonsense from the Opposition, and I will be supporting the Bill wholeheartedly.
Hywel Williams
Alas, I am going to add to the tsunami of nonsense, as it was termed a moment ago.
I rise to speak to amendments 38 and 39, tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I see the Minister is back in her place. I welcome her undertaking to me earlier that the dashboard of retained EU law will be updated to identify which legislation is reserved, which is devolved and how Welsh legislation might be affected. I look forward to seeing that in short order.
It is no wonder that we are debating amendments tabled by the SNP, the Alliance party and Plaid Cymru aimed at preventing the UK Government legislating in areas of devolved competencies. The UK Government have cut the Welsh Government out of post-EU funding schemes, rendered the Sewel convention almost valueless, and yesterday made it clear beyond any doubt that the Union is not a partnership of equals, when they vetoed legislation passed with overwhelming cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament.
The protections offered by amendments 28 to 30 and 37 to 39 are vital as it becomes clearer still that our rights are not safe under Westminster. The Government seek to undermine the democratic right to strike, the democratic right to peaceful protest, and the media’s ability to report matters of public interest and importance. And now before us we have this dangerous Bill threatening the rights and protections we gained as an EU member as fuel for their Brexit bonfire.
I add Plaid Cymru’s support for amendments 19 and 20, tabled by the Opposition, which would prevent the UK Government revoking vital protections for workers. In my view, the way to protect Welsh workers’ rights for good is to devolve employment law to enable the Welsh Government to legislate on a wide range of matters, but that is not quite in scope for this debate. It is important, however, given that the UK Government seem to have given up any pretence of doing so themselves. Instead, the Welsh Government are lumbered with the consequences of this impractical, dangerous, costly and wholly ideological legislation. The Counsel General for Wales, Mick Antoniw, has warned that the Bill could lead to the Welsh Government’s own legislative programme being almost completely overwhelmed, with significant financial and resource implications. And this at a time when our focus should be on supporting households and businesses struggling with cost of living pressures.
The Bill is an unwelcome, unnecessary and politically driven distraction. It risks reducing standards by allowing key pieces of legislation simply to lapse, placing even greater pressure on businesses who trade with the EU, while eventually and inevitably giving rise to a whole new batch of red tape. But we should worry not, of course, as that red tape will be true blue British red tape and beyond criticism!
I am happy to support amendment 36, which would require the Government to publish a list of the legislation being revoked by the sunset clause. That, at least, would simplify comprehensive scrutiny of the legislation affected and any further consequences. Unsurprisingly, the Government are baulking at it, either as a deliberate blocking tactic or—perhaps more likely—because of that special blend of arrogance and exceptionalism that got us into this position in the first place.
On Second Reading, I asked a question of the then Minister, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), but unsurprisingly I got no answer. The Welsh Government say that they cannot advise the Senedd to grant legislative consent to the Bill at the moment. Can the present Minister tell us whether her colleagues in the other place will now address the Welsh Government’s request for “concurrent-plus” powers?
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I have concerns about the Bill in its current form. Those concerns are informed partly by the National Farmers Union, of which I am a member through the family farm of which I am a partner, but they also apply to all other sectors of the economy and to all means of protection and regulation, whether they relate to the environment, to consumers or to workers. They are concerns of practicality, not of principle, and are driven by a desire to improve the UK’s regulatory and legal framework after our departure from the EU.
My principal worry is that the requirement to revoke all EU legislation by the end of this year is unrealistic. Such a sudden sunset clause sets a framework for bad and hasty lawmaking, although I acknowledge that the Bill makes provision for the deadline to be extended in certain circumstances.
Let me make some brief observations. Nearly seven years after the referendum, it is right that this process is finally being legislated for. There are many aspects of the law that require improvement and reform, but that needs to be carried out in a considered, not rushed, manner, with a proper review process set out and with full consultation.
The scale of the task, given the timescale proposed, is enormous. There is real worry about whether Departments such as DEFRA have the capacity to carry out the work, or whether other important work, of which there is much in these challenging times, will be given a lower priority as an unintended consequence. DEFRA alone has approximately 600 pieces of legislation to go through, and there may well be regulations of which it is unaware. A rash striking out of all laws by a set date could leave gaps in the law and the regulatory framework.
We should keep in mind the implications for the Government Legal Profession, in which morale is already low. A recent survey found that a third of its staff want to leave within a year. As well as the possible environmental and consumer protection risks that might inadvertently be created, there is also a worry that there will be a negative impact from a business perspective, with attention being diverted, uncertainty created and investment decisions delayed or cancelled.
In conclusion, I am worried that the Bill appears to be a continuation of the approach that has been adopted since Brexit: a rush, with no considered long-term plan in place, to carry out work such as agreeing trade deals that justify Brexit. We seem to be striving for quantity rather than quality. We are in danger of losing sight of what should be our ultimate objective: to put better arrangements in place than we had when we were in the EU. I fear that in its present form the Bill puts that aim at risk. I hope that in the Minister’s winding-up speech and in the other place, the Government will allay my concerns. They would do well to adopt the four-point improvement plan that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who is not in her place, set out earlier in the debate.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Less than 48 hours after we stood in this House to defend the right to strike, my hon. Friends and I find ourselves once more having to stand up to protect our constituents’ most basic rights. The right to holiday pay, working time regulations, data protection rights, and countless vital environmental and consumer protections have all been carried over from European law. These were not given to us as an act of benevolence by Brussels; they were hard fought for by trade unionists and activists working across Europe, and now they are all at risk as a result of the proposals that the Government have put to the House today.
In 2016, my constituents voted narrowly to leave the EU. They had many reasons for voting as they did, and I have always argued that their will should be respected, but not a single one of them voted for the kind of chaos that Ministers are preparing to let loose today. This is a colossal undertaking, far larger than the Minister seems to realise. The Government have failed to provide an exhaustive list of all the retained law that they are preparing to sweep from the statute books, but experts are warning that nearly 4,000 pieces of legislation could be affected. In order to make this act of legislative vandalism possible, the Secretary of State is proposing to give himself unprecedented powers to repeal and rewrite laws and regulations governing almost every aspect of our lives, with almost no scrutiny and with no guarantees as to what will replace them.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Industry bodies are currently concerned about the divergence of regulation, which is a divergence over time, because the UK is not keeping up. Will the Bill not make the exporting situation and the economic situation in the UK a lot worse?
Mick Whitley
The hon. Member has made a good point. There is no doubt that this will cause an absolute divergence.
It is ironic that a party that has so often argued that power should reside in this House and not in Brussels, or even in the democratically elected Parliament of Scotland and the Welsh Senedd, is now attempting to cut MPs out of the legislative process entirely. The Bill represents a power grab on the part of the Executive of a kind almost unheard of in a parliamentary democracy. That is why I am so grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for tabling amendment 36. It guarantees Members of this House their right to oversee what will undoubtedly be an extraordinarily complex and lengthy process, and it reaffirms a principle that is so fundamental to this country’s constitution: that laws should be made in this House in the full view of the public, and not cooked up by Ministers using obscure parliamentary procedure.
I have listened closely to the arguments advanced by Conservative Members, and I have yet to hear a single convincing case for why the Government should proceed with this Bill. For many of my constituents, every day is a struggle. They desperately need to see action to boost wages, tackle the scourge of fuel poverty, and support the NHS through the worst crisis in its long history. Instead, the Government are deciding to waste precious time and resources on this needless, reckless, and utterly ill-considered shake-up of the law. On this, as on so much else, this Government have their priorities all wrong.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is interesting to hear some Members go on about how retained EU law has a special status in UK law. It is only special because the UK says it is; for everyone else, it is just “the law”. Yes, it has been inherited from our time in the EU, but that was the point of incorporating it in the first place, and now it governs and regulates thousands of aspects of our daily lives, and, as we have heard from a number of Members, protects a great many of our hard-won rights and freedoms.
It is a contradiction to say that this Bill, particularly or uniquely, somehow asserts or reasserts parliamentary sovereignty. Every Bill passed in this House asserts parliamentary sovereignty, even for those of us who believe in popular sovereignty. That is the point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) said at the start of the debate a long time ago, there is not a single law, regulation or rule in the corpus of retained EU law that the Government, through this House, could not repeal, replace or reform at any time of their choosing through primary legislation.
In her opening speech, the Minister herself reeled off all the great Brexit Bills and Acts that Parliament has already passed. That proves the point that we do not need the powers in this Bill, and we certainly do not need the sunset clauses and cliff edges that it establishes. The Bill reveals contempt for parliamentary sovereignty—a massive power grab from this House and the devolved institutions, and unprecedented power placed in the hands of Ministers and the Whitehall mandarins who have simply stepped in to replace the Brussels bureaucrats so hated by the ERG and their Brexiteer friends.
If the Government genuinely believed in parliamentary sovereignty and the devolution settlement, they would accept the amendments tabled. They would pay particular attention to amendment 36, as everyone has remarked and several of their Back Benchers have signed. Many constituents in Glasgow North—in which, incidentally, 78% voted to remain in the European Union; I make no apology for standing up for their views—have told me that they believe the amendment will offer at least some degree of protection from the bonfire of rights and freedoms that this Bill represents.
The Government could admit that the game is up and that there is no prospect of seriously reviewing the thousands of regulations that make up EU retained law by the end of this year. They could accept SNP amendment 33 to drop the sunset clause altogether. At the very least, they could accept amendments 28 to 31, which would protect the powers of Scotland’s Parliament and Government to legislate in areas that were already supposed to be devolved under the terms of the Scotland Act. They say there is no power grab, but they have grabbed powers that should have come from Brussels directly to the Scottish Parliament.
But the Government will do none of those things. They will press ahead with the fantasy that this Bill is necessary in the first place, and that its aims are achievable within the timescale set out. It is perhaps ironic that in “Star Trek” there was an evil race called the Borg who would come to assimilate entire planets and civilisations into their collective consciousness. That is how the Brexiteers viewed the European Union. Now, it is the Government who want EU retained law to be renamed “assimilated law” on the statute book. Nothing else will change and the effect of the laws will be the same, but references to the hated European Union will have been purged. What a huge achievement.
Unlike the Borg or the UK Government, it is the EU laws that have protected and enhanced our liberties, freedoms and basic health and safety in these islands over the past 40 years. This Bill, and the Government’s refusal to accept any amendments this evening, expose the Government’s true agenda. By scrapping retained EU law, they want to create a race to the bottom, a buyer-beware, survival-of-the-fittest economy that pays minimal regard to democratic oversight and even less to the welfare of the poorest and most vulnerable. That was the Brexiteers’ agenda all along: stuff the consequences playing out in society and the economy all around us.
Once again, with a rather heavy dose of irony, it will fall to the unelected House of Lords to stand up for democracy and against the worst excesses of this Tory Government. The Government will come back after the Lords have dealt with this Bill with their tail between their legs, admitting that what they proposed was never viable in the first place. For people in Scotland, there is another option—a route out of this Tory madness and back into the partnership, community and mutual respect of the European Union. That is the popular sovereignty that comes with independence.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I congratulate the hon. Member on his reference to “Star Trek” on Report. At least he referred to the amendments as well.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Through this pernicious piece of legislation the Government seek to give themselves the power to scrap a whole host of legal protections that we currently enjoy, including hard-won employment rights and environmental protections. Through the Bill, a sunset provision will be placed on retained EU law, causing the vast majority of it to expire at the end of 2023. It could apply to more than 2,400 pieces of legislation. Indeed, reports suggest that the figure could be as high as 4,000.
The laws in question cover areas including environmental protection, food safety, civil aviation codes, health and safety in the workplace, employment law, parental leave, intellectual property, product safety, biosecurity, private pension protections, vehicle standards and noise pollution. The very idea that the Government should give themselves the power to discard such a large amount of legislation is shocking indeed. Decisions about UK law should be made in Parliament, not by Ministers. I therefore support amendment 36, which would require the Government to publish an exhaustive list of every piece of legislation being revoked under the sunset clause in the Bill and which would give the House of Commons the ultimate say on which legislation is affected. This would take power out of the hands of Ministers and provide transparency.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 21 and 36. Losing environmental protections was a major concern for all of us who opposed Brexit. The majority of my Bath constituents and I feared that Brexit would prove a colossal mistake. At the time, our fears were branded as scaremongering, yet this Conservative Government are clearly prepared to let environmental protections fall on the bonfire of regulations. The sheer volume of retained EU law instruments means that there is now a huge danger that many will fall automatically if they are not amended or identified in time.
This is reckless lawmaking, legislating with hammer blows instead of following the evidence. The December deadline is totally unnecessary. It is clearly unrealistic to replace all this legislation by the end of the year. There are currently only three full-time equivalent staff working on retained EU law in DEFRA. How can the Government expect them to cope with this enormous workload, and what is the rush? I have heard many Conservative Members today saying, “We don’t want to be subjected to laws made in the EU.” May I gently remind them that these laws were our laws? They became our laws by which we lived our lives for decades. Pulling them from under our feet without a transparent process to replace them is the most undemocratic proposal I can think of.
Amendment 21 would exempt certain environmental protections from the sunset clause. Nature provides a better chance of mitigating the worst impacts of climate change. Protecting ecosystems that regulate the climate or contain critical carbon stores must be prioritised alongside cutting emissions. This is not just about the EU; it is about a Government not caring about net zero. It is crucial that these protections are not allowed to fall needlessly to prove an ideological point. Amendment 21 would at least protect legislation such as the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018. These regulations require the Secretary of State to prepare an annual inventory of emissions and air pollutants, which are killers. It is about our health. The Government are frustrating every step towards a healthier planet and healthier people.
Amendment 36 would require the Government to publish a list of every piece of legislation that is being revoked under the sunset clause and to allow parliamentary oversight of that process. If the Conservatives believe in parliamentary democracy, what could possibly be preventing them from supporting this amendment?
There is huge public interest in our environmental laws. I have received hundreds of emails about this Bill from my Bath constituents, but I feel my constituents are being ignored. Amendment 36 would also provide much-needed clarity on the legislation that will be affected. Many clauses in this Bill will make settled areas of law uncertain and contested. How can we meet our net zero targets if we do not even know what environmental legislation will be standing this time next year?
There will be no coming back and no next time if we miss our net zero targets. For that reason alone, it is important to support amendment 36. Shamefully, our Government are satisfied to leave environmental protections to chance. They are intent on getting Brexit done without any idea of the cost to current and future generations.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have two more Back-Bench contributions, and then we will move on to the wind-ups. I advise Members who have taken part in the debate to make their way to the Chamber.
Geraint Davies
This is the second shameful bit of legislation the House has seen this week, the first being the Bill that will sack nurses for striking to feed their family.
The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill risks a bonfire of fundamental rights and protections, both at work and for the environment, that have evolved over our 47 years in the EU. I say that because the Bill will get civil servants to look at all the thousands of laws, rules, rights and protections by the end of the year and to decide either to abolish them, to change them—not specifically to improve them, because this Bill is deregulatory —or to continue them. If the civil servants do not have time, the laws, rules, rights and protections will end by default.
Various protections and rights are likely to fall out of bed because civil servants do not have enough time to look at them. Of course, 100,000 civil servants are now going on strike, and 80% of these laws are in DEFRA, which has only three people looking at retained EU law. There are currently enough problems in DEFRA, including the sewage being pumped out along our coasts and rivers where we used to have so-called EU blue beaches. There are air quality problems, with 63,000 people dying prematurely each year at a cost of £20 billion. Of course, the EU wants to get to the World Health Organisation target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030, but we will leave it until 2040. The Minister’s assurance that we will do as well or better than the EU is farcical.
One in four people in Britain is in food poverty, and we do not have enough people to pick the fruit or butcher the meat. We cannot export to the EU, and half of businesses are now no longer exporting to the EU. Millions of crabs, lobsters and prawns are dying from pollution off the north-east coast. People in DEFRA have enough to do without being distracted by looking through every bit of legislation and deciding whether to change, continue or abolish it, which is frankly ridiculous. They have enough on their plate—sadly not north-east crab.
The abolition of rights by default is a major risk that will come back to haunt us all, whether on rights at work, environmental rights or other rights. The other key issue, obviously, is the loss of democratic control. We were told that we would take back control, but this Bill gives all the power to Ministers and civil servants. They will look at 47 years of legislation and decide which bits to cherry-pick, which bits to forget and which bits to inadvertently drop. That is not democratic. This is not democratic and it is not what people voted for. Furthermore, it is going to be snatching from the devolutionary settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We saw the instincts of the Government only yesterday, as we did on the sacking of strikers, the stopping of protests and the introduction of photo ID. Those things all show the sort of Government we have and whether we can trust them with this issue—obviously, we cannot.
Finally, this Bill is an attempt to have divergence for the sake of it. I am proud to be the trade rapporteur for the Council of Europe, charged with embedding democracy, human rights, the rule of law and sustainable development into international trade agreements. That requires our coming together over a set of rules to protect our fundamental values and our environmental future, but this Bill does the opposite. As has been pointed out, it will have the impact of reducing the amount of trade that stimulates our economy. Altogether, this is a farcical rush to wave a banner of “Taking back control”, but underneath is the pirate ship with a flag of, “Let’s take control from you, do what we want and destroy your rights and protections.” Therefore, this will make the economic crisis even worse than it is already. What we want is not a weaker, poorer, dirtier Britain, which is what this Bill and others will bring about. We want a stronger, fairer, greener future, which will happen only with a Labour Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I know that Christmas was a few weeks ago, but here is a late present: I am not putting the clock on you, Mr Rodda, so if your speech is over six minutes, so be it.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a lucky man.
I wish to speak about a number of amendments. First, I strongly support amendment 36, which calls on the Government to publish a list of the laws affected by the Bill. I also offer my support to amendments 18 and 19, which give more time for proper debate and protect workers’ rights; amendments 21 and 22, on the environment; and a number of others mentioned by the Opposition Front-Bench team.
This is clearly an important Bill. It covers a large number of laws across a wide range of policy areas, including protections for workers’ rights, the environment and the consumer. As the Minister said, the Bill deals with laws covering some 300 different policy areas across government. I followed her speech carefully and with great interest, and noted that she was not able to say how many pieces of law the Bill affects. That is highly important for the debate today; the Government plan to remove all this EU law, even though they do not fully understand the full list of laws, by the end of this year. They are proposing enormous changes, yet they do not even know the full scale of the change involved. As we have heard, the Law Society describe the Government’s approach as having a
“devastating impact on legal certainty”.
To make matters worse, the Government plan to give themselves sweeping powers to push through these changes. Ministers will be given the power to use the negative statutory instrument procedure to address such important and controversial issues, with the result that workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer rights could all be changed with barely any scrutiny. Even at this late stage, I ask the Government to reconsider that reckless approach. I hope the Minister will have time to respond to the concerns raised. I hope she will listen and take the views from across the House back to her ministerial colleagues.
I also hope the Minister will take on board the deep concerns felt by people across the country. Like other Members, I have received a large number of emails on this important issue. I have been contacted by a range of organisations as diverse as the TUC, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The Rivers Trust, the British Safety Council, the Angling Trust, Unison and the Institute of Directors. That is a formidable list of civil society organisations, so I hope that she will consider the interesting points they make about this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I very much appreciate my belated Christmas present, but I realise that time is pressing on. To conclude, the Bill is clearly deeply flawed, and I ask the Minister again to listen to the points made by Members from across the House and take them back to her colleagues.
Margaret Greenwood
I am just trying to squeeze a bit more out of Mr Deputy Speaker’s kind gift. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a guarantee from the Minister today that there will be no watering down of asbestos controls?
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have worked with asbestos campaigners in my own area in Berkshire. I have met them and listened to some of the stories about asbestos pollution and the effects on workers, families and other individuals who, sadly, came into contact with asbestos. She has made an excellent point, so I hope that the Minister will take that on board and take it back to her colleagues. That is one powerful example of the wide range of difficult issues addressed by the Bill and the practical problems in trying to cover such a broad range of policy areas in this way. I hope that the Minister will take that back and ask the Government as a whole to reconsider—
Matt Rodda
I am conscious of time and, given that I have allowed one intervention, I should now conclude.
Again, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me some extra time and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for making the worthy point about asbestos. I hope that the Minister will take that point back, and, indeed, the wide range of other points made today by Members from across the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you. I call the Minister to wind up.
Ms Ghani
I thank everybody for their contributions, which have been measured and passionate. Many important points have been raised and I shall do my best to respond to as many as I can.
We have had quite a long list of speakers: the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith); the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn); the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous); the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford); the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Reading East (Matt Rodda), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).
We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash), for Watford (Dean Russell), and for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker); my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones); my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), and for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I will try my best to respond to as many issues raised as I can.
Obviously, I am here to support the Government’s amendments, and I will go through in detail the amendments tabled by the Opposition. They fundamentally misunderstand that this is an enabling Bill, or they are deliberately trying to delay, deny or dilute what we are trying to achieve, which is, basically, delivering the Brexit that we promised the public: the promise that we would free ourselves from EU law and make UK law sovereign. Laws and regulations that manage our lives should be rooted here in this country and that is a law that should be supreme. Fundamentally, that is what we are trying to achieve.
Much has been said about the dashboard. I should be clear: at the moment, the figure we have identified and verified for EU law is 3,200 and we expect it to be 4,000. So it is what we were expecting and the dashboard will be updated. As I said earlier, officials have been working for more than 18 months and they will continue to work with officials across all Departments and with officials in devolved authorities.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
We know that Brexit has damaged the UK’s GDP, but has any assessment been made—I have spoken to industry bodies, particularly those involved in exporting—of potential damage from the divergence of regulations? Have industry bodies been consulted, or has an assessment been made of the damage to the UK’s GDP from this Bill? I imagine that it is going to be considerable.
Ms Ghani
The report today said, in contrast to the hon. Member’s comment, that we are one of the top countries to invest in globally. I am anxious to hear where he thinks the damage is being done.
I wish to address some of the amendments that misinterpret what the Bill does when it comes to workers’ rights. Workers’ rights are often rooted in UK law—they often started here, not in the EU—and the UK Government will not abandon our strong record on workers’ rights. We have some of the highest standards in the world. Why would we change that, if we started it and campaigned for it? In many areas, our workers’ rights are much stronger than those in the EU.
We have talked about maternity leave, maternity rights, flexible working, annual leave and the national living wage: all those things started here. Amendments that propose a carve-out for workers’ rights, which are not under threat because they started here, are a bit absurd.
Comments were made about product safety. The Government are committed to protecting consumers from unsafe products being placed on the market now and in the future. Of course that would be the way we do business. We are finalising a consultation setting out the next steps in delivering the Government’s ambitions for a new product safety framework. Our proposals include changes to save time and money for business.
Geraint Davies
On product safety, and specifically on asbestos, since it has been raised, the Minister will know that the precautionary principle means that chemicals that may be hazardous must be proven by the manufacturer to be safe. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency must prove they are hazardous, otherwise they can be sold—hence asbestos is sold in bricks in America. Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no shift to the American regime, which puts the onus on the Environmental Protection Agency and not the manufacturer? If there is, we will all be at risk of asbestos.
Ms Ghani
That is why we are going through EU legislation—to identify that and to make those decisions. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point directly, but in his speech he mentioned his time at the European Council, and I believe that when he was there—
Ms Ghani
The Council of Europe, forgive me. When he was there recently, the hon. Gentleman was open in saying that, when a Labour Government are in power, they will return us to the EU. If that is his motivation, I understand why he makes these points—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Does the Minister wish to take an intervention? No. Okay. The hon. Gentleman has withdrawn what he said. Thank you.
Ms Ghani
If his remark had not been withdrawn, I would have read out the quotation.
To return to hazardous substances, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, within their respective territories, will follow the usual procedures but take into account the principles set out in the hazardous substances common framework. Part of the process we are going through is identifying what the laws are so that we can take a decision.
On animal welfare, there has been a lot of mis-information. Especially since 2010, we have regulated for chickens, battery cages, mandatory CCTV in slaughter-houses, mandatory microchipping in dogs—a huge amount of work has been done.
When it comes to the environment, many of our standards started here, and we should be proud of them. We have the world-leading Environment Act, which has dramatically strengthened environmental regulations. Moreover, the EU model has not stopped the decline in our natural world. Of course there is much more that we need to do, and we will: we have our own legally binding targets, we are committed to halting the decline in nature by 2030 and we are among the first countries in the world to commit to net zero by 2050.
A point was raised about flight compensation. The Department for Transport published the aviation consumer policy reform consultation back in 2022, and the proposals will look into aviation consumer protection, redress for breaches of consumer rights and reform to compensation for delays or for damaged wheelchairs and other mobility equipment. When I was a Minister at the Department for Transport, we went much further than our European counterparts in ensuring protection for the most vulnerable people.
Stella Creasy
The Minister is setting out a number of laws, and she has just said on the record that she has verified 3,200 pieces of legislation. The dashboard still says 2,400, and she says the ultimate number will be 4,000. Can she just clarify that she is asking us today to vote for her Ministers to have power over 1,600 undefined, un-public pieces of regulation? She is shaking her head, but that is the maths, and she has to be open with people about what is at stake with this legislation. Is it 1,600 pieces that are missing, or is the number higher or lower?
Ms Ghani
The dashboard will always be updated as new EU law is being discovered. The fact that it has to be discovered and that we need to go and identify it tells us that there is a problem. We have verified a substantial amount. It could be up to 4,000 laws, but this gives each Department time to assess, amend, assimilate or revoke.
On new clause 1, the sunset is a fundamental aspect of the Bill. The sunset date of 31 December 2023 was chosen to incentivise and accelerate a programme of reform that is well under way. Although 2023 may be an ambitious deadline, it has been years since we voted in favour of leaving the EU, as colleagues across the House have noted, so it is absolutely right for our constituents to expect us to be able to remove outdated laws in that time. There is also an extension, up to 2026, if Departments need more time to consult and take decisions on the EU laws that they wish to amend or repeal. That has always been in the Bill. To deliver those reforms, each Department will take its own view on how to prioritise and timetable pieces of REUL to ensure delivery before the sunset date. The Government will ensure that that work is appropriately resourced.
The criticism about the Bill enshrining a race to the bottom is just incorrect. We have sought to ensure that the powers to revoke or replace cannot be used to add to the overall regulatory burden for any particular subject area, but they do not preclude the introduction of higher standards. That will help to ensure that the UK takes a more modern, agile and proportionate approach to making regulations, and establishes a more nimble, innovative and UK-specific regulatory approach to go further and faster and in seizing the opportunities of Brexit.
On the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, the Government will ensure the continued functioning of the intellectual property framework, given its importance both in underpinning investment and in supporting international trade. We recognise the importance attached to stability and certainty in the area of intellectual property. Those will be prominent considerations for the Government when making decisions on REUL in this area.
Suggestions that we have delivered, or will deliver, a bonfire of workers’ rights are absolutely inaccurate. As I mentioned earlier, we are proud of the UK’s excellent record on labour standards. We have the best workers’ rights record in the world, and our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU. Indeed, the UK provides stronger protections for workers than those required by EU law. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset for setting out that Parliament has been legislating to protect workers’ rights for hundreds of years.
Sir John Hayes
The truth is that we would have the power to do exactly as the Minister said and to introduce improved regulation where necessary and in our national interest, but that power would rest here in this House and with our Government, who are accountable to this Parliament. That is the difference; it is as simple as that. To claim anything else is a thinly veiled deception.
Ms Ghani
My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We are elected to govern. Of course, it will take some work, but the outcome is that we can take the decisions here. Whether we choose to take those decisions, are anxious about taking decisions, or do not even want to know what these EU laws are—that is just a very ignorant way to be—we need to be aware so that we can take those decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney talked about 2023 being a cliff edge. That is the time by which we wish to sunset, but there is an extension to 2026 for the bits of EU law for which Departments need more time to consult. The process has already been around for 18 months, and it has been and will continue to be considered. Department officials will continue to work together on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby spoke about her constituents’ concerns and anxieties about the Labour party doing everything it can to take us back into the EU. There has been a lot of fearmongering from the Labour party in the amendments that it has tabled, but in this instance, I would argue that maybe her constituents should be afraid, as I am told that the Labour leader has attempted to block Brexit at least 48 times.
Sir William Cash
Does my hon. Friend, in the light of what she has just said, recall “Project Fear”, with George Osborne and others saying, for example, how many hundreds of thousands of unemployed we would have, how the financial markets would dissolve, how the City of London would become a ghost town, and all that sort of nonsense? Does she remember all that, and where are we now?
Ms Ghani
I would be giving away my age if I said I do remember it well. Fortunately, not all of that has come to pass, but I worry that my age is out there. I must thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West for his fantastic work in Committee. He very sensibly talked about how we have absorbed EU legislation. Some of it is obsolete, and some being discovered by the National Archives is also obsolete. It is absolutely right that we have an exercise to identify and assess what is fit for our country.
Dean Russell
One of the key things here is looking at red tape that is unnecessary for small businesses. I am a great believer that businesses should focus on transforming their business and not just filling out forms. Does the Minister agree?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend, who was a fantastic Minister in the Department and led earlier consideration of the Bill, hits the nail on the head once again. We have an opportunity to look at regulation to see whether there is a way we can streamline it to make it even more easy for business to do business—it is as simple as that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings gave a fantastic speech, in which he talked about how we have surrendered our parliamentary authority and lawmaking to Brussels, but the people’s will means that we need to ensure that we are delivering laws and regulations here in the UK Parliament. That is what our constituents have empowered us to do. They want to be living under British law, and that is what the Bill delivers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil talked about this Bill being overdue and, boy, how many years will we spend discussing Brexit? I agree that the Bill is overdue. It is absolutely right that we have precision and certainty and that responsibility is best placed here in UK law, not in European law with European judges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford made a splendid speech—he was also splendid at the Dispatch Box when he was leading the Bill—once again standing up for small business, and his assessment is absolutely right: there are many opportunities if we are able to deregulate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset once again thanked all the civil servants working on the programme, and I must thank him for all the tremendous work he has done on the Bill. He spoke about having a base and principles within UK law, and how we should not be relying on EU law and how EU law should not be supreme over UK law. There is nothing to fear in having UK law sovereign. We are somehow going to have to pull this plaster off, and this is obviously the time to do it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford talked about her experience of consumer legislation, which I mentioned earlier, and I am more than happy to discuss that with her when the time allows.
Vicky Ford
Can my hon. Friend confirm that businesses will get notice of which laws will drop away at the end of this year and that Ministers will not be fearful of using the extension if necessary? Can she confirm that Ministers will look at all consumer legislation to make sure that none of it is inadvertently dropped?
Ms Ghani
Most consumer legislation is based in UK law, but officials are working with Departments, and they will be taking decisions about what they will assimilate, amend and revoke.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Ghani
I must make some progress; I am worried about time running out. I must also speak in particular to amendment 36, mostly because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who chairs the European Statutory Instruments Committee, made some fantastic interventions. The amendment states that we need greater transparency on how the process will continue. There are opportunities to be on Committees and to scrutinise legislation, but my hon. Friend made it clear that Labour MPs have not even turned up to take their places on the European Statutory Instruments Committee.
EU law that will be amended or repealed will go through the usual channels. Business managers and the Leaders of both Houses will take decisions. The European Statutory Instruments Committee will be involved, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will be involved in the House of Lords, and we have the dashboard. Nothing could be more transparent, and it will involve colleagues from across the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford mentioned consumer rights. I want to put on the record that core consumer protections, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987, will continue to apply and remain unaffected. Furthermore, I reiterate my commitment that the dashboard, as I said earlier, will be published this month.
Turning to devolution, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the Bill is consistent with the devolved arrangements and remain committed to respecting the devolution settlement and the Sewel convention. The Bill will allow the devolved authorities to look at devolved law and take a decision on what they wish to assimilate, amend or revoke—decisions that they never had when we were a member of the EU. I would hope that those authorities would embrace that with both hands, not reject it.
Ms Ghani
I am reluctant to give way, because the intervention will end up being, “But we just don’t want to be here.” If it is on a different topic, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Ian Blackford
Will the Minister respect the right of the Scottish Parliament not to give consent to this Bill?
Ms Ghani
I find this extraordinary. The devolved authorities have the right to make decisions on devolved laws. Why would that not be embraced, instead of being rejected?
I must comment on the Bar Council’s evidence. Barrister Tom Sharpe KC noted that the Bar Council
“is our trade union, and it does not speak on my behalf on this political matter…obviously”.––[Official Report, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Public Bill Committee, 8 November 2022; c. 24, Q43.]
An issue about deregulation was raised. It is not enshrined in any of the clauses, but the Bill says that overall burdens must be reduced.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I have been involved in European policymaking over a period of about 20 years, including being Europe editor of The Times. Something that struck me is that it is very difficult to get agreement between 27 or 28 countries, so once a law is passed it is almost impossible to change. EU laws get frozen in time and things move on. With EU laws stagnant across the economy, does the Minister think it is right that EU laws should be reviewed across the entire economy, in all different sectors?
Ms Ghani
That is what the Bill proposes, so that we are not stuck in time with EU laws made elsewhere.
This is the Parliament of one of the oldest continuous representative democracies in the world, of which the UK is rightly proud. The Bill will restore Acts of Parliament as the highest law of the land by ensuring that domestic law will take precedence over retained direct EU law. This is all part of what the British public voted for in the referendum and the general election—for Britain to be left to do things differently and to be the supreme arbiter of our own laws. That is all that this Bill is proposing.
To conclude, the Bill will allow the United Kingdom to take the next steps in reasserting the sovereignty of Parliament. It will end the special status of retained EU law in the UK statute book and enable the Government more easily to amend, revoke and replace retained EU law, and to seize the opportunities of Brexit. I therefore ask hon. Members to support the Government’s amendments, withdraw their own amendments and support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 1
Sunset of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation
Amendment proposed: 18, page 1, line 4, leave out “2023” and insert “2026”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment moves the sunset of legislation from 2023 to 2026.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Assimilated case law | Section 6(7) |
Assimilated direct legislation | Section 20(1) |
Assimilated direct minor legislation | Section 20(1) |
Assimilated direct principal legislation | Section 20(1) |
Assimilated domestic case law | Section 6(7) |
Assimilated EU case law | Section 6(7) |
Assimilated law | Section 6(7)” |
Ms Ghani
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I wish to thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed today. It has been a long day, but this Bill has been around for a whole year and I wish to thank everybody who has been working on it for a year. In particular, I wish to thank the Bill team, Lorna, Janet, Ryan, Jenna, Mahsa, Sam, Sagar and Sol; and the policy team, Fergal, Lizzie, Walter, Zach, Rachel, Nikoli, Jess, Hannah, Anita, Jon, Miranda and Ruth. I also wish to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans), for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) for doing such fantastic work behind the scenes.
I know that a few Members wish to speak, so I shall be brief. I just want to thank all Members for their contributions as regards the constitutional importance of the Bill—ending the supremacy of EU law and restoring Acts of Parliament as the highest law in the land is, of course, of paramount importance. I am proud that this Bill will build on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and ensure, by default, that no Act of Parliament is subordinated by the retained EU law any longer.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
As we move to Third Reading, may I thank all colleagues, Ministers, civil servants and Clerks of the House for their work on this Bill. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for leading on it for the Opposition, and for the strength and clarity of the arguments he has put forward, and the diligence of his work to try to improve the Bill at all stages. I also wish to recognise my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for their work, and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) for their work in the Bill Committee.
We opposed the Bill on Second Reading on the basis that it was not a serious or appropriate way for the Government to address the matter of retained EU law, and nothing that has occurred since has changed that view. This is not and never has been about Brexit. It is about how the law should be changed, and the certainty and clarity the Government need to give when they do that. Legislating for a sunset clause on a huge body of legislation, the scale of which the Government have themselves struggled to identify, has appalled businesses, charities and the public. The fact that we now know on Third Reading that 1,600 additional laws, on top of the ones disclosed in the dashboard, are affected, without the Government being able to tell us what they are, is frankly absurd.
The Government are asking us trust them on a whole range of laws, covering employment rights, consumer protection, environmental standards and more, but how can anyone trust this Government? They are hardly a model of stability. Between First Reading and Third Reading we have had a completely different Prime Minister and a completely different Business Secretary. So who knows who may be in charge by the time it finishes in the other place? We have still not heard a compelling answer as to why the Government cannot address the body of EU retained law on a sector-by-sector basis, putting forward their replacement proposals in the same way as we legislate for everything else. After all, this is the Government’s own approach, which they have taken with the Financial Services and Markets Bill in the area of financial regulation.
This Bill is a charter for uncertainty, confusion and the regression of essential British rights. We cannot and will not stand for that. The Labour Party will therefore vote against the Bill’s Third Reading tonight, in the national interest, and I urge all colleagues to do the same.
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, may I congratulate the Minister for Industry and Investment Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), on her brilliant performance today and on taking on this Bill and driving it through? I will now confess to this House that a year ago, as Leader of the House, I thought it was going to be impossible to get this Bill done, written and ready for Parliament. I know I am not meant to mention people in the Galleries, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope you will indulge my saying that some of the Bill team are there and they were fabulous. They made the impossible happen and they deserve great thanks, because this is about restoring British law, with the common law replacing European law.
The Bill is a tidying-up law, but it is of great constitutional importance. It has been sent from this House with technical amendments from the Government but no fundamental amendment. I hope that the other place will note that carefully; the Bill goes with a strong democratic mandate and a wind behind it. It is one of the really important completions of Brexit and the people who oppose it are, in their hearts, the ones who opposed Brexit all along. The Bill is a reclamation of democracy, of parliamentary sovereignty and of our proper law.
Alyn Smith
I will be brief because we have had a long discussion today. The SNP opposes the Bill. We believe that Scotland’s best future is independence in Europe, but it is not about that tonight. I also, simultaneously—as a friend of the UK—do not want to see this place pass bad law, and we believe that this is bad law. It is possible to do a bad thing well, but I fear that the Bill will do a bad thing badly. As I said earlier in the debate, if Government Members must do this damn silly thing, please do not do it in this damn silly way. The Bill will have real consequences and real problems for the UK Government and the rest of us, and for the devolution settlement alongside. The SNP will oppose it.
Sir William Cash
After 38 years in this House, I simply say a profound thank you to the British electorate—the 17 million who voted to leave the European Union in the referendum and endorsed that in the general election of 2019. I congratulate the Government, the Ministers and all the people in this House who have supported the idea of leaving the European Union. Above all else, I thank the British electorate.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I am sure that many other Members have said this already, but this has nothing to do with Brexit. These are all pieces of legislation that are in British law. If the Conservatives want to remove them, they should come to this House and debate each and every one of them on an individual basis. Removing these pieces of legislation will have far-reaching consequences. Unfortunately, I believe that consequences will be brought to bear on Conservative Members at the next election. If you are not thinking about the destruction to our democracy, you should at least think about your constituents—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady must not keep using the word “you.” She must speak through the Chair. I think that she has made her point.
Sir John Hayes
Fear, doubt and guilt have bedevilled politicians and politics for too long in this country, but the British people are not so fearful of their freedoms, not so doubtful about their sovereignty, and not so nervous about the journey that we have now embarked on to a free future, where this country, through its elected Parliament, can make laws in the national interest for the common good. We have had a lot of fears expressed today. We have heard about bonfires and cliff edges, but the people know that they can trust in the people that they choose, from all parts of this House, to do the right thing by them. If we do not believe that, then what on earth are we doing here? It is absolutely right that we have fulfilled the promise from the 2016 election and taken back control. This Bill—I congratulate Ministers on bringing it before the House today—is the next step on our path to sovereignty, freedom and success.
Patrick Grady
The Minister would not take an intervention, but I think the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is going to be pretty disappointed. I suspect it will, ironically, fall to the unelected House to look at the amendments that the Government rejected this evening and decide that perhaps they have a place in the Bill after all. At that point, the climbdown will have to begin and the Bill team, who no doubt have worked extremely hard, will have to work even harder, because they will have to find a compromise and a way to explain why everything the Minister said at the Dispatch Box about how necessary and workable this Bill is was completely and utterly incorrect. In reality, the Bill is totally unworkable and totally unnecessary.
The right hon. Member for North East Somerset and his Brexiteer friends wanted to take back control to this House. They wanted parliamentary sovereignty. This Bill does not assert parliamentary sovereignty; it hands it over to the Executive to pass thousands of laws, or to get rid of thousands of laws, by Executive diktat. That is not parliamentary sovereignty. The people in Scotland can see exactly what is happening, and it will not be long before they reclaim their popular sovereignty.
Stella Creasy
I put on record my thanks to all the civil servants who have answered our questions on this Bill, to all the members of the Committee and the Minister for taking questions—I think in years to come her diaries will be a revelation about what she really thinks of this legislation.
We should make a pledge tonight, because this House has started to hear the voices of the British public, who recognise that legislation like this is us not doing our job. It is us taking away the job and putting power in the hands of the shadowy elite behind the back of Downing Street. It is not parliamentary sovereignty. We will make a pledge tonight in this House to keep hearing their voices—to keep hearing the many campaign groups who have spoken with one voice and said, “There is a better way to do this,” to hold all of us to account, to work with our colleagues in the other place to ensure that we truly do take back control to this place and uphold parliamentary sovereignty.
Those of us on the Opposition side know how valuable that is to our democracy, and we invite all those on the Government side who recognise that to join us. A sinner that repenteth is still a sinner that repenteth.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Petitions
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
People on pre-payment meters live in precarious situations. They can only have gas and electricity if they have money to feed the meter, otherwise they must freeze in the dark, yet the energy companies are forcing the poorest among us on to money guzzling pre-payment meters with the assistance of the courts, which are rubber-stamping warrants at an alarming rate. One court in the north of England reportedly approved 496 warrants in three minutes. One of the conditions of the Ofgem licence is that the energy companies must identify those classed as vulnerable because they should not be disconnected, but clearly that is all too often ignored.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that energy suppliers, despite licensing conditions set out by the regulator Ofgem stipulating that suppliers should only put households onto pre-payment meters when it is ‘safe and reasonably practicable to do so’, are forcibly transferring customers in debt on standard credit or direct debit accounts to pre-payment meters, disregarding their obligations to identify and support vulnerable persons and households; notes one court in the North of England approved 496 warrants to forcibly install pre-payment meters in just 3 minutes; recognises the risk of ‘self-disconnection’ from energy supplies for vulnerable households in energy debt who are forcibly transferred to a pre-payment meter; notes that those new pre-payment meter customers who have become so through financial difficulties, will now pay higher standing charges and unit rates when compared to standard credit or direct debit accounts.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to issue a ban on the forced installation of pre-payment meters by court warrant; further urges the Government to make compulsory the requirement to ensure that detailed checks are carried out regarding customers’ vulnerability prior to any discussion about a voluntary option of using prepayment meters and that sanctions are in place and enforced against those companies who do not.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002793]
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The benefit cap, which was introduced by the British Government in 2013, blocks households from getting all the help they are entitled to from the social security system, as it does not generally rise with inflation. Indeed, figures show that households outside London lose out on a massive £1,800 a year compared with what they would have got if the cap had risen with prices. The SNP want to see the benefit cap abolished entirely, which is reflected back to me by my constituents, particularly in Parkhead and Lilybank, where this petition originated.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to grant time for the Second Reading of the Benefit Cap (Report on Abolition) Bill and commit to passing all stages of my Bill in the House.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that the UK benefit cap is a punitive measure which forces families unnecessarily into poverty; notes the figures from the Poverty Alliance which suggest up to 150,000 households outside of London will have their benefit capped and could lose up to £1,800 per annum in social security support.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to grant time the Second Reading of the Benefit Cap (Report on Abolition) Bill and commit its support to passing all stages in the House.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002794]
Train Services: South Gloucestershire
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
I am grateful to have secured this debate. The ability to move around for work, to travel to see friends and family or to have access to local services such as schools and hospitals is vital. For many people in South Gloucestershire, public transport is fundamental to the way we live our lives. That is why I have campaigned relentlessly to get South Gloucestershire moving and improve local transport infrastructure. We have had some fantastic successes in this respect: we opened the park and ride in Yate this year; we scrapped the Severn bridge tolls; we reopened the right-hand turn from Heron Way on to Kennedy Way; we reinstated bus services to Southmead Hospital, and so much more. However, there are some areas where progress simply has not been quick enough. I have called this debate to highlight the difficulties that South Gloucestershire residents continue to face with local transport, particularly over train services.
For a number of years, I have been campaigning to increase the frequency of train services from Yate to Bristol and Gloucester from hourly, as they are now, to every half hour. At the moment, these trains are often only two carriages long and at peak times they are already full, with passengers travelling between major urban centres such as Bristol, Yate and Gloucester. People living in Yate, Chipping Sodbury or any of the surrounding areas are often restricted from using train travel because the services just are not frequent enough to be viable or because of overcrowding on the services.
It is clear there is substantial local demand for this increase in frequency, with recently released figures showing passenger numbers have doubled on the Yate to Bristol line from 68,500 to more than 177,000 a year. South Gloucestershire generally is seeing high levels of housing growth, with more residents in the community, more cars on the road and more people moving and travelling for work. Yate itself has become a hub for inward investment around the west of England. It is a thriving place for people to live, work and raise a family. It is home to major employers, with staff travelling from right across the region to the town. It is vital that the transport infrastructure is in place, connecting residents and commuters to local jobs and allowing residents of the communities in and surrounding Yate to travel to South Gloucestershire and the surrounding areas. I would like to put on the record my thanks to Toby Savage, the leader of South Gloucestershire Council, who has done a great job in pushing for some of these extra services, supporting them through his good officers on the council, and putting his all into this campaign.
Increasing the frequency of these services from hourly to half hourly would make a huge difference to the community, and has widespread support from everyone involved. I conducted transport surveys across South Gloucestershire, where there is significant support for making this change. One of the barriers we have faced to increasing the frequency to half hourly is the need for track works to be carried out at the Bristol East junction at Bristol Temple Meads, as I raised frequently with the previous Secretary of State. I have been grateful for the support of the Department for Transport and the Minister’s predecessor, and for the £132 million plus that was invested to make that change happen and get the project to where it is today, allowing local decision makers to increase the frequency if they can. Increasing the frequency to half hourly is a key part of phase 2 of the MetroWest project, run by the West of England Combined Authority with the DfT, and is fundamental in connecting the areas surrounding Yate.
Network Rail and the local operator, Great Western Railway, have stated that they are keen to expand their timetable to accommodate these extra services. However, despite being such a critical part of the vision for the region, we have had serious delays in implementation. There were initially plans for half-hourly services to be delivered from December 2021—clearly, it is now early 2023 and they are still not in place.
In November, we had confirmation of the new timetables up to May, but we still do not have the half-hourly services. I have raised that time and again with Great Western Railway, which has explained that due to the backlog that built up during the pandemic and high sickness levels, it has not had the crew ready to operate the additional services that we all want to be delivered. Clearly, it has now been nearly a year since all covid measures expired in law, and even longer since the social distancing guidance expired, but the substantial training backlog is restricting the roll-out of services that are fundamental to accommodate growth across South Gloucestershire.
GWR has also confirmed the positive news that it has now submitted the timetable bid for the extra MetroWest services that it will run from Bristol to Gloucester, which includes the Yate station, in May 2023. That is currently with Network Rail’s timetable team as part of the validation process that it has to go through. The last thing that anyone wants now is a situation where, in May 2023 at the next set of timetable reviews, staffing levels are still not where they need to be so the service is stopped from being delivered again.
I have been offered assurances from GWR’s managing director, who has been clear that his team have identified the rolling stock required for the extra trains and that the training will be in place for May. There are also provisional plans for the service to be funded by the West of England Combined Authority for three years after it is operational, as part of an agreement with GWR.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his fantastic campaign to get South Gloucestershire moving. Does he agree that the proposed new Brabazon station on the Filton airfield site will help connectivity across South Gloucestershire by serving that new town as part of phase 2 of MetroWest? If we can work with the West of England Combined Authority and South Gloucestershire Council to get that expedited and built quickly, it will help residents across South Gloucestershire.
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend for that clear point, on which I completely agree. Connecting areas such as Cribbs Causeway with Yate is also hugely beneficial for the many people in Yate and the surrounding area who work in the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency and in the wider South Gloucestershire area. He is right to champion that and I completely support him in that quest.
The total proposed funding commitment for this project so far from the West of England Combined Authority is almost £3.9 million, which is hugely welcome. I understand that that is planned to be submitted to the combined authority committee and the joint committee on 27 January as part of the MetroWest phase 2 funding request. As we await the outcome of that, I thank all the local authority leaders across the west of England who have supported the new service in principle, and the West of England Metro Mayor Dan Norris for his support and helping us get to this stage in Yate.
I ask the Minister: what efforts are being made centrally to drive recruitment in the rail industry? Staffing shortages are beginning to hold up essential improvements to services such as the Yate half-hourly train service. My understanding is that the extra services have now also been submitted as part of GWR’s annual business plan to the DfT; I would be grateful for any update that he can provide on the process for signing that off at his end.
It is important that the rail industry should not be cutting costs at the expense of already approved timetable improvements in the south-west—many hon. Members feel strongly about that—so I would be grateful if the Minister could outline his thoughts on that. Will he meet me, Network Rail and GWR to discuss the support that the DfT can offer to ensure that the proposed half-hourly services can go ahead in May, which would mean that the Government could secure that vital return on their investment in the Bristol East junction?
Getting half-hourly service patterns in place is critical to enabling the opening of Charfield railway station, which is a separate project but is equally important for unlocking some of the roads and for connecting towns across South Gloucestershire with the wider region. It was opened in 1844 and was a vital hub prior to its closure in 1965. Plans are advanced to rebuild and reopen a new Charfield station in the heart of the village and there was a 12-week consultation that closed last year. It will be a hugely important development if it goes ahead; the application is currently with the local council. The importance of getting the Yate services must not be understated in terms of the wider impact on the surrounding railway network and helping us reduce congestion.
Yate is continuing to grow, but the current train services are too infrequent, with too few carriages. Delivering on the pledge to introduce half-hourly train services between Yate and Bristol and Gloucester is vital. It will improve access to local public transport, take cars off the road, cut journey times, and reduce emissions. The demand is there, and we have the local support; I hope the Minister will assure residents in south Gloucestershire that these plans are firmly back on track.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on securing this important debate on train services in South Gloucestershire and on his informative and impassioned speech. I recognise his hard work in campaigning to get South Gloucestershire moving and improve transport infrastructure for his constituents.
The Government fully recognise the vital role our railways play in connecting communities and supporting the economy. Taxpayers across the country contributed £31 billion to the railways over the course of the pandemic, demonstrating our commitment to their continued operation. The Government have acted with the biggest intervention in their history to ensure rail fare increases for 2023 are capped at 5.9%, some 6.4 percentage points lower than the retail prices index figure on which they are historically based. This is a fair balance between the passengers who use our trains and the taxpayers who help pay for them.
My hon. Friend talked in the latter part of his speech about the need to get more staffing and therefore more resilience into the railways. While the Government strongly support the recovery of the railway and the increase in passenger numbers, there remains an urgent need for continued modernisation and significant efficiency improvements to bear down on the cost of operating the railway. Part of this modernisation is to improve the speed and efficiency of staff recruitment, and we are exploring options to reduce the amount of time training takes in an innovative way using technology, while maintaining the exacting standards of safety currently in place on our railway.
The Rail Delivery Group’s latest offer to ASLEF—the drivers’ union—opens the door to a more diverse workforce by introducing part-time contracts and more flexible scheduling arrangements. It looks to address inefficient and arcane practices that have long since been phased out of modern workforces. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that that would be a huge step forward for the rail industry and build upon the progress made in recent years.
Moving to my hon. Friend’s specific concerns, South Gloucestershire already benefits from a wide array of train services to areas including Gloucester, Cheltenham, Bristol, London, Cardiff, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, and the cities in Scotland—I could go on. Users of train services in South Gloucestershire have already benefited from the introduction of through train services between Cardiff and Penzance as part of the December 2021 timetable and the reintroduction of through services between Bristol and Manchester.
Now for the news my hon. Friend has been waiting for: I am happy to confirm that, subject to the provision of the necessary funding by the West of England Combined Authority, services between Bristol and Gloucester will be doubled to two trains per hour from the May 2023 timetable change as part of the wider MetroWest scheme. I thank my hon. Friend for helping make this happen and the West of England Combined Authority, which has worked in partnership with officials in my Department and the operator, Great Western Railway, to make this possible. GWR has identified all the rolling stock that it will need for the extra trains and is confident that it will have all the staff training completed in time to introduce the additional services from May. I hope that that provides the assurance my hon. Friend was looking for, but as always—and in answer to his request—I am happy to meet him to understand any further concerns, and to help him make this happen.
Luke Hall
I hugely welcome the announcement that the Minister has just made, confirming that, subject to agreements at the combined authority level, we are ready to go ahead with doubling services in May. It is fantastic news. I thank him for his work and support on that as well as for the reassurance that the announcement will have provided to the whole community.
Huw Merriman
My hon. Friend is kind. The thanks should go to him; I am sure that his constituents will recognise that. He is a dogged campaigner, and I know that he will ensure that my feet are held to the fire in delivering the service. I assure him that I will work with him to that end. I understand the disappointment that services were not introduced in May 2022. Staff training was severely disrupted during the pandemic, which is one of the reasons it has taken a while. I am also delighted to hear that South Gloucestershire Council is developing plans for a new railway station in Charfield to help people to travel more sustainably. It has recently submitted a planning application jointly with Network Rail. I wish all involved the best of luck with that proposal.
Another exciting potential development for residents of South Gloucestershire is the plan to develop the site of the old Filton airfield, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who is at the forefront of the campaign. That could unlock a significant volume of new housing and include two new stations at North Filton and Henbury, which would form part of the Henbury line. A new hourly train service would run between Bristol Temple Meads and Henbury calling at Ashley Down and North Filton and serve the new proposed YTL arena. I understand that the next stage is for a planning application to receive consent from South Gloucestershire Council to build the scheme. My officials stand ready to offer any necessary support to the scheme’s promoters.
Although this is not in South Gloucestershire, significant improvement work continues to be planned for Gloucester station. That will please my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is not in his place but has had a word with me.
I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate once again on securing the debate and this additional service for his constituents. I hope that I have reassured him of our commitment to improving rail services to his constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Civil Legal Aid (Housing and Asylum Accommodation) Order 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Legal Aid (Housing and Asylum Accommodation) Order 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This statutory instrument will expand the scope of civil legal aid to allow early legal advice before court on housing, welfare benefits and debt issues for those at risk of losing their home. It will modify part 1 of schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, known as LASPO, to bring legal advice for certain housing, debt and welfare benefits issues in scope of legal aid funding. It also modifies secondary legislation to introduce an additional fee to remunerate providers delivering the new early legal advice.
The statutory instrument will ensure that failed asylum seekers who face a genuine obstacle to leaving the UK remain eligible for legal aid to support them in obtaining accommodation support from the Home Office. It will do this by amending schedule 1 to LASPO to link legal aid for asylum seekers to new support provisions being introduced by the Home Office. The draft order is to be made using the powers conferred by LASPO.
The statutory instrument lays the necessary foundations to ensure better wraparound legal support for those facing the loss of their home by enabling the replacement of the current housing possession court duty scheme, the HPCDS, with the housing loss prevention advice service, the HLPAS. The instrument is an important step in delivering a key commitment made in the Government’s recent consultation on reforming the way we deliver housing legal aid services.
Civil legal aid is available to an individual if the legal service they need is listed in part 1 of schedule 1 to LASPO. Legal aid may also be available on an exceptional basis where there would be a breach or risk of a breach to an individual’s rights under the European convention on human rights or any retained, enforceable EU rights; this is known as exceptional case funding, or ECF. Eligibility for legal aid, for both in-scope matters and ECF, is subject to statutory means and merits assessments. The means test sets out that if an individual’s capital or disposable income is above a certain threshold, they would certainly not be eligible for legal aid.
There are different merits tests depending on the type of case but, for most cases, the merits test provides for a cost-benefit test and a prospects of success test. If those tests are not met, funding will not be granted. Under the current arrangements, legal aid for social welfare law matters, such as debt, housing and welfare benefits, is limited to the most urgent circumstances—for instance, in the event of an individual losing their home through eviction or repossession. This is to ensure that legal aid is targeted at those who need it most.
However, during the post-implementation review of LASPO, we heard from respondents that the LASPO reforms, which came into effect in 2013, might have caused increased financial cost to individuals, their support networks and the Government. Respondents claimed that individuals experiencing social welfare legal problems, especially housing-related matters, were now unable to resolve their problems at an early opportunity, and were therefore likely to experience problems clustering and escalating, requiring costly intervention. Frequently cited examples in the review included increased use of court services as individuals were issued with possession proceedings; greater reliance on welfare benefits, and on temporary and permanent accommodation provided by their local authority following eviction; and increased use of health services for stress and anxiety.
That brings us to the scope of the amendment. Since 2019, my officials have not only considered the evidence provided in the LASPO post-implementation review, but worked closely with legal aid providers and other Government Departments to finalise the terms of the amendment. From November 2021 to January 2022, the Ministry of Justice ran a consultation on the housing legal aid reforms in the instrument, amending our proposals in response to feedback to ensure that the amendment presents a practical and effective way forward.
This order seeks to help individuals to resolve problems before they lead to housing loss by making legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues available from the moment the individual receives notice that possession of their home is being sought. It is hoped that intervention at that point will enable affected individuals to resolve matters, potentially preventing the loss of their home and reducing demand on the courts and other public services. The advice will not be means-tested, meaning individuals will not need to pass any financial eligibility test to receive it. If the instrument is approved, the advice will be available from 1 August 2023.
In addition to early legal advice, the amendment will continue to provide an “on the day” in-court duty service whereby the Government will fund representation for defendants in possession cases. Both elements will constitute the new housing loss prevention advice service. The instrument will introduce new fees to the remuneration regulations to ensure that legal aid providers can be paid for services provided under the HLPAS. It also amends the procedure regulations so that certain procedural requirements will not apply to the new scheme to allow for its efficient operation.
Let me turn to the amendment on legal aid for failed asylum seekers. It remains the Government’s policy to ensure that failed asylum seekers can obtain accommodation support when they are destitute and there is an obstacle preventing them from leaving the UK. This is a small amendment to ensure the continued provision of legal aid for failed asylum seekers obtaining accommodation. Currently, legal aid for asylum accommodation is tied to sections 4 and 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. When the upcoming amendments to the Immigration Act 2016 come into force, they will repeal section 4 of the 1999 Act and introduce new section 95A, which has the same intention of ensuring failed asylum seekers can access accommodation support.
This statutory instrument simply tidies up the rules so that they are consistent with the amendments to the 2016 Act. It is a purely technical amendment to LASPO to ensure the Government’s policy intention continues to be met, and that there is no change in access to legal aid for asylum accommodation support. This part of the order will come into force only when the relevant amendment to the Immigration Act 2016 comes into force.
Before concluding, I will cover some Peer and Committee queries of which we have been made aware. First, I will draw attention to the issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The order was previously laid but had to be withdrawn. Following the laying of the previous draft order before Parliament on 17 October 2022, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments noted that it was not clear when all its aspects were due to come into force. We accepted that point and decided to withdraw and re-lay the previous draft order, amending the commencement provisions to ensure clarity on when each part of the order comes into force.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee queried how the Government intend to raise awareness of the early legal advice for housing, debt and welfare benefits. We take that matter seriously, recognising that it is often difficult to reach those most at need. Therefore, my officials will be working closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to ensure that legal support is signposted to individuals facing proceedings at the earliest opportunity.
In conclusion, the amendment will make early legal advice available to individuals facing the potential loss of their home, and it will ensure that the Government maintain their policy of providing legal aid to failed asylum seekers who need accommodation before they leave the UK.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. The Labour party will not oppose the draft Civil Legal Aid (Housing and Asylum Accommodation) Order 2023. We support in principle the introduction of non-means, non-merits tested initial advice for housing, welfare benefits and debt, but we are concerned about the sustainability of providers and whether they have the resources to deliver advice, particularly on welfare benefits and debt, as they were largely removed from scope by LASPO in 2012.
This Government’s track record on both criminal and civil legal aid has proven to be nothing but disappointing and has led to a justice system on its knees. We are now 10 years from the passing of LASPO. Post pandemic, and in the midst of a cost of living crisis, morale in the public sector is at an all-time low. Years of under-investment in the legal aid system, coupled with cuts in 2011 and 2014, have resulted in large numbers of practitioners leaving legal aid practices, and firms are struggling to recruit across the board. There are also issues of firms taking on less work under a legal aid contract as the work is deemed to be loss-making. Law Society analysis suggests that the number of providers starting legal aid work could drop by a third by 2025. Between 2011 and 2022, we have seen a drop of nearly 40%. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of that on the courts backlog?
The last time fees were increased was in 1996—over 25 years ago. The Government imposed a further 10% fee cut in 2011. That represents a real-terms cut of 49.4% in fees to 2022—almost half. Not only are we still waiting for answers as to why the Government have not committed to the recommendations of their own criminal legal aid review; on civil legal aid, we must wait until 2024 to have a review, so any changes are not likely to take place until 2025 at the earliest. That delay creates a threat in itself. Unless interim measures are put in place to shore up existing provision, the risk is that there will be no system left by 2025. Can the Minister explain why it will take this long? These delays are doing nothing other than worsening the current chaos in the courts. What assessment has he made of the impact of these delays on the existing courts backlog?
Across England and Wales, 65% of the population do not have access to an immigration and asylum legal aid provider. In the Minister’s own constituency of Finchley and Golders Green, there is a total of zero immigration and asylum legal aid providers. What advice is he giving to his constituents? What steps are the Government taking to tackle legal aid deserts, so that victims can have access to justice?
Turning to housing, this winter the system is at crisis point. According to the June to September 2022 mortgage and landlord possession statistics, landlord possession claims have more than doubled in the last year, and possession orders have nearly tripled. The demand for legal services in housing is, understandably, growing, yet currently around 12.5 million people in England live in a housing legal desert.
We are witnessing a growing and dangerous justice gap in the civil legal sector. The consistent lack of serious action from this Government threatens the sustainability of our entire justice system. We currently have a legal aid system running on empty. I therefore urge the Minister to urgently review the scope of civil legal aid and the worsening decline in the number of civil legal aid providers. With the current cost of living crisis, it is simply unfeasible for people up and down the country to travel hundreds of miles to access their closest legal aid provider.
This statutory instrument will do little to improve the wider state of disrepair that the civil legal aid system is currently in, as civil legal aid is put out of the reach of more and more people who need it. The Government have had 13 years to nurse the justice system back to health, and they have failed miserably. I hope the Minister will consider the concerns I have raised. The Labour party supports the draft statutory instrument.
Mike Freer
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s contribution and support for this extension to legal aid. Let me answer a couple of his points.
I do not have the figures on civil legal aid, but I reassure colleagues and the shadow Minister that the recent injection of more than £135 million into the criminal legal aid system has, since the new contracts came into force in October last year, seen an increase in providers, firms and duty solicitors. It is, then, simply not true to suggest that the legal aid system is about to collapse. I expect the reform of the civil legal aid process to result in a similar improvement in provision.
Afzal Khan
The Minister says it is not true that the legal aid system is collapsing; perhaps he can explain why the courts have a 60,000 backlog and we see, year after year, a decline in the number of people who practise legal aid.
Mike Freer
Without getting into a debate that is not really to do with this statutory instrument, let me put it firmly: the outstanding case load in the criminal courts was on a downward trajectory until the industrial action by the Criminal Bar Association. The uptick in the backlog was a direct result of that action. Since the members of the Criminal Bar Association went back to work, we have started to see a downward trajectory in that case load.
On sustainability, I repeat that the early indications from the injection of more than £135 million into the criminal side of legal aid are that there has been an increase in the number of legal aid practitioners. I expect the same impact once we have reformed civil legal aid.
The particular changes in this statutory instrument will see a £10 million injection into civil legal aid, on top of the £30 million increase in the previous year. We are spending a significant amount of money to support people through civil legal aid. It remains a focus of the Department to reform all aspects of legal aid to make sure that it is both efficient and effective and that the money is well spent. I make no apology for that.
I thank the shadow Minister for his interest in my constituency. I reassure him that we have no shortage of a vibrant legal ecosystem in London. On top of that, the area of Finchley and Golders Green and the neighbouring seats of Hendon and Chipping Barnet are well served by excellent MPs.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 10 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
Future of the Parole Board
(1 year, 10 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
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the Parole Board.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I come to this debate on the future of the Parole Board not as an expert in jurisprudence, or the theology of jurisprudence, but from my experience as a constituency MP and a member of the Science and Technology Committee. That Committee looks at, among other areas, how public bodies and Government Departments use evidence when coming to decisions. On 7 September 2022, the Science and Technology Committee had a really interesting session looking at the basis that the Parole Board had for making what are very difficult decisions, in many cases, about who to release on parole. I advise any interested person to read the transcript of that session.
Unusually, I want to start by thanking the Secretary of State for Justice. At the last Justice questions, I brought up the case of Andrew Longmire, also known as Andrew Barlow and previously, I think, as Andrew Seamark, a man who was given many life sentences, the last one in 2017, for rape. I asked the Secretary of State whether he would look into the matter, and he released a statement yesterday saying that he was asking the Parole Board for a reconsideration of that case. I am grateful to him for doing that. I am sure that the victims and the families of victims of Andrew Barlow who have contacted me are also grateful.
I would like to thank Neal Keeling, the Manchester Evening News journalist, who has written a number of stories about this case in that paper. Without those stories, I would not have known that Andrew Barlow was likely to be released, and neither would the families of victims and the victims themselves. I have had a large number of harrowing emails from people describing how their families and personal lives have been destroyed by this man and the multiple rapes he carried out over a period of time.
One of the issues in this case, which I obviously will not go into a great deal of detail about, is that Andrew Barlow was given his first life sentences over 30 years ago, and the progress on DNA analysis meant that the police went back on cold cases and found that he had committed two further rapes, so he was given two further life sentences. Amazingly, he said that he did not remember them. That factor should be taken into account in any Parole Board hearing. If the Parole Board wants to know whether people are remorseful and have changed their view, that is an indication of callousness. As many of the victims and their families who have written to me say, the man is a threat to them and to their families and should remain behind bars. I hope that the reconsideration leads to that.
Let me look at how the Parole Board operates and the decision taken by the Government immediately to change some of the process and carry out a full review, which was stimulated by the John Worboys case. There was a public outcry that he was going to be released. That case made many people think that there was something fundamentally wrong with the way the Parole Board was working. Following judicial review, the Court came to the view that
“the Parole Board didn’t do its job properly.”
That is an understatement of what happened. The Parole Board did not look at all the evidence and it did not look at the court decision properly when deciding that Worboys was going to be released. He was a category A prisoner, which means the Secretary of State thought he was a threat to society, but the decision was taken that he could apply for parole.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate, and I rise to speak as co-chair of the board of the Justice Unions parliamentary group. In raising the John Worboys case, does he share my concern that particular emphasis was placed on advice from a psychologist and that advice from probation officers no longer includes recommendations? Although their advice is received, the issue of probation officer recommendations is a particular concern for the union Napo. Perhaps the Government should revisit the decision not to receive specific recommendations from probation officers.
Graham Stringer
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. I know the trade union believes that recommendations should be made. I have read a lot of the arguments both ways—from the trade union and from the Government, as well as from many of the professional advisers. The case against what the right hon. Lady says is that when there is a recommendation, there is a temptation, for any human being, not to look at the evidence directly. The Parole Board should make its decision based on the evidence before it and its consideration of that evidence, rather than a recommendation. I also see the other side—what people who know the prisoner think, and considering what the probation officers think and recommend, which is important. It is a moot point, but I would not criticise the decision completely to take out recommendations.
Liz Saville Roberts
I agree that there is a debate to be had on the effect of that. Specifically, I hope the Minister will respond with respect to impact assessments following the change in procedure and the removal of recommendations from probation officers, particularly regarding black, Asian and minority ethnic prisoners and IPP—imprisonment for public protection—prisoners.
Graham Stringer
I ask the Minister to respond to that. Let me make a further point about the right hon. Lady’s intervention. The Science and Technology Committee was told in evidence—I think by Professor Shute; I hope I have that right—that when recommendations were made, it was rare to the point of being zero that the Parole Board went against the recommendation. That might or might not indicate that the Parole Board was not reading the evidence as it had been presented to the board. It is easy just to take the recommendations.
Let me turn to third parole case that, as a constituency MP, I spent a lot of time on a few years ago. Thirty years ago today, Suzanne Capper had a funeral and was buried after having been tortured for a week and murdered. I was not an MP 30 years ago, but it was in my constituency. She attended the school that I had attended many years before. It was a horrific case. Four people were convicted of her murder; three have been released, and one is up for parole. In the 1960s, the four people found guilty would have been hanged. I am against capital punishment, but I want the public to have confidence in the justice system. They were guilty of a crime every bit as horrific as the moors murders—Brady and Hindley were never released. Even though three of them have been released since I made representations to the Parole Board on behalf of Suzanne Capper’s mother, which were effectively ignored, I believe that one of the murderers should not be released.
When people learn that three of the murderers, and potentially a fourth, will be walking the streets of this country after that terrible murder, they will not think that justice has been done. I would like an assessment not just of how the Parole Board operates but of who is considered for parole. I do not think those murderers should have been. Although one cannot just use the general view that they should not be, I think there is a sense, when people such as that are walking the streets of this country, that justice has been undermined and has not been done.
Those three cases have brought me, as a constituency MP and as somebody who has been watching what has happened to the Parole Board, to consider that the Parole Board should be reformed in many ways. When the Science and Technology Committee took evidence, virtually all the witnesses said that the Parole Board previously operated in private—in secret. Sometimes it made decisions just on the papers in front of it, sometimes it listened to the criminal, and sometimes statements from the victims were read out. We all accept in court cases that justice must not only be done but should be seen to be done, but that has not been the case with the arguments the Parole Board considers. There may be a case for keeping some privacy, because victims and their families may be mentioned, but when a decision is taken to release back into the community somebody who has done appalling things, the public are entitled to know what the basis for that was and what the arguments and evidence were.
Liz Saville Roberts
I apologise for not making a speech today, but I am meeting Rhianon Bragg, whose case I raised in Justice questions. She has now received a letter of apology from the Secretary of State for Justice. Her medical, mental health details were given in a dossier to her abuser. She had previously applied to the Parole Board for his release hearing to be held in public, and that has been refused.
This mistreatment of a victim by the criminal justice system in itself warrants a public Parole Board hearing, because the public need to know why that happened. She has now been advised to apply to attend the Parole Board hearing in private but, frankly, this case is an example of it being in the public interest of justice for there to be an appeal procedure for the Parole Board. Far more Parole Board hearings should be in public, as the hon. Gentleman is calling for.
Graham Stringer
I agree with the right hon. Lady, and thank her for her intervention.
We do not only want transparency; there needs to be an examination of the statistics. We were told on the Science and Technology Committee that the percentage of prisoners applying for parole and getting it had gradually increased over the last 25 years from 10% to 30%—that is a huge change. My suspicion is that, even though it will not be down in writing, there is tremendous pressure on the number of people in prison. There is tremendous pressure on the costs; it costs a lot of money to keep somebody in prison. Somewhere in the background, without it being stated explicitly, there is pressure to get more people out, and that—probably—means that some people are being released into the community who are a risk to it.
The statistics on reoffending appear to be small. We were told on the Committee that in recent times 12 people have been released who have committed murder, and there have been a number of other serious crimes. As percentages, those are very low, but obviously those crimes are an absolute catastrophe for every family who has lost somebody to a murderer, and for the person who was murdered, and an indication that something has gone seriously wrong.
The Parole Board keeps for three years statistics on offences by people released on parole. When we questioned the chief executive of the Parole Board, we were told, “Well, after three years there is not a lot to learn, because Parole Board members may have changed and the process may be slightly different.” I do not accept that. Many of these prisoners are in for life, and the statistics that are kept should be kept for the whole of their lives, until they die of natural causes or go back to prison, so that we really know what is happening.
There was also a serious conflict of evidence between the Parole Board and some of the academic witnesses about how likely repeat offending was. According to the notes we had as Committee members, and what was said, there was a 25% reoffending rate for sexual offences against children who were non-family members. I have to say that the Parole Board did not accept that figure, but the academics were clear.
The other dispute over the evidence was that, in looking at the three-year period, many of the academics said that there is a curve showing that offending for certain offences was more likely the longer the period. Again, the Parole Board disputed that. If there are good records, these things can be verified factually; we should know what the answer is.
When it comes to the process of deciding whether somebody should be released, the Parole Board has limited tools. Psychiatrists and psychologists give reports. I say as a scientist, as well as a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, that sciences such as astronomy and many other branches of physics are predictive: we know where Saturn or Mars will be in 10 months, 10 years or 100 years.
Psychiatry and psychology are not predictive. The evidence before the Science and Technology Committee was that the psychiatric and psychological methods used for assessment were 20 years out of date, and that there were better ways to do it. Even with the better ways, there is no certainty around the risk of a prisoner reoffending. Even though the tools used at present are better, they are limited.
The second point is that statistically, given a series of factors, prediction is more accurate. On a statistical basis, it can be said that, given those factors, 2% of prisoners will reoffend, but we do not know which 2%. It is important to know the risk, but none of that gives a guarantee that a person will not reoffend. It is worth considering that against the background of the large increase in the number of people being released back into the community.
I have tried to stay with the factual basis of what the science says, what the science can and cannot do, and the practical mistakes made by the Parole Board. We heard very concerning evidence that a sex offender treatment programme increased rather than reduced the chance of reoffending. That programme should be looked at. There should be a clear definition of what is meant by public protection and how it is measured. In addition to that sex offender programme, there should be a proper assessment of all rehabilitation programmes and where they take place.
I have already mentioned that Worboys was a category A prisoner when a decision was taken to consider him for parole. We were told that he was not on his own. We were also told that it was almost unheard of 25 years ago for category C prisoners to be considered for parole, let alone categories B and A. That seems to be one reason for the increase in prisoners being released. The previous process of rehabilitation programmes in prison, with people moving down the category list into open prisons, is less common, although it has not been abandoned. There are certainly many exceptions to that rule. We did not hear any reasons why those exceptions had been made.
I have talked for quite a long time. These issues are important—I know our constituents consider them to be important—and very difficult ones. I refer people who think that the Parole Board can be objective to what I think is not a nice but a rather brilliant film by Stanley Kubrick, “A Clockwork Orange”. It has a different ending, incidentally, from that in Anthony Burgess’s book. Had he been alive, Burgess would have been at one time a constituent of mine; he was born and brought up in my constituency.
Alex DeLarge, the villain of the piece—a hooligan and rapist—goes through all sorts of psychological brainwashing processes to turn him into a model citizen. At the end of the film, when the establishment says, “This has worked; we have now turned Alex into a decent human being”, he turns round and winks at the camera. In a rather unpleasant way, that is a celebration of how the human spirit cannot be brainwashed and he, one guesses, is still the nasty person he was at the beginning of the film.
The Parole Board has a difficult job in assessing cases. It is a necessary job, but it has gone away from the standards of evidence and from being able to tell us that it has been thorough with the procedures. In two of the cases that I have brought up, the Parole Board has failed to tell the victims and families, and that should be an impediment to somebody leaving. The probation service wrote to me and said that it is difficult to find families 20 years later. It might be difficult, but if it uses the local press and tells people and is transparent, it might be a great deal easier to find members of families who have moved and changed their telephone numbers.
I am not saying that the Parole Board’s job is easy—it is difficult—but it has not been done as thoroughly and well as it could have been. People have been put at risk and potentially put at risk. The Government need to change the policy on the basis of the evidence and make sure that the public are secure by not allowing some people to get parole and by making sure that they are as certain as they can be that some other people pose no risk to the public.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Murray. I thank the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for leading the debate, and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who has had to go to another meeting, for her great knowledge of the subject. If she had been able to make a speech, that would have added to the debate, but her interventions certainly helped to steer it in a certain direction.
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton is absolutely right. I will echo his concerns and give some examples from Northern Ireland, although the Minister here today does not have direct responsibility for all that happens in relation to the Parole Board or, as it is in Northern Ireland, the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the Parole Board is complex, and is limited mostly to England and Wales, and it is important to recognise that we have a separate entity in Northern Ireland.
The 2018-19 parole reforms were crucial for the safety of victims during the parole process. They were partly a response to the case of John Radford, a prolific rapist who committed over 100 assaults. None of his victims was informed when he was released on parole, when they should have been. The case resonated with me at the time in terms of the importance of supporting and defending the victims of crime.
I remember a case in my constituency of Strangford in Northern Ireland. A lady was in the major supermarket in Newtownards one day, when she turned a corner to be met with the man who had murdered her son during the troubles. She had no idea that he had been released; she had never been consulted or told. That lady was shocked and traumatised when she turned the corner of the shelves and there he was—blatant, unrepentant and with almost a wink of his eye as he looked towards her. The impact on her was dramatic, and if it were not for the fact she had the trolley and the shelves to lean on, she would probably have collapsed there and then in the aisle of the shop.
In that case, due diligence had clearly not been completed. We must support such measures for any future changes to the Parole Board or the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland. The traumatising of the public or retraumatising of the victim should be at the heart of the discussion. I have extreme concerns about that, as, I am sure, do many across the House. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton clearly and succinctly put that matter on record.
There have been ongoing discussions about whether it is acceptable for the Parole Board to be an executive non-departmental public body or whether it is more appropriate for it to be a part of the court system. The Minister always takes our thoughts on board and tries to respond positively, so will he clarify that point?
In my office, we often have phone calls about matters such as custody of children, family finance issues and marital support. Fortunately—or unfortunately, perhaps —as elected representatives we have no say in relation to legal matters. We have been told to leave such issues up to the courts, solicitors and tribunals. I always do that; I never advise on a legal matter, as I am not qualified to do so. I can give people information about where in the town they can seek legal advice. If it is a work issue, I will refer them to the Labour Relations Agency. The best legal advice comes from people who are qualified to respond.
However, with the parole system, there are circumstances where the Secretary of State can have a say and apply to the Parole Board for reconsideration of a decision that has been made. I am ever mindful that in Northern Ireland, with the troubles we have had, the case for many who have lost loved ones is real. In a small Province like our own, in many cases those who have committed the most beastly, monstrous and terrible crimes walk the streets, so victims will always be paramount in my consideration.
Victims of crimes can ask the Secretary of State for a reconsideration mechanism, but I believe the victims themselves should be able to take these matters forward, as ultimately it is their lives that will be turned upside down. Some victims I know carry the burden of a lost one to their very grave. I have personally known some of those people; I often think of the ones who lost their lives in the troubles. I particularly remember someone whose family member was murdered by the IRA, and he told me that he thought of them every morning when he woke up and every night when he went to bed. That is what it means for victims, and then they see the perpetrators of those crimes walking the streets—I will use the word “unrepentant,” because in many cases they are; there might be some who wish they had never done what they did, but there are many who do not have that attitude.
The changes recommended by the 2022 root-and-branch review of the statutory test for release still must be implemented. The UK Government have argued that in the absence of parliamentary intervention, the application of the current test has drifted from its original intention. In the most serious cases, I believe that Parliament should have a role to intervene where the victim is comfortable and satisfied with Parliament and Government doing so. Again, that is my request to the Minister: is that something that the Government would consider? I think that should be done, and I am keen to hear the Minister’s response.
A more precautionary approach must be taken, with more input from more representatives to ensure the very best outcome. Parole hearings need to take into account what are described as top-tier offences—for example, murder, rape, terrorism or terrorism-related offences, and allowing or causing the death of a child. I find it impossible to fathom, or to understand in its entirety, the pain of those who have lost loved ones for those reasons, and how that traumatises the family—that mum, dad, brother, sister, grandparent, uncle or aunt—forever. In many people’s humble opinion, those sorts of crimes do not warrant parole or release, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said in his introduction. Those crimes are of such magnitude, ferocity and evilness that I probably would not support parole for them, on the grounds that the victims’ families should be paramount in any decision on release. In many people’s humble opinion, not just mine, those sorts of crimes do not warrant parole, or being released but under review. When such a decision is to be made, it must be referred to the Secretary of State and to central Government here.
The onus of this discussion has always been on, and should always remain with, the victims of crimes. It is sometimes easy for behaviour to be assessed after years have passed, and sometimes people can change, but the hurt and torment never go away for those who are left to pick up the pieces. Victims deserve to have their opinions aired at public tribunals, and those opinions must be paramount in all that happens. They deserve to feel safe in the communities they live in; more importantly, they deserve to feel that our judicial system and our Government are working for them and only for them—for the victims, not the perpetrators, of those awful crimes and for the lives that have been changed forever. It is those for victims that I am here today, as is the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on having secured this hugely important debate to highlight the urgent challenges facing the parole system. Much of my speech will reflect and build on his concerns.
My hon. Friend mentioned the deeply distressing case of Andrew Barlow, formerly known as Andrew Longmire, and I echo his concerns. I, too, welcome the Lord Chancellor’s referral of the case back to the Parole Board for reconsideration that was announced yesterday; it is a testament to the hard work and campaigning of the victims. I also put on record my admiration for my hon. Friend and the vital work he has done, championing those victims’ cause in Parliament. As a former journalist, I also commend the role of the media in this particular case. However, it is totally unacceptable that the victims and their families did not receive the expected prior notification of Barlow’s planned release. Sadly, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), such failures are regularly repeated.
I am aware that the head of the Parole Board has expressed regret at the fact that some of Barlow’s victims were not informed, but that is simply not good enough. I note that when Sonia Flynn, the chief probation officer, gave evidence to the Science and Technology Committee last year, she confirmed:
“It is in statute that we must consult victims of serious crime on their view of release, and for them to also give our victim liaison officers a view regarding the protections that we need to put in place to reduce their concerns about that individual if the Parole Board does choose to release—particularly the obvious concern that they could bump into them in the street.”
It is deeply worrying that, even with a case as serious as this one, mistakes have been made.
I was horrified to learn that one of the victims, who still has nightmares three decades on as a result of the horror of Mr Barlow’s offending, only found out about his potential release, as we have heard, by reading the Manchester Evening News. We cannot allow our justice system to continue to treat victims as an afterthought. All of Andrew Barlow’s victims should have been signed up to the victim contact scheme and received communications from a victim liaison officer regarding how long he would be in prison, when he was up for parole and when he was likely to be released. They should have been told how to make a victim’s statement at the parole hearing. Such failings can retraumatise victims and seriously damage the public’s confidence in our justice system.
The Parole Board’s statutory purpose is to ensure that people who are dangerous are not released back into the community. It is a system designed to ensure public safety and to protect victims of crime, but after 12 years of Tory incompetence and chaos, our justice system is on its knees. Before the Minister uses the P-word, let me say that it was chaotic before the pandemic. Public confidence in the system is already near breaking point and with each further failing it gets closer to collapse. The Sentencing Council’s 2022 research report tells us that 45% of those surveyed were not confident in the criminal justice system’s effectiveness and 44% were not confident in its fairness. Does the Minister share my shock at those statistics? Public trust, efficacy and fairness of criminal justice are vital, or we will see fewer victims coming forward to report crimes and even greater numbers withdrawing midway through the process.
The 2019 Conservative manifesto promised to support all victims of crime and do right by victims, but the Government simply have not addressed these ongoing problems. How can year-long court delays and chronic staffing shortages from one end of the system to another contribute to a system that is doing right by victims? The Minister will not be surprised by my next question: when will the victims Bill come before the House?
It is clear to us all that the Government have completely lost their grip on criminal justice. Labour is the only party that can be trusted to deliver on law and order. We know that careful parole decisions are essential to reducing reoffending and its costs to society. Reoffending costs our society an astonishing £18 billion each year according to the Government’s own figures. Changes to the parole system introduced by the Government in June last year prohibit probation officers from giving a view or making recommendations to the Parole Board on progression or release of prisoners, thus removing an important element of professional expert knowledge from the process. In his evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, Martin Jones—CEO of the Parole Board—emphasised this expertise by saying,
“It is really important to make the point that we get evidence from prison and probation officers on whether a person is safe to be released or not, and work by the Ministry of Justice some years ago suggested that 90% of our decisions are in line with the evidence provided by report writers. That provides some evidence of consistency.”
In July last year, the three recognised Probation Service unions—Napo, Unison and the GMB—penned a letter to the Secretary of State with warnings about the serious consequences of the decision to prevent probation staff from making recommendations in written reports and oral evidence to the Parole Board under any circumstance. The ability to do so has long been a vital and valued part of the parole process. The unions warned that the decision
“severely endangers the ability of the Probation Service to protect victims of the most serious offences, and indeed the wider public, from the risk of serious harm posed by many individuals involved in the parole system.”
It further de-professionalises this vital public service role, leading to staff demoralisation, and exacerbating the retention problems that the Probation Service already faces. Prison and probation officers work hard day in, day out to deliver justice, and yet again they have been dismissed, undervalued and let down by this Tory Government. Speaking to the Ministry of Justice last year, a senior probation official said:
“It is extremely difficult and very disappointing that the Parole Board is the last to hear about important decisions which strike at the very heart of the difficult decisions we are asked to make. It makes our members’ already difficult job close to impossible.”
In fact, Napo members raised concerns about having to supervise someone in the community who they would not have recommended for release. They talked about the extreme stress that could cause, as well as the increased risk of further serious offences.
I am interested to hear from the Minister why removing probation recommendations was not included in the root-and-branch review of the Parole Board, and why there was no prior consultation with all stakeholders before the changes were implemented. Napo is concerned that removing professional recommendations in parole will lead to inappropriate releases and the non-release of those who otherwise may have been granted parole. Will the Minister share what impact assessment has been carried out on that particular issue, and confirm whether the Government sought the views of the Parole Board itself about having to make release decisions without expert witness recommendations?
The changes allow for the Secretary of State to make recommendations. That happens only in the most serious of cases—around 150 of the 6,000 that the Parole Board deals with each year. The remaining cases will now have no recommendation given, which seems astonishing to me. I ask the Minister for further information on the so-called “critical few” cases that the Secretary of State will be involved in. Can the Minister share how many oral hearings have been attended by a Secretary of State’s representative in recent times? In how many of those oral hearings did the Secretary of State’s representative recommend no progression—either from closed or open conditions, to open conditions from closed conditions, or release on licence?
Public hearings, the other major change introduced last year, were consulted on via the root-and-branch review. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton mentioned that as well. Personally, I am in favour of increasing the transparency of such hearings. When done properly, they could help to improve public confidence in the system. I know there have been only a few public hearings since their introduction, but could the Minister provide an update on how they are running, and how much engagement there has been with them? I understand that a remote link has to be set up to allow viewing, so I assume the Government have some sense of how many people are attending.
Finally, our probation service is still reeling from the reckless transforming rehabilitation programme, a failed experiment in privatisation. That disaster proceeded because the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), failed to listen to the warnings of those with the wealth of experience and expertise. I sincerely hope the current Secretary of State does not make the same mistake with parole.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair and serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing this important debate. His speech was thoughtful, deliberative and balanced. He spoke in the light of some of the most appalling and horrific crimes, murders and rapes that we have known in our lifetimes. The thoughts of all of us in this House are with the victims of those terrible crimes and their families. Their loss—their tragedy—does not dim with time. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, victims must always be paramount in the system. The system must work for them and must be seen to do so.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the vital and difficult role that the Parole Board plays, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, in protecting the public by making decisions about the release of some of the most serious offenders in our system. It is critical that the parole system works as effectively as possible to keep the public safe. That is, and must be, the top priority. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the September hearing of the Science and Technology Committee, of which he is a member. I have read the transcript of that hearing and agree that it was important and useful. He rightly said that statistics are important, as is understanding the statistics. He also said, and he was right, that statistics can only ever take us so far, because a serious reoffence is the most complete catastrophe—I think those were the words he used—for an individual and their family.
He made a specific point about reoffending statistics. I want to clarify that under the probation serious further offence procedures, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service captures data on every serious further offence that is committed by an offender who has been released by the Parole Board, regardless of how long afterwards that serious further offence was committed. I will write to him with the data behind that.
As has been mentioned by Members, including the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), the Government conducted a root-and-branch review of the parole system, which was published last year. It set out our proposals for making further improvements. I will say a little about the measures that we are taking, as well as seeking to address some of the points that colleagues have made.
We have heard about the impact on victims when offenders are considered for release by the Parole Board. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton for his unfailing support for constituents who have been so dreadfully affected by serious offending. These are difficult and deeply distressing times for them, and I want to apologise to any who have not received the service that they should have. Their experiences demonstrate why it is so important to ensure that they, and the victims of other terrible crimes, are properly supported.
To that end, I will explain the measures that we are taking to improve the way the victim contact scheme operates, particularly when it comes to tracing and working with victims of offences that were committed before the scheme was established. I hope my comments about the action that we are taking will reassure colleagues about how seriously we take these matters and that, despite the problems that sometimes regrettably occur, we do have an effective system for keeping victims informed about the parole process.
One of the Government’s priorities, as set out in the root-and-branch review, is to improve openness and transparency. We want to enhance public understanding and bolster confidence. It is clear that in all cases, victims need to be kept updated on what is going on in their case, and we are looking at ways to improve that.
Before I say more about our plans to reform the system, it might be helpful if I first briefly go through the legislative framework within which the Parole Board operates. The Parole Board’s purpose is to decide whether prisoners convicted of serious, violent or sexual offences, who are serving certain types of sentences, can be safely released into the community on licence. The sentences dealt with by the Parole Board include life sentences, indeterminate sentences for public protection, extended determinate sentences and the sentences of those who are recalled to prison for breaching the terms of their licence. When passing sentence, the trial judge will set a minimum custodial period, which the offender must serve in prison for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Once the minimum period has been served, the Secretary of State is required to refer these cases to the Parole Board so that the prisoner’s suitability for release on licence can be considered.
That decision is about the offender’s current risk, having completed the part of the sentence that the judge has said must be spent in prison for the offences committed. The wording of the statutory test for release is clear. The Parole Board must not give a direction for a prisoner’s release unless the board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner be confined in prison. When applying the public protection test, the Parole Board needs to consider whether there is a risk of serious harm. If release is directed, the Secretary of State must comply with that direction unless it appears legally flawed, in which case the Secretary of State has the power to ask for the decision to be reconsidered.
The Parole Board is an independent body with expertise in risk assessment. It takes robust and fully-evidenced decisions. The board takes public protection very seriously. In around three out of four of the cases that are referred to the board, it decides to keep the offender in prison for the protection of the public. Where the board does direct release, less than 0.5% of the people in those cases go on to commit a serious further offence within three years. Any serious further offence is, of course, a tragedy and is fully investigated. The vast majority of offenders released by the board do not go on to cause serious further harm.
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton raised the Worboys case. That awful case highlighted the need for improved transparency, especially for victims, about the reasons for a Parole Board release decision. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in 2018 we introduced decision summaries, which are now routinely provided to victims and others to explain why the board has directed a prisoner’s release. The case also highlighted the need for a better and easier way to challenge parole decisions if they can be shown to be flawed. That led to the introduction in 2019 of the reconsideration mechanism, which the Secretary of State uses in cases in which he considers that a release decision should be looked at again.
We intend to go further to ensure that the system is as robust as possible. The root-and-branch review set out key proposed reforms that aim to ensure that public protection is the overriding consideration for release decisions and to introduce additional safeguards into the system.
Graham Stringer
I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. Will he respond to the two points that I made in the area that he is considering at the moment? One was that there seems to be an unexplained and dramatic increase in the 25% of prisoners who, as he just mentioned, are being released. The other was that category A, B and C prisoners are also being recommended for parole, which was not previously the case.
Damian Hinds
I will respond to the hon. Gentleman on the precise numbers in correspondence, if I may. The important point is that every case is considered individually on its merits; that has to be at the heart of how the Parole Board goes about its business.
We will make the release test more prescriptive, so it is absolutely clear that prisoners should continue to be detained unless it can be demonstrated that they no longer present a risk of further serious offending. Secondly, for a top tier of the most serious offenders—I think that the hon. Member for Stockton North asked for clarification on what the tier consists of; it is those sentenced for murder, rape, causing or allowing the death of a child, and terrorist offences—we will legislate to give Ministers the power to refuse a release decision made by the Parole Board if they disagree with the board’s view that the release test has been met. That will provide an additional safeguard and, I hope, further reassurance to victims that for the most serious offenders, including murderers and rapists, there will be oversight by Ministers, who will be able to prevent release if that is considered necessary to keep the public safe.
Thirdly, we will legislate to ensure that the Parole Board’s membership includes more people with law enforcement backgrounds, who will sit on panels dealing with the most serious cases. Having more members who are, for instance, ex-police officers with first-hand experience of tackling crime in our communities and dealing with serious offenders will further enhance the Parole Board’s expertise in assessing the risk such offenders present. The measures that I have described will require primary legislation, which, to respond to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, we will introduce at the earliest opportunity.
We have already taken other steps within the system to enhance public protection and increase confidence. For example, we have reformed the way indeterminate sentence prisoners are moved to open prison conditions, and Ministers can block such moves if they do not meet new, tougher criteria. Also, we have introduced a new system whereby Ministers can submit an overarching view to the Parole Board about release in some of the most serious and troubling cases before any decisions are taken. That ensures that it is made very clear to the board at the outset if there is a case where Ministers would be opposed to the prisoner’s release.
I return to the important issue of victims’ experience of the parole system, which is at the heart of the case that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton made, and the measures that we are taking on it. When offenders are being assessed for release by the Parole Board, it can be a very difficult and distressing time for victims. We want to improve the way victims are engaged in that process, give them additional opportunities to hear about what is going on, and make them feel and know that they have more of a voice.
The mechanism by which victims are kept informed about parole is the victim contact scheme, which is operated by the probation service. It was first established in 2001 and applies to victims of sexual and violent offending where the offender is sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more. Victims who have signed up to the contact scheme should always be notified when a prisoner is coming up for potential release.
Victims have a choice about joining the victim contact scheme. If they choose to join, they will be kept up to date with key developments, including prisoners’ parole reviews, parole decisions and release decisions, by a dedicated victim liaison officer. During parole cases, victims can make a victim personal statement to the board, setting out the impact of the offence against them, and they may read it aloud to the Parole Board panel if an oral hearing is convened.
Victims also have the legal right to make requests about licence conditions, including a no-contact condition and an exclusion zone that prohibits the offender from entering areas where the victim lives, works or travels to frequently. Victims can also request a summary of the Parole Board decision and, where the Parole Board has directed release, they can ask the Secretary of State to consider applying to the Parole Board for the decision to be reconsidered.
It should be noted that some victims choose not to sign up to the victim contact scheme. Understandably, they may seek to do what they can to put the events of the case behind them. If there is no response to a second and third invitation to join the scheme, the probation service will properly respect their wishes and not keep contacting them. Victims can, however, join the scheme at any time, even if they have previously said no. A system in which all victims are notified about parole releases would not be practical for a number of reasons. For example, as I have said, not all victims will want to receive information, and unwanted contact from the service could retraumatise them.
The scheme was set up in 2001. For cases in the system before then, in relation to the victims of offences committed many years ago, it does not operate retrospectively. However, in the most serious and notorious of cases, such as some of those that have been referred to in this debate, the probation service should ask the police, through multi-agency public protection arrangements —known as MAPPAs—for support with tracing victims. In the Andrew Barlow case, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton talked about, the Greater Manchester probation region is working with Greater Manchester Police to trace victims of the offences that Mr Barlow committed in the 1980s and 1990s and invite them to join the victim contact scheme. I should also confirm that, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State is applying to the Parole Board to reconsider its decision to direct Mr Barlow’s release on life licence. Probation victim liaison officers will keep victims in the scheme informed of progress with the application for reconsideration.
As for the measures we are taking to make further improvements, particularly to increase transparency and the information available to victims and others, we committed in the root-and-branch review to allowing victims to observe parole hearings for the first time. We also confirmed that we would change the rules to allow for public hearings in some cases. I know that that has come up this morning, and I will say a little bit about the progress that has been made on both those commitments.
Since October last, victims have been able to observe Parole Board hearings as part of a testing phase that is running in the south-west probation region. During the hearings, victims are supported by probation staff, who discuss the parole process with them and ensure that they are directed to relevant support. We are working closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to ensure that tailored local support services are readily available, should victims require. We recognise that it could be retraumatising for a victim to hear the evidence that is explored during a parole hearing, so we are initially conducting a relatively small-scale testing phase to ensure we get the processes and support arrangements right. My paramount concern is to ensure that victims can observe the hearing in a way that is safe for them while not compromising the Parole Board’s ability to conduct a fair and rigorous assessment of risk.
The hon. Member for Stockton North asked for an update on progress. During the testing phase so far, victims have welcomed the opportunity to observe hearings. Following their feedback, we are working to improve the process to prepare for its expansion across England and Wales.
Last year, having made changes to the Parole Board rules, we also saw the first public Parole Board hearing, which was in the case of Russell Causley in December. A second public hearing has been agreed by the board and will take place this year in the case of Charles Salvador, formerly known as Charles Bronson. These changes will help to improve public understanding and awareness of the parole process.
In the root-and-branch review, we also committed to reviewing the current guidance and requirements for providing victims with information about the parole process. Our review will identify areas for improving the information that victims currently receive through the victim contact scheme. We will ensure that, where victims have requested it, they receive effective, clear and timely communication about the parole process so that they are sufficiently informed as their case is progressed.
As part of the primary legislative reforms that I referred to earlier, we intend to require the Parole Board to consider written submissions from victims about the release of the prisoner. That will be in addition to the victim personal statement that victims are already permitted to make to the board. Again, that is about doing more to give victims a voice and an opportunity to put their concerns and views to the Parole Board.
I want briefly to cover a few other points that came up during the debate. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton raised the sex offender treatment programme. The SOTP was discontinued in the light of research evidence, and a new treatment programme has been introduced, which relies less on group work.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who is no longer in her place, indirectly raised a couple of points—one of which was also raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North—about the important issue of what is in the dossiers that are brought to the Parole Board and the content that comes from different perspectives and analyses. They both asked about not having individual staff recommendations. Reports will continue to provide all the same information, evidence and assessments about the prisoner as they currently do, with the exception of a recommendation or review from the report writer. The reason for that is that it is the Parole Board’s responsibility to decide whether the prisoner is safe to be released or should stay in prison for the protection of the public, based on the entirety of the evidence received. The written reports, including those from prison, probation and psychology staff, and the questioning of witnesses at oral hearings, will continue to provide all the evidence the board needs to enable it to reach fully informed decisions.
Alex Cunningham
The point about the information staff provide and how confident they are that it is being shared is important. I mentioned that staff appear to be concerned that we are releasing prisoners they would never have recommended be released. What does the Minister have to say to them about the credibility of information that is before the Parole Board, and the confidence in the decision?
Damian Hinds
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, the situation he describes could have happened anyway. I reassure him and other colleagues that this is not a diminution of the information that goes into the risk assessment. All of that information is still there, and that totality of information will be considered in the round.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and the hon. Member for Stockton North asked about the impact assessment on changes to the recommendation system. The right hon. Lady specifically asked about impact on minority ethnic offenders. I want to reassure them that that impact is being monitored, though it is too early to assess on a segmented basis. It is important that we keep such matters under review.
I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance that, through the actions the Government are taking, victims’ concerns and the protection of the public are at the heart of our vision for the future of the parole system. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this important, thoughtful and measured debate, and thank everybody who has taken part—in particular the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, who secured it.
Graham Stringer
I thank the Secretary of State for applying for reconsideration, and I thank the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate, which I agree has been thoughtful. I hope it has brought to light some of the procedural failings of the past that need to be put right, and that there are worrying gaps in the information available, the statistics and the trend in those statistics, particularly the increase in the number of prisoners getting parole. There appears to be no obvious reason for that, and we need to understand it. Thank you for chairing the debate, Mrs Murray.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the Parole Board.
Total Allowable Catches: Fisheries Negotiations
(1 year, 10 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
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I will call George Eustice to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the methodologies for setting total allowable catches for data-limited stocks in fisheries negotiations.>
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. It is very appropriate for you to chair this event since, as every Member present knows, your knowledge and experience of the fishing industry is unrivalled in this House. I am sure that, were you not being impartial in chairing the debate, you would have plenty to say on the matter.
In my time as a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, I had two key observations. First, every Minister comes in with plans for the environment, and one of the first things they need to learn is that the environment has plans for them, too, and they are not always very pleasant.
The second truth is that every Minister coming into DEFRA says that they will have an evidence-based approach and will follow the science. But when they ask the scientists what should be done, they find that the scientists are not quite sure. They talk about evidence gaps and things that they do not understand, and are reluctant to come up with a clear policy proposal. That means Fisheries Ministers in particular are inevitably left with the thankless task of trying to make policy decisions with imperfect evidence, but making the best use of the evidence that they have. Nowhere is that conundrum more complex than in fisheries.
I recall a fishing representative giving evidence to a Select Committee. As he put it, fisheries is not rocket science; it is way more complicated than that. There are uncertainties in the science and in the way we calculate maximum sustainable yield. There are difficulties, for instance, around assessing the age of a fish. The basic approach to maximum sustainable yield is to allow fish to reproduce for at least one generation, and that stock should be sustainable. Typically, scientists measure the average length of fish when they are landed to try to assess the age of the stock and its reproductive capacity. That is the essence of the calculations that take place.
But there are difficulties all round. First, fish of different ages tend to inhabit different parts of the ocean, and trying to make sense of that can be difficult. It can be a hit and miss science to understand exactly what the average length of a fish is, given that they are very mobile and move around.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I am extremely interested in what he has to say, and I spoke to him beforehand. I have one example of the importance of data. We have witnessed a remarkable turnaround with spurdog. In a most important fishery, limited data led to a ban on landing the species. However, the situation has changed dramatically, based on the data for 2023, with a total allowable catch agreed with the European Union for the year ahead based on up-to-date scientific advice. A statutory instrument is to follow, as the Minister knows. That is because of the data-limited status and the evidence that has made the change.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Order. This is a 30-minute debate. If interventions are to be made, can we make them short and snappy, please?
George Eustice
I think I get the hon. Gentleman’s point and the Minister might want to address it, but my understanding is that there is now data on spurdog and a total allowable catch has been allocated. One consequence of leaving the European Union is that we have accountable processes in this House for introducing regulatory changes, and I believe a statutory instrument is needed, which takes time to introduce. In the EU, because there is no such accountability, the Commission can literally just issue delegated Acts and implementing Acts sometimes on a whim without any real process behind that.
To continue my point, the length of the fish is not always a good sign of its reproductive capacity, so there are complexities with some species—haddock, in particular—for reasons that we still do not really understand. Roughly every seven years we get a big recruitment year, and it is hard to predict when that will happen. It is difficult to differentiate between different species of the same genera, so we have, for instance, composite TACs for species such as skate and ray whereby there are some 24 different species in a single TAC. To try to make sense of that, we introduced prohibitions on landing some subspecies within the TAC, but sometimes it is hard—for fishermen and for scientists—to distinguish between species visually, even though we know they are biologically different.
For some species, age cannot be determined by the length of the fish. I remember being briefed that scientists had to go to other measurements, such as the size of a fish’s eardrums, to try to make an assessment because the fish’s length was not a reliable indicator of age, and it threw the calculation out.
There is also the problem of uncertainty around fishing mortality. In particular, we do not have accurate data on recreational angling. Recreational anglers and commercial fishermen have hours of fun blaming one another for the state of particular fish stocks, but exactly what is fishing mortality is a difficult conundrum. That is especially the case with species such as pollack and bass. There is a further complication, which is that fish eat one another. The marine environment is dynamic, and a healthy recovery of one species might put pressure on another, which is preyed on.
As if all that were not complicated enough, there is a political context in which Fisheries Ministers have to operate. The Fisheries Minister has to arbitrate between competing interests among different UK Administrations, and indeed competing interests among different sectors, such as the pelagic and white fish sectors, the inshore fleet and so on. To reach a compromise with other countries to get a multilateral agreement on how to approach fisheries, we will, at times, have to accept others’ interpretation of the science, which might not be entirely in line with our own. If we do not get a compromise and do not get an agreement, and people unilaterally set quotas, that is the worst of all worlds.
Finally, there is a tendency, once policy in fisheries is set, for it to be set in stone. It is easy to follow the path of least resistance, and to do this year what we did last year, putting off changing things to a future year, only to find in a decade or 15 years that it is too difficult to change everything because the concrete has set. That was the case, for instance, in the EU era when we had relative stability, although the landing shares of different countries were hugely outdated. However, under qualified majority voting it was impossible for the UK ever to argue for change because the only countries that would have supported us in arguing that also wanted our fish in return for their support.
My right hon. Friend the Minister joins a small club of Fisheries Ministers and former Fisheries Ministers who have had to wrestle with those dilemmas, and he has to make the best judgment he can using the evidence available to him, but he does have one thing in his favour, as we all do, which is the support of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.
Without question, CEFAS is the world’s leading fisheries science organisation, and its head office and main research facilities are in Lowestoft. If Members visit Weymouth, they will find a global centre of excellence on fish health, and in the reception at Weymouth are probably the best-cared-for carp in the world. CEFAS is very influential on the deliberations and methodologies applied by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Indeed, our current chief fisheries scientist, Carl O’Brien, is also vice-president of ICES and a leading authority in this area.
I remember going every year during the EU era to the December European Council, and CEFAS would often detect and have to correct errors made by the Commission services. DG MARE—the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries—did not particularly welcome the fact that an agency from a nation state was correcting its errors, but it nevertheless accepted when it was wrong. Of course, CEFAS always offered advice in an understated, very British way, which made it as easy as possible for the Commission to deal with those errors.
My purpose in calling the debate is to encourage the Minister not to allow the concrete to set on the way we interpret the science, and to ensure in all the bilateral fisheries negotiations we have that CEFAS’s pre-eminent scientific knowledge is projected forwards and shapes not just the approach for negotiations with Norway or the European Union, but the methodologies taken by organisations likes ICES. The particular prompt for the debate was the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation highlighting to me a particular case of pollack in the Celtic sea.
In the EU era, there were three principal ways of assessing data-limited stocks. The first was taking a precautionary approach, which simply meant an arbitrary 20% cut on species where we had limited data—that is, not a full dataset to enable a maximum sustainable yield assessment. The second was a “use it or lose it” approach. Empirical evidence from the previous year’s catch would be used to say, “Well, if they haven’t caught it, it is probably not there.” The third was saying there should be a roll-over approach. In essence, that was an assessment that the stocks are probably in a good shape, so we should just leave it where it is and roll it over year to year until the evidence suggests otherwise.
Even when we were in the European Union, we ferociously resisted these arbitrary, unscientific approaches. To be fair to the European Union, it was not just something that it had made up; its approach often reflected ICES advice in some of these areas. For over a decade now, ICES has recognised that those arbitrary approaches are not fit for purpose. In fact, probably as long ago as five years ago, CEFAS identified and developed a superior methodology based on making the best judgment we could with the evidence we had. We termed it as using biomass trends to assess what the TAC should be with these stocks. It effectively meant having a moving average assessment of the stock and aggregating data across several different years to avoid sharp changes in the TAC in one direction each year, and each year the aggregate data would get more reliable. For a while, even in the EU, we actually got them to accept that this was a better way to approach things, and that is what we used to seek and usually secured at December Councils.
The thing that caught my eye in the press release from the CFPO was that it alleged that the Celtic sea pollack stock had been set under the old-fashioned “use it or lose it” methodology. There are lots of reasons why fishermen may not have caught fish—it could be that the market conditions were not right or that there was bad weather at the end of the year. That is why it is a wholly inappropriate basis on which to assess the health of a stock. My question for the Minister is, whatever happened to the work that CEFAS did on data-limited stocks and that biomass trend approach? Will he seek to reinvigorate that work or update Members here on what CEFAS is doing in this area? Most importantly, will he ensure that we use the soft power we have through pre-eminent scientific knowledge in fisheries to shape how not just the EU and Norway, but ICES approaches these difficult issues?
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has taken the case study of Celtic sea pollack. Would he consider how his approach might also help solve the dilemma with southern North sea spurdog? I was on CEFAS Endeavour on Monday morning and saw its excellent work, so could he quickly help us out of our dilemma on spurdog?
George Eustice
I will be quick because I explained this earlier. My understanding—as a former Fisheries Minister, one’s knowledge decays over time and the existing Minister will have far more knowledge than me—is that there is at least some evidence now to make an assessment on spurdog. I do not know whether it is a full dataset to provide a MSY assessment. Nevertheless, a TAC has been set on that basis and I believe it is simply a parliamentary procedure to get a regulation in place to enable that TAC to take effect, but I am sure the Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s question.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I am glad to see you in the Chair, rather than in the Chamber intervening and asking me awkward questions.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for securing the debate. I recognise his huge contribution to the future of fisheries from his work at DEFRA with fisheries; I hope that future is rosy and bright. It is worth putting on record the efforts he went to and the improvements he made to that industry, which I know is grateful for all his past work.
I recognise that there is a huge amount of experience and knowledge within the Chamber, but there will be people at home who do not have the same depth of knowledge. I hope those present will forgive me if they recognise and understand some of the things I say, but it is important to set out where DEFRA is coming from and what we are trying to achieve.
It is tempting to simply say yes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, as many of the things he said are accurate, but I can assure him that we are not slipping back into those old ways, which he may be nervous about. It is just a coincidence that the 20% figure, particularly on pollock, has been arrived at, but I will get to that later in the debate.
We recognise that the fishing sector is under huge pressure. It faces challenges over increased fuel prices and getting access to labour. We recognise the hard work that the fishing sector is putting in and we look forward to working with the sector to try to assist it on its journey.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide some further explanation on one important element of how we arrive at TACs—the total allowable catch. The definition of a data-limited stock comes from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said. ICES undertake the stock assessments that the UK and its neighbouring states rely on to set TACs for the shared stocks. ICES categorises its advice on a scale of 1 to 6, based on the available data and type of assessment used to generate the advice. For stocks where there is insufficient data, it can use analytic stock assessments. Data-rich stocks are categorised as ICES category 1 and 2. Stocks where the available data and assessment techniques fall short of these standards are classified by ICES as categories 3 to 6 and are truly data-limited stocks.
How does ICES provide advice on data-limited stocks? Historically, ICES has provided advice on data-limited stocks by adopting a precautionary approach. That was implemented by applying a 20% decrease, as my right hon. Friend said, in advised catches where stocks are considered either at risk or their status is unknown. ICES continues to improve its advice on data-limited stocks, and those efforts have increased since 2011, when ICES recognised the need to standardise and refine the data-limited methods.
That means that the precautionary 20% buffer is still used by ICES but only in increasingly rare situations, as new approaches to stock assessments and advice have been developed. ICES also continues to consider if it can justify moving stock assessments out of the data-limited category. As data and methods are slowly improving, this has resulted in a steady increase in the number classified as categories 1 and 2.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Does the Minister share my frustration that after so many years monkfish is still regarded as a data-deficient species, given its very high value to the Scottish fleet?
Mark Spencer
It is easy to be critical of the data and science that are available to us. The right hon. Gentleman will know that fish move in the sea. It is not like counting sheep in a field; it is much more complicated than that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth identifies, fish predate each other, and a boom in one species can result in a diminishing number of another. We are trying to measure and get data on a constantly moving feast.
How do we approach data-limited stocks in international negotiations? From a fisheries management perspective, data-limited stocks can present challenges when it comes to deciding how to use the scientific advice produced by ICES in setting TACs. Since becoming an independent coastal state, the UK’s approach to developing TAC positions has evolved. We do not use any of the EU’s historical approaches, such as “use it or lose it”, as my right hon. Friend identified. Our approach is led entirely by our domestic policy framework, and the Fisheries Act 2020 objectives are our guiding light.
In the case of data-limited stocks, there are two Fisheries Act objectives that are particularly important: the scientific evidence objective and the precautionary objective. The combined objectives lead us to the position that our starting point for every stock is the ICES scientific advice, even when the data is limited. However, we of course consider each stock on a case-by-case basis, taking into account wider socioeconomic factors and the potential impact on the fishing industry of the decisions. That means that, for most data-limited stocks, we will advocate the application of the ICES-advised tonnage, but in particular cases we may depart from ICES advice because of those wider considerations.
One data-limited stock in particular—namely western pollack—has raised some questions, as my right hon. Friend identified, so I want to provide further information on that important stock. ICES produces a stock assessment for western pollack, but it is classified as category 4, and therefore the advice uses the ICES precautionary advice framework. The advised catch for 2023 was 3,360 tonnes, and that figure has been the same since 2019. Over that period, the total allowable catch has consistently been set much higher than that. However, a long-term downward trend in landings, which more than halved from 2016 to 2021, is a cause for concern about the state of the stock; it suggests the need for a lower TAC to prevent the stock from becoming over-exploited. The UK’s aim is therefore to bring the total allowable catch more in line with ICES’s advice. This year, a 20% cut was agreed with the EU for 2023, which follows on from the 15% cut negotiated with the EU last year. The size of the cut is a product of the negotiation process, but is not based on any particular rule or approach.
We have acted in several ways to support the improvement of the data on fish stocks. Through the fisheries industry science partnerships scheme, DEFRA has been directly encouraging applicants to tender for data collection activities. That has proved very successful: there are 12 large projects directly investigating and collecting data on data-limited stocks. That will mean that over 70% of FISP funding, which equates to over £5 million, will have been awarded to projects of that type. They include a 24-month project on data collection and research on pollack in the south-west. We are also working with the EU, through our Specialised Committee on Fisheries, to improve the management and support of the recovery of certain data-limited deep-sea stocks, namely roundnose grenadier and western red seabream.
Let me reflect on the UK’s overarching approach in setting advice in line with scientific advice, and conclude with some reflections on our broader progress in using science to set total allowable catches. As I explained earlier, our starting position in setting a TAC is that the best available scientific advice should be followed. That helps to ensure that key fish stocks are protected and supports the long-term viability of the UK fishing industry. We strongly champion that approach in our international negotiations, and this year we have made significant progress on the UK-EU bilateral negotiations. Overall in the UK-EU bilateral, we have achieved an estimated 13% increase in catch levels aligning with ICES advice, compared with last year. That is a huge improvement in the sustainability of what we fish. I am pleased to report that positive progress, but I recognise that further improvements are needed. We will therefore continue to work proactively with our industry, our scientific colleagues in CEFAS and ICES, and colleagues in the devolved Administrations, the EU, Norway and coastal states, to ensure that positive momentum is continued.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister explain why EU fishers can catch spurdog and UK fishers still cannot? Why is there a delay in the UK allowing UK fishers to do so? How is it that we are now slower in allowing our fishers to catch that stock than we were when we were in the EU?
Mark Spencer
In the UK, we have a respectful democratic process by which we have to bring forward a statutory instrument. That statutory instrument is drafted and we are ready to roll with it, but we are waiting for business managers to find us a slot. We want to do that as quickly as possible to allow people to get out there and start catching spurdog. We have a great democratic process in the United Kingdom that holds people to account and allows people to object if they have a different view.
Peter Aldous
Can I come back on spurdog? I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for raising the matter. Off the East Anglian coast, the inshore fishermen who fish sustainably with long lines and nets cannot catch spurdog at the moment, but EU trawlers can. Does the Minister share my vision that we should have a fisheries management plan that embraces the ICES recommendation on limited-catch fishery for spurdog and enables local East Anglian fishermen, fishing responsibly, to catch it?
Mark Spencer
Our motivation is very much to allow this total allowable catch to be used, and we want to get on with that as quickly as possible. It is a new stock with a new quota. We want it to be done sustainably, and we want to get on with it. We will hurry up the democratic process to ensure that people who want to catch that species are allowed to do so.
Luke Pollard
There is a concern among fishers that this is the Government’s new modus operandi, and that UK fish policy will continue to be set a pace behind EU fish policy. Will the Minister set out an ambition to ensure that this Brexit delay in allocating spurdog catch will apply only to this species, and only this once? From now on, will Ministers ensure that any change in quota is pegged as much as possible to changes in EU quota so that our fishers do not suffer a disadvantage due to our new status as an independent coastal state?
Mark Spencer
I am conscious that this is turning into a spurdog debate, rather than the original debate. It would be worth somebody applying for a debate of that nature. Let me be absolutely clear: we have not been able to catch that species in the past. It is a new species and it requires a democratic motion to be passed through the House of Commons, and as soon as we have done that, we can get on with it. That is the right approach. We want to make sure we fish sustainably, and that requires that democracy takes its course so that people can scrutinise our decisions. I am very much aware of the desire to get on with this and allow our fishing industry to get on and catch this species. We will expedite that process as soon as possible. I will conclude there, and I thank colleagues for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Arts Council England: Funding
(1 year, 10 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
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the funding decisions of Arts Council England.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to return to this topic. It is also good to see the Minister in his place in Westminster Hall. As he will know, this topic has been ventilated before, but I think this debate broadens the issues.
As time has gone on, those of us who follow this issue have had more and more grounds for concern, not just about individual funding decisions by the Arts Council but about the process by which it makes them. That process lacks transparency and, I believe, accountability, and there is a lack of engagement with the sector at a time when funding reductions are being made. Those may be necessary in the overall economic climate, but they have been made in a distributional way that has taken no account of economic, social or other impacts—or, above all, of the overall responsibility of the Arts Council.
When the Arts Council was formed, it was set up
“to give more people opportunities to enjoy and benefit from great art and culture”—
I think it still has that phrase on the banner on its social media. It did not regard itself as an organisation about changing the nature of art or culture; it was about making excellence available to the greatest number of people. That was the vision of Keynes when he set it up and of people such as Jennie Lee when she was Arts Minister. In fact, I think Jennie Lee rightly said that it was important that everyone, wherever they were and whatever their circumstances, should have the opportunity of accessing the best in the arts rather than something cut-price or dumbed down. I rather fear that of late the Arts Council has lost its way in relation to that mission. Some of the specific funding decisions in the latest round highlight how it has gone wrong.
The Minister and others will know that I have raised in particular the issue of the removal of English National Opera from the national portfolio. That would have had the effect of creating 600 redundancies, and—for all the mealy words used by the Arts Council to begin with—it would have effectively meant the closure of the company. The idea that it would have been possible to relocate a 100-year-old company to a base in Manchester—more on that in a moment—at about 12 months’ notice was so risible that one wonders what experience and real understanding of the sector the bureaucrats in the Arts Council who drew up that decision ever had.
I am glad to say that discussions, hard work by English National Opera’s team and engagement with the Arts Council has led to some movement. I welcome the fact that there has been a willingness to listen and that funding has been secured, albeit with a reduction—a reduction perhaps on much the same level as those for other arts institutions. That will enable the 2023-24 season to continue next year. I hope that there will be better transition funding for the future. However, that is as yet uncertain. We have had a step forward, but at the moment English National Opera—a major international company that does co-productions with the Metropolitan Opera in New York and is a major draw for audiences—has had only a reprieve, rather than being saved in a form that is recognisably that of a high-class, top-rate opera company. That is not good enough.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I congratulate him both on securing this debate and on his speech. I also welcome the concession made in respect of English National Opera. However, does he agree that the latest Arts Council declaration still leaves more than £50 million worth of cuts to London’s arts budget over three years? That not only has a devastating cultural impact but, as he suggests, an economic impact; I am thinking of employment and the vital revenue that pours into London from tourists and others who seek to attend these marvellous cultural institutions.
Sir Robert Neill
That is certainly true; as a London MP, I am conscious of it too. Of course there is more than one issue at play. One is the distribution—where the money goes. Secondly, there is the question of which institutions and sectors are worst affected by what happens. It does seem that the performing arts have been particularly hard hit. When I look at the trustees of the Arts Council, there seems to be a lack of experience in the performing arts as opposed to the visual arts. We should perhaps return to the composition of the board and management and whether relevant experience of those sectors is there.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Whether one’s experience is in the performing arts or the visual arts, everybody knows that it takes three to four years to put on a good opera of international standard or to put on an exhibition of paintings of international standard, with the co-operation of everybody involved. It seems peculiar that Ministers did not say to Arts Council England, “We understand that and, if you need to make changes, you need to make them over a six-year period, not a six-month period.”
Sir Robert Neill
My right hon. Friend makes a fair and valid point. When this matter has been debated in the past, Ministers have argued that this is an arm’s length body over which they have little control. With respect to the Minister, I am not sure that that entirely holds water. The Arts Council has said that a former Secretary of State, in its phrase, “instructed” it in relation to the distribution of some of the moneys.
That is a legitimate policy decision and stance for any Secretary of State to take, but it proves there is a power to instruct and intervene. That should not apply to the day-to-day running of an arm’s length body, but Ministers have an ability and right to set strategic direction and to ensure that there is proper governance and oversight and, at the end of the day, basic equity in how its operations and funding decisions, involving large sums of public money, are taken.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. On the proper functioning of the Arts Council, there is a specific consultation at the moment on music provision across the country. A concern is that the timeline of the consultation was announced in December 2022, and the first real engagement with stakeholders begins and concludes in January 2023. Ministers and the Government have a duty to ensure that the consultation is proper and thorough. Centres such as mine, Dynamics CIC in Medway, that offer outstanding music provision will be severely affected if it is not done properly and thoroughly, in a way that respects outstanding provision, rather than pulling things together geographically for financial reasons.
Sir Robert Neill
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It highlights the interesting fact that this is not just a London issue. There are institutions outside London that have lost funding for no apparent reason. That is the difficulty: the lack of any apparent evidence base or transparent and proper process for these decisions. There is a lack of any proper consultation or impact assessment.
I have seen freedom of information responses rather perfunctorily provided to individuals by the Arts Council, in a process that appears to be like drawing teeth. Mr Bone, you and I have had experience of such things from public bodies in the past. It appears that no full impact assessments were made on individual changes, even though some of them will close institutions. Equalities impact assessments were made, but not the full impact assessment expected when dealing with many millions of pounds of public money, and the possibility of an institution ceasing to operate, with redundancies caused thereafter.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I congratulate him on this debate. This is at best half thought-out, and at worst an act of Luddism. I suspect that what we have seen with the revised proposals for the ENO, which do not save it in the long term, is just an admission that the Arts Council has got this wrong. Let me give him this quote:
“Sacrificing this particular golden goose for a bit of glib London-bashing will do little to improve cultural provision in the regions and would be an act of sabotage for one of our country’s greatest assets.”
That was the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) almost 10 years ago, the last time this was done, and it has not changed.
Sir Robert Neill
I am sorry to say that is true. I do not object, in truth, to the idea that we should spend more arts funding across the rest of the country. I am not an opponent of levelling up as such, but I have always taken the view that that should not be at the expense of London. Decimating London is counter-productive, because much of the talent that performs in the rest of the country is London-based and London-trained, because that is where the critical mass of the arts world is. It is where the conservatoires and colleges are.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
One of the critical issues is defining what we mean by “levelling up the arts”. In relation to opera, this is not just about physical location. As a west midlands MP, I want more of my constituents to enjoy opera, but does that not mean that we need to define more clearly what levelling up opera might mean? That is what we lack in relation to the funding decisions: there is no overarching strategic view.
Sir Robert Neill
That neatly brings me to the next point, which is perhaps the most important. We have mentioned that the funding cut to the ENO would have been a woeful and destructive action. It still might happen: had Dr Harry Brünjes and Stuart Murphy, the chair and chief executive, all their team at the ENO and all the great artists—people such as Bryn Terfel and others, who started the petitions—rolled over to Arts Council England’s decisions, there would be redundancy notices at the London Coliseum this week, and 600 professional people would have been out of a job thanks to Arts Council England’s incompetence. That is no way to run an organisation, and Arts Council England should be ashamed of the way it went about it all.
It is significant that the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), went public on social media, saying that the way Arts Council England has carried out her intended policy of levelling up arts funding was not as she intended, and has the effect of undermining it. That is the view of the former Secretary of State, who ought to know because it was her policy. The ineptitude of Arts Council England has undermined and discredited the Government’s policy intention, which the Minister and I could probably quite happily sign up to in principle. That is another reason why the Minister ought not to simply say, “I can stand back from this,” because the Government’s own policy is being failed by an arm’s length body. That is really important, which is why we need a proper strategy.
We need a proper strategy for opera. Opera is a major part of the British music scene. Some people think it is a bit of a foreign thing, rather like John Gay’s “The Beggar’s Opera” in the 18th century and Handel. It is not. It is fundamental.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On the point about having a strategy and some sort of strategic thinking, one of Arts Council England’s decisions was to cut funding to the touring side of the Welsh National Opera, which tours extensively in England, including to places such as Liverpool, Birmingham, Southampton, Oxford and so on. On the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we found out that Arts Council England had not even talked to the Arts Council of Wales about that decision before making the cut, which obviously puts that opera company under threat. The net result, along with the Glyndebourne cut, is that there is no opera in Liverpool at all. What has that got to do with levelling up?
Sir Robert Neill
The hon. Gentleman’s point encapsulates why I think the former Secretary of State was right to say what she said: the decision absolutely negates the Government’s own policy. As the hon. Gentleman said, the result of the way Arts Council England has handled this issue is that there is now no opera in Liverpool, because the WNO cancelled its tour. Glyndebourne has cancelled its touring as well—that was touring in the regions of the UK. The WNO toured across the north-west, parts of the west of England, Bristol, Southampton and so on. All those places will now have no opera—not thanks to the policy decisions, but thanks to the way they have been handled and implemented by Arts Council England.
Ministers should not allow the situation to stand, and the same applies to other elements of the arts sector. There is no strategy that informs the approach to prose theatre, to concerts or to museums and galleries. Nowhere is there a fully-fledged strategy, and we certainly ought to have one for opera. In that case, we are talking about £50 million of public money simply going to the opera companies. Think how much more is going to other sectors as well—but no strategy!
When one tries to find the audit trail for this decision, the board minutes that are published are perfunctory in the extreme. None of the board papers is published, and there are considerable redactions to what is published. That is not a level of accountability or transparency that would be accepted in any local authority in this country, and it should not be accepted in a public body such as Arts Council England. It is letting the public down, and it is letting the Government, as the overseeing body, down as well. That is why there is another cause for intervention.
Finally, because I know others want to speak, we need to look at the lack of an economic analysis.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member is making a vital point about the economic impact. These cuts will impact organisations not in receipt of Arts Council funding that rely on smaller grants. However, organisations that have now come out of the NPO portfolio will also be drawing on that funding, such as the Omnibus theatre in my constituency and the White Deer theatre in Kennington. Should the Government not recognise the importance that these smaller independent organisations, working with the big national organisations, bring to our local economies in terms of jobs, employment, training and getting our young people involved in the arts sector?
Sir Robert Neill
It is certainly right that the arts offer real economic opportunity for many young people, and some of those smaller organisations are the breeding ground from which people come. That is true of ENO itself. Many international stars started at the English National Opera, and that is also true of smaller organisations. That reinforces the point I was making: there is not a strategy for any of that. The Arts Council does not appear to have a strategy for anything.
It seems that the funding decisions in this round were to meet a financial envelope. Fine—let us have a proper discussion then with the Department about how we produce a strategy to meet that financial envelope. But none of that was done. That is why we need a much more strategic approach; this is a serious matter.
Looking at the overall potential economic risk, the 2020 report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that in a single year—2018; that is the latest we have—the arts and culture industry directly generated £28.3 billion in turnover, £13.5 billion in gross value added, 190,000 full-time equivalent jobs and £7.3 billion in employee compensation in wages and fees: in other words, into the economy. This is big business; for the UK, this is big business that we excel in and which drags in people to visit us. Also, it enables people throughout the UK to have their lives enriched.
What I do not want to see as part of a levelling-up strategy is a cut-down English National Opera or equivalent doing a reduced orchestration, reduced cast and no-proper-chorus version of one of the great operas, be it “Carmen”, “La Traviata” or “Tosca”, in a shed somewhere outside one of our major cities. That is short-changing the people in regional England. They are entitled to see a proper performance like those we get from WNO and the Glyndebourne tour and which ENO would happily do.
ENO has always made it clear that it is more than willing to do more work outside London. Funnily enough, it was planning to do a performance in Liverpool, of all places, before the covid panic, and none of that seems to have been taken into account by Arts Council England. It is short-changing people in the regional parts of England to suggest that they should get a second-rate version of that which is available in London. No wonder the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, was so angry at the way her policy had been misinterpreted—all the more reason for Ministers to intervene.
Let us look at ENO as an example of the economic benefit that one company can bring. It produces £1.75 for every £1 of spend—it actually brings money into the economy with all the knock-on expenditure that comes from people going to the theatre, and that is true across most of the theatrical world. To put all that at risk without a proper strategic basis seems ridiculous. The loss of touring by Glyndebourne and WNO means that some 23,000 fewer people will have the chance to see high-quality opera in this country than before. That is a funny type of levelling up.
Sir Peter Bottomley
In addition to the performances, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a betrayal of all those who helped Vernon and Hazel Ellis restore the Coliseum from 2000 to 2004, having bought the freehold and made it into the largest and best theatre in London again? What did Arts Council England think would happen to that building, which has been funded by the National Lottery Heritage Fund, the National Lottery, English Heritage and the like?
Sir Robert Neill
It may demonstrate the lack of thought in the Arts Council England process. It apparently wanted English National Opera, although no longer based in London, to still run the Coliseum as a commercial venue—a taxpayer subsidised version competing against west end theatre. That does not seem either competent or terribly Conservative, for that matter; it certainly is not a good use of public money.
At the same time, Arts Council England wanted English National Opera to relocate to The Factory in Manchester, a venue that was not built to take unamplified singing—no one had bothered to check. Singing there has to be on a mike. Basic due diligence might have found that one out. The Factory, which, I am told, has been a pet project of some of the senior management of Arts Council England in the past, is a venue that does not have a set of users. It is £100 million over budget. I do not think that forcing a company that has been well established for 100 years or so in London to fill what has become an Arts Council England white elephant was necessarily a very good idea—particularly because Opera North, which performs in Manchester, was not even told. If it had been, it could have said what the audience figures were and probably told Arts Council England that opera cannot be done in The Factory anyway. It is the lack of basic competence, strategic thought and good management that is terrifying in all this. That is why there is a compelling ground for intervention.
Sir Robert Neill
I will take one more intervention and then let others speak.
Rehman Chishti
My hon. Friend mentions the forced collaboration between one organisation and another. That is a quick fix. He talks about opera, but before we get to staging opera we need to ensure that our young people have the right music skills. The Arts Council at the moment is carrying out a consultation on the national plan for music education. It has said that all hubs will cover multiple local authority areas. It has subsequently said that this will be achieved
“via prescribing geographic delivery areas for Music Hubs”.
In Medway we have outstanding music provision in schools. Our neighbours in Kent do not have quite the same standards, but under those proposals one area will be forced in with the other. Surely forcing a merger of an outstanding provision area with another cannot be the right way forward—it will weaken the provision in small organisations such as those in Medway.
Sir Robert Neill
It sounds as if Arts Council England has fallen into bureaucratic speak. What would that mean to any normal person or sensible institution? It defeats me. There is a complete lack of understanding of what happens on the ground, and a complete lack of engagement with the institutions and their audiences—that is the great error in all this.
I do not have time to quote it all, but the playwright Dennis Kelly wrote a very powerful letter to me; it can be googled and found on social media. It was about the impacts on prose theatre—in particular, the Hampstead Theatre and others. There is a lack of appreciation of the impacts on audiences, and an unwillingness to engage with them. The fact is that people travel to many of those London venues from all around the home counties; it is not purely a London thing in any event.
Lest I be tempted to go on indefinitely, I should say that I have set out the case as to why the whole approach to this funding round has been seriously flawed. Egregious individual decisions have been made. Some of those have been rowed back on to some extent, and I welcome that—I am always happy if Arts Council England or others are prepared to listen and to look at evidence. But it needs to be much more comprehensive and to do it in a much more transparent and strategic fashion.
I will quote the former Secretary of State again. She said that when she arrived at DCMS, she was not a great fan of opera—I had a conversation with her about that —but she went. I urge all Ministers who come into the Department to go to opera, ballet, theatre, concerts and to look at some of the galleries and museums that they are responsible for. They should see that as an experience in itself. My right hon. Friend became a total convert; she said, in relation to ENO and the Royal Opera House:
“They have been the front runners in levelling up for a very long time. They leave many in other sectors of the performing arts in the shade in terms of how much they give back and how they try desperately via a number of measures to make opera accessible to all.”
That is exactly what ENO has been doing.
Then there are the insulting comments of the director of music at Arts Council England, who said, “We don’t believe there is any growing audience for grand opera”—a rather bizarre term to use. Anyone who knows anything about opera will know that is a five-act French production by Meyerbeer from about 1860; we do not talk in terms of grand opera any more. I think what she meant was full-scale opera, with a proper orchestra and chorus. How anyone can say that when theatres have been locked down because of covid for many years defeats me. Freedom of information requests have not evidenced any robust statistical basis for that assumption, which is another reason to go back and have a proper strategy.
I hope all that tells the Minister that something has gone badly wrong in this funding round. We cannot just say that Arts Council England is an arm’s length body; we need to do something before serious and lasting harm is done to critical parts of our cultural and artistic heritage.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this debate. I back absolutely every word he said, and I join him in urging Arts Council England to rethink this funding round, which has no strategy, has had no consultation, is thoroughly destructive, and importantly makes the crucial art form of opera more elitist, rather than less.
As a result of losing a third of its funding, Welsh National Opera has cancelled its 2023 tour to Liverpool. That is more elitist, not less. ENO’s core mission is to make opera accessible, bringing the art form to younger and more diverse audiences. The threat to ENO makes it harder to do that work. Because the Britten Sinfonia has lost its annual grant of £500,000, it will not be able to do its education and outreach work in the east of England. Because Glyndebourne has had its grant cut by 50%, it has announced that it will not be able to tour in 2023. When funding is reduced for opera, it is made more exclusive, not less. Public funding is the key way to open up opera to all. The funding cuts make opera more for the elites, not less.
One further consequence of Arts Council England’s decision, which I am sure is unintentional, is the effect on regional theatres, which I know my hon. Friends will mention. Peter Wilson, who ran the Norwich Theatre Royal, wrote a letter to Nicholas Serota and Darren Henley at Arts Council England, which said that there are
“people who stay loyal to their local theatres, providing the bedrock of serious support because of the regular appearance of challenging first class productions provided by Glyndebourne and WNO…Without them, NTR could not have flourished…And without their support theatres’ Friends lists, their ability to raise refurbishment and restoration funds, and their reputations will diminish. Theatres need high quality mixed programming; first class opera is a crucial part of the mix...Once started, a downward spiral in audiences is inevitable. You cannot possibly want that.”
What he is saying is that the decisions about these opera companies will make unviable and change vital regional theatres.
Peter Wilson continues:
“Glyndebourne, WNO and ENO have high cultural ambitions that deserve to be shared as widely as possible. To emasculate them—to destroy existing ‘skills, knowledge and networks’ so wantonly…will not just make those ambitions unavailable in the near future; it will probably ensure that they will never again be part of the national cultural fabric of which I have been so proud for 50 years.”
Does the Minister know whether Arts Council England considered the effect on regional theatres of what they are doing to these opera companies? Did it even consult regional theatres, which are dealing with the consequences of all this?
This is a very well attended debate, with people from different regions and parties. None of us is whipped to be here. None of us has not got other things to do. All the Members sitting here are those who are committed to the arts. If I was Arts Council England looking at this, I would recognise that I had gone seriously wrong. If the Members who are the backbone of championing public policy on the arts are in Westminster Hall complaining about the Arts Council, it should recognise that it has got things wrong and think again. To say from behind its hands, “Well, we’ve been told by wicked Secretaries of State and DCMS that we have to do this”, is something that I do not accept for one moment. The Arts Council is an independent body, for goodness’ sake—the key is in the name, “independent”—and if people take on responsibility for an independent body, they have a duty to that body to act independently. If they are told what to do by somebody whose business it is not, they should tell them to shove off, or threaten to resign. That is the way it is supposed to be.
The Arts Council has to recognise the scale of the problem. However, we are a forgiving group of people, because we love the arts, and therefore if the Arts Council sees sense, we will not complain about it; we will congratulate it. Really, it should read the writing on the wall. As Peter Wilson writes to Nick Serota and Darren Henley,
“I’ve bumped into you both over 25 years…It’s plain that your lives and careers have been dedicated to making the best art available as widely as possible throughout the UK.”
I say to both of them, “Keep faith with that. Change your mind. We all believe in redemption; it is not too late.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. Seven Members want to speak. I have to start the wind-ups in 37 minutes’ time—very roughly, that is about five minutes each. I will not impose a time limit, but I trust people will bear that in mind.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Bone, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. I will start by talking about the very difficult period during which I was culture Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. It was throughout the whole covid period, and I did not get out much; I did not get to go to many operas, ballets or performances, but I did get to work very closely with the Arts Council.
I have to start by paying tribute to the Arts Council and to the leadership of Darren Henley and Nick Serota, who worked incredibly hard with the brilliant team at DCMS, led by Emma Squire, throughout the covid period. They were responsible for allocating a significant share of the £2 billion culture recovery fund. The recovery fund board was appointed swiftly, and ensured that vast sums of money were allocated very fairly and effectively at enormous pace and scale, which meant the difference between survival and closure for some of our most vital cultural institutions. Thanks to their remarkable diligence and deep understanding of the arts and culture ecosystem across the country, we avoided many of the issues that some other parts of Government faced when they were trying to dish out vast sums of cash.
As the responsible Minister, I can tell Members that once the money starts rolling out, we really do gird our loins about the potential negative media stories that might come down the track, but they did not come. There were some great attempts from some quarters of the media to excite people about some of our funding decisions—the wonderful drag queen Le Gateau Chocolat was exceptionally grateful for her slice of the cake—but on the whole, there was very little error in a massive piece of work that was done at pace and scale. The work of the Arts Council was a bright light during an otherwise very dark period, and I have lost count of the number of institutions up and down the country that have told me they felt they were saved by the culture recovery fund.
I do not envy the Arts Council its job. Trying to allocate limited funds is always a challenge, now more than ever, in desperate economic times and against the backdrop of a Government who are passionate about the potential of arts and culture to drive economic prosperity and levelling up to all corners of the country. Over the next few years, Arts Council England will invest £446 million per year in 990 organisations—the largest national portfolio ever, reaching more organisations than ever before. It was the most over-subscribed round ever, with 1,723 applications; if all of those applications had been successful, the investment would have been over £2 billion.
Among the 990 successful applications were 276 new organisations. One of those is the Hampshire Cultural Trust, which will now receive £500,000 a year. It is the first time that it has been a national portfolio organisation, and I see what a tangible impact it has on my Gosport constituency, which is an area with deep pockets of deprivation and has been long underfunded by successive Governments.
Our heritage is one of our secret weapons, but, up until now, we have not been able to harness its potential to drive investment, build communities, create opportunities and promote excellence. The newly reopened museum and gallery has been reimagined as a cultural hub, breathing new life into our high streets. The money will allow them to animate already outstanding heritage spaces and organise community-based festivals and events. It is making a difference on the ground and it will continue to do so.
The UK’s cultural sector is among the best in the world: I would say that it is the best. It represents 12% of our service exports, and its potential for our soft power is so often undervalued and underestimated. We have a huge responsibility. The Arts Council has a huge responsibility to ensure that we continue to nurture and grow it.
Culture has the power to drive forward regional economies, build communities and improve health and wellbeing. Arts Council funding has historically been focused on London and we need to ensure that culture is thriving in every pocket of England, but we will not level up the rest of the country by levelling down London. We need to harness the potential of the great cultural powerhouses of London. We must spread their tentacles and sprinkle a bit of their magic across the country in the same way as some of our museums and galleries have driven footfall.
Recently, Dippy the dinosaur went on a tour. It went to the Tank Museum in Bovington. It popped up in the nave of Norwich Cathedral, reaching a whole new audience and inspiring a new generation. The ENO has done exactly the same thing with ENO Breathe, which is its wonderful, game-changing response to covid. It is operating in 85 trusts across the country, including my own. There were some bizarre and ill-judged decisions in this funding round and I think we can all agree that the decision to both relocate the ENO and cut its funding was an ill-judged one. I am pleased that there has now been some movement on that, but there is more to do to secure its future.
Andy Slaughter
I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady has said about the ENO, but it is a one-year reprieve. After that, what it pointedly said is that it wants to
“continue to make incredible opera available for everyone, in English, with hugely subsidised tickets, completely free for Under 21s and with 10% of all seats available for £10”.
It is working in schools and hospitals as well. That will be gone in a year’s time and, over the next three years, it will lose over 400,000 people seeing opera in that way. Surely that cannot be right.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
That is absolutely the point. The ENO not only plays a huge role in the cultural status of London around the world, but the work that it has done to attract a whole new audience and to make opera accessible to all is nothing short of remarkable. I was lucky enough to attend what they call a “relaxed performance” of “It’s a Wonderful Life” just before Christmas. The place was packed with children, people with disabilities and neurodiverse people. It was just incredible to see opera being accessible to so many and building the audiences of the future.
I agree with the idea of devolving money outside of the capital, but we cannot do it by destroying some of the great cultural institutions that do so much and put us on the map. We must avoid these token gestures. We must also be aware of the regional ecosystems that are already well developed outside London before we start transplanting existing organisations out of London.
The Arts Council was born out of world war two. Here we are again, with the global aftermath of covid and a war, once again, on the edge of Europe. The Arts Council has, once again, a unique opportunity to support the innovation, creativity and resilience that make our cultural industries our British superpower. I hope that we can all work together with them to enable them to harness that opportunity.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. I absolutely echo his comments about access for all to the best of the arts. I am a passionate champion of arts in Luton and across the country. Participation in cultural activity develops social capital, and enables local people to lead happy, healthy and prosperous lives.
Financial security has rarely been more important for our arts and cultural organisations, having weathered the challenges of the covid pandemic and a decade of funding cuts to the arts. Cultural industries in the UK are a success story: in 2021, the gross value added by the creative industries was £104 billion.
The role of the Arts Council is very important and its funding decisions are critical to encouraging creativity across the country and in all our communities. In Luton, we have a rich and thriving arts and culture sector. It enriches our town’s cultural diversity, encourages investment and supports social mobility and inclusion. Arts culture and creativity are central to the Luton 2020-2040 vision for a place where everyone can thrive across all our communities, and the Arts Council plays a critical role in that.
Last year, brilliant Luton organisations, Wardown House Museum and Gallery, Luton Carnival Arts Development Trust, Tangled Feet theatre and Music24 community music group, each received funding as national portfolio organisations. Revoluton Arts is an excellent example of the impact of the Arts Council creative people and places funding in Luton. It is a people-powered project that cultivates grassroots creativity in Luton and puts on high-quality creative events, particularly focused on increasing the participation of diverse communities.
We do not have a large professional theatre or venue in Luton to attract symphony orchestras, large scale theatrical work or indeed opera, but we have an excellent music service team and a music hub, and brilliant schools that want their children to experience the best cultural, artistic and musical activities available. That is the reason I was disturbed by the original Arts Council decision.
Arts Council funding of English National Opera helped to bring opportunities to our young people and led to a strong partnership between ENO and Luton music hub. The partnership created excellent opportunities for Luton’s young people. English National Opera brought its opera squad to Lea Manor High School, albeit in in Luton North, and there have been trips from Luton to the London Coliseum, both back-stage and to the opera. The partnership had expanded post-pandemic with the Finish This… programme in which more than 500 Luton children from key stage 2 became English National Opera composers for a term, and created their own musical colour worlds in response to ENO’s specially commissioned piece, “Blue, Red, Yellow…”, by Omar Shahryar.
The list of excellent work goes on and on, but the fact is that the music hub’s partnership with English National Opera brought opportunities to young people in Luton that simply would not have been achieved otherwise. It is proof that the impact of English National Opera is beyond the borders of London. It is showing diverse, working class, young people in Luton that opera singers look like them and the sky is the limit on their aspiration, but the Arts Council’s decision cuts off that aspiration.
I welcome the announcement yesterday that Arts Council England agreed that it will invest £11 million in ENO in 2023-24, but because opera plans significantly further ahead, a 12-month commitment is very short term. Last November, the Arts Council said it would ringfence £17 million for three years of transitional funding. If we take the funding for year one, can we assume that leaves about £2.7 million a year for the following two years, compared to the Arts Council’s previous annual funding of £12.8 million?
A funding cut of that size is shocking because English National Opera has exceeded many of the success criteria set by the Arts Council in terms of young audience growth, increased diversity and representation, the ability to reshape opera and maintenance of financial stability. The cut is accompanied by the recommendation that the organisation relocates from London to Manchester by 2026. I agree with others that does not make strategic sense, given that Opera North already has a presence in Manchester. The Arts Council needs to provide an opera strategy so we can see its intent. Further discussions with the Arts Council and English National Opera must lead to a fair funding settlement and ensure that ENO can continue to deliver the very best that it has to offer.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. He was right to remind us that when the Arts Council was established, its principal role was to promote art for art’s sake and to promote excellence, and through doing so to give people the opportunity to experience excellence in the whole range of arts, from figurative and decorative to performing arts, and provide people with the opportunity to develop their talents. That should be something that is accessible to the whole country, and that is why the Arts Council was created. It is also perfectly legitimate that the Arts Council, which is in receipt of a large amount of public money, should be challenged and scrutinised over how it allocates those funds and the strategies that it deploys.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
My hon. Friend may be aware that two leading arts commentators have published a pamphlet calling for the Arts Council to be abolished. Their reason was that it has been taken over by “highly-politicised staff” whose left-wing “woke agenda” is generally failing to support the arts. That came on the back of a case last year in which £3 million of taxpayers’ money was provided to a company that published posters stating that “straight white men” should “pass the power”. Does my hon. Friend agree that decisions such as this will raise legitimate questions among the general public about the level of oversight of some of these Arts Council decisions?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There should be a clear strategy for allocated funds. It is right that the Arts Council is an arm’s length body and free to make decisions based on artistic merit that some people will agree with and others will not.
However, there is a clear strategy for how that benefits the whole nation, not parts of it. London receives a large amount of money because we have larger national institutions here. They demonstrate the benefit that they bring to the whole country, be that through touring exhibitions and performances or through the other cultural institutions around the country operated by the Tate, the V&A and so on.
It is important that there is a clear strategy and the Arts Council is held to account for it, because anyone who is in receipt of public money should be held to account. It is right that the funding strategy works for the national portfolio organisations on a three-year settlement, because organisations need to be able to plan for the future. While we welcome the additional year’s money that has been granted to the ENO for the coming year—it means, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has said, that the 2023-24 season can go ahead—it gives no certainty beyond that and does not enable the ENO to make any further investment decisions. Even if the Arts Council had said, “We want the ENO to try to increase revenue from other sources,” that is not a compelling bid to take forward when the public money that the ENO relies on is no longer guaranteed. Who would match fund against public money that might not be there in just over a year’s time?
There needs to be a degree of certainty. There will always be more demands on the Arts Council than it can fulfil, and there will always be people it has to let down, but that is why having a clear strategy, plan and understanding with the organisations that it funds is so important. It cannot be right to take a major national institution such as the ENO that has been funded in a certain way for many years and pull the rug out from under it with very little notice; I understand that the ENO had 24 hours’ notice of the decision.
It would be perfectly legitimate for the Arts Council to say, “We must review the way opera is funded, and we want a strategy for that. We might want to look at how other revenue can support the opera, but we are going to do that during a transition period. What we are not going to do is create a cliff edge whereby the required funding is not there.” As hon. Members have said, not only has the decision had a direct impact on the ENO as an organisation, but the cuts have had a knock-on impact on arts and opera in the regions, which the Arts Council is there to support. That is the best evidence of the lack of a clear strategy. The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), raised that in his intervention.
The Coliseum is subsidised by the ENO to the tune of about £2 million a year. If the ENO cannot support the Coliseum as a building, who else will go into it? Who will pay those costs? Will we be left in the invidious position of using public money that should go into supporting performance arts to subsidise a building that nobody can use? That, again, demonstrates the lack of clear strategy. My constituency has organisations that benefit from national portfolio funding, not least Creative Folkestone. Less than 20% of its funding comes from the Arts Council; it has a diverse form of income, and that is right, but the extra money that it gets from the Arts Council enables it to do more, to do better things and plan for the future.
At the end of this sorry saga, we need to get to a position where the ENO can plan for the future and invest in the future. If that is against a strategy to do more in the regions and more to reach diverse audiences, it needs a fair funding settlement to enable it to develop that strategy. We must recognise, too, that with major cultural institutions such as the ENO, what we see on the stage is, in some ways, the icing on the cake. There is a long tail of people who rely on that institution being there—the people who will develop their talents and may go on to work in other companies, the regional companies and tours that will be supported by that, and the people who are involved in costume design and set design—and a great variety of projects that are there to support people. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) mentioned the fantastic Breathe project that the ENO ran. All those things are lost if the ENO has no secure future. While yesterday’s announcement is welcome, there has to be a longer-term plan, otherwise we will simply be back in this position in a few months’ time.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I echo many of the comments that have been made. I thank the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill)—
Kevin Brennan
I thank the noble Gentleman, or whatever he is, for securing the debate. I also thank the former arts Minister, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). She appeared many times before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and she was a very refreshing Minister to have in front of us. I thank her for the candid and supportive way in which she carried out her duties as a Minister and for the work she did during covid to keep many cultural institutions going. I also thank my hon. Friends, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has campaigned assiduously on this issue.
I mentioned the Welsh National Opera earlier, because when this debate about Arts Council England started, it focused—understandably, perhaps—on the decisions around the English National Opera, but in some ways, what was done around the Welsh National Opera was even more invidious, or at least as invidious, because it signalled that this was not a rational, strategic decision-making process by Arts Council England. Like the hon. Member for Gosport, I would normally express support and admiration for the way that Arts Council England goes about things. However, rather than being a strategic, well-thought-through plan for the arts, it resembled more an emotional spasm of some sort, as a result of wanting to do something very quickly to meet the perceived needs of the Secretary of State at the time, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries). We are now told by the former Secretary of State, Ministers and Government Members that that was not what the Secretary of State wanted all along, which makes the whole affair all the more strange.
One thing that is perhaps good about this whole incident is that it gives us an opportunity to highlight the fact that the Welsh National Opera is an opera company for Wales and England, despite its name. It is value for money because we have a proper national opera company with an international reputation that can serve both England and Wales, including, when it goes on tour, the parts of England that are not often well served by other cultural institutions. That is an integrated system for opera across England and Wales.
Arts Council England decided to cut a third of the funding that it provides to the Welsh National Opera for its touring work in England. That includes many different parts of England, such as Liverpool; the west midlands, which is the part of Arts Council England that looks after the Welsh National Opera in terms of its administration; the west of England, in places such as Bristol; and Southampton, Oxford and elsewhere. It is right that these touring opera companies form an essential part of our regional theatres right across the country.
When Arts Council England appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I was interested to know what its decision-making process was, so I asked Darren Henley whether he had consulted the Arts Council of Wales prior to the decision being taken to cut the funding to the Welsh National Opera. He waffled for a bit, and I had to interrupt him to get him to answer the question, at which point he said:
“They were aware just before the announcement was made, but we didn’t consult them in the announcement”.
I put it to him and to Members here today that it is a dereliction of duty for a decision that has profound implications—as we know, it has resulted in Liverpool being denied any opera whatsoever—to be taken in that haphazard way.
There are no SNP Members here, so I think we are all Unionists in this room. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) was born in Newport, and he understands the importance of the Union. Arts Council England did not consult the Arts Council of Wales on a decision that has a profound implication for the future of that opera company and the whole system of opera around the country, and that undermines the whole so-called levelling-up agenda that we were told this decision making was about.
I profoundly believe that creativity is a good thing in and of itself. I profoundly believe that this country’s greatest strength, or certainly one of its greatest, is its creative industries, and that we are one of the few countries in the world that is a net exporter. Our creative industries are a huge earner for our country and culturally enrich us all. Quite frankly, as a white, heterosexual male from a working-class background, I am sick of people speaking on my behalf, and talking about wokeism and all the rest of it. The arts and culture are profoundly important to enriching our lives, and we should all stand up for them, whatever our backgrounds.
Let us hope that this was just an emotional spasm. I say to Arts Council England: please, get your act together and start thinking about these things. The arm’s length principle is important, but it does not mean being so arm’s length as to not even consult the Arts Council of Wales. That is not what the arm’s length principle is about, so Arts Council England should get its act back together, and let us return to some sense around this issue.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Before I call Jonathan Gullis, let me say that although this is such an important debate, I cannot extend the time, so we are now on something more like four minutes for each Back Bencher.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this important debate. Culture is so important. I was delighted to spend time before the Christmas break at Springhead Primary School in Talke Pits, which worked closely with the Royal Shakespeare Company and the New Vic Theatre to stage a First Encounters production of Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night”. Seeing kids as young as reception sat engrossed throughout that play, having learned about it in advance, was very special indeed. Mr Anderson, the headteacher, is doing a fine job.
My mother always told me that I should learn to read the room, but perhaps I am about to go against that—although I am sure that will not shock many Members here. I want to congratulate Arts Council England on its investment in the great city of Stoke-on-Trent. This £6.8 million investment, from 2023 to 2026, has taken us from having one national portfolio organisation—the New Vic, which is actually in neighbouring Newcastle-under-Lyme—to now having eight such organisations. They include the fantastic Portland Inn Project, based in Stoke-on-Trent North, which will have a profoundly positive impact.
Because of that investment, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, under its leader Councillor Abi Brown and Councillor Lorraine Beardmore, the relevant cabinet member, has been working tirelessly to look at how we can improve that partnership working further. Arts Council England has made Stoke-on-Trent a priority place and become a key member of the Stoke-on-Trent creative city partnership, which shows how the relationship continues to evolve. Indeed, it seems to have got the message that levelling up means making sure that places such as Stoke-on-Trent can celebrate their culture, history and heritage. We note that the levelling-up White Paper contained a Government promise that Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester would receive a special focus, to make the most of our cities’ industrial heritage.
The city has responded to that with a clear vision and strategy to establish an international ceramics centre, which will tie together world-class collections, celebrate the growth of contemporary craft ceramics and expand on our fantastic advanced ceramics sector. At the heart of that vision is a plan for our main museum, the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, based in Hanley, working with Staffordshire and Keele Universities, as well as Stoke Creates, to secure a £5 million investment from the Arts Council’s cultural development fund to create new spaces through a new research centre and to redesign the layout of the fantastic ceramics that we have to display. That work will build on the city council’s £4.7 million Spitfire Gallery development, which houses the city’s Mk XVI Spitfire. Obviously, the Spitfire was designed in Butt Lane—where I am proud to live as a resident—by Reginald J. Mitchell, a great local hero, without whose efforts we would not have won the battle of Britain. The plan also builds on the £1.5 million relocation of the archive service from Hanley library.
We know that the decision is due in March. I am sure that Arts Council England is listening, and I am sure that the Minister will want to see Stoke-on-Trent get some more, because he has learned that once we get a taste of funding, we always want more. I look forward to more coming our way in Stoke-on-Trent. The clear notice from me is that a promise has been made and must now be delivered. We need major investment to continue to deliver new jobs and more high-skilled opportunities for people who want to study, understand and come to visit our great city, and to enable Stokies to be at the cultural heart of our great country.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on securing this debate. I recognise all the things that he referred to in his opening remarks—a lack of transparency, accountability and engagement with the sector—in a decision that was reached on a treasured regional theatre in my constituency, the Watermill Theatre. It was truly a bolt from the blue for it to learn that there has been a 100% cut in its funding for the next three years.
One thing that has been frustrating in the process since then is the fact that the Arts Council did not really substantiate its decision with reasons, and it was so reluctant to produce written reasons when we invited it to do so. I had to remind the council that it is a public body and susceptible to judicial review. When the decision came, it was impossible to discern why the Watermill did not meet the relevant criteria. It had met them all in every previous round of funding and was not alerted to the fact that any criteria had changed. The Arts Council was unable to explain why, if it was a regional decision based on levelling up, the other theatre in Newbury, which we also love, was successful when the Watermill was not. Eliciting the final decision was like getting blood out of a stone, and when it came it simply set out generalities, such as the assertion that the Watermill lacked ambition.
The Watermill is an 18th-century watermill that has been converted into a theatre. I cannot improve on the description written in The Mail on Sunday, which said:
“What a location! Forget the glitz of the West End: try walking up a country lane, past waddling ducks, to this lovely little theatre in a converted mill.”
Its aesthetic beauty as a venue is absolutely treasured by our community, but we also treasure the quality and diversity of its productions. It is not just a standard repertory theatre that takes shows on tour: it produces its own work and pumps it around the country. It most recent touring production of “Spike” went from the Watermill to Blackpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and Darlington. It is also an artery theatre through which West End productions come and other productions flow on to international destinations, including Broadway.
The theatre takes its commitment to diversity and improving access seriously. It is in the heart of a tiny village, so in 2022 it did a rural tour. “Camp Albion” took its productions to villages, which are often completely neglected in the consumption of the arts. Overall, the theatre reaches 20,000 people annually through its various community engagement programmes, including children with autism, deafness and many other special needs. It has a deep commitment to the Arts Council’s outcomes, which the council even acknowledged in its decision letter.
We have been confronted with a deeply disappointing decision. We have found it incredibly difficult to know what mandate the Arts Council was working to, or why. I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that this was capricious decision making, which undermines the status of the Arts Council as a guarantor of our national arts output. If the council is watching, I respectfully request that it reverse its decision because it has devastating consequences for the future of the Watermill Theatre in Newbury.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I will call the Father of the House next; I am grateful to him for being willing to wait until the end.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
That is because I am going to go back in time and it might bore other people, Mr Bone. The first chairman of the Arts Council I met was Sir Ernest Pooley, who succeeded John Maynard Keynes two years after I was born. Given that Arts Council England is for the encouragement of music and the arts, Pooley and Keynes would have been delighted at the competence with which it took our cultural institutions through the pandemic. The three rounds of emergency funding were executed in a way that nobody criticised. It was quite remarkable, and very effective.
The most recent Arts Council England report available on its website is from 2020-21. The chairman, Sir Nicholas Serota, talks about the three outcomes and the four investment principles, none of which give any indication that the council might have conceived cutting off the ENO and the Coliseum at the knees. Tributes to those who have cared for, led and participated in the ENO and the Coliseum should be put on record. I will say again that Hazel and Vernon Ellis, together with the major public funders and private individuals and trusts, deserve to be recognised. One of those funders was the National Lottery through Arts Council England. I do not know whether those taking the decision that was announced recently were aware of the Arts Council England funding for the Coliseum and its restoration, so that Sir Oswald Stoll’s Frank Matcham theatre could be restored on the anniversary of its first opening.
I think mistakes were made. I do not how much of it was to do with the Government, how much of it was to do with Arts Council England, and how much of it was to do with time pressures. The fact is that what was done clearly would not work and was not right, and it seems to me that the principle, both for Arts Council England and for the Government, is to say, “Is it necessary, is it right and will it work?” I will leave it to the Minister to explain not what has gone wrong but how he will put things right. I suggest that, afterwards, he writes to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, saying that the Worthing Borough Council bid for the connected cultural mile from the railway station to the lido, going past the museum, should be approved.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I declare that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on classical music. It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for securing the debate and for the way he opened it, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it.
I start by congratulating colleagues across both Houses and the wider arts sector on achieving the apparent 12-month reprieve announced yesterday for the funding of the English National Opera. It does not settle all the questions raised about the damage done by the decision, but I am pleased that there can at least be a longer-term conversation about the ENO’s future, which is right. The ENO has worked hard to increase access to opera, bringing it to younger and more diverse audiences. It has delivered innovative education and health projects throughout the country, and it is right that this is finally being recognised. However, the back and forth of the decision has caused acute anxiety among the ENO’s 300 full-time employees and the 600 freelancers whose job security was put at risk. The screeching U-turn is further indication of the total lack of strategic planning involved in the national portfolio organisation funding decisions that we have been debating.
First, I want to reflect on the arm’s length principle of arts funding, which we have heard about in the debate. At the core of the recent dispute about arts funding is the issue of who makes decisions about arts funding and what the criteria for those decisions are. When the answers to those questions are unclear, there will always be discontent and frustration about how the investment of taxpayers’ money is being made.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes a very good point: there is a lack of transparency. I am very lucky that the two main theatres in my constituency, the Bush and the Lyric, have maintained their grants—in one case, it has slightly increased—but every organisation was on tenterhooks waiting for the announcements, and they will be next time as well, because they have no idea on what basis Arts Council England makes a decision. Other theatres in London, such as the Donmar Warehouse, have lost 100% of their funding. What is the rationale behind this?
Barbara Keeley
Indeed. It is important to focus on that principle. The arm’s length principle has been in operation since public subsidy for the arts began in the aftermath of the second world war. At the inception of the original Arts Council, Keynes wrote that:
“It should be a permanent body, independent in constitution…but financed by the Treasury”.
However, as we have heard, the former Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), issued a clear instruction to Arts Council England last year and ordered it to move money outside the capital through a reduction in the London budget. Even the places at which the additional investment would be targeted were decided with input from DCMS, with removals and changes to the “Let’s Create” priority places, which had been originally identified in Arts Council England’s 2020 strategy.
As we heard earlier, the former Culture Secretary has now criticised the decisions made by Arts Council England for their “undue political bias”, and accused the leadership of pulling a “stunt” to try to reverse levelling up. We have heard a variety of ways of describing the very strange decision making, but we have to see that it was this directive that led Arts Council England to the decision to make cuts to the English National Opera, the Welsh National Opera, Glyndebourne’s touring and other organisations, such as the Britten Sinfonia, the Oldham Coliseum and the Donmar Warehouse. The comments made show that Ministers and Arts Council England had not thought through the implications of the directive, both on art forms such as opera and on the other arts organisations I mentioned.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way, just for one second, so that I can put on the record my views about the English National Opera?
Barbara Keeley
No; I will run out of time.
Through the directive, Ministers and Arts Council England reallocated a shrinking budget for London. I recommend to the Minister an excellent blog post from Border Crossings that can be found on Twitter and makes the point that we cannot level up at the same time as cutting. That is the problem: the aims have become confused. It is this inconsistency and short-sightedness that is so frustrating for so many arts organisations.
The second major issue with the NPO decisions—we have heard much about this in the debate—is the glaring lack of any art form-specific strategy, planning or consultation. Opera is the major victim of this approach. Before the reprieve—the reversal of the ENO decision—overall funding for the sector was down by 11 %. It is reckless and irresponsible to remove £19 million of funding with no strategy in place. The decisions should be based on evidence and audience data, not on a whim.
Under such acute constraints, it is the expense of touring that is often the first activity to be sacrificed, as we are seeing already. As we have heard, Glyndebourne has had the subsidy for its touring budget halved, so has been forced to scrap its entire autumn tour, which would have held performances in Liverpool, Canterbury, Norwich and Milton Keynes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) rightly said, Welsh National Opera has responded to a 35% cut by removing Liverpool from its touring plans. As we have heard, it is estimated that the cuts to those two companies alone will deprive 23,000 people from access to opera throughout the country. In addition to that gap, the consequences for the arts ecosystem will be severe, given that there are already pressures on the workforce and on skills retention.
Jennifer Johnston is a mezzo-soprano who was born in Liverpool. She told me about the impact that the Arts Council funding allocations will have on young students at the Liverpool Philharmonic Youth Choir. These young people in Liverpool come from backgrounds where there is no money for singing lessons, with their fees for the choir paid by bursaries. She said:
“Now that live staged opera isn’t going to come to the city, these young singers won’t have a chance to see any at all. They don’t have funds to travel, and the educational workshops carried out by both Welsh National Opera and Glyndebourne now won’t happen.
It’s a simple equation—inspire a young person by showing them excellence in an artform and demonstrate what they could achieve if given the chance, defeating assumptions of elitism and thoughts of ‘Opera’s for posh people, not for me’.
These young people now won’t have the chance to be exposed to, and be inspired by, live staged opera, and are unlikely to want to train as an opera singer in the future. Arts Council England funding cuts will therefore affect life choices, making a nonsense of the idea of ‘levelling up’.”
I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to those comments. How does his Department intend to ensure that there is support for the next generation of England’s opera singers when there is no coherence to the decisions being made about the sector?
There are other arts organisations that have had their income slashed in this funding round, with little apparent sense in the decisions. We have heard that Britten Sinfonia was entirely cut from the NPO programme, despite being the only orchestra based in the east of England. Many other regional orchestras were funded only at standstill. Meanwhile, the funding settlement for producing theatres is short-sighted and risks having a negative impact on the programming of regional theatres—as we have heard in the debate—as well as compromising the UK’s cultural reputation in the longer term. Sam Mendes, the former chief executive of the Donmar Warehouse, has been predicted that it will “wreak long-lasting havoc” on the industry.
Speaking of the Donmar Warehouse, it received a 100% cut in its Arts Council funding. Its representatives told me that the hit to their budget means they will no longer be able to create work outside London and will have to reduce or cease altogether their excellent CATALYST programme, which supports 13 people a year with paid training to develop the next generation of writers, artists and administrators. Given the flexibility in exit funding that has suddenly been found by Arts Council England for ENO, will the Minister say whether Minister similar flexibility can be found for the Donmar Warehouse? It is really important that Arts Council England is transparent and equitable in its funding processes, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said earlier.
The combination of a top-down approach from DCMS and poor planning have given the impression that the Government’s goal is more about political gimmickry around levelling up than a true rebalancing of power to the regions. It is a fact that 70% of the organisations that are being entirely cut from the programme are based outside London, including the Oldham Coliseum, the Britten Sinfonia and, as highlighted so effectively by the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), the Watermill Theatre. In addition, the lack of consultation, which has been most clearly evidenced by all the reaction to the decision about ENO, speaks of insincerity in making the changes. That risks the very existence of our essential cultural organisations and makes it more difficult to achieve regional parity in arts provision.
Before I move on, I want to make the point that it has rarely been more important to get these decisions right, because having weathered the challenges of the covid pandemic—the Father of the House said that situation was well handled by Arts Council England—and a decade of funding cuts to the arts, organisations now face a perfect storm of other challenges, including increased energy and operating costs and a cost of living squeeze on their audiences.
The U-turn on ENO is an admission that the choices announced in November were not well considered. This situation could have been avoided if there had been proper consultation with the sector, as many contributors to this debate have said. I hope that DCMS will now undertake an internal assessment of the process behind the NPO funding round for 2023 to 2026, so that this chaotic approach is never repeated. It is vital that we now have a transparent and equitable process.
There are still some important decisions to be made to ensure that ENO can continue and so that future decisions are made based on strategy and in consultation with the sector, with a particular focus on supporting the organisations that we have heard about today, such as the Donmar Warehouse, Welsh National Opera, the Glyndebourne tour and the Watermill Theatre. They need to continue their vital work outside London and I hope to hear more from the Minister about what can be done to ensure that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for securing this debate and other Members for their thoughtful contributions.
I am pleased that a number of debates on these issues have been held—both in this House and in the other place—over the last couple of months; that clearly demonstrates the ongoing interest in our incredible arts and culture. As I have stated on previous occasions, access to high-quality arts and culture needs to be more fairly spread. That is why we asked Arts Council England to ensure that funding is distributed more equally right across the country. As my ministerial colleagues have said in written ministerial statements, the Arts Council has fulfilled these ambitions and we are not apologetic about delivering on our policy commitments.
I will not go over past ground in respect of the investment programme or how it works, because I am keen that we think about the big picture today, but it is important to point out that this funding round will support a record number of organisations—a total of 990. That means we will be able to reach more people in more places than ever before. Every region in England outside London is seeing an increase in funding. For the avoidance of doubt, that includes the south-east: this is not just a north/south matter.
Every region in England, including London, is seeing an increase in the number of organisations that are being funded. Levelling Up for Culture Places, a list of 109 places that have been identified as having had historically low cultural investment and engagement, such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) mentioned, will see investment almost double, with 192 organisations in those areas receiving £130 million over the next three years. When compared with the previous investment programme, that is equivalent to a 95% increase in investment. Many places that were not in the last portfolio—such as Stoke-on-Trent, Bolsover, Mansfield and Blackburn with Darwen—will now become home to funded organisations. I hope this will be transformative for many communities throughout the country.
There were a record number of applications to the 2023-26 investment programme, which is, as many will know, a competitive fund. It is usual that organisations will come in and out of the NPO. To support organisations leaving the portfolio, for the first time ever the Arts Council made available transition funding which, subject to application, allows organisations leaving the portfolio to access 12 months of funding from the point of announcement.
On the ENO specifically, no doubt Members have learned of the announcement that was made yesterday, which was mentioned in the debate. I am very pleased that the Arts Council has agreed to invest £11.46 million of funding in the ENO for the period from April 2023 to March 2024. This is to sustain a programme of work at the ENO’s home, the London Coliseum, and at the same time to help the ENO with planning work associated with considering a new base outside of London by 2026 and the development of a new business model for its future operation.
We will also continue to deliver planned activity in London during the year, including an appropriate level of education and community engagement. We are delighted that this has been negotiated. Both sides have also agreed to work together to reach an agreement by the end of March this year on a further two years of funding to support the future of the organisation, subject to successful application. They are also working together on the future running of the Coliseum, and a future base. Taking note of many of the points that have been raised, I hope that is something that can be arranged as soon as possible.
Sir Robert Neill
We all appreciate that there has been progress, and that is welcome, but I hope the Minister will accept that this is not a complete answer. I urge him, when he speaks to the Arts Council, to bear in mind that in opera the programmes need to be planned a minimum of 18 months, and very frequently three to four years, beforehand. Even two years will not be enough to mount a serious programme of work, wherever it is. Flexibility needs to be shown on the timeframes so that we get decent work available in and outside London.
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend has made that point clearly. I know that those discussions are ongoing. I hope we will hear something by the end of March.
ACE’s investment in opera, orchestras and other classical organisations will represent around 80% of all investment in music. Through the ’23 to ’26 investment programme, opera will continue to be well funded, with it remaining at around 40% of overall investment in music. Excluding the funding for the ENO, that is more than £30 million per year for opera alone. Organisations such as English Touring Opera and the Birmingham Opera Company will receive increased funding, and there are many new joiners, such as OperaUpClose and Pegasus Opera Company. The Royal Opera House and Opera North will continue to be funded.
Some Members have set out a view that where an organisation is headquartered is a blunt instrument when it comes to levelling up. My noble Friend the Minister for Arts set out a view on this late last year. He said:
“Touring is important…We do not, in any respect, disparage or undervalue that vital work, but… There is a difference in having an organisation based in your community from just being able to visit it as it passes through your town or city.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2022; Vol. 826, c. 852.]
That said, the Government will continue to work with the Arts Council to understand all the impacts of its investment in arts and culture, including opera.
We remain committed to supporting the capital. We recognise and appreciate that London is a leading cultural centre, with organisations that do not just benefit the whole country but greatly enhance the UK’s international reputation as a home of world-class arts and culture. That is clearly reflected in the next investment programme: around a third of the investment will be spent in London, equivalent to approximately £143 million per year for the capital. Historically, Arts Council spending per capita in London has always been significantly higher than in the rest of the country, at £21 per capita in London but just £6 per capita in the rest of England.
Sir Peter Bottomley
If I have a spare place, I could invite the Minister to come to “Carmen” with me in a week-and-a-half’s time at the ENO. Most people there will not be Londoners; people come to London for the show, so I think that those figures are not quite right.
I say to the Arts Council and the ENO, through the Minister, that if they had sat down together they could have worked out a better future. There are six weeks now for the Minister to encourage them to do that. If they do not succeed, he should come back here and there will be a much rougher debate.
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend has obviously missed the other debates, because they were fairly rough, I have to say.
Stuart Andrew
There have been questions about the arm’s length principle. I want to make clear that were any arm’s length body, including the Arts Council, to breach the terms set by the Government, or to be found to be acting unlawfully, we would take the steps necessary to review the matter and determine the appropriate action.
There has been criticism of the board. I do not think it is fair to totally criticise the expertise that we have on many of those boards. They have a great deal of expertise in the performing arts. The board features musicians, concert hall chief executives, a Royal Shakespeare Company governor, a theatre chief executive—I could go on. Those are people who are obviously interested in the arts.
On the process, applicants receive lots of guidance, all of which is set out very clearly. Applicants know the criteria they are applying against and will have received, or be in the process of receiving, feedback on their applications. The Arts Council also runs webinars and is available to support organisations as they make those applications. In addition, there is a complaints process that is published on its website. If anybody has concerns about any process that has taken place, they can follow that. I will happily speak to hon. Members if they want more information.
I believe the arm’s length principle is right, and successive Governments have observed that. That said, no organisation should avoid scrutiny. A number of points have been raised today, particularly around consultation, and I will raise those with the Arts Minister, my noble Friend Lord Parkinson.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) was right that we should point out that there have been no cuts to the Arts Council’s core cash settlement. In fact, in the spending review, the Government increased that settlement by more than £43 million over the period from April 2022 to March 2025. That means that the Arts Council investment programme will soon be supporting more organisations in more places than ever before, all off the back of our unprecedented cultural recovery fund, which supported around 5,000 organisations and sites during the pandemic, and the ongoing increased rates of creative tax reliefs.
I am grateful for the opportunity to set out how the Government—
Stuart Andrew
No, I am going to finish.
The Government’s extensive programme of support, through the Arts Council national portfolio organisation programme, is benefiting areas across England, and more of them. The Government’s support for the arts and culture across the country does, of course, stretch beyond national portfolio funding. It also includes our cultural investment fund, creative industries tax reliefs, support for business rate payers, support through the levelling-up fund and the energy bill relief scheme, and that is not to mention our unprecedented support during the pandemic.
I strongly believe that that investment will ensure that our world-class arts and culture continue to thrive into the future and across all parts of the country. I recognise the strong representations made in today’s debate, which I can assure right hon. and hon. Members I will bring to the attention of my noble Friend the Arts Minister.
Sir Robert Neill
I thank all Members who have attended the debate: the Father and Mother of the House and many others. That shows how seriously this is taken, which I hope is something the Minister will take back. This is something people care about strongly.
Sir Robert Neill
I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend because I know he wants to say something positive about English National Opera.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am so sorry that I arrived late. I wanted to support my hon. Friend in what he had to say about the English National Opera, which we have discussed. It is so important that we preserve that institution, which has done so much to bring opera to the people.
Sir Robert Neill
That is a good message for the Minister to take away. The ENO is in the forefront of making art accessible to people who do not have a traditional background in opera, which I did not when I first took an interest as a young lad living in a semi-detached house in Hornchurch. My journey was not dissimilar to that of the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), in coming to it as an art form.
Opera has enriched my life, and I declare my interest—which I do not think is unknown—as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on opera. That is the message I want the Minister to take away. This is not a fringe matter; it is central to our arts offer in this country. Although I accept that much good work is done by the Arts Council, something has gone badly wrong in this funding round.
There is a legitimate responsibility on Government to intervene when governance, process and consultation do not come up to the standards that we normally expect in a public body. That gives us the chance to put that right and get back on track with an arm’s length body. It is not, I respectfully suggest, a reason to stand back and do nothing. I am sure the Minister will take the strength of feeling in this debate back to his colleagues in the Government and ensure that that gets to the Arts Council itself.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the funding decisions of Arts Council England.
Government Alcohol Strategy 2012
(1 year, 10 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
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 2012 Alcohol Strategy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The Government’s alcohol strategy 2012 was an ambitious attempt to reduce the harms of alcohol. In its introduction, it states:
“alcohol is one of the three biggest lifestyle risk factors for disease and death…It has become acceptable to use alcohol for stress relief, putting many people at real risk of chronic diseases. Society is paying the costs—alcohol-related harm is now estimated to cost society £21 billion annually.”
Despite the ambition, 10 years on, the harms of alcohol have not decreased; they have spiralled. We are at crisis point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is not just about the fact that alcohol is more used today; it is also about the effect it has on lives. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that 70 people die every day due to alcohol. Deaths from alcohol had already increased prior to the pandemic: between 2001 and 2018, across the UK deaths increased by 13%. In Northern Ireland, deaths rose by 40% between 2012 and 2017—more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that the Government must begin to deal with this in a standalone manner, rather than under the general umbrella of health?
Dan Carden
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. The point of this debate is that the Government had a very good strategy in 2012 and unfortunately failed to deliver on it.
Alcohol is now the leading risk factor for death, ill health and disability among 15 to 49-year-olds. In 10 years, deaths caused by alcoholic liver disease are up by a third, and the estimated cost of alcohol harm is upwards of £27 billion—£6 billion higher than back in 2012. Alcohol-specific deaths have risen by 27% in the last two years alone, and since 2012 there have been more than 66,500 deaths from alcohol across the UK. Alcohol-related hospital admissions in England are upwards of 980,000 annually, and one in five children is living in a household with one parent with an alcohol use disorder.
The wider impact on families and communities is incalculable, but it is often plain to see. The crisis we are facing is the consequence of a decade of inaction. Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance and a great advocate of alcohol policy reform, said:
“The ten years since the last Government UK strategy is a decade of missed opportunities to reduce preventable hospitalisations, deaths, violence, child neglect and antisocial behaviour. A failure to deliver on promised initiatives has contributed to the rising levels of alcohol harm we are seeing today. This cannot continue.”
I want to mention a couple of the milestones of the last decade. In 2011, the Government alcohol strategy was introduced. In 2013, key evidence-based measures in the strategy were scrapped. In 2018, the Government promised another alcohol strategy, which was later scrapped. In 2019, it was announced that alcohol care teams were to be put in hospitals in the top 25% of most-in-need areas; that is still uncertain. In 2021, an alcohol and health calorie labelling consultation was agreed, yet it has still not begun. In 2021, the Government’s health disparities White Paper was due to be published, and yet still no decisions have been taken.
The Government’s record on alcohol policy is one of policies scrapped and promises broken. The Health Foundation’s 2022 review of Government policies tackling smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity and harmful alcohol use in England made for uncomfortable reading. It observed that there are “no national targets” for alcohol and that the Government have a dismal track record in implementing commitments, not only from the 2012 alcohol strategy but beyond. The report delivers a blistering assessment of the many alcohol policy initiatives that have not been introduced, or that are of unclear status or partially implemented.
The measures set out in the 2012 strategy were, and remain, effective, evidence-led health policies that are shown to prevent deaths and alleviate pressures on the NHS. Back then, the Government’s stated outcomes were:
“A change in behaviour so that people think it is not acceptable to drink in ways that could cause harm to themselves or others; a reduction in the amount of alcohol-fuelled violent crime; a reduction in the number of adults drinking above the NHS guidelines; a reduction in the number of people ‘binge drinking’; a reduction in the number of alcohol-related deaths; and a sustained reduction in both the numbers of 11-15 year olds drinking alcohol and the amounts consumed.”
We were told the 2012 strategy would
“radically reshape the approach to alcohol and reduce the number of people drinking to excess”,
through 30 commitments or actions covering various areas. The flagship policies included minimum unit pricing, banning multi-buy alcohol promotions in shops and regulating to ensure that public health is considered as an objective by local authorities when making alcohol licensing decisions. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised that there would be 50,000 fewer crimes each year and 900 fewer alcohol-related deaths a year by the end of the decade.
The only conclusion that I can reach is that the decision to scrap the 2012 strategy is a major factor in alcohol-related crime, which now costs us £11.4 billion each year, and in the fact that deaths from alcohol have reached record levels, because soon after its publication, the Government backtracked on all the flagship policies, despite the evidence. Based on David Cameron’s figures, 9,000 lives would have been saved.
Many of us who care deeply about the impact of alcohol and addiction across society fear that the influence of the alcohol industry on Whitehall and Westminster is to blame. When minimum unit pricing is mentioned, uproar ensues and misinformation spreads—namely, that introducing a minimum unit price would hit the pub trade or punish moderate drinkers. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Home Secretary who introduced the strategy, said:
“Most drinks will not be affected by minimum unit pricing, but the cheap vodka, super-strength cider and special brew lagers will go up in price.”
She went on:
“Pubs have nothing to fear from the minimum unit price that is being introduced today. That will not have an impact on them.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 1072-1078.]
The not-so-snappily titled “The Public Health Burden of Alcohol and the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Alcohol Control Policies” states:
“Policies that reduce the affordability of alcohol are the most effective, and cost-effective, approaches to prevention and health improvement.”
The 2012 strategy agrees with that. Minimum unit pricing is no silver bullet, but it is an evidence-based policy that works.
I welcome the alcohol duty reforms that will come into effect in August this year. Alcohol should be taxed according to its strength. That is an effective starting point that makes it possible to use duty reforms to improve public health. The reality of the last decade is that cuts and freezes to alcohol duty have cost the Treasury £8.6 billion since 2012.
Advertising was another key component of the 2012 strategy. In July 2013, “Next steps following the consultation on delivering the Government’s alcohol strategy” promised to challenge and engage with the industry and sellers to promote responsible drinking, and I want to read a little excerpt from the strategy:
“The alcohol industry has a direct and powerful connection and influence on consumer behaviours. We know that people consume more when prices are lower; marketing and advertising affect drinking behaviour; and store layout and product location affect the type and volume of sales.”
The “Next steps” document promised to challenge and engage with the industry and sellers to promote responsible drinking, saying:
“Alcohol offers are too often prominently displayed in shop foyers or at the end of aisles. Some in the industry recognise such promotions, and the high visibility of these within shops, can unduly encourage harmful levels of drinking.”
The strategy cites as one potential example for action the voluntary agreement between retailers and the Government in the Republic of Ireland. There is no evidence of any progress here in the UK, and alcohol marketing is more invasive than ever. Anyone who has set foot in a large supermarket will know that alcohol promotions are unavoidable, whether that is in the foyer, at the end of the aisles or at the checkout. The sales campaign is aggressive, unnecessary and irresponsible. In the Republic of Ireland, thanks to the voluntary agreement, alcohol is reserved to one area, with the exception of smaller stores. Why have Ministers not implemented a voluntary agreement between retailers and Government?
It is worth remembering that, in the same year the alcohol strategy was introduced, this place legislated to cover up cigarettes and hide tobacco products from public view. Last year, I met ASDA and other large supermarkets to discuss online marketing practices and giving customers an opt-out from online marketing. I hope we will see progress in that area.
There are tragic consequences for individuals, their families and communities from the failure of this strategy. It is not just the person drinking who is at risk from alcohol harm; the harms affect us all, and they cause the most damage in the most deprived communities. Nobody chooses to be alcohol-dependent—it is not a life that anyone would aspire to lead. Trauma and poor mental health are often the root cause.
Anyone who has tried to access support in the last 10 years will have faced an underfunded service with staff who are overworked and undervalued. Since 2012, billions of pounds have been hollowed out of drug and alcohol treatment. NHS in-patient detox provision in England is at breaking point. There are seven in-patient detox clinics across the country, with just over 100 beds, supporting a population of 56 million.
I want to share the experience of a father trying to support his daughter, who wishes to remain anonymous. He said:
“I did everything I could to stop her from drinking. I didn’t know where to go, no one seemed to help or care. Her drinking was out of control—she always had mental health difficulties and I know she thought the alcohol would help. I took her to A&E so many times and was told the same thing—‘we have no space for her’. I was broken, I still am. I’m not a doctor or a nurse, I didn’t know how to monitor an alcohol detox. Eventually I raised the funds to go private, she’s on the mend and slowly returning but I’m angry—I’ve worked my entire life, my daughter worked, we paid into the pot. How can there be no NHS beds for my daughter?”
As the Minister knows, alcohol care teams provide specialist expertise and interventions for alcohol-dependent patients and those presenting with acute intoxication or other alcohol-related complications. They are proven to be successful and help reduce avoidable bed days and readmissions. The seven-day-a-week service in the Royal Bolton Hospital saved 2,000 bed days in its first year, and modelling suggests that an alcohol care team in every non-specialist acute hospital would save 254,000 bed days and 78,000 admissions each year by year 3.
I have spent some time with the alcohol care team at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, and I pay tribute to Dr Lynn Owens and her team for everything they do. In 2019 the Government promised to establish alcohol care teams in the 25% of hospitals with the highest need. Three years have now passed since that promise, and I hope the Minister will update us on the roll-out. Does he agree that alcohol care teams should be in every hospital?
As of December 2020, the Government have begun to replenish the budget for addiction treatment services, but it will take time to recover after a decade of cuts. This new funding forms part of the 10-year drug plan, “From harm to hope”, which adopts all the key recommendations from Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs. Dame Carol’s review was groundbreaking. However, the legal and most harmful drug—alcohol—was out of scope. Her review, if implemented properly, will see system change in reducing the harms of drugs. I commend the Government for commissioning the strategy and beginning its implementation, but now I want an independent review of alcohol, and so does Dame Carol Black. I am delighted that she supports that call.
In November, Alcohol Health Alliance UK and I, with the support of 42 cross-party colleagues from both Houses and over 50 leading health organisations, wrote to the Prime Minister calling for an independent review of alcohol that would lead to an alcohol strategy. The focus of that review should be evidence-based interventions to reduce the harms felt across society. There is already strong evidence for the effectiveness of measures to reduce the affordability, promotion and availability of alcohol, such as alcohol taxes and a comprehensive restriction on alcohol advertising. So far, the Government have responded to calls for an independent review by signposting the recent increase in spending on addiction treatment services. Increased funding for treatment is a start, but improved drug and alcohol services are a separate matter from the wider public health measures that we need.
In recent years, we have heard a lot about the action needed to tackle tobacco use, gambling-related harm, the use of illicit drugs and obesity, but we hear little about what is needed to tackle the harms of alcohol. With so little to show from the Government’s excellent 2012 alcohol strategy, is it any wonder that deaths from alcohol across England are about to top 10,000 annually? As the social and economic pressures continue to mount, more and more people will use alcohol to escape their often difficult reality. We cannot afford to wait another 10 years. The time to act is now.
In his foreword to the 2012 alcohol strategy, the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, said:
“the responsibility of being in government isn’t always about doing the popular thing. It’s about doing the right thing.”
I hope the Government will take heed of his words and conduct an independent review of alcohol that informs an alcohol strategy for the future, because it is the right thing to do.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing the debate and for his thoroughly prepared, thoughtful and considered remarks. In the past, he has spoken about his personal experience of this topic, so I thank him for bringing it to the attention of the Government and, through these proceedings, to the attention of the House.
The hon. Member made reference to the 2012 alcohol strategy, which sought to reduce the harms caused by excessive drinking without disproportionately affecting moderate drinkers. It is important to say that, although not all the measures set out in the strategy were introduced, many have been, including creating more powers to deal with problem premises; doubling the fine for persistent under-age sales; strengthening the mandatory licensing conditions; tightening the law on irresponsible promotions; enabling local councils to collect a late-night levy to contribute to the cost of policing; and introducing new powers to tackle alcohol-related issues, including closure and dispersal powers. All those were in the 2012 strategy, which the hon. welcomed, and they were delivered.
Some measures have not been taken forward, and the hon. Member mentioned some of those. One is minimum unit pricing for alcohol in England, where there was a feeling that the evidence base was not sufficiently strong. Minimum unit pricing was introduced elsewhere, including in Scotland. A report will shortly be published that assesses the impact of the minimum unit price for alcohol in Scotland, and we will study it extremely carefully to find out what lessons can be learned. If there is clear evidence on the effectiveness of minimum unit pricing in Scotland, we stand ready to respond to it. We are open-minded on the question, but we do want to see the evidence.
It is worth setting out some of the facts and figures around alcohol-related problems, because the picture is perhaps not as unrelentingly bleak as may have been suggested. In terms of violent criminality and incidents relating to alcohol, back in 2009-10 the crime survey for England and Wales said there were just over 1 million alcohol-related violent incidents. By 2019-20—just before covid—that number had fallen to 525,000—it had dropped by roughly half from 2009-10 to 2019-20.
The percentage of adults consuming alcohol within the last week stood at 64% in 2009; by 2019 that number had dropped to 54%, so there was a 10 percentage point reduction, from 64% to 54%. Binge drinking—defined as drinking at least twice the recommended limit on a given day—stood at 20% in 2009, which is quite a high proportion, but by 2014 it had dropped to 15%. The proportion of under-18s consuming alcohol and suffering alcohol-related harm has also decreased significantly in the last 20 years. All those things are worth putting on record.
The Office for National Statistics publishes numbers for alcohol-specific deaths. There was a slight decrease from 2008 to 2012, but the numbers were fairly stable; they were pretty much constant through to about 2019. There was then an increase in 2020 and 2021—just in those last two years, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned—and that is of concern. However, there is a feeling—perhaps more work needs to be done on this—that that was connected with increased alcohol consumption during the covid lockdown by people who were already at risk. We probably need to look at that more carefully. I am looking at the graph now, which is available on the ONS website, and it is striking that the mortality rates are flat over the last eight or nine years until the last two years, when they go up considerably.
I will mention one or two other important initiatives. One relates to the criminal justice system; sadly, having problems with alcohol is one of the things that leads to offending. It is not the principal driver of offending, but it is one of the drivers. Changes brought in recently—a year or two ago—introduced alcohol monitoring and abstinence licence conditions for prison leavers. They became effective just a year or two ago, and since November 2021 over 900 such conditions have been imposed.
Community sentence alcohol abstinence monitoring requirements ban offenders from drinking alcohol for up to 120 days, with tags used to monitor compliance. Over 5,000 orders have been imposed, and offenders have complied with the tag 97% of the time. Those licence conditions and abstinence monitoring requirements are quite significant and are clearly having a positive effect, and we can do more in that area.
The other important area the hon. Member mentioned was treatment, and he rightly made quite a few remarks about it. As he said, the drug strategy was published in December 2021, and it was backed by record funding. The focus of that strategy was on drugs, but the commissioning and delivery of drug and alcohol treatment services are integrated in England. In practical terms, that means that the implementation of the drug strategy and, critically, the funding that goes into treatment will also benefit people seeking alcohol treatment through mechanisms such as the new commissioning standards, the plan to build back the workforce—which the hon. Member also mentioned—and new investment to rebuild local authority-commissioned substance misuse treatment services in England. As I said, those are integrated, so they cover alcohol as well as drugs.
This current year—2022-23—we have made £86 million of funding available to local authorities to invest in treatment and recovery services, with a further £10 million to increase the availability of in-patient detox beds, to help those requiring medically assisted withdrawal. In addition, as part of the NHS long-term plan, we are investing £27 million of national funding in an ambitious programme to establish specialist alcohol care teams in the 25% of hospitals with the highest rates of alcohol harm and socioeconomic deprivation. We think that those fully optimised alcohol care teams can significantly reduce accident and emergency attendances, bed days, readmissions and ambulance call-outs. It is estimated that that NHS programme will prevent 50,000 hospital admissions over five years. As the hon. Member alluded to, there has been a significantly increased focus on treatment in general over the last couple of years.
I am concerned that we should do even more to get people with alcohol problems into treatment, especially where that gets them into criminal offending. In that regard, the three kinds of medical challenges that often present are drug addiction, alcohol addiction and mental health problems. Estimates vary, but somewhere in the region of 50% of offenders, or possibly more, have one or more of those challenges. However, only about 2% or 3% of sentences, or maybe less, contain community treatment requirements, which might be a drug treatment requirement, an alcohol treatment requirement or a mental health treatment requirement. There is a huge opportunity to work with the Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service, which prepares pre-sentence reports, and the judiciary to get a lot more people referred into mental health, drug or alcohol treatment as an alternative.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has covered every part of government and society, from the health service to criminal justice. I think alcohol takes up around half of all police time. What I am asking for is a strategy and an independent review. The Government have taken their eye off the ball over the last 12 years. They published the strategy, but it was never fully implemented. What we need is something that looks across Government at alcohol, in the way Dame Carol was able to do with illicit drugs. Our constituents know that this is a problem up and down the country. It costs society tens of billions of pounds, and the money that the alcohol industry pays in taxes does not cover the cost of alcohol harm.
Chris Philp
I am not going to make a commitment in this debate to initiate a review, for reasons that the hon. Member will understand, but I will give the issue some consideration and careful thought since he raised it.
In concluding, I reiterate that there has been a significant increase in investment in drug and alcohol treatment in the last one or two years. We have the new alcohol abstinence monitoring provisions in place, and we have seen the consumption of alcohol decline. We have also seen the number of alcohol-related violent incidents halve over the last 10 years or so, and much of the 2012 strategy has been implemented, so there is a lot to be pleased about. I will give some thought to the suggestion the hon. Member made, and I will of course happy to work with him going forward, given his obvious expertise and interest in this area.
Question put and agreed to.
Antimicrobial Resistance: Farm Animals
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of antibiotics on healthy farm animals and antimicrobial resistance.
It is a great honour and pleasure to be here this afternoon and to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone.
Antimicrobial resistance, or AMR as it is more commonly known, should be of grave concern to us all because it affects every single one of our constituents up and down the country. As we emerge from the shadow of the covid-19 pandemic, this looming health catastrophe must be treated with greater urgency. We are on the edge of yet another global human health crisis, described by the United Nations Environment Programme as a “silent pandemic”, except we will be able to vaccine our way out of this one. Worldwide, more than a million people a year are already dying from infections that cannot be treated with antibiotics. Our food system is broken, and this is the hidden public health cost of intensive factory farming.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. The use of antibiotics in factory-farmed animals as a method of disease prevention to compensate for poor living conditions is a huge contributing factor to widespread antimicrobial resistance. The EU introduced legislation to tackle this. Does the hon. Member agree that Ministers must urgently act on their 2018 commitment to restrict preventive antibiotic use?
Mr Sharma
I thank the hon. Member for her positive intervention. I am sure the Minister will note it, and I will also be raising that issue later in my speech.
One of the root causes of AMR is the overuse of antibiotics on cruel factory farms. Factory farming inflicts unspeakable cruelty on billions of animals in the UK every year. It confines them to horrendous conditions often with barely enough room to turn around or lie down. This highly stressful and often barren environment can lead to injuries and severe behavioural issues, including aggression, tail biting in pigs, feather pecking and even cannibalism. The cruelty does not end there. Factory farming subjects animals to painful mutilations, such as tail docking and teeth clipping, without effective pain relief. This is not farming; it is industrialised animal cruelty. Colleagues will not be surprised to hear that these stressful, cramped and unsanitary conditions create the perfect breeding ground for disease. That brings me to my next point: the overuse of antibiotics.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow, because I will obviously get my say in a moment. I am sure that he does not want to slander a whole industry of farmers who take animal welfare very seriously. These are people who get out of bed very early in the morning to look after and care for their animals on a daily basis. People cannot do that unless they love and respect animals. I know that he does not mean to slander a whole industry, but I thought he might want to take a moment to reflect on some of his language and acknowledge that there are farmers up and down this country who care deeply for the welfare of their animals and who look after them in a special way.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I would like to point out that you can have a go back at the Minister when it is his turn.
Mr Sharma
I am glad that the Minister found it necessary to intervene at this stage. I am not offended in any way, shape or form, but these are not just my views, but those of campaigners and experts in the field who have witnessed it and done the reports. We differ at this stage, but later in my speech he might change his mind and come back on a more positive note.
Antibiotics are routinely given to healthy farm animals to compensate for the cruel and frankly inhumane conditions they are kept in to prevent those animals from becoming sick. Antibiotics are being used to prop up this cruel system of suffering. Without antibiotics, these animals would simply not be able to survive these appalling conditions.
An estimated 75% of antibiotics used on UK farms are for group treatments. When used routinely, they are intended to compensate for poor hygiene and inadequate animal husbandry, and that happens despite the industry’s reduction of antibiotics used by 50% in recent years. Pigs, cows, chickens and dairy cows on factory farms are given antibiotics through their food and water on a regular basis. I ask colleagues this: if we will not take antibiotics when we are not sick, why would we administer them to healthy animals?
The problem is not confined to animal health. Right now we are seeing a rise in antibiotic resistance in animals, which is contributing to antibiotic resistance in humans. Last November I was delighted to host a reception on behalf of World Animal Protection and the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics for the launch of their report, “Life-threatening superbugs: how factory farm pollution risks human health.” The study—the first of its kind in the UK—tested waterways and slurry run-off in areas of the Wye Valley, Suffolk and Norfolk near to both factory farms and higher-welfare outdoor farms for antibiotic residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antimicrobial resistance was found in rivers and waterways in areas with high levels of factory farming. Add to that the alarming news that livestock farms in England polluted rivers 300 times last year and the urgency becomes clear.
The key findings showed that resistance was found in these waterways to the antibiotic cefotaxime, which is used to treat sepsis and meningitis, and vancomycin—I am sure that the Minister will agree I am not a scientist, nor in the medical profession, so my pronunciation may be different but the meaning is right—which is used to treat MRSA. It is alarming that both are classified by the World Health Organisation as the highest priority, critically important antimicrobials in human medicine yet far too little is being done to halt resistance to this AMR in our environment.
None of the areas near the four higher-welfare outdoor pig or chicken farms tested had higher levels of any type of resistance downstream than was found upstream, which means that no evidence was found that the higher-welfare farms are contributing AMR to superbugs in the environment. On the other hand, five of the eight intensive farms had more of at least one type of resistance downstream than upstream. The link between the overuse of antibiotics on cruel factory farms, river pollution, AMR and the threat to human health should be a warning to us all. We must follow the signs before we sleepwalk into another health emergency.
In 2022 World Animal Protection also conducted research into the presence of antimicrobial resistant enterococci in fresh pork samples sold in UK supermarkets. Now, that is a scary thought: AMR readily available on the shelves. The study looked at the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance depending on pork production method, including UK minimum legal standard farming, higher-welfare indoor farming and high-welfare outdoor organic farming. When the bacteria were found, they were then tested for susceptibility to different antibiotics—in other words, whether antibiotics were effective in killing them or slowing their growth. The result of the study indicated a potential trend: a higher AMR burden with more intensive production methods, and a lower AMR burden with higher-welfare production methods. That demonstrates a worrying link between the overuse of antibiotics on low-welfare factory farms, the food that we are consuming and the AMR to which we are exposed.
It is true that the UK has made progress in reducing its farm antibiotic use by 55% since 2014; that was prompted primarily by the threat of stricter EU regulations. However, reductions have stagnated since 2018, and much greater reductions are still achievable and desperately needed to safeguard human health. The remaining antibiotics still used on farms are predominantly routine group treatments that prop up poor welfare practices such as overcrowding, routine mutilations and early weaning. Before the EU brought in a ban, an estimated 75% of antibiotics used on UK farms were administered to groups of animals through feed or water, rather than by targeting individual animals displaying signs of illness. If we compare that with just 10% used for group treatments in Sweden and 20% in Norway, we quickly see that we have lost our position as world leader on this issue.
Industry-led measures have made a start in reducing antibiotic use on farms, but they have fundamentally failed to establish responsible and safe antibiotic use levels and how to achieve them. They have set out targets for what could be achieved without substantially raising welfare standards or changing farming methods. Now, we must push beyond this and raise welfare standards in order to create a truly sustainable food system.
Our European neighbours have already acted to curb this health risk fuelled by inhumane farming. In January 2022, the EU introduced new laws banning all forms of routine antibiotic use in farming and all preventive antibiotic treatments of groups of animals. Furthermore, EU legislation states that antibiotics can no longer be used to compensate for poor hygiene, inadequate husbandry or lack of care, or to compensate for poor farm management. The UK was a member of the EU when that legislation was agreed, and it is only right that it should be adopted into UK law. We should also consider the future ramifications for our trade with the EU should we not introduce the legislation as it continues to sail past us in reducing unnecessary antibiotic use.
I come now to the central question of this debate: when do the Government intend to introduce a ban on the routine use of antibiotics in healthy farm animals? In 2018, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), stated that the UK Government planned to implement restrictions on the preventive use of antibiotics in line with the EU’s proposals. That was over four years ago, and the practice has now been illegal in the EU for just under a year. In 2019, the Conservative party’s manifesto committed to solving antibiotic resistance. However, there has still been no action.
The promised public consultation on new UK veterinary medicines regulation has been repeatedly delayed, and no new restrictions on preventive antibiotics use have been introduced. If no action is taken, it is estimated that more deaths will be attributed to AMR by 2050 than current deaths from cancer. That will be the true cost to human life. The health and wellbeing of animals, people and our planet are deeply connected. The United Nations recognises that antibiotics are used to mask poor conditions for farm animals and calls for investment in sustainable agricultural food systems. Farm animals kept in conditions where they can lead good lives do not need to be routinely given antibiotics. I ask the Minister today whether this Government will commit to a ban on the overuse of antibiotics.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for securing this important debate and for laying out the situation. In the light of the pandemic, the protection of both people and animals is more important than ever, and yet serious risks are being posed by the use of antimicrobial agents leading to antibiotic resistance. The World Health Organisation described it as a serious threat that is no longer merely a prediction for the future; it is happening right now in every part of the world. That highlights the urgent nature of this matter.
In Scotland, biosecurity practices are routinely adopted as part of farm management strategies to help reduce the burden of endemic disease in Scottish livestock. Biosecurity measures are a large part of any herd or flock health plan. Responsible use of antibiotics, only when necessary, will help to reduce the spread of antibiotic resistance A co-ordinated cross-sectoral response is required to address the threat from antimicrobial resistance. The Scottish Government continue to work in co-operation with DEFRA and the UK Government across such areas, ensuring agriculture regulations within a reserved context retain the high standards we are all accustomed to.
Margaret Ferrier
Antibiotic-resistant germs can end up in the food that humans eat and lead to illnesses such as food poisoning. That illustrates the importance of food standards, which are high in the UK. Does the hon. Member agree that the regulations that follow today’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill must be airtight to prevent a reduction in standards?
Steven Bonnar
My hon. Friend makes some excellent point, and I am sure the Minister will be listening. She always speaks with authority on such matters.
Scotland’s food and drink sector continues to be successful, as we collectively follow the science in determining what is best for animals and, of course, safe for human consumption. Scotland and the rest of the UK’s agriculture sector has some of the very highest standards in the world, and we are rightly proud of them. However, these gains are being sacrificed in trade deals with countries with lower standards and requirements. Total farm antibiotic use is five times higher in the United States and Canada than here, 16 times higher in Australian poultry, and triple in Australian pigs what the UK would allow.
The UK falls behind the EU, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall, mentioned earlier, in vital areas. Regulations covering antibiotic use on farm animals were tightened across the European Union in February 2022, but due to Brexit and the UK Government’s intention to deregulate—my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West mentioned the Bill before the House today—the UK has not followed suit. UK Ministers have also previously refused to commit to an outright ban on preventive use.
In response to a request for comment, a spokesperson for the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Directorate said it would set out proposed regulatory changes as part of a public consultation during 2022, but they have not to this day responded to queries about whether the directorate would propose a ban. It remains legal in the UK to give antibiotics to farm animals routinely, rather than when they are sick or have an infection, and also to import animal foods produced with antibiotic growth promoters. The then Scottish Trade Minister, Ivan McKee MSP, called on the UK Government to seek action on AMR in all future trade agreements after the UK failed to do so when it struck its trade deal with Japan. The EU has also required similar acknowledgement as part of previous trade deals; it was successful in getting Australia to acknowledge the risk of AMR.
It is vital that the UK Government tackle antimicrobial resistance not only domestically but internationally through diplomacy and trade negotiations. If Scotland can take such action to protect our own farm animals through our very limited powers, then why can the UK Government not do so with the powers that they have? If they cannot, then why not provide the people of Scotland with the full authority to manage all our affairs?
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing the debate and on his comprehensive introduction. No one wants antibiotics to be used when they are not necessary, whether in animals or humans, and he made his case powerfully.
As I represent Cambridge, it is not surprising that I have been briefed on a number of occasions by clinicians and scientists about the risks of antimicrobial resistance. The issue was brought to my attention soon after I was elected in 2015, long before I took on responsibilities relating to farmed animal health, so I have taken a close interest. I am grateful for excellent briefings from a wide range of organisations, including the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union, the National Office of Animal Health, MSD Animal Health, World Animal Protection and Compassion in World Farming, among others. There is considerable interest and expertise.
There is no doubt about it: antimicrobial resistance is a challenge that affects the whole world, with—as we have heard—an estimated 4.95 million people losing their lives because of an antibiotic-resistant infection in 2019. According to research published in The Lancet last November, 1.27 million of those deaths were attributed to the antibiotic resistance of the infection. I suspect that many of us are familiar with the 2014 review, chaired by Jim O’Neill, which warned that annual deaths due to antimicrobial resistance could rise to 10 million by 2050.
Consequently, it comes as no surprise that the World Health Organisation deems antibiotic resistance to be one of the biggest threats to global health, food security and development. I do not think anyone is under any illusion about the scale of the problem that we face, its risk to human health and how important it is that we reduce our use of antibiotics. In recent years, we have rightly seen considerable efforts made to reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics in both humans and animals.
Since 2014, annual sales of veterinary antibiotics in the UK have reduced by 55%, with the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance—RUMA—playing an important role. That achievement was commended by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in a report published last year, which said:
“The United Kingdom’s example demonstrates that building trusted relationships across all stakeholders, including between farmers, vets, and government, can lead to sustained behaviour change, and embed practices of responsible use across farming sectors. Industry leadership on the issue has empowered producers to take action. Farmers now have open conversations with their peers on the importance of addressing AMR, and the steps which can be taken in their respective areas.”
That reference to industry leadership and building relationships across all stakeholders is critical, as it is for so many areas in the food and farming sectors. There are many tensions within our food system today, some of which are understandably a result of the need to maximise output to feed a growing global population.
As we have rightly better understood the consequences, we are now trying to find a balance between that output and the environmental, health and animal welfare issues that are so important. Although progress has been made, we still face major challenges. For example, the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics advises that 75% of antibiotics used in UK farms are for group treatments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall pointed out. That stands in contrast to other countries that manage to use antibiotics only to treat individual sick animals. Sweden and Finland are cited as examples. Although exact comparisons are difficult, we should always aspire to the highest standards here. We also heard in the introduction that some farms still use antibiotics in a routine way when others do not. The fear is that in some cases that is compensating for poor husbandry. Again, we should aim higher.
Let me ask the Minister about the Government’s antimicrobial resistance national action plan in which it was stated, as we have already heard, that the UK would implement legislation along lines similar to those being adopted by the European Union. Is that still the plan? If so, when? Why are we yet again falling behind the EU? This is the second time in this Chamber today that the Minister will have to explain why the Government have relegated the UK to the slow lane. What assessment has been made of the consequences for British farmers who export to the EU? What can the Minister tell us about ensuring in trade deals that we do not risk importing food produced to lower standards on antibiotic usage?
A key to reducing the use of antibiotics is, of course, vaccination. I am grateful to the National Office of Animal Health, which issued livestock vaccination guidelines last May to help vets and farmers to improve resilience, for its advice. Will the Minister tell us what support the Department is giving to vaccine development?
In conclusion, this is a short debate on a subject that merits much more detailed discussion. Overuse of antibiotics in general, and certainly in farming in the past, has clearly put us at risk from rising antimicrobial resistance. The falling use of antibiotics indicates that we are moving in the right direction, but there is more to do. As we transform and improve our farming systems to address wider environmental and health challenges, I am in no doubt that moving away from antibiotic use will play a key role in improving and safeguarding our health as well as the health of animals stewarded by farmers and vets.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and congratulate him on calling the debate.
The Government recognise antimicrobial resistance or AMR as a policy issue of huge importance and public interest. It is right and proper that there is scrutiny of the matters we have discussed today. Antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest public health threats that we face. A landmark study published last year, the Global Research of Antimicrobial Resistance report, reported that more than 1 million human deaths worldwide could be directly attributed to antibiotic resistance in 2019. That was the lower estimate. The report indicated that the figure could be as high as 5 million deaths globally, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall indicated in his speech.
Antibiotics are the cornerstone of human medicine. Without them, things we take for granted, such as routine surgery, would become life-threatening. Bacteria cause disease in animals, too, and veterinary medicine, like human medicine, needs to be able to rely on access to antibiotics that work. Not only do animal health and welfare depend on it, so in turn do the food systems that we depend on. It is vital that we protect those medicines for future generations.
To start, I would like to talk about how the Government are tackling antimicrobial resistance and what the UK strategy is. We know that AMR will not be an easy problem to overcome. In 2019, we put in place long-term plans to address AMR and published our UK 20-year vision to contain and control AMR by 2040. That strategic vision is supported by our current five-year national action plan for AMR, which runs from 2019 to 2024. That plan is progressing well, and I will come shortly to some of its highlights.
Meanwhile, we are already developing the next five-year national action plan. Both the vision and the national action plan were developed across Government Departments and their agencies along with the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, supported by a range of stakeholders. Our 20-year vision lays out the UK’s ambitions to create a world where AMR is contained, controlled and mitigated. In it, we have outlined our ambitions for lowering the burden of infections, our plans to optimise the use of antimicrobials across all sectors, and our aims to support the development of new therapies, diagnostics, vaccines and interventions.
We are taking a local, national and global approach. We are tackling AMR in people, animals, food and the environment, which is the One Health approach. The UK’s five-year national action plan takes those ambitions and breaks them down into actions for the UK over the short term. One key ambition of the national action plan is to reduce the use of antibiotics in the UK farming sector.
Let us talk about reducing use in animals. In the UK, the livestock industry is responsible for the health and welfare of more than 1 billion farmed animals in its care each year and for the production of safe, high-quality food. Across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we have been working collaboratively for many years with the veterinary and livestock sectors to promote responsible antibiotic use. UK agriculture has undergone a transformation over the last few years, as livestock sectors have embedded the principles of responsible antimicrobial use in their farming practices. That transformation has led to a clear understanding from all stakeholders of the importance of preserving antimicrobial efficiency and the responsibility that we all have to protect those essential medicines.
Due to the strong working relationship that we have with our vets and farmers, the UK has taken a different approach to other countries in reducing the use of antibiotics in animals, one that has been praised globally. We have engaged with the different sectors and collectively driven a culture change of responsible antibiotic use within food-producing animals. That has led to a 55% decrease in use since 2014, making the UK one of the lowest users of veterinary antibiotics across Europe. In particular, RUMA is establishing and chairing a targets taskforce for vets and farmers. It was pivotal in the industry taking ownership and driving forward that change.
Those industries have worked to protect antibiotics that are important for human use, reducing the use of those critical medicines in animals by 83% since 2014. Of course, the purpose of reducing antibiotic use is to reduce bacterial resistance to antibiotics. At the same time as reducing use, we have been monitoring antibiotic-resistant trends in bacteria in healthy livestock since 2015.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This is an issue that I have followed for quite some time, and I would like to pin the Minister down on it. Does he think that there is a problem with the routine overuse of antibiotics in farming? Does he think that current levels need to come down significantly, and does he think that it is in any way connected with industrialised factory farming?
Mark Spencer
We should be absolutely clear that the reduction in antibiotic use has been demonstrated. There has been huge engagement with the sector.
Mark Spencer
Of course, we could always reduce it further. But at the same time, we have to balance that with animal welfare and ensuring that no animal is affected detrimentally. No farmer in this country can administer antibiotics to an animal without a veterinary prescription. It requires a professional vet to prescribe that medicine for an animal. I have huge confidence in our veterinary service, and their professionalism and ability to make those decisions.
Daniel Zeichner
I think the Minister will agree that I have been uncharacteristically generous to him this afternoon. Let me press him on the point of group usage. Is that something that he thinks we should continue, or are there plans to change that?
Mark Spencer
I do not like blanket, overarching rules. There may well be a circumstance where a flock of birds or a group of animals are suffering from an infection and need to be treated. To rule out the use of group therapy when there is a group of animals that need veterinary intervention would be very silly. Of course, we want to ensure we target medicines at poorly animals, and that we use antibiotics to treat those animals. But to have a block rule where we rule out the use of a medicine to a group of animals that are suffering from an infection would be silly.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister seems to be saying that vets issue prescriptions only when there is a proven need to deal with an infection or disease outbreak. However, we know prescriptions have been issued to prevent disease outbreaks. Does he not think that is a problem? It goes back to the issue of routine use as a preventative measure rather than to treat disease. The Minister seems to be saying that prescriptions are not issued for that purpose, but I am pretty sure that they are.
Mark Spencer
I did not say that. To be clear, what I said was that I trust the professional reputation and professionalism of our veterinary services, and that where a veterinary officer is concerned that an animal may well become infected in the near future, it seems reasonable that they could come to a professional decision that that animal is better off receiving preventative medicine to stop it becoming infected and to keep it healthy. We rely on the professionalism of our veterinary service, which is one of the best in the world.
The UK’s success to date has been achieved without specific legislation. However, we are in the process of updating our laws regulating veterinary medicines and that gives us an opportunity to embed into law some of the excellent core principles of antimicrobial stewardship, which vets and famers are already promoting through a culture of responsible use.
To support the progress made in recent years and to lay the foundation for ongoing reductions in the unnecessary use of antibiotics in animals, we are seeking to strengthen our national law in this area. We will soon be publishing a consultation on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s proposed changes to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013. The consultation will include proposals to stop the use of antibiotics to prevent disease in animals in all but exceptional cases, where the risks to animal health are high and the consequences likely to be severe, which was the point I made to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).
Our proposals bear similarities to recently updated EU legislation on veterinary medicines. However, our proposals also take into consideration the fact that we use significantly lower levels of antibiotics than most other European countries. We have already developed a culture of responsible use across the veterinary and livestock sectors. We will keep working with the farming sector to prevent animal diseases through vaccination, biosecurity and good husbandry, and through that we will further reduce unnecessary antibiotic use and underpin the availability of safe and sustainable food.
It is worth putting on record that when we compare ourselves with our European colleagues, we have a much lower use of antibiotics. We have lower use than France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Romania, Croatia, Greece, Malta, Bulgaria, Portugal—I can keep going with a whole list of countries where we are performing better than our European colleagues—but that does not mean that we cannot continue to push in the right direction.
AMR is not just a UK issue, but a global problem. The UK is a strong voice on the international stage as an engaged global partner on AMR. We have led the way for many years. In 2016, the global-facing independent AMR review, chaired by Lord O’Neill, catalysed a wave of political and public momentum to address the issue.
Recently, in 2021, under the UK’s G7 presidency, we made commitments to better understand supply chains and improve resilience, investigate market incentives and novel valuation strategies for antimicrobials, and adopt standards for manufacturing of antimicrobials to reduce environmental pollution. The UK played a significant role in updating the international guidance to the Codex standards on AMR. Those standards ensure that food is safely traded across the world. We must tackle the threat head-on and galvanise countries across the globe to do the same. AMR is not only has a monumental health impact, but harms our economies and global security.
To conclude, the human population is predicted to reach 9.8 billion by 2050 and livestock products play an important role in feeding the world’s population. The goal must be to produce food in the most sustainable way, minimising environmental impacts while respecting animal welfare. Food systems will need to adapt and take account of the need to reduce disease pressures and the need for antibiotics. Preventing animal disease through vaccination, improved biosecurity and good husbandry will increase the availability of safe and sustainable food.
The UK’s sectoral approach successfully harnessed the power of the livestock industry to set its own targets and address the challenge of the food system as a whole. Producers’ deeper understanding of their own sectors will enable them to plan more effectively for the future and consider how they can produce food in the most sustainable way.
In the UK, we have shown that by having shared Government and industry goals we reduce the use of antibiotics. Real, sustainable change can be delivered and I am confident that our new legislation will further empower farmers and vets to continue to work together.
Mr Sharma
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I was looking at the time and thought that he was going to sum up. Before he does, I just wondered whether he could confirm, in clear words, that the Government will follow through on a ban on the overuse of antibiotics and ensure that there is no future for factory farming? Will he give the Government’s exact position?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I set out, we are about to consult on these matters. We have made huge progress in the right direction.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman deliberately tried to trigger me with his use of the term “factory farming”, so I hesitate to push back too robustly. However, I will say to him that farmers up and down this country genuinely love the animals that they care for. The level of animal welfare in this country is equal to that in any country in the world. I think UK farmers will take offence at some of the phrases that he has used today. Maybe that highlights that as an industry and as a sector we have not been as good at connecting with our consumers as we should have been, so there are many consumers out there who are not aware of the work that takes place on UK farms and the high welfare standards that exist on them.
As a DEFRA Minister, I am enormously proud of the work that the sector does up and down this country in looking after the welfare of its animals and making sure they are cared for, well fed and the healthiest they can be. The UK Government will be there with them and working with them on this journey, alongside vets, farmers and consumers, to make sure that we tackle the challenges that we face.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I call Mr Virendra Sharma to wind up the debate.
Mr Sharma
Thank you, Mr Bone, for letting me have a few more minutes in which to speak.
Before I say thank you and sum up, I assure the Minister that we have no intention of criticising the majority of the farmers. They are genuine, honest, decent farmers. I come from a farming background—my family back in India were farmers—so I understand the role of farmers and their approach. I mean no offence to them. However, there is a tiny minority of farmers about whom we have evidence from the organisations that produced the reports referred to today, so we know that there is an element in the farming community that behaves in the way I mentioned. It was not an attack on the credentials or credibility of most farmers. I wanted to make sure that was clear.
I very much thank all Members who have participated in this important debate today. The cruelty that millions of animals trapped in inhumane factory farms are exposed to every day in the UK is inexcusable in a country that prides itself on animal welfare. The overuse of antibiotics to compensate for appalling farming conditions is leading to antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, in both animal and human health.
The United Nations Environment Programme has described the spread of antibiotic resistance as a pandemic hiding in plain sight. Quite simply, we are sitting on a ticking timebomb. The health and wellbeing of animals, people and our planet are interdependent. Poor animal health and welfare in factory farming negatively affect food safety and our environment. Ending factory farming will help to curb the rise of AMR in farm animals and conserve the lifesaving medical interventions we rely on today. It will prevent millions of deaths and lead to improved animal welfare standards.
It is disappointing that the Minister has not committed in today’s debate to a ban on the overuse of antibiotics, despite compelling and concerning arguments that the overuse of antibiotics impacts not only his constituents but every constituent in this country. I urge him and the Government to reconsider their position, to follow through on a ban on the overuse of antibiotics and to ensure that there is no future for factory farming.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the use of antibiotics on healthy farm animals and antimicrobial resistance.
Written Statements
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Asset Purchase Facility
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Bank of England (“the Bank”) decided at its meeting ending on 3 February 2022 to reduce the stocks of UK Government bonds and sterling non-financial investment-grade corporate bonds held in the asset purchase facility (APF) for monetary policy purposes by ceasing to reinvest maturing securities. The Bank ceased reinvestment of assets in this portfolio in February 2022 and has since commenced sales of corporate bonds on 28 September 2022, and sales of gilts acquired for its monetary policy purposes on 1 November 2022.
On 28 September 2022 the authorised maximum total size of the APF was increased by £100 billion from £866 billion to £966 billion to allow for the Bank to undertake a time-limited financial stability intervention in long-dated and index-linked gilt markets, which took place between 28 September 2022 and 14 October 2022. Purchases under this intervention totalled £19.3 billion.
On 4 November the Governor and I agreed to reduce the maximum size of the APF by £80 billion from £966 billion to £886 billion to reflect the unused portion of the recent financial stability related APF expansion. Separately, on 22 November 2022, the authorised maximum size of the APF was reduced by £15 billion from £886 billion to £871 billion to reflect the reduction in the stock of assets held by the APF for its monetary policy purposes since 5 May 2022.
On 29 November 2022, the Bank began to unwind its financial stability related gilt portfolio which it completed on 12 January 2023. I welcome the successful unwind of this portfolio which I note has been completed in a timely and orderly manner. I have therefore agreed with the Bank to decrease the authorised maximum size of the APF by a further £20 billion, from £871 billion to £851 billion, which reduces the size of the contingent liability associated with the APF’s indemnity.
The risk control framework previously agreed with the Bank will remain in place, and HM Treasury will continue to monitor risks to public funds from the APF through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for HM Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank, the APF and its directors from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS501]
Fleet Solid Support Ships: Contract for Manufacture
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
Today I am providing an update on our plans for the next stage of the fleet solid support ship programme.
I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Defence has placed a contract with a value of around £1.6 billion—linked to CPI—for the manufacture of three fleet solid support (FSS) ships by Team Resolute. This is an excellent deal for the taxpayer and will strengthen and secure the UK shipbuilding enterprise as set out in the national shipbuilding strategy.
Team Resolute, comprising Harland & Wolff Belfast, Bath-based BMT and Navantia UK, will manufacture these crucial vessels providing munitions, stores and provisions to the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates deployed at sea. The contract will deliver more than 1,000 new UK shipyard jobs, generate hundreds of graduate and apprentice opportunities across the UK and a significant number of further jobs throughout the supply chain. Team Resolute has pledged to invest £77 million in shipyard infrastructure to modernise the UK shipbuilding sector.
Blocks and modules for the ships will be constructed at Harland & Wolff’s facilities in Belfast and Appledore, and this work will also support the UK-based supply chain. Some build work will also take place at Navantia’s shipyard in Cadiz in Spain, in a collaboration allowing for key skills and technology transfer to the UK from a world-leading shipbuilder.
The entire final assembly will be completed at Harland & Wolff’s shipyard in Belfast, to BMT’s British design.
The awarding of this contract will see jobs created and work delivered in Appledore, Devon, Harland and Wolff Belfast and within the supply chain up and down the country. This announcement is good news for the UK shipbuilding industry. It will deliver long-term improvements in UK shipbuilding capacity and capability through investing in shipbuilding infrastructure, productivity, skills, and a more resilient supply chain. Overseas expertise will be used to transfer to the UK high value skills and provide inward investment in technology in the UK whilst meeting the UK’s security requirements.
The contract will also balance shipbuilding across the whole United Kingdom. Alongside the existing Type 26 and Type 31 frigate construction in Scotland, the Government are now committing substantial contracts to yards in England and Northern Ireland.
[HCWS502]
House of Lords
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Wales: Additional Financial Resources
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wigley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what additional financial resources they have made available to the government of Wales, over and above the Barnett formula consequential provisions, to meet unforeseen financial needs for which no provision was made in Wales 2022-23 expenditure plans.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
The Welsh Government are well funded to meet their devolved responsibilities. The 2021 spending review set out the largest annual settlement in real terms since the devolution Act. This is still growing in real terms this year. The Welsh Government also have their own tax and borrowing powers. On top of this, the UK Government are supporting households UK-wide with the cost of living, and supporting businesses, charities and the public sector with their energy bills.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Wales Fiscal Analysis, at Cardiff University, has shown that, even after taking into account the additional allocations made to the Welsh Government, the higher levels of inflation since the coming year’s budget was set could amount to an impact of £800 million in 2023-24, and that, consequently, real-terms spending on public services in Wales will fall by that amount? Will the Government now allocate an additional £800 million to the Welsh Government for the coming year, to avoid real cuts in essential services in Wales?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we have a difference of opinion on the figures. That might be because government budgets are routinely translated into real terms using the GDP deflator, by both the Treasury and independent bodies such as the OBR and the IFS. Using those figures, we see that the Welsh spending settlement is still growing in real terms this year and over the spending review period, even after the higher costs, and we believe that the Welsh Government are well funded to meet their obligations.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, have the Government any intention at all of reforming the Barnett formula in this Parliament? Would such a reform not be a levelling up that the Government aspire to?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the fiscal framework between the UK and the Welsh Governments was agreed in 2016; that added a needs-based factor into the Barnett formula to ensure that Wales receives fair funding. It receives at least 15% more funding per person than the equivalent UK government spending in the rest of the UK. In fact, in the current spending review period, that additional amount is 20%.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the lack of Barnett consequentials from the HS2 rail project—a railway not a foot of which will be built in Wales—is a glaring injustice. The recently confirmed extension of the project means that additional Barnett formula funding was confirmed for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Why not Wales?
Baroness Penn (Con)
As the noble Baroness will know, the Welsh Government do not receive Barnett on HS2 spending because rail infrastructure in Wales is a reserved matter and the UK Government continue to invest in rail infrastructure in both England and Wales.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister. She might care to suggest to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales that he has a word with my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who, when Secretary of State for Wales, working with the then Chancellor Gordon Brown, invented something called “Barnett-plus”. In truth, with a little imagination you can put as much money in as you want with Barnett.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the fiscal framework agreed in 2016 does that, and I am sure the noble Lord will welcome the fact that the latest spending review set the largest annual block grant in real terms of any spending review since the devolution Act of 1998.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, has the time not come to get rid of the Barnett formula and to fund the devolved Administrations on the basis of need, which is how they distribute the money themselves? I know my noble friend is very busy, but could she read the report of the Select Committee of this House, which was initiated by the late Lord Barnett, which showed clearly that Wales lost out as a result? I say that as a Scot, and Scotland benefits in addition to parts of the north of England, Wales and other devolved parts of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the views of Lord Barnett, to whom the formula’s name relates. The point my noble friend makes about needs is exactly what we tried to build into the fiscal framework in 2016. There was an assessment of additional needs in Wales. It said that, on a needs basis, it should be at least 15 % more than the equivalent in the UK. That was recommended by the independent Holtham commission, and that is something that the UK is taking forward.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, while I would not wish necessarily to disagree with the Minister, I got my figures directly from the Welsh Government. Their overall budget this year, and in 2024-25, will be no higher in real terms than it was in 2022. Their capital budget will be 8.1% lower. With post-EU funding arrangements, Wales has been left with a £1.1 billion shortfall, and it is no longer able to fund three key areas: apprenticeships—Wales used to fund 5,000 apprenticeship places every year; practical support for those furthest from work through the communities for work scheme and ReAct for those in need of redundancy support; and higher education has been shut out of the levelling-up process, and hundreds of jobs are now at risk. Why is Wales being underfunded by the UK Government?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I have to disagree with the noble Baroness on most of the points in her question. As I have set out to this House, Wales receives 20% more funding per head than the UK equivalent, and that is over its needs-based assessment as recommended by the independent Holtham commission. The spending review set out the largest annual settlement in real terms since the devolution Act and the Welsh Government also have their own tax and borrowing powers. It is important that the Welsh Government are well funded, and that is what the Government have done.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, are the Government going to keep their promise to Wales to match EU funding through the shared prosperity fund?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have set out their plans for the shared prosperity fund and how they intend to keep that commitment. Taking into account the tail of EU contributions and then the UK top-up, the levels of funding remain those we committed to in the election manifesto.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I am following on from my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s point. While we are discussing the Barnett formula, a considerable number of people in England, particularly in parts of England quite close to the Scottish border, have always been concerned about the preferential treatment given to Scotland through the Barnett formula in terms of public spending. Does the Minister not think it is time for the Government to review that, but also look at other areas of England, when they look at improving expenditure?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do think it is important that, when we look at our public spending, we take into account the needs of the various areas. I have described how we do that when it comes to the Welsh Government. We also have that process when we look at, for example, funding for local government. That is a principle that the UK Government will continue to support in our approach.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to the excellent financial points that have been made on both sides of the House, would the Welsh Labour Government not benefit from having greater powers, of the kind of “devo-max” proposed in Gordon Brown’s excellent proposals on the constitutional settlement?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there was a considerable extension to the Welsh Government’s powers relatively recently, and I would put the emphasis on those powers being used to their fullest effect before we return to this question again.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the allocations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were made before the Tory Government wrecked the economy? Is it not time that we reviewed those allocations and, at the same time, the pay issue, which was also set before the Government wrecked the economy? That has had a dramatic effect on both.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, if the noble Lord is talking about levels of inflation, they have been largely driven by external factors such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As I have already reassured the House, in addition to the fact that the 2021 spending review settlement was the largest since the devolution Act, it is also growing in real terms this year and over the spending review period, even taking into account that higher level of inflation.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the late Lord Barnett of course disliked the Barnett formula intensely; he realised it had many faults and clearly needed improving. How do the Government feel about suggestions from some quarters that there should be much more fiscal devolution and that the devolved nations and areas should raise their own funds through new taxation? Is that a good idea?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in the latest round of devolution to the Welsh Government, I believe they were given greater powers to raise taxes than previously. As I said to noble Lords, making use of those existing powers before looking to extend them further would be a sensible way forward.
National Parks
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they will provide for the continuing preservation and maintenance of national parks, and in consideration of their role in fighting climate change.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The Government’s response to the Landscapes Review was accompanied by a public consultation. We will publish a response to the consultation shortly, setting out plans to support national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, including helping them deliver climate mitigation and adaptation. Our Farming in Protected Landscapes programme is a key delivery mechanism and provides funding for farmers and land managers to work in partnership with protected landscapes teams to deliver projects on climate, nature, people and place.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that national parks are flagship assets in the fight against climate change, but that that fight has been made much harder through cuts to funding of 40% in real terms in the last 10 years? Does he believe that the national park authorities and the AONBs together require fresh powers, as the Glover review recommended, and new funding in order to effect nature recovery and, crucially, increase biodiversity, and that farmers too need to be a properly effective ally in that fundamentally important ambition?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Earl about the value that our protected landscapes bring to our policies, not only on climate mitigation but on reversing the tragic decline in species. We have increased spending on areas of outstanding natural beauty by 15% this year. I concede that inflationary pressures are challenging for all protected landscapes but I urge him to look at the other areas of funding that we are providing. As I mentioned earlier, the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme has 1,800 projects, benefiting climate and nature right across our protected landscapes. Large amounts of our £750 million Nature for Climate Fund will be spent in our protected landscapes, because that is where 60% of our peat is and where 50% of our SSSIs are. That is where the focus of that fund will go. In addition to that, we have private and blended finance that national parks are very well able to get.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that one of the difficulties at the moment is that the “have regard” clause is weakening the potential input that national parks might face? Could that be amended through the process of the levelling up Bill? What steps have the Government taken to lever more private funding to ensure that there are greater powers for water companies, for example, to fund nature-based solutions in future?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We hugely admire Julian Glover’s report and have already implemented large portions of its measures. One of those centres on governance, and that is where it will fit into our green finance strategy, which is about to be refreshed in March to bring in all the different players, and different parts of government, to make sure that we are responding to the huge potential that lies in ESG money and other offsets that can benefit our landscapes. These are the most treasured landscapes in these islands, and we want to make sure that they are getting the lion’s share of this kind of finance.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate Defra on the Farming in Protected Landscapes scheme, which has worked extremely well. But the fact is that biodiversity in AONBs and national parks is no better than in the rest of the UK as an average, which is extremely poor compared with international examples. What is Defra going to do to improve the situation beyond that scheme to ensure that there really is a difference? Surely these days our protected areas should be better on biodiversity than the rest of the country.
Lord Benyon (Con)
Our ambition is to reverse any decline in species. We have policies that will see, across the country, an end to the decline of species by 2030 and an uptick in the populations that we see across our islands. On the particular point, we want to see 35,000 hectares of peat restored by 2025 and 280,000 hectares by 2050. AONBs and national parks will be fundamental to that, because they are where most of it lies.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest on national parks as in the register. Returning to the 40% cut in real terms that national parks have received over the last decade—at a time, I should say, when they have never been more popular or had more demand on their services—the Minister has talked about other funds that are going into the national parks, but does he accept that that is not core funding and is going to other organisations in the parks? It is the national parks themselves—the rangers, the services and the visitor centres—that are core to providing a good visitor experience and encouraging more people to go into the parks. Does he accept that we should be more ambitious about the role that national parks can play? If we are to do that then they will need more core funding, not the supplementary funding that the Minister is talking about.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think national parks are very good at getting that money in, whether from the private sector or blended finance. There is a very good arrangement with Palladium called Revere, which sees some money going into supporting, for example, core personnel in national parks to do projects right across those parks. All areas of government have challenges at the moment, particularly in the light of inflationary pressures. The national parks have proved themselves very resilient. I want to make sure that we can find more for money for them in the future. That is a key part of our decisions into the next spending round.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, some of our national parks believe that they could better address climate and nature emergencies if they were added to the list of authorities which have a general power of competence under the Localism Act 2011. Can the Minister tell us whether His Majesty’s Government have any plans to bring that about?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I might have to write to the right reverend Prelate on that. As we look as implementing the recommendations of the Landscapes Review, and through the biodiversity duty that we are imposing on public bodies through the Environment Act, I think we will address that. I hope we are seeing the determination of this Government to tackle issues which simply did not exist when national parks were created 70 years ago. Climate change was not talked about then and biodiversity was stable or rising; those emergencies need to be reflected in the policies they take forward.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, national parks across the country are losing thousands of trees because of disease. In the Lake District, Forestry England is cutting down large trees in the Ennerdale valley and Whinlatter, across many hectares of land. What assessment has been made as to the impact on wildlife from this loss of trees, including red squirrel populations, and what plans are in place, including the timescales for replanting with native species?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I cannot give the noble Baroness an accurate assessment of what impact tree disease has had, or indeed Storm Arwen in Northumberland, which saw probably millions of trees blown down. Undoubtedly, that has an effect on wildlife, but wildlife can benefit from different ages of woodland being in a landscape. I hope the replanting schemes that are happening, whether because of disease such as ash die- back or events such as Storm Arwen, will see those areas planted as quickly as possible. It is not the national park doing that; it is the landowners and land managers within those areas, and Forestry England will be assisting them and giving grants for that to happen.
Lord Carrington (CB)
The Landscapes Review recommended that there should be an upgrade in the current duty to foster economic and social growth in national parks and AONBs. Please can the Minister confirm that the farming and other economic activities going on in those areas are not limited to tourism or sporting and other activities?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that it should not be restricted to what one might term the visitor economy. It is about keeping people living in these landscapes. It is about ensuring that they have the opportunities to conduct businesses of all kinds and that there are skills and opportunities for young people. When we talk about levelling up, I always feel that we should also talk about levelling out, into some of the more remote places, to make sure that the opportunities for families, young people and entrepreneurs exist in those landscapes as well.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we now have a virtual contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with climate change being the root cause of flooding of property in towns such as Keswick in the Lake District National Park, instead of imposing flooding remediation costs on property owners, why not amend the law by placing legal responsibility on companies such as United Utilities to more effectively manage their water assets, and for them to community block insure against the risk of flooding damage to residential, commercial and community assets in areas designated at risk from their companies’ operations? Flood Re is inadequate.
Lord Benyon (Con)
As the Minister who brought Flood Re into being, I think it has been an enormous success. I do not know the exact circumstances that the noble Lord is referring to in that part of the world, but there are a number of levers on United Utilities to make sure that it is fulfilling more than just its statutory duty to provide clean water and get rid of sewage. I will look into the matter and, if necessary, write to the noble Lord.
Avian Influenza: Game Birds
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Colgrain
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in determining a link between avian influenza and game birds; and in respect of any such link, what plans they have to ban the rearing and release of game birds, given the impact that this could have on the rural labour market.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I again declare my farming interests as set out in the register. We have strict biosecurity rules in place to limit the spread of avian influenza, including for the catching up and release of game birds, which are not permitted to be released in disease control zones or in avian influenza prevention zones with housing measures. The Government will keep the policy regarding future game bird releases under review and will take into consideration the outcomes of the risk assessments beyond risk levels and the ongoing avian influenza outbreak.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his reply, which in large part is reassuring. Nevertheless, he will know that plans need to be made over the next few weeks to decide whether many shoots, and the direct and indirect employment that goes with them, will continue for the new season. The financial contribution of shooting to the rural economy has been put annually at over £2 billion, with the hospitality sector in particular being a major beneficiary. Thousands of full-time jobs are at risk, as well as many part-time jobs. Can my noble friend the Minister indicate when he thinks any formal guidance on other issues affecting shooting can be given, such as the banning of the import of eggs or poults? Given the recent pandemic experience gained from the autumn migration, to what extent does he think that the spring migration arrivals will make a difference to current avian influenza levels?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Because this outbreak was originally brought by migrating birds, we follow the patterns of migrating birds very closely. The noble Lord is right that there is a concern in the autumn as migrating birds come in and move either south to north or west to east. We continue to monitor that. The increase in cases in poultry settings is slightly below what we feared it would be and we hope that trend continues. On the noble Lord’s other point, he is absolutely right that the businesses will want to de-risk as much as they can. We are trying to support them by giving as much information as we can. That is why we have just given guidance, on the basis of scientific evidence, on the practice of catching up birds to breed from later this year. That is now published.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that, when decisions are taken, they will be made on the best scientific evidence and not emotion or by those who shout the loudest? Has he seen the latest thorough scientific research which shows that shooting is beneficial to biodiversity in the same area?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is right to raise this point. My department will make decisions on the basis of evidence. We will not be swayed by those who say we should allow activities like shooting regardless of the risks or by those who use this tragic outbreak as a hook on which to limit shooting or even ban it. We will make evidence-based decisions. However, we better make sure we are thinking of the counterfactuals as well, such as £2 billion of investment to some of the most remote parts of the country and 74,000 jobs. These are factors we also have to consider. If a shoot no longer exists, there will be no predation control, and cover crops being planted and other activities which are of massive benefit to wildlife in this country will no longer take place. That needs to be remembered.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, once game birds have been released, they are classed as wild birds for bird flu purposes. The person who releases the game birds is no longer their keeper. Currently, game birds may not be released into the wild if in a disease control zone or an avian influenza prevention zone with housing measures. Does the Minister think these provisions are sufficient?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We constantly monitor that, and we understand that people will want to make decisions about the release of game birds later in the summer. We want to ensure that we are providing them with information so that they know whether to invest or not. This is a very worrying time for the industry, and we want to try to support it. People in the industry will not be able to move birds from one area to another if one of those is a protection zone. That must be the case, because we cannot allow anything that would put at risk the spread of this disease. Our information about many of those activities is that the vast majority of outbreaks in wild birds, particularly shore birds, happened before the pheasant releases last summer—that needs to be considered as well.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his answer on avian flu. However, putting that to one side, given that some 30 million to 45 million pheasants and some 10 million red-legged partridges are released in England and Wales every year, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the effect that that might have on ecological balance, the prevalence of other pathogens and parasites, and biodiversity in the habitats which those birds share with other birds and other wildlife?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Some work has been done with Natural England and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation to try to assess the impact. For the vast majority of cases, the birds disperse among other wildlife in a way which does not affect it, but there may be certain areas where there is an impact. We want to learn more about that, and we are working with shooting organisations to ensure that we are getting the best possible evidence.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that all the grouse moors and pheasant shoots to which the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, and others referred are up in Scotland? Following his answer to the previous Question, a large number of national parks are also in Scotland. That is not surprising, because Scotland represents one-third of the land area of the whole of the United Kingdom, which Lord Barnett, in his wisdom, took account of when deciding his formula.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is dexterous and ingenious at trying to wangle the previous Question into this one. Lots of those kinds of activities take place in England, and an enormous proportion of our uplands are in England as well as Scotland, so that has absolutely nothing to do with the Barnett formula.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, returning to the evidence on avian flu, figures from the US, Japan and across Europe show that the outbreaks of avian flu are not in any way reducing in either virulence or scale. Is it not clear from the figures we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that there is no way that we can continue, into the future, releasing those massive numbers of reared birds into the natural world? Is it not the case, for the sake of both public health and animal health, that we cannot continue that industry certainly on anything like the current scale?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Given the absolute assurance that we will follow the science, and that it will be evidence-led and neither anecdotal nor the sort of knee-jerk reactions of people coming from both ends of the issue, the noble Baroness must also agree with me that she wants to see—she is shaking her head already, but she has not listened to what I have to say, and she might actually agree with me—a reversal in the tragic decline in farmland birds and an increase in biodiversity in this country. Some £250 million a year is spent by private individuals on conservation, because of activities such as shooting, so she must think of the counterfactual when she argues her point.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
Is the Minister aware that a tremendous number of gannets have died from avian flu? Most of those birds have a wing-span of six feet, and there is a considerable danger that, instead of having a life expectancy of 70 years, they are transmitting the illness to game birds and other species. Can something more be done, either through vaccination or other preventive measures?
Lord Benyon (Con)
What is happening to shore birds is a tragedy. There is a slightly different strain affecting shore birds and poultry—and pheasants I class with the latter. It is a tragedy that is apparent when you look at Bass Rock, which for centuries has been white and is now black, because there are not the sea-birds on it. We are working across government to make sure that we address the disease in wild as well as domestic birds.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the question about vaccination, we know that researchers are confident that they will make progress down this route—potentially through gene-editing techniques. Obviously, that is going to take some time, so in the interim the disease is going to continue to mutate, with all the risks that that brings for animals and, potentially, even humans. Given the cross-border nature of the problem, what steps are the Government taking to ensure an international research effort similar to that which we saw during the Covid pandemic?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I can absolutely assure the noble Baroness that this is happening. As she says, this is a global issue, and there are many forums in which we deal with it. The World Organisation for Animal Health is one of them, and our chief vet and her team are completely embedded in this. If we can find a vaccination solution that is both effective and practical, I assure her that we will take every measure to see it implemented here, and we are working hard to achieve that.
Ukraine: Challenger 2 Tanks
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the budget of the Ministry of Defence will be increased to compensate for the donation of 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as a serving member of His Majesty’s Armed Forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the Autumn Statement has already made clear the Government’s recognition that defence spending needs to increase. The department continues to work closely with the Treasury on plans to replenish individual capabilities, including Challenger 2 tanks, and the Chancellor has committed to sustaining the level of support this year that the Government provided to Ukraine in 2022.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, first, the donation of the Challenger 2 tanks and AS-90 artillery pieces is the right thing to do, but they are but the tip of an iceberg. Beneath the waterline there is an incredibly complex logistical chain required to make them effective. Can my noble friend assure me that, away from the headlines, this logistical chain is in place? Secondly, on money, the Secretary of State has acknowledged that we need to invest in the Army, but we need to do it now. While any new money is welcome, what will the profiling be of that money? Will it be available now, or will we be subjected to the trick of many a Government, whereby it will not be available for some years to come, when, frankly, it will be too late?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Let me first reassure my noble friend that the donation of the Challenger 2 tanks will be accompanied by an armoured recovery vehicle designed to repair and recover damaged tanks on the battlefield, but my noble friend will be aware of the very impressive record of the Challenger 2 in resisting attack. In addition, the AS-90 self-propelled guns will follow; there will be one battery of eight immediately battle-ready, and three further batteries in varying states of readiness to be provided to the Ukrainians to refurbish or exploit for spares. In addition to that, as my noble friend will be aware, hundreds more armoured and protected vehicles will be included. The Ukrainian Government have responded very positively to this announcement.
On the matter of money, as my noble friend will be aware, there is a fairly closely woven tapestry of timelines, which includes a combination of the integrated review refresh and the Autumn Statement of November 2022 being built on. Negotiations are currently going on between the MoD and Treasury. The Spring Budget has been announced by the Chancellor for 15 March. We await confirmation from the Secretary of State for Defence about the defence command plan publication date, when more information will be available.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is not it the case that Challenger tanks require a unique kind of ammunition? Are we supplying ammunition with the tanks, or will the Ukrainians have to buy their own?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My understanding is, and I can reassure my noble friend, that tank ammunition is part of what is being provided. The exact quantities, he will understand, I am unable to comment on, for reasons of security.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, this support by the United Kingdom for Ukraine is part of the sustainable support it requires. When our Secretary of State for Defence meets the German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius for the first time in Ramstein, will he push for a German commitment to provide Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine? Without a contribution that is comprehensive, Ukraine will not get the response it needs and deserves.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Yes, there is a lot of sympathy with the point the noble Baroness makes. She is perhaps aware that engagement is going on. The Chief of the Defence Staff is meeting NATO CHODs today and tomorrow. The Secretary of State will be in Estonia tomorrow and the noble Baroness is quite correct that at the donor conference being hosted by the United States at Ramstein, the Secretary of State and the Chief of the Defence Staff will be present. There is a recognition that, despite the donation of tanks to date —and I think I am correct in saying that the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Poland have been donating tanks—there is a quantum step that could be taken with the addition of the Leopard tanks.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows that the House supports, without qualification, the supply of arms to Ukraine, but are we not entitled to credible evidence that the Government are even now replenishing our own stocks of military equipment so as to maintain, now, the credibility and the capability of our own Armed Forces?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I know that the noble Lord takes a keen interest in this and has posed similar questions before. I can reassure the House that the Secretary of State is cognisant of this and indeed commented in his Statement in the other place on Monday that we are very closely engaged with industry, as are our allied partners, because we are not in a silo in respect of industry supply and security of the supply chain. We are having to work with partners to ensure that, holistically, industry is able to understand demand and plan accordingly to supply it. Certainly, we are confident that we have retained sufficient equipment and ammunition so that we are able to undertake our primary responsibility to the security of the United Kingdom.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, in pursuit of a more precise answer on this issue of funding, will the Minister answer two questions? First, does the aggregate of all our activities in support of Ukraine meet the formal title of a military operation? If that is the case, do the NACMO procedures apply; that is, that the net additional costs of military operations are met not from the defence budget but from the Treasury reserve?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My understanding in relation to the donation of munitions and equipment granted in kind to Ukraine out of our own stocks is that replenishment of granted assets is managed under a standing arrangement between the MoD and the Treasury, and funding is provided from HMT reserves.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the Defence Secretary tells us:
“Even as we gift Challenger 2 tanks, I shall at the same time be reviewing the number of Challenger 3 conversions, to consider whether the lessons of Ukraine suggest that we need a larger tank fleet.”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 36.]
When will that review report, and have we the capability to deliver a larger tank fleet quickly?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Although the Secretary of State in the other place did indeed indicate that he would be reviewing the number of conversions and considering the lessons of Ukraine, I think that remark did not constitute a formal review of the process; rather, it is his understandable discretionary right as Secretary of State to look at that issue. Interestingly, he also said later on, in response to questions:
“I am always happy to keep under review the number of tanks”—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/23; col. 42.]
and the nature of these tanks. I think that the Secretary of State is absolutely realistic, as many of us are, and I know the noble Lord is, that the conflict in Ukraine is constantly educating us and instructing us, as it is our allies and partners, but we are trying to respond to that in a sensible and pragmatic way.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, how are the Ukrainian armed forces to develop and generate highly sophisticated first- and second-line support for a complex range of NATO armoured fighting vehicles?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am not a military strategist or a military technician, but my noble friend is aware that part of the training that we are engaging in with the Armed Forces of Ukraine is to ensure that they can be as professional and strategic in military thinking as possible. My noble friend will be aware that what was announced on Monday in the other place was a very extensive list of additional equipment—another important indication of the fundamental need to work in partnership with other allies. The Secretary of State made it clear, for example, that the merit of the donation of the Challenger 2 tanks will depend on these being able to work with United States Bradley equipment. I think that is an important example of trying to work in tandem to let the armed forces of Ukraine operate to best effect.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, if the provision of these Challenger 2 tanks is thought to be a success, however that is defined, do the Government intend to provide further such tanks to Ukraine?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We constantly review the assessed need through a combination of the Ukrainian armed forces telling us what they think they need and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, indicated, consultation among different countries. Part of this is, in a sense, about what we can achieve in aggregate through individual contributions. As the noble Viscount will be aware, other countries are donating tanks but the noble Baroness made the important point that the addition of Leopard tanks would be a significant step forward.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, do not the questions asked this afternoon, particularly those from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, underline the need for a proper debate in your Lordships’ House on Ukraine? In a few weeks, we will mark the first anniversary of the opening of the invasion. We have a great deal of expertise in your Lordships’ House—far more than in the other place—so will my noble friend please talk to my noble friend the Chief Whip and make sure that, rather than considering some of the very unnecessary legislation being brought to this House, we have a full-scale debate on the most important international crisis since the Second World War?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Trying to answer questions on defence issues at the Dispatch Box is quite onerous enough for me to undertake without understanding the labyrinthine workings of the usual channels, but I am sure that my noble friend’s plea is heard by my very good friend the Chief Whip and that the usual channels will be interested in his observations.
Online Safety Bill
Wednesday 18th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 January 2023 - large print - (17 Jan 2023)
Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
That the draft Order laid before the House on 22 November 2022 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 January.
Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Late Appeal) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
That the Regulations laid before the House on 17 November 2022 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 January.
Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
To move that the Regulations laid before the House on 6 December 2022 be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 January
Execution of Alireza Akbari
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the execution of Alireza Akbari is a barbaric act of politically motivated murder at the hands of the Iranian regime. I am sure the whole House will express condolences and solidarity with his family at this time. Mr Akbari’s execution is a direct message to the British Government. Such executions are, in the words of Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, state-sanctioned killings.
I am sure the Minister knows that he and the Government will have the support of all sides of the House and from all parties to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Does he agree with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, that the National Security Bill could contain a power to proscribe state bodies on the basis of their hostile activity? If so, could this be an opportunity to proscribe the IRGC?
The IRGC’s brutal actions are designed to silence the protests of the Iranian people by striking fear into their hearts both inside and outside Iran. James Cleverly said on Monday that the United Kingdom will continue to work on a cross-department basis and internationally on the most effective ways of curtailing Iran’s malign activity—within Iran, in the region and globally—and to hold it to account for its brutality and atrocities.
I have raised before the plight of the BBC Persian service staff. Can the Minister reassure the House that the FCDO is working closely with the Home Office and the BBC on measures to protect them and their families?
During the Commons exchange on this Statement, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee asked about the existence of the IRGC’s operating centres within the United Kingdom. What assessment have the Government made of those reports? On curtailing the regime’s malign activities, can the Minister tell us what recent discussions have been held with the United States and the EU to achieve the objectives of James Cleverly without isolating the more moderate voices within Iran?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I share the sympathies the noble Lord extended to the family of Alireza Akbari. As the Statement from the Foreign Secretary indicated, the family welcomed the support from the Foreign Office. I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s response: there should be no impunity for those who have been responsible for both human rights abuses within Iran and the mistreatment of British dual nationals.
Can the Minister state how many dual nationals there are in Iran? Can we guarantee consular access for them? Are there routes for their safe exit from Iran if they need to leave, as well as for those who are vulnerable to the human rights abuses of the regime? On a number of occasions, I have asked for preparations to be made for such safe and legal routes, primarily for vulnerable women who have been persecuted and oppressed by the Iranian regime to an alarming degree.
A Norwegian NGO has suggested that 481 people have been killed by the Iranian regime directly, including 64 children and 35 women. Will the Government work hand in hand with our EU and other allies to ensure that new suites of sanctions—both targeted and general —on the regime are fully co-ordinated so that there are no gaps in their operation?
I have also raised concerns that while we have seen some progress in the commissioning and establishment of an inquiry to investigate the abuses of the Iranian regime, unfortunately, some of our Gulf allies did not support that route. What work are the Government doing with our friends and allies in the Gulf to ensure that even if the UK, the US and the EU have a joint position, it is not undermined by them?
Can the Minister clarify the position of the Government on the proscription of the IRGC? There is absolute merit in its proscription. However, unlike with non-governmental organisations, the proscription of a government organisation will inevitably bring about other consequences, especially if there are repercussions on dual nationals, or indeed on UK interests. Of course, there would be an impact on UK relations with Iraq and neighbouring countries which have predominantly Shia populations and which the IRGC is operating within.
Greater information is usually provided on proscriptions; if we do see the proscription, I hope we can have a full debate in the Chamber on not just the statutory instrument but the UK’s relations with Iran, which are fundamental, given the gross abuses of human rights of that regime.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, in condemning unequivocally—as all did when this Statement was debated in the other place—the abhorrent practice of using executions as a means to suppress communities and citizens, as well, of course, as the abhorrent actions last weekend, which bring us to this very sad occasion today. Of course, our thoughts and prayers are with the family.
I assure noble Lords that we worked to the last hour on this. I can say that with some conviction, because while I was abroad, I called directly the highest diplomat of the Iranian Government here in London to again implore him and to make clear in the strongest terms that, while we deplore every execution in Iran, this was a very different case, because it involved a dual national who had lived in Britain for a number of years. Indeed, members of his family are here in the United Kingdom.
I can share with noble Lords that we continue to work very closely with the family. Indeed, any direct engagement we have had with the Iranian authorities and the Iranian regime has been based on the direct co-operation of and requests from this family, just as we have acted previously at the request of other families.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the number of dual nationals in Iran. While there is no requirement to register, some will no doubt make themselves known to us as events evolve. The noble Lord will be aware that our excellent ambassador was called back to London and has been here this week for consultations. It was a temporary callback to understand fully the implications of the situation on the ground and to address certain key issues. I met with our ambassador to Tehran earlier today and yesterday to consider all options.
On the point the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised concerning co-operation, we are working very closely with our European allies and friends. Our ambassadors are engaging in a very co-ordinated fashion in Tehran; that will continue, and it includes engagement on sanctions. Noble Lords will be aware that we immediately took action to sanction Iran’s prosecutor general, Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, who is one of the most powerful figures in Iran’s judiciary and is responsible for Iran’s unacceptable use of the death penalty. On his watch, we have seen the number of death penalties increase, including this current tragic case.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the United States and our strong partnership and work. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been in Washington and, as part of a broad range of discussions on our priorities, will undoubtedly discuss the situation in Iran regarding this tragic case.
We welcome the fact that many countries—10, as well as all the countries of the European Union—have condemned the execution. We are working on sanctions and whatever further levers need to be used. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said, we are working in co-ordination, and we are also looking at all the options available to us.
It is not the first time we have talked about proscribing the IRGC in your Lordships’ House. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, the steps we have taken do not preclude further action. We are working in a very co-ordinated fashion with all colleagues across His Majesty’s Government, and we will continue to do so. I am fully aware of the strength of sentiment on the issue of proscription, and the Government are not ignoring that. I assure noble Lords that we are keeping all options under review, including further sanctions and other actions we could take, and that everything we do will be done in a co-ordinated fashion.
These condemnations matter to the Iranian regime; you see it in its reaction, as I have through direct engagement. However, it is important that we remain persistent and consistent in keeping the focus on the appalling and abhorrent situation in Iran.
We are working very closely with the family, and I was shocked to learn about the accessibility issues for members of the deceased’s extended family in retrieving his body. They were told different things: that the execution may have taken place at a different time, and that the body of the deceased had already been taken to a cemetery and buried. One can only imagine the horror of not only having to deal with the execution, but the shock of then finding that even the last rites could not be guaranteed.
My direct challenge to the Iranian Government is this. Often, they say that in certain countries the death penalty is permitted under their own laws and jurisprudence. Even if we accept that for a moment, under what law or moral principle have the Iranian Government discarded the rites which are guaranteed by every faith and community to the deceased? Clearly, that has not happened, which adds to the abhorrence of this barbaric attack.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out the number of civilians who have died, which is getting closer to 500. Tragically, that includes 64 children, which is a cause for further abhorrence. Some 18,000 Iranian citizens have been arrested, yet the protests continue. We are working with our other Gulf partners. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, says; as the Minister for the Middle East, I am acutely aware of the situation and I can assure him of my good offices in raising these issues consistently to ensure that we have the widest possible condemnation. Equally, however, we support the civilians of Iran, who have no hand in this tragic situation. It is important that they are able to hear that we stand with them.
The noble Lord asked about BBC Persian. Again, we work closely to ensure that we safeguard all British interests when it comes to Iran. The services provided are essential. A smaller number of people are now reliant on the radio service; nevertheless, while decisions are being taken, I recognise totally the importance of communication at this extremely challenging time.
I further assure all noble Lords, particularly the Front-Benchers, that as the situation evolves—it is quite dynamic, even over the last 48 hours—I will seek to update them on events. I will of course reach out to both noble Lords to update them on further issues as they arise, and I will return to the House as the situation evolves.
The clear message has been given to the Iranian regime that, while we have our differences, different perspectives and disagreements in this House and the other place—and indeed in the challenges we pose to each other across the country—when it comes to abhorrent issues such as this, we are at one. That is an important message to communicate.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. Is my noble friend aware that it is almost impossible to find words strong enough to condemn this outrage—this judicial killing? Is he also aware that the Iranian regime has suggested that Sir Richard Dalton, our former ambassador in Tehran, was the British key point of contact with Mr Akbari? When I spoke to Sir Richard 48 hours ago, he told me that to the very best of his knowledge, he has never met Mr Akbari in his life, either here in London or in Tehran. Is this not just yet another lie by the Iranian regime, designed to impress on the Iranian people the myth that somehow, their problems are caused by foreigners rather than by their own brutal incompetence?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend and I could not express my abhorrence of this in clearer terms than those he has outlined. What is becoming increasingly clear is that these abhorrent executions take place on trumped-up charges, often relating to people who are perhaps seeking through their own good will to provide hope for Iran and to bring some semblance of normality to the future of Iranian communities and the Iranian people. Shockingly, this goes from bad to worse.
If I may, I missed a point that I wanted to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about activities here in the UK. I know of a particular centre in Maida Vale into which the Charity Commission is working on an inquiry. We are working closely with the Home Office and across government on all these issues to ensure that, as I said, all the levers that we have in our hands are exercised effectively.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to the vulnerability of BBC Persian staff. What can be, and is being, done to support the family members of those staff, who have also been targeted with threats and violence—in particular, the family members of BBC staff who are London-based and, by definition, cannot offer their family members in Iran any personal or direct support?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, there are those who are based here in the UK and receive threats, including those who work for British interests and are receiving threats. When I say “British interests”, I mean British companies such as BBC Persian, in terms of the important work that it does on the ground in providing communication. Although the service is operationally and editorially independent, the support that we give it is important. We are providing both that support and the information that is needed.
Of course, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the threat goes much wider than Iran itself. We have an unprecedented situation—it is certainly unprecedented in my time in Parliament—where Members of both Houses have had to be directly advised about the nature of a threat from a foreign state actor, in this case Iran. That puts into context the gravity of the situation and the actions that the regime may resort to in order to cause further disruption, challenge and misery not just to its own citizens but elsewhere. We are clear in our stance on this, which is why it is important that we work closely with all departments across government and equally important that we work closely with our international partners as well.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the violent repression of protests and the callous execution of Alireza Akbari expose further the barbarism of a regime that has no regard for human rights or the international rules-based order. Given this, what are the prospects of getting the JCPOA back on track? If the FCDO believes the JCPOA to be irretrievable, what alternative steps will the Government and our allies take to ensure that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon, which would only give the worst elements of this regime even greater latitude in this and many other regards?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with incredible experience of and insight into the work going on in defence and the JCPOA. Frankly, Iran’s escalation of its nuclear activities threatens not just stability in the region. Even putting the JCPOA aside, we have seen the steps that it is increasingly taking—for example, the explicit and direct support that it has extended to Russia in supporting UAVs, which have then been used in Ukraine—which demonstrate Iran’s intention not just to cause the suppression of its own citizens and cause instability in the region but to cause and fuel division and conflict further afield. The actions that it has taken recently put any kind of diplomatic solution highly at risk. We supported the JCPOA at a time when the previous US Administration pulled back because, even with all its faults, there was no other deal on the table. Last year, on two occasions, there was a big opportunity for Iran to sign the deal, but it did not do so. Recent actions make this much more difficult, but we are clear, which is why I stress the importance of working with our international partners, that we must do all that we can to prevent Iran from ever attaining a nuclear weapon.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the leadership of my noble friend the Minister on this issue. Through him, since he just mentioned them, I thank the security services for the advice that they have given me. Failure to deliver IRGC proscription will weaken Britain’s standing and signal a lack of political resolve. Can we really afford to be left out of the growing consensus among western capitals that the IRGC be held accountable for its appalling behaviour? Can my noble friend help me and describe what else the Iranian regime needs to do for us to take the right action and proscribe the IRGC?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend’s security and that of every Member of your Lordships’ House and the other place remains extremely important. I cannot stress enough the importance of immediately letting the authorities know if any Member of either place or further afield feels threatened. As a Minister, I sometimes receive emails that—how can I put it?—are not most favourably disposed to the work that I am doing or what I have said. Nevertheless, there is a tendency to say that this is the normal course of business. I cannot stress enough the importance of ensuring that those threats are communicated. We have an incredible team within Parliament who can advise appropriately.
We have already sanctioned the IRGC and its many officials through our sanctions regime in its entirety. However, the separate list of proscribed terrorist organisations is kept under constant review. I cannot go any further on this now, but I reassure my noble friend that the strength of the sentiments that we have heard in most of the contributions clearly indicates the will of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I add to the condolences and sympathy that others, including the Minister, have expressed to the family of Alireza Akbari and thank the Minister for the tone that he has struck in delivering the Statement and answering questions this afternoon.
Given the role of Iran in executing British and many of their own citizens, in torturing and in oppressing its own courageous people, especially women, and in sanctioning United Kingdom parliamentarians, I pursue the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Polak, as well as many others, and urge the Minister to convey back to his Secretary of State the widespread opinion in your Lordships’ House that the IRGC should be designated as a terrorist organisation. What must happen before that occurs? What must happen before the Iranian ambassador is expelled from this country?
Why have we not stopped the cuts to the BBC Persian service, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins? I repeated many of the sentiments and remarks about this in a debate that we had in your Lordships’ House quite recently on the BBC World Service. As recently as today, I have been told that it will lose at least 2 million of its audience in Iran as a result of the cuts to the radio services to Iran. At this time, that is quite unbelievable. Will the noble Lord not call a meeting with Tim Davie of the BBC, bring people together and ensure that the decision is reversed?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Lord’s first point, as I have already stated, the strength of views on the issue of proscription is very clear and I will take those feelings back to my right honourable friend. I assure all noble Lords that, on every element of the Iranian regime that is acting in this very oppressive manner to its own people and against dual nationals, the trajectory is clear to us. While the protests continue, we have seen ever-increasing suppression and, worse still, executions taking place. On the issue of the BBC, I commend the noble Lord for his persistence and, while we remain fully supportive, I am aware of the challenges that the BBC has faced and the operational decisions that it has made. Sometimes, circumstances mean that it is good to review things and I will discuss the suggestion made by the noble Lord with officials.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is not the most sinister element of this matter that Mr Akbari was encouraged to return by a so-called friend? We also remember that Mrs Ratcliffe was on holiday. That makes it clear that any person with joint citizenship is at risk from elements in Iran who are prepared to do anything that they believe to be either in their narrow interests as part of the Government or on behalf of the Government as a whole. Do we know or are our Government aware of how many people have joint citizenship with Iran? If these people have not already realised the risk that they run, would it be possible to provide them with additional information to encourage them to ensure that they do not innocently put themselves at risk, as happened in both the case that we are discussing and that of Mrs Ratcliffe?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, it is not normal practice when nationals go to a particular country to make their dual nationality known, and certain dual nationals who are currently resident in Iran may not have made that known. The risks to any dual national are now abundantly clear. The noble Lord talked of Alireza Akbari’s return and, as I said, many who have a particular heritage, who were born in a particular country or who have an association with a particular nation, may feel that there is perhaps a positive role that they can play in changing the trajectory of travel of that country. I am sure there are many noble-intentioned British people with Iranian heritage who think exactly that.
Yet it is very clear that the regime—forget respecting or valuing that—has no intention whatever of leveraging that opportunity to bring itself back to a form of respect from the international community. I can tell the noble Lord that all matters were discussed with our ambassador, including welfare, because the first important duty of any Government or embassy is the welfare of its citizens. Anyone who is a dual national, as Mr Akbari was, is regarded as a British national.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and many others said. I welcome the tone of my noble friend’s replies and we are all very much in debt for the responsible way in which he approaches his very onerous duties. But this is an evil regime, presiding over good people in a beautiful country. We must surely be able to do something beyond what we have already done, which has had very little effect, to show that this is a pariah state that has no place within the United Nations. Should we not begin by severing diplomatic relations ourselves?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks but, on the actions we have taken, even in the last three months an additional 40 individuals or organisations have been directly sanctioned by the United Kingdom Government. As I alluded to earlier, in reply to the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, we do this in conjunction with our key partners and allies, including the European Union, the United States, Canada and others.
My noble friend also raised the issue of what more can be done. While we have been acting decisively—about 300 individuals and organisations have now been sanctioned—we have also acted at the United Nations. I thank my noble friend Lord Polak for his comments on the UN Commission on the Status of Women; talk about a total and utter contradiction of representation to have Iran sitting on the CSW. We acted with our American partners and this demonstrated to me—here I commend your Lordships’ House—that, although it is sometimes not recognised—that issues raised here have a direct consequence on British policy and, more importantly, on the actions we take. That is one such example of recent action we have taken to send a very strong message to Iran that its actions will not be tolerated and, equally and importantly, working in conjunction with the international community.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, on the issue of what practically can be done, is there no way of having further sanctions on Iran to constrain its capacity to build these kamikaze drones, which have been supplied to Russia and which Russia has been using to kill thousands of civilians? Might the British Government take the initiative in that area and bring the international community together to constrain this traffic in terror?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has great insight on these matters and I agree with him. We are looking at how we can further constrain Iran’s ability to provide such ammunition to countries such as Russia, including through stopping of some of the supply chains. But the noble Lord will know from his own experience that the destabilising effect of Iran—particularly on situations of conflict such as Yemen, where the supply of weapons continues—continues to this day, although through direct co-operation we have had many interventions.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, we all appreciate the very robust response that my noble friend has given, and the measured way in which he has approached this problem. I think we understand the importance of the safety of our staff in Tehran, and also the importance of keeping some kind of message open. Nevertheless, given that they are murdering girls for inappropriately wearing or not wearing a scarf, are judicially murdering protesters who in any other country might face a fine at worst, are supplying drones, as we have just heard, to Russia to affect Ukraine, and now have just hanged a British citizen, what more do they need to do for us to proscribe the Iranian Revolutionary Guard cadre? Surely, given that they have not adhered to the nuclear deal, there must now be a strong case for us to initiate snapback sanctions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I again hear what my noble friend says very clearly. He mentioned snapback sanctions: of course, in the light of the long co-operation we have seen with the JCPOA, I cannot go into further details, but, as my right honourable friend said—and I stand by this— we are in no way saying that the actions that we have taken will be the last that we will take in the current situation against Iran.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I congratulate the Minister on the tone and content of his remarks. I think that he has encapsulated very well the feelings of the whole House: the revulsion of the House at this action in Tehran. I would, however, counsel him against the advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: it is important to retain diplomatic relations with one’s foes, perhaps even more important than retaining them with one’s friends. Such influence as we have may be limited, but if we withdraw our embassy, we bring such influence to an end and we betray our friends in the country in question.
I have, however, one question for the Minister. If an Iranian citizen, not a dual national, feeling under threat from the regime and having connections to this country, were to ask me how he could seek asylum and sanctuary here, what advice should I give? What legal and safe route is available to him? I know of none.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has great insight and, of course, anyone who has been involved with diplomacy will know that quite often there are occasions when you are sitting across the table from people whose views, policies and perhaps their own regime or Government you find pretty unpalatable. There are many occasions when I have sat and faced the irony of the Human Rights Council, where we have countries who clamour for membership and election to the council, but where one quick reflection on their human rights record would put it in total contradiction. The noble Lord, again, offers wise advice.
On the issue of safe routes et cetera, while it is very much the remit of the Home Office, the important thing is that the United Kingdom—certainly, this is something that I have always felt passionate about—has, throughout Governments of whatever political colour over many years, been a sanctuary for those seeking asylum and escaping the brutality of regimes around the world, and has provided support. That has to be at the core of who and what we are. In terms of the specifics of the situation that has arisen with Iran, I am sure that the noble Lord will respect that I cannot given chapter and verse here, but I note very carefully what he has suggested and, if there is more detail I can provide to him, I will certainly seek to do so.
Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill
Wednesday 18th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2023 View all Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 10 January 2023 - (10 Jan 2023)
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, the aim of the Bill before us today is to support the property market and reduce costs for first-time buyers and home movers during a difficult period for the economy. The Government have a long commitment to supporting home ownership. Since 2010, we have helped more than 800,000 households purchase a home through government-backed schemes such as Help to Buy and the right to buy. We have made sure that the UK is building the high-quality homes that we need. In 2019-20, more than 242,000 homes were built, the highest number of net additional homes in 30 years, but we need to do more, and remain committed to the 300,000 new homes target. We have invested in the affordable homes programme, with an £11.5 billion commitment through this Parliament leading to 180,000 affordable homes, including thousands for social rent. We have removed the housing revenue account cap for local authorities to support them to build more social homes. This Government also supported social renters at the Autumn Statement by limiting social rent increases to 7% in 2023-24, saving the average social renter £200 next year, and we remain committed to abolishing Section 21 evictions.
However, the tax system needs to work for those looking to get on to or move up the housing ladder, and the Government have previously made changes to support their objectives on home ownership and the property market. Stamp duty land tax must work for all. In April 2016, the Government introduced higher rates of stamp duty for purchases of additional dwellings and recognised the impact that buy-to-let investors and purchasers of second homes were having on the ability of first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder. The following year, in the Autumn Budget 2017, the Government permanently introduced first-time buyers’ relief. This increased the threshold before which those buying their first home started paying stamp duty to £300,000. It was under this Government that first-time buyers gained a permanent comparative advantage over other purchasers, and this relief has supported almost 700,000 purchases since its introduction.
The Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill builds upon this context. First, it will increase the nil-rate threshold for stamp duty land tax for all purchases from £125,000 to £250,000 until 31 March 2025. Secondly, it will increase the nil-rate threshold for first-time buyers from £300,000 to £425,000. A first-time buyer couple in the south-east buying an average new-build property worth £490,000 will see their bill reduced from £9,500 to £3,250—a saving of £6,250 which they can put towards their deposit or new furniture. Thirdly, the Bill will raise the maximum purchase value for first-time buyers’ relief from £500,000 to £625,000, something which will help those in places where affordability problems are most acute. Together, these measures mean that around 43% of all purchasers will pay no stamp duty whatever.
As part of this Government’s commitment to fiscal responsibility and to getting debt falling in the medium term, these changes to stamp duty will end on 31 March 2025. The tax cut will remain in place until then to support the property market through difficult times and to continue our support for first-time buyers. Hundreds of thousands of jobs and businesses rely on the property market, and the Government are committed to supporting them with these measures.
The stamp duty cuts will mean that more than half of all transactions in the east Midlands, the north-west, and Yorkshire and the Humber will pay no stamp duty until 31 March 2025, with six in 10 transactions in the north-east having no SDLT liability. A pensioner in the east Midlands downsizing to an average-priced semi-detached house worth around £230,000 will now save £2,100 in stamp duty costs. They will pay nothing because of the Government’s actions.
The Government are lifting families, home movers and first-time buyers out of stamp duty and continuing their record of support for home ownership. They are supporting the market and ensuring that this support remains responsible. This is a significant reduction in the cost of moving home for many in the country and will make getting on the ladder far easier.
Importantly, while it is right that people should be free to invest in or buy a second home, the Government believe it is right that those buyers pay higher rates of stamp duty. The higher rates for additional dwellings introduced in 2016 apply three percentage points above standard residential rates of stamp duty. This 3% surcharge will remain in place. It is important to note that no one purchasing an additional property will be taken out of paying stamp duty.
To conclude, the Government believe that stability is the bedrock on which we build growth. The Bill is a fiscally responsible way to support the property market through challenging times and open up the dream of home ownership to more people, to give them a stake in the success of the British economy. Some 90% of those claiming first-time buyers’ relief will no longer pay any stamp duty until 31 March 2025—a significant and meaningful addition to the Government’s record on home ownership. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very articulate exposition of government policy around the desire to increase home ownership and how important it is to remove the barriers, not only for first-time buyers but for people who own their homes to be able to move. I thank noble Lords who have remained in the Chamber; it is always nice to have at least a few people here on what I consider a seminal topic.
The herd, if you like, gathered around the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—I would have been one of about 75 Back-Bench Peers speaking if I had participated in that Second Reading debate—but the key to housing is often what we would call the second-hand market. Some 90% of transactions in housing are, essentially, as with motor cars, in second-hand homes.
If you tax mobility, as you do through the stamp duty land tax, people tend not to move. My parents’ generation moved every seven years, but now people typically do not move at all. That often means that elderly people reside in homes bigger than they feel comfortable in. They may want to stay in the family home, but as you age it becomes harder to climb the stairs and so forth; even with housing adaptations, it is inappropriate for them, and they might like to downsize. That is often harder than we think because of an absence of retirement community homes. Mobility generally has shrunk over the decades. It is important that we bring about changes to increase mobility so that people can get on to and climb the housing ladder of opportunity.
I went to the House of Lords Library. I had never used it for research before, but I really wanted to see whether the Laffer curve applied—that if you cut stamp duty land tax, your tax take would increase. I thought that maybe it would, but I was absolutely wrong. It is obvious when you think about it; I have about 65 charts I could share with noble Lords but I do not think that would be particularly helpful. Essentially, the housing market is driven by the wider economy, but what you do see from the statistics is this: if you increase stamp duty, as we have done remorselessly in the decades from 2000 to the present day—except for this brief respite, and a previous respite for a period of time under Chancellor George Osborne—you will see a reduction in the number of transactions overall. That comes through very clearly. As soon as the first relief was introduced because of Covid, transaction levels in London rose from 4,800 to 5,300, and in the rest of the United Kingdom transactions also rose dramatically. While the tax take may not have, people were moving more, which I think is a good thing.
My first question to the Minister is: is there a longer- term commitment to reduce this tax on mobility so that we can see people moving and can get closer to the era when people could move more easily—rather than building sideways, upwards and downwards—to homes that are appropriate for their needs, so they have a bigger home when they have a family and then can downsize in their older years?
My next point is the other side of what the noble Baroness said about the north-east. Okay, six out of 10 properties do not pay any stamp duty at all, but this is a tax that falls on London. As a Londoner, I am conscious of the fact that, until recently, two-thirds of stamp duty was raised in London alone. That has dropped a little with the tax reduction to 55%, but we have to be cognisant that jamming up the London market is not necessarily good for our capital city or for the wider economy. We need to be aware that stamp duty is simply much higher than what we were used to. In the first decade of the 2000s, the highest you could pay on a property transaction was 3%, but we have seen that balloon over time.
I am delighted to support the Government on this. As someone who started in a town hall and worked through to City Hall, I know that it is important to create that housing ladder of opportunity: out of public housing into part-owning your own home to fully owning your own home. That is a noble thing to encourage, and I am delighted that the Government are setting forward, with a sense of consistency, the need to reduce stamp duty to land tax levels.
I have one last question, which was raised with me by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, about a nurse. We know that nurses struggle, but this nurse got a shared-ownership property, owning 25% of her home and paying rent on the remaining 75%. That tenure is not full-blown home ownership; it is not on the last rung but, if you like, the first rung of the ladder of home ownership. She is now looking to purchase a home further away but to fully own it with a mortgage. Does the relief that has now increased from £500,000 to £625,000 still apply to that move? Will she be seen as a first-time buyer? I ask the Minister to find out the particulars of that.
I congratulate the Government. Whether you are the right honourable Member for Spelthorne or the right honourable Member for, I think, somewhere in Surrey, both Chancellors are absolutely behind the idea that, over time, we must bring down the burden of this tax on the ability to move home.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we shall obviously not oppose the Bill. It extends stamp duty relief until March 2025 to a larger group of first-time buyers and raises the lower-rate threshold for all buyers, helping a limited number either of better-off people or people living in higher-priced regions.
I should note that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has drawn attention to loopholes and anomalies in the drafting of the Bill. While this House can do nothing to tackle that, I hope the Government will follow up what the institute has said because one of our curses is poorly drafted legislation that then has to come back to this House. However, the Bill will do little to achieve its main purpose as outlined by the Government: stimulating the housing market and increasing residential investment and spending on durable goods.
Mortgage interest rates are the issue, alongside the cost of living, as everyone in this House knows. According to Nationwide, UK first-time buyers’ mortgage costs are the highest since 2008—on average, 39% of full-time salary after tax, despite a 2.5% fall in house prices, and the Bank of England is not expected to be done in raising interest rates. A modest change to SDLT does not compensate for the surges in interest rates driven by the Government’s economic mismanagement.
According to the NAO, 1.4 million households face higher interest payments this year as their fixed-rate mortgages expire. The lucky households with good credit will see their mortgage interest more than double, from 2% to more than 4.5%, and the proposals to help—for example, by offering interest-rate-only deals—provide only temporary relief. The Financial Conduct Authority said last week that 200,000 households had fallen behind on their home loans by mid-2022, while another 570,000 households were
“at risk of payment shortfall”
within the next two years because their mortgage costs would be more than 30% of their income.
The housing market requires more housing supply, not short-term temporary fixes. The Government are nowhere near their 300,000 new homes target and affordable homes are in even shorter supply. Shelter reports housing waiting lists of 1.2 million, with over 120,000 children in temporary accommodation. The construction industry is suffering huge workforce shortages and economic uncertainty is discouraging investors.
Members in the Commons, especially my colleagues the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for North Shropshire, argued for amendments that would have provided far greater protection against the unintended consequences of advantaging second home buyers. In areas such as the Lake District and north Shropshire, second home buyers consistently outbid local people and the drop in full-time occupancy is undermining communities. In some areas, purchases of second homes now amount to 80% of total purchases. In rural England, as my colleagues pointed out, there are 132,000 fewer young home owners than there were in 2010. The stamp duty cut of 2020 fuelled a second home boom and house price distortion.
We need a proper housing strategy: one consistent with our net-zero and sustainability goals, so that it really tackles housing inequality for the long term. Research for the Homelessness Monitor report showed that 300,000 households across Britain could be homeless this year. This, together with the cost of living crisis, is the issue that the Government must resolve, and urgently.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing today’s money Bill. As the noble Baroness knows, we do not support this legislation but, given its status, we accept that it is destined for the statute book. With that in mind, and with important matters to be discussed on the National Security Bill, I will keep my remarks brief.
The Bill represents the last remaining output of the failed Truss-Kwarteng project. It is now some time since those individuals set fire to the British economy and then retreated to the Back Benches, claiming they had been the victims of global events. They will no doubt attempt to rebuild their reputations in the months and years to come. However, as they seek to rewrite history, the British public will continue paying for their costly mistakes—and for what? A time-limited reduction in stamp duty which, given increasing borrowing costs and the Government’s poor record on housing supply, is most likely to benefit second home owners and landlords rather than first-time buyers. We do not view this policy as a sensible use of taxpayers’ money.
I note the Government’s assertion that stamp duty savings will support the property industry and boost money going elsewhere, such as to removal services and do-it-yourself stores, but believe they are flimsy at best. The current Chancellor’s decision to make this a time-limited measure, rather than the permanent one envisaged by his predecessor, suggests that the latest Administration agree. Households across the country are still dealing with the disastrous consequences of the Truss Government’s failed mini-Budget through higher mortgage payments and rents. That month of madness, coupled with the Conservative Party’s wider mismanagement of the economy over 13 years, means the property market has cooled in recent months. There is no doubt that this presents challenges for many, but there are far bigger housing-related issues for the Government to address than the rate of stamp duty.
Late last year, in an attempt to avoid an embarrassing early defeat at the hands of his Back-Benchers, Rishi Sunak agreed to water down housebuilding targets for local authorities. Nobody wants homes to be built in locations that are not suitable, but we are not going to solve our ever-worsening housing crisis if the Government continually duck challenges around supply. A stamp duty reduction scheme which offers a discount to those buying second, third and fourth properties does not increase supply. Instead, it is likely to have a similar effect to that of the last reduction: pushing up prices and preventing first-time buyers getting on the ladder. We are aware of steps being taken in other legislation, such as the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, to discourage ownership of multiple dwellings, but these two policy initiatives appear to be in conflict.
This Bill provides further evidence that the Conservative Party is out of ideas. The last stamp duty cut did not provide as much help to first-time buyers as promised and its overall effect on the market put many starter homes out of their reach. Ministers are seemingly repeating the same failed experiments, desperately hoping the outcome will be different.
Taken alongside other government decisions, this Bill will do nothing to improve the serious issues with our housing market. It will not boost supply or make mortgages more affordable for young people. It does not represent value for money for the taxpayer. People want security, stability and affordability, not costly gimmicks which fail to deliver results. Only the Labour Party has plans to boost housebuilding and support more people into home ownership.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate on the Bill today. In particular I thank my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh as the only Back-Bench speaker in the debate. My noble friend asked a number of questions. First, he talked about the need for mobility in the housing market. That is something I agree with him on. That can be delivered in a number of ways. Having better and more suitable homes for people to downsize to is one element of it; supporting Build to Rent and having longer-term tenancies is another. My noble friend is far more of an expert in these areas than I am.
While we support mobility overall, and there are a number of government measures aiming to do that—stamp duty is part of it—we have to balance action in that area against the fact that it is also an important source of government revenue. We think the action we have taken in this Bill strikes the right balance, providing temporary support during a difficult time for the economy, in particular the housing market as we see higher interest rates, with the need for fiscal responsibility too.
We made some other reforms to stamp duty. For example, in 2014 there was the move from slab to slice. This aimed to improve the fairness and efficiency of the tax system, as each new SDLT rate is payable only on the portion of the property value falling within each band. That removes some of the cliff edges from the system.
My noble friend also spoke about the higher property values in London meaning that it disproportionately contributes in terms of stamp duty land tax, and I acknowledge that. In the temporary reforms we have put in place, increasing the threshold at which you can claim first-time buyers’ relief helps first-time buyers in the capital facing those higher rates.
My noble friend also asked a specific question about shared ownership. First-time buyers’ relief is available on shared ownership purchases. Relief would then not be available on subsequent purchases. However, where someone intends to staircase up the shared ownership ladder, the option is available to them to pay 100% of the stamp duty up front and therefore claim the first-time buyers’ relief and not pay it again as they staircase up. I think that is a useful element of the system.
Turning to some of the points made by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the Government are aware of those points and the ones raised by the Stamp Taxes Practitioners Group, which relate to the technical detail of the existing first-time buyers’ relief legislation. We have asked officials in HMRC and the Treasury to work with those groups to discuss their comments.
More broadly, both the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made points about mortgage costs, interest rates and housing supply in general. As a Government, we are doing everything we can to hold increases in mortgage rates down as much as possible, in so far as we have an influence on them through our actions. That is why we have taken very strong steps to demonstrate Government’s commitment to fiscal balance and sound money. There is a longer-term trend of interest rates and mortgage rates rising since last autumn in response to global trends, including the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Interest rates are not rising solely in the UK; the US Federal Reserve has been raising its base rate since March 2022. The pricing of mortgage products is a commercial decision for lenders, and interest rate decisions are taken by the independent Bank of England.
On the noble Baroness’s and the noble Lord’s point about where there are existing mortgage borrowers who may now move on to higher rates, we have more resilience built into the system through the affordability assessments, but the Financial Conduct Authority regulations are already also very clear on the requirement that firms must deal fairly with customers and consider a variety of tailored forbearance options, including measures such as a payment holiday, partial payment or an extension of mortgage terms. Before Christmas, the Chancellor met with, I think, the regulator and banks to discuss the issue around higher mortgage rates and customers who may fall into difficulty as a result.
More broadly on housing, yes, we must do more to build more homes; that has been a consistent theme throughout this Government’s tenure. We have been doing more to build more homes: as I said in my opening speech, the figure for 2019-20 of 243,000 net additional dwellings was the highest in nearly 30 years, but we have a target of 300,000 and need to do more. I talked in my opening speech about some of the measures we took. Other areas are on SME housebuilders, which are an indispensable part of the housebuilding sector, and we have put in place a range of financial measures to support SMEs and to encourage systemic change in the lending environment, including over £2 billion of development finance under the home building fund, which will deliver approximately 60,000 new homes, and the £1 billion ENABLE Build guarantee scheme. I will not go into further detail on what the Government are doing to support further housebuilding, suffice it to say that we are committed in that area and that it will take a number of different initiatives to deliver it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also raised the issue of second homes. We have the additional rate of stamp duty for people to pay on any additional homes they buy. We think that that is right, in recognition of some of the issues that she raised, but we also need to be cognisant of the impact that that has—or may have had—on the buy-to-let market and on the availability and affordability of homes to rent. We think that that was the right measure and that it has struck the right balance. We are also taking action in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill with the new 100% council tax premium on second homes and by strengthening the existing premium on empty homes.
To conclude, there is a lot to do to support home ownership and housebuilding more generally. We need to support more mobility in the market, as my noble friend pointed out, and the measures before us will support those wishing to buy or to move home in the current economic climate and the housing sector more widely. That is balanced against the need to ensure fiscal responsibility and to acknowledge that stamp duty is a source of revenue for the Government. We have struck the right balance in the measures, so I beg to move.
National Security Bill
Wednesday 18th January 2023
(1 year, 10 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-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Jan 2023)
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the power in clause 77(1)(b) relates to the onward disclosure of information provided to the Secretary of State under clause 72 or 73.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, Clause 77 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about the publication and sharing of information provided through the foreign influence registration scheme. Amendment 105 clarifies that power at Clause 77(1)(b) and provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the onward disclosure of information registered or provided under the foreign influence registration scheme. The amended provision will enable the Secretary of State to provide clarity in respect of what data can be lawfully shared where necessary. I therefore ask the Committee to support this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, we are being asked to approve something that relates to regulations that we have not seen, and we would ask the Government to review the way in which they are approaching the passage of this part of the Bill. We need to see not just draft practice or draft regulations but the regulations themselves.
The way in which this part of the Bill has been generated—and I do not want to repeat a discussion that we had two days ago—means that there is a great deal of uncertainty about what is intended. I hope that the flexibility that was indicated by Ministers on Monday will be extended to how such information is disseminated. I hope that we will get an undertaking that, before Report, and not on the day that Report begins, we will see the regulations and other documents that will indicate the architecture and detail of whatever parts of FIRS are going to be retained.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just said, and I shall say a bit about it myself, in a few remarks on the government amendment. As the Minister said, the amendment clarifies the power in Clause 77(1)(b) and deals with the publication and disclosure of information provided by the Secretary of State under Part 3 on registration. Can the Minister say a little about what is not to be published? As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just pointed out to the Committee, all this is to be done by regulations—and, I emphasise, done by regulations under the negative procedure.
Information provided by the Minister about foreign activity arrangements and foreign influence arrangements could, as the DPRRC said, be both politically and commercially sensitive. There will also be practical matters of significant political interest around these matters, given their relationship to national security. What sort of thinking is going on about what may or may not be published? Will those whose information is to be published be told in advance of publication and have any right of appeal? Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, why should Parliament not be able to have a more direct say in what sort of information should be published? That point was made by the DPRRC, which called for these regulations to be made, at the very least, under the affirmative procedure, to give at least some degree of scrutiny for this Parliament. I ask the Minister again to reflect on why negative procedure is being used for these regulations and not, at the very least, affirmative.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for those contributions. I can, of course, reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who will be aware that my noble friend Lord Sharpe committed in this House that a policy statement would be published ahead of Report.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, clearly the drafting of the regulations will necessarily follow the shape of the scheme, which is reflected in the final version of the statute. Therefore, it would not be appropriate at this stage to have draft regulations to consider. As to the appropriate method by which the regulations should be approved, it is the Government’s view that the negative procedure is appropriate for these minor and technical regulations, given what they do to enable the disclosure of information provided to the department in accordance with the scheme.
Therefore, for all those reasons, we submit that this is a minor and technical amendment that simply clarifies the purpose of the power, and that it is intended specifically to enable the Secretary of State to make provision through regulations for the onward disclosure of information registered under FIRS, and I therefore ask the Committee to support this amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Perhaps I could press the Minister on this. He said that there will be a policy statement before Report. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was asking whether we can see the draft regulations. I entirely understand the Minister’s point that the final version of the regulations will need to await the passage of the statutory scheme, but why can the department not produce draft regulations which will inform discussion on Report?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
At the moment I fear I cannot commit to providing draft regulations. It may be that there are some, but it may be that to draft regulations prior to Report would be too time-consuming.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am sorry to intervene again, but does the Minister not see that this is illustrating the whole mistake in producing important legislation arising from amendments made in Committee in the House of Commons? If this part of the Bill had been drafted in the normal way, by parliamentary counsel with time to develop it and to consult, it would have been perfectly simple to produce draft regulations in time for Report in the House of Lords, which is nearly at the end of the legislative process. Is this not really just a guilty plea to having had insufficient time to prepare a Bill that came to this House based on an idea which was not even government policy?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I note the noble Lord’s views on the topic, but we are where we are. Obviously, the department will take away what he says and endeavour to meet his reasonable request.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say to the Minister, before he sits down, that in view of what the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, have said, it is not satisfactory. We do not have a policy statement, we cannot see the regulations and, when the regulations are passed, the Government will pass them through the negative procedure. I would have thought, at the very least, given the worries and concerns that have been raised, that the affirmative procedure, as the Delegated Powers Committee said, in these circumstances in particular, might be something the Government would consider. I ask the Minister to reflect on that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I hope the Minister will agree to draw the attention of his department to the debate held in this House last week on delegated legislation and to the very strong sense across the whole House, including on his Benches, that this House is meeting a Government who give us less and less information about regulations and prefer to leave more and more out of Bills so that Ministers may act as they are. This is an abuse of Parliament and should not be pursued further. That message is particularly important for a Bill such as this, and the Government should consider it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I have no doubt that the department will reflect on those points. We are all very aware of last week’s debate, in which the Leader participated.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
A decision has been taken through the usual channels to combine the next two groups, commencing with Amendment 105A and including the following list commencing with Amendment 106.
Clause 82: National security proceedings
Amendment 105A
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the definition of ‘national security proceedings’ to correspond with the ordinary meaning of that phrase, and not merely because some national security-related evidence has been adduced. It also prevents a public body from avoiding accountability by categorising proceedings as ‘national security proceedings’.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation that these two groups have been combined. I spent some time today wondering why they could possibly have been separated, since they both concern the topics of a reduction in damages and freezing powers and damages. We are now dealing with all the amendments to Clauses 82 and 83 and the stand part objections to Clauses 82 to 86.
I have Amendment 105A in group two. It is what I might call an exemplar amendment, by which I mean that it is directed at one of the issues on which these provisions on the power to reduce damages under Clauses 82 to 86 are unacceptable. I say at the outset that I fully support the objections to any of these clauses standing part of the Bill, advanced by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I shall therefore speak at this stage on the amendments in group three as well, which relate to the reduction, freezing and forfeiture of damages proposed by Clauses 82 to 86.
I will make three points. First, these clauses are vindictive, because they are not clearly targeted towards achieving the end at which they are aimed but instead represent a far wider knee-jerk attack on the civil rights of those affected. Secondly, they are unnecessary, because existing statutory powers and legal principles are already in place to achieve that end. Thirdly, they would represent an insidious restriction of the rule of law and an unwarranted grant of effective immunity for government from legitimate action taken by citizens to recover damages for proven unlawful actions by government agencies.
I turn to my first point: that the provisions are not targeted at the end which they are intended to achieve. The aim of these provisions is described in the impact assessment. Based on the Conservative manifesto commitment to
“do all we can to ensure that extremists never receive public money”,
the impact assessment says that, to achieve this aim,
“civil damages reforms will address the risk of awards of large sums of damages paid out in civil court claims being used to fund and support acts of terror and whether damages are appropriate where a claim in a national security case concerns a claimant’s involvement with terrorism.”
The first of those aims concerns the use of damages awards, which we say can be addressed by freezing orders under existing legislation, to which I will turn in due course. But the second presupposes a link between the claimant’s conduct and the award of damages.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to many of the amendments in these groups. I declare an interest as a practising barrister in public law cases, occasionally in cases concerning natural security.
I entirely agree with the powerful speech that the Committee just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marks. The award of damages for civil wrongdoing is one of the primary means by which the court remedies the wrongdoing and deters future wrongdoing. That the award of damages is central to our system of justice is confirmed by Clause 83(6), which recognises that the court may not decide to reduce damages to a claimant under the Human Rights Act. By seeking to allow a reduction in damages for non-human rights cases, these clauses would introduce a lesser standard of justice.
I am very unclear why what is unacceptable for a human rights case should be thought acceptable for other civil litigation. That is especially so when the concerns which the Government have about paying damages when they are found to be liable are most likely to arise in cases which do concern human rights violations: cases where the allegation is made—and for the purpose of this clause we must assume is proved to the satisfaction of the court—that the state has been complicit in acts of torture or murder, perhaps by undercover officers. Such grave acts can be and are pleaded as human rights violations.
I appreciate that the Government are keen to remove legal liability, including human rights liability, for claims based, for example, on UK military action abroad, but if liability were to be excluded for such alleged conduct, there would be no need for provisions on damages. Why deal with this by reference to the remedy rather than to liability?
These clauses are not even concerned with a case where the terrorist’s wrongdoing had a causal connection with the Crown’s conduct, which forms the basis of the Crown’s liability for its wrongdoing. Clause 83(4)(a) makes it clear that there is no need for such a causal connection. In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, correctly explained to the Committee, existing legal principles would apply in such circumstances. Therefore, I need to be persuaded by the Minister that there is any principled basis for these clauses.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend have comprehensively outlined why both these clauses are unnecessary in law but also go far beyond what is necessary and will be damaging in practice. I need not add very much other than to say that I have put my name to the amendments that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who was unable to be with us today, has put down with regard to Clauses 82 to 86 stand part and, as my noble friend indicated, the other amendments that would seek to reduce the impact.
The clauses undermine considerably mechanisms for holding government to account, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, through civil claims. In addition to seeking a remedy, such claims have been positive in changing policy and practice. Therefore, the impact of the clauses, as Reprieve together with the other bodies referred to by my noble friend have indicated, could be to allow Ministers and officials to avoid paying damages to survivors of torture and other abuses overseas.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am also in receipt of an excellent briefing from Reprieve, which was covered excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Marks—so much so that I am left with nothing further to say on that issue.
However, as I am currently the only Member on the Labour Back Benches, I want to put on the record that I wholly oppose the concepts contained in Clauses 82 to 86. They would allow Ministers and officials to avoid paying damages to survivors of torture and other abuses overseas; they would also give Ministers certain rights to reduce those damages under Clause 83. I just want to put a stake in the ground, as it were, behind the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I hope that I speak for my colleagues on these Back Benches in saying that I wholly support what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, described to your Lordships so excellently. That is my stake in the ground.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add a couple of queries which I hope that the Minister can help with.
Clause 83(5) provides that:
“Where the court would award damages … of a particular amount, the court must decide whether, in light of its consideration of the national security factors, it is appropriate for it to reduce the amount of damages (including to nil).”
How is a judge supposed to decide whether it is appropriate? The national security factors are listed but perhaps, by way of an example, some illustration can be given to the Committee to help us understand what this legislation has in mind. Incidentally, I note at Clause 83(7)(b) the various other defences in common law to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred—that is, ex turpi, volenti and contributory negligence—are reserved anyway. The question is whether anything further is needed. An explanation of why these provisions are needed would certainly help the Committee.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken. I very much appreciated the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. It was very carefully explained and helpful to the Committee. The only thing that I will disappoint him with is that, having heard his Latin pronunciation, I have decided that mine is not as good and so will leave it out.
Some of my remarks will be more general but none the less will ask the Government for justification—with respect to the clause stand-part debates rather than the individual amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely right to ask what the court should take into consideration when determining what the level of damages should be, if it is to reduce them, even down to nil. The Minister in the other place talked about care costs. That is my point. It would be interesting to know what the Government’s thinking is. My remarks are mostly not as specific as those of the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Pannick, but raise some of the more general points that the Government need to justify these clauses and to clarify why we must agree them in their current form. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hacking, whose stake in the ground gives me hope for the future and makes me realise that I am not alone when I stand here. I appreciate his support.
Amendment 105A, moved very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised a number of important concerns around the provision—or reduction in provision—of damages in national security cases, including, as the amendment probes, whether a public body could avoid accountability by categorising proceedings as national security. As I said, I want to address the clause stand parts but also Schedule 15, to get some clarity around the Government’s thinking.
Before anybody reading this in Hansard categorises it in a way that it should not be categorised, I make it clear that none of us in this Committee or indeed in this Parliament wishes to see damages used to finance terrorism or in any way to allow individuals or groups to benefit from them. That is the motivation behind Clause 83 and one that none of us could disagree with. However, it is important to consider how we do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is particularly important for us to do this because many people read our proceedings and so it is important that they understand the debate. The Explanatory Notes point out in stark terms, and more clearly than the Bill does, that:
“Clause 83(1) provides that the duty applies where the liability of the Crown has been established”.
The JCHR report uses even more strident language. It says this applies where the Crown, Government or state—whichever you want to call it—has been proven in court to have “acted unlawfully”. We are talking about a situation in which damages are reduced in cases where the guilt of the Crown has been proven. That is no doubt why many of us will tread carefully in this area: the state has been proven guilty and we are passing legislation that would enable the Government to further reduce damages. This is difficult territory but, with respect to terrorism and damages, it is none the less territory that we need to go to. It is true that certain human rights cases are excluded—those brought under Section 7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998—but other cases are not. As I have said, even where the court has established that the state is in the wrong and the state has been found guilty of wrongdoing with respect to an individual, and the clause applies, the state can seek to reduce those damages.
How can the Government reassure the Committee that this clause cannot be used to allow the state to avoid accountability? As I have said, of course public money should not be used to fund terrorism via the damages awarded but, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out, the clauses seem to be drawn so broadly that potentially deserving victims may be excluded. How will the Government avoid that and ensure that the limitation of damages applies only to those who have committed wrongdoing involving terrorism, which I understand to be the point and purpose of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the amendments of others?
We do not wish to see innocent bystanders caught up in a terrible situation to be excluded, but the current drafting of these clauses at the very least implies that, if there is any evidence related to any unspecified national security or intelligence services issue, the damages could be reduced or taken away completely. The Law Commission points out that this could lead to the state introducing national security evidence to avoid paying damages under the provisions of the Bill laid out in Clause 82(2)(a). Can the Minister detail for the Committee why these provisions are necessary? What additional powers do they make available to a court? Can a court not already take into account whether a claimant is deserving or not and whether there are concerns about the potential misuse of any such moneys or damages awarded to them? A point raised in the other place is that this must not be a slippery slope. Could the requirement to reduce damages from terrorism, because of our obvious horror, ever be extended to other areas where we are also horrified—for example, paedophile cases?
I have other points and questions for the Minister on Schedule 15 and other clauses in this group. Are these provisions based on experience from some existing cases, where the Government think this has happened and needs to be stopped, or are they being introduced in anticipation of it happening in the future? If they are not based on existing cases, what are the limitations of the existing legislation, on which the Government have evidence that they can present to the Committee to show why we need this new legislation?
In the other place, for example, the Government were asked what the problem is with existing legislation related to the financing of terrorism. We already have legislation that deals with reducing or removing damages that are used to finance terrorism. I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also made that point, unless I misunderstood.
The freezing orders under Schedule 15 are possible for two years and can be renewed for a further period, before leading to potential forfeiture. Can the Minister explain what the term “real risk” means, for example in paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 15? If it is a standard of proof, as real risk is in the future, how will the court determine it? Will the court require actual proof to allow freezing orders to be made, or will it make a subjective judgment about something that may happen, the real risk that may occur, in the future?
The Parliamentary Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
I thank noble Lords very warmly for their contributions, which were pertinent and challenging as ever. I shall make three introductory points. First, there is perhaps—and I put this as lowly as I can—a tension between those who say that this approach is wrong in principle and, on the other hand, those who say it is already covered by the general law. If it is covered by the general law, it cannot be wrong in principle. There seems to the Government to be an opposition in those two propositions.
Secondly, it is said that these provisions are intended to introduce a high level of impunity for the security services, generally reduce their accountability and effectively put them beyond the law. That is not the case, because in this legislation the decision is for the court—it is for the court to decide what to do. It does not give immunity to officials, the security services or the Government. It is a matter for the court. Essentially, this legislation is spelling out what the position is in relation to persons who have been involved in terrorist wrongdoing. It is saying in explicit terms that, where that situation arises, the court should consider—and I emphasise the word “consider”—whether damages should be reduced to reflect that wrongdoing. It is perfectly true that, at common law, such an argument could already be made, at least in theory; depending on which Latin tag you chose to use or whether you refer to the contributory negligence Act or other general principles, the argument can be made. But the point of these provisions is to spell that out in very clear terms so that the general public and potential claimants know what the position is, and one is not left to argue what can sometimes be obscure and difficult questions of common law in particular cases.
Thirdly, the overriding purpose—we can discuss the exact wording—is to convey a message. The message is that the United Kingdom is not a soft touch for those involved in terrorist wrongdoing when they come to claim civil damages. That is a message particularly directed to those beyond the seas who may be tempted to bring, and have in the past brought, proceedings in the UK courts when these kinds of situations have arisen. It is to make the civil position clear. By the same token, we have provisions relating to freezing and forfeiture which protect any damages that are awarded from subsequently being used for terrorist purposes. That is the overriding framework, as it were.
On behalf of the Government, I entirely reject the suggestion that these provisions are intended to introduce a high level of impunity for the security services or to avoid accountability, because it is ultimately for the court to decide. This is limited to national security proceedings, and the conduct of any public bodies will still be fully subject to scrutiny by the court.
With that general description, I shall try to deal with the various points which have been raised. I come first to Amendment 105A, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which seeks to introduce an exclusion in cases where the evidence or submissions to the court about national security are merely incidental to the civil claim in question. While completely understanding the objective behind the amendment, the Government believe that it is not necessary, for three reasons.
First, national security proceedings are very clearly defined in Clause 82(2), and it is very hard to construe that definition as including a case where national security was for some reason de minimis to the proceedings concerned. Secondly, it is, in the Government’s view, hard to imagine in practical terms a situation in which a person involved in terrorist wrongdoing brings a case against the Crown, and the Crown has presented evidence or made submissions about national security, but national security is merely incidental to the issues in the case. It seems to the Government that it is most unlikely that such a situation would arise. Thirdly—this is a fundamental point that I have already made—
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
The Minister simply has not answered the point that this provision in the Bill refers to “at any stage” of the proceedings, and any stage of the proceedings could be a disclosure stage, an interlocutory stage or an interim stage, where documents are sought to be withheld for reasons of national security that do not go to any major issue in the proceedings and are merely incidental. The Minister has simply not answered that. If he would like to do so, I would be grateful.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I will further reflect on the question, but it seems to the Government that that specific example is unlikely to bite, as it were, on the duty of the court in the particular circumstances that we are considering, because ultimately it is up to the court to consider whether a reduction of damages is appropriate. If it were the case that, technically speaking, you could argue that national security proceedings on the face of the statute were in some way involved because there had been an earlier discovery application but it had no material impact on the remainder of the case, one could reasonably assume, and the Government do assume, that the court would not proceed to reduce damages on the basis of something that had nothing to do with the real issues.
We will always reflect and consider further, because it is very important to get the drafting right, but at the moment the Government are unconvinced that this amendment is necessary and believe that the protections, and in particular the role of the court, are sufficient to deal with the concern that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has raised. That, I think, is the answer to Amendment 105A.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The Minister rightly emphasises the very high degree of discretion that is given to judges under Clause 83. The core of it is Clause 83(5), which allows a judge to take a view on whether it is “appropriate” for the amount of damages to be reduced. I wonder what the Minister thinks of the point that to give judges such a wide discretion is perhaps to give them a poisoned chalice. Judges did not, so far as I know, ask for this power. Does the Minister agree that they could be strongly criticised were they to fail to exercise the power to reduce damages, even in cases where it would be consistent with normal legal principles, including the principle of fairness, not to reduce them?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, highlights the tension I referred to a moment ago. It is very difficult to say on the one hand, as is being said, that the courts have this power already and that they are perfectly capable of exercising it, whether under the 1945 Act or ex turpi causa, et cetera, and on the other hand to say that it puts them in a difficult position and that they will be criticised if they do not exercise it. I think I can say this: the overall intention of this legislation is not to alter or downgrade a principle of law that is already inherent in the common law and in our various jurisdictions; the purpose is to spell out that principle in this legislation so that no one has any doubt that it applies in terrorist cases. That is the main purpose of this clause. We are, to an extent, simply reflecting where we are, but clarifying where we are.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can I press the Minister a bit further on this pivotal point? I respectfully suggest to him that he is asserting two conflicting principles. If I understand him correctly, he is saying, first, that the purpose of these provisions is to convey a message but, secondly, that we do not need to worry about it because it is all a matter of judicial discretion. But the judges will have to decide these cases. How are they to decide? How are they to apply their discretion? What message are they expected to convey? While I am on my feet, I remind the Minister that it was, I think, Samuel Goldwyn who said that if he wanted to convey a message, he used Western Union. That is perhaps a relevant principle for Ministers to bear in mind in relation to legislation.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Before the Minister answers, and so that he does not have to go over old ground, I will intervene. In the Government’s case, the judges will have a new power that is needed because the existing defences of ex turpi and volenti are not adequate. I think that is the case the Government are making, but I respectfully submit that a judge needs a bit of help as to how he or she is to approach this case. When judges are given discretionary powers—for example, under the Limitation Act—they are given a long list of things to take into account or something that makes their job easier. I am putting myself in the position of a hypothetical judge looking at this clause, knowing that it apparently adds something to the existing common law and asking myself how I would approach this. I wonder whether there might be reflection and a judge will be given more guidance as to how he or she should approach this very difficult and delicate task.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I can take this point under advisement, because it is not yet spelled out in the statute and I am reluctant—on the hoof, as it were—to put words into the mouths of judges who would go about it in due course. One can imagine that one would draw inspiration from certain aspects of the existing law, but that is to go further than the statute already provides, so perhaps the Government can consider this point further.
I return to the broad thrust of the Bill and come to the stand part notices. I have tried to explain the importance of the message. Western Union is perhaps a slightly outdated way of conveying a message these days, but there are times when primary legislation is important to clarify the legal position, and this is one of those cases.
Before I pick up the specific points that have been made, in relation to the freezing and the forfeiture, the essential point is that these provisions bite at the moment the freezing order was made. You do not have to go to Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court or Highbury Corner to get an order. It bites straightaway and is done by the same court that was dealing with the damages in the first place. It is more efficient to deal with the same court. Although there are other powers, as noble Lords rightly point out, in the Government’s view this is the right mechanism.
To come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about why we do not just take the whole lot straight off, these exceptions for care costs and so forth, this is intended to be a measured structure. You start by simply freezing for the first two years, then you have another go at it after a second two years, then, finally, if after four years there is still “a real risk”—I will come to real risk in a moment—that is the moment when the forfeiture power kicks in. It is to give people time to persuade the court that there is no risk, as it were. That is thought to be a measured and proportionate approach to this problem.
The Bill provides that the freezing and forfeiture apply only in part to the damages if the court so orders, so that if, for example, medical expenses or care costs have to be met out of the damages, the court can provide for that. It does not have to take away the whole lot all at once. It can have regard to the needs of the claimant in that context.
That is the essential structure. It is to remove the risk of the money simply being spirited away at the press of a button, down a hole to an offshore haven before the courts can move to make sure that the money remains safe. Again, that is a power of the court, not of the Government or the security services. Therefore, in our view it does not lead to an undermining of the principle of access to justice or any other relevant right. To take another important point raised by your Lordships, it certainly does not take away the human rights damages. There are no circumstances in which it affects human rights damages in any event; that is a sort of entrenched position under the Human Rights Act. But that does not prevent a court taking into account circumstances in relation to other claims where the court considers that a reduction would be justified. Even in relation to human rights cases—I am sure plenty of people here will immediately put me right if I am wrong—the European Court of Human Rights reduces damages in certain circumstances when it does not think that the claimant is fully deserving of a particularly large award because of the conduct of the claimant in question.
That is the general outline and why we say that the whole structure is balanced but proportionate. It extends to involvement in terrorist-related offences. It is not limited to terrorist convictions because of the quite obvious difficulty, particularly in terms of parties that are abroad, in managing to apprehend them, bring them to this country, prosecute them and secure a conviction. Cases have been brought by persons abroad known by the security services to have been involved in terrorist activities but not subject to a conviction in this country. That is why we have to make this a little wider than people who have been convicted of terrorist offences.
For the reasons I gave in relation to the message, the provisions are not limited to circumstances in which one should confiscate the damages because of the risk of them being used in terrorist activities. One should reduce the damages because of the conduct of the claimant, which is a normal, civil law situation. I do not mean civil law in the sense of continental civil law, but it is the normal situation in the common law.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I must admit that I was more favourably disposed towards some of these provisions, but the Minister has convinced me that I was wrong. He has told us that these provisions are unnecessary. They are in effect a very long text message, which apparently the public are going to consider over their breakfast tables, reminding judges of what the existing law is. Is he comfortable with using this House and this legislation for that purpose?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I feel that this is the first time that I have ever convinced the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that he is wrong. The answer to the question is yes, the Government are entirely comfortable with the need to make explicit what to a large extent is implicit but rather undefined and diffuse in our legal system. This measure gives us a clear code in terrorism cases to provide a framework for the judge to consider what he should do about damages. I accept that the question of guidance for the judges is an open point, but let us reflect on that. The purpose is to provide a clear framework in terrorism cases.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
With respect to him, the Minister is quite right: the application of ex turpi is very uncertain. There is a great deal of authority, and it is difficult to predict in particular cases whether they are going to rely on it. However, if there is going to be a statutory scheme then I return to my point: it needs to be a lot clearer so judges know how they are supposed to apply it.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I wonder if I may add a thought. One of the words that strike me in Clause 83(5) is “must”. If I were a judge at first instance, I would have to explain my decision, so I would have to say that I had applied my mind to the various factors. Having looked at the factors, I am still left in the dark as to what principle I should apply. I can look at them and understand them, but why should they affect the award? I do not think a list of factors is needed if the Government can explain the principle that should be applied. Is it that a kind of quasi-immunity should be given because of these various factors—some sort of overriding principle in favour of the Government’s security measures and so on that should be applied? I cannot devise that myself, but a list of A, B, C and D is not going to be helpful. We already have the factors there; it is the trigger, what the principle is that leads to the decision that the damages must be reduced, that is important. Otherwise, a first-instance court might say, “I’ve considered the factors and I can’t see any reason why the damages should be reduced”, and an appeals court will say, “Well, that’s perfectly right”, and we are left without any significant advance in this legislation. I hope I have made my position clear. I do not like lists of factors very much, but I like to have guidance as to principle.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I can say that the principle is certainly not for the judge to be asking himself, “Should I be protecting the Government or the security services from actions for damages?” I am not drafting the Bill, and I will further consider the matter, but I would imagine that it is something like how far the claimant brought the situation on himself. That would be an ex turpi causa or contributory negligence type of consideration. However, I do not want to pre-empt the discussion any further, standing on my feet thinking aloud, because I hear what is being said: we want further precision as to how the courts are to go about this.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I think the Committee is now in a bit of a bind. The Minister stated a few moments ago that the Bill is now a clear code and explicit, but he is unwilling to tell the Committee even some basic elements of what guidance for a judge might exist. We do not know now how to proceed on the basis of this before Report, especially in the case of the specific question that I asked.
The Minister has also stated, exactly from the Government’s perspective, what the guidance for judges is. He talked at the opening of his remarks about demonstrating that
“the UK is not a soft touch for those involved in terrorist wrongdoing”.
It is very clear from what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box what the intent is. If the judge is not to take into consideration what the Minister stated, we are in a bit of difficulty.
My specific question here, and I hope the Minister can be specific in an answer now, relates to the concern that was raised that the national security factor in Clause 83(3) is broad, and that a foreign power can state that the claimant was involved in terrorist activities in a foreign country. If that is used by a party under the national security factor, my reading of that is that the judge must now take that into consideration. Surely that cannot be right.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, on that last point, I would need some notice of that question. It is not a point that I have so far had to consider.
It is the case that the court would have to be satisfied on the civil standard that that the claimant had been involved in terrorist wrongdoing. In accordance with normal statutory principles of construction, there would have to be some nexus between the United Kingdom and the terrorist wrongdoing. It is hard to imagine a case in the UK courts where there was terrorist wrongdoing without any nexus to the UK. That is as far as I can go.
I will see if I can get a bit further, if your Lordships will permit me. As far as the general position is concerned, when I said the Government wanted to say that the UK was not a soft touch, I meant that the provision makes it clear that in civil proceedings against the security services of the United Kingdom one has to be aware that the judge will consider whether the damages should be reduced. That is all I meant by that. I did not mean to say, and I do not think I can reasonably have been construed as saying, that the intention was to protect the security services from unwarranted claims for damages. The underlying principle is, I think, that if a terrorist person has brought it on himself then that should be considered, but let me reflect further on the relevant questions that noble Lords have asked.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Would the Minister consider the wording in Clause 83(4)(a) that says there
“need not be a causal connection”?
You can find that there is a connection, but it need not be a causal connection. I can understand that if there were a causal connection then one might get around to thinking that the damages should be reduced but, if there is not a causal connection, why should you consider a reduction in damages at all? That is one of the reasons why I am looking for a principle that gets over the point that a causal connection is not necessary. What else is there?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The causal connection point is to do with whether there are national security factors in the first place. As to general question of what the court is to do, and whether we should have further guidance or precision in statute, that is perhaps a matter that we will need to come back to on Report to see whether we can get any further clarity.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I test the Minister’s patience by asking him to reflect on one other matter? He said, rightly, that in assessing damages in human rights cases the court is entitled to have regard to the conduct of the claimant, yet this clause does not feel it necessary to provide any message or guidance to judges in human rights cases. I ask him to reflect on why the Government nevertheless think it necessary to send a message to provide guidance in non-human-rights cases.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I certainly undertake to reflect on what further guidance can be given on how the courts should go about this exercise.
I have taken up too much of your Lordships’ time and am conscious that I have not perhaps dealt with everything I should have. As I think I have said, the overall intention is not in any way to undermine mechanisms for holding the Government to account, or to allow Ministers and officials to evade scrutiny. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that we absolutely have to tread carefully. I hope that this package is a balanced one, and I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we have had a worthwhile and detailed debate in which the Government have been pretty hard pressed on the detail of these clauses. I am bound to say that nothing I have heard suggests to me that these clauses are in fact defensible. They introduce a very important and, we say, objectionable new power. It is not merely a power but, because of their mandatory nature, a duty to consider reduction in damages—the power being to reduce damages where there is no connection required between the conduct of the claimant and the reduction in damages. That is entirely novel.
If I may go on from there to consider a point made by the Minister fairly early in his speech, he said that those of us who criticise these provisions must face the fact that there is a tension between that criticism and the reliance we place on existing law. The reason why his position falls and why there is a tension is precisely that, under the existing law—as in the point made a moment or two ago by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—it is the claimant’s conduct that leads to the reduction in damages. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was that there is express exclusion of the requirement for the claimant’s conduct to be responsible in these provisions before a reduction in damages is ordered. The security factors may be entirely irrelevant conduct, as far as the award of damages is concerned, but nevertheless lead to the requirement to consider reducing damages.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Bellamy, because of his being so conversant with the common law, got into some difficulty when answering my question on disclosure. He said it is unlikely that consideration of evidence that came to light in a disclosure application would have any bearing on the claimant’s conduct and therefore would lead a court to reduce damages. That is to fall into the trap of ignoring the effect of these provisions where no causal connection is required.
In answer to the other central point made by the Minister, that this is not about giving impunity or immunity to the Government because it is for the courts to decide, that leads the Government directly into the difficulty that these provisions are mandatory. As has been said a number of times, if a judge is faced with a mandatory provision that requires him to consider a number of factors and decide whether to reduce damages, he cannot blithely go on to say, “Well, I looked at the factors and I’m simply going to ignore the legislation”. He then either gets into the point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made—that he is giving no effect to the legislation at all and it is a cypher, because a Court of Appeal might agree with that—or he is simply falling into error because he is not applying the legislation. It is a very difficult conundrum to face.
The central point made where the Government have got into such difficulty is that originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. He said that there is no guidance whatever in Clause 83(5) as to how and on what principle the judge is to approach the question of whether damages should be reduced. Ultimately, the Minister was forced into the position of saying, “I’m not quite sure—I’ll take it under advisement and we may come to some conclusion about it”. Frankly, and with the greatest respect to the Minister, that is simply not good enough. This Committee needs to know what principles are to be applied to the exercise of an entirely new and, we say, entirely objectionable power.
The reality is that this point cannot be escaped from, as was said by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Pannick and Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. My noble friend Lord Purvis has again said that in an intervention. The problem is that this legislation is to be aimed at using damages to fund terrorism. That would be properly achieved, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, by using the powers to freeze damages in a responsible way when there is an actual intention to use the damages to fund terrorism. It is exactly the point that the independent reviewer, Jonathan Hall KC, made: that it was dealt with by the existing legislation under the 2001 Act.
I cannot for the life of me therefore see why lowering the threshold achieves anything meaningful that is just, because it is unjust and the threshold under the existing legislation is the proper one to apply for something as serious as depriving somebody of damages or even freezing their damages. This legislation is weakening and altering other legislation in an unnecessary way, by introducing new powers that are objectionable, and therefore it ought to go.
The Minister has said that he is going to take this away and think about it. At this stage, therefore, I could not sensibly press my amendment and we would not ask for votes at this stage on clauses standing part. However, I really suggest that the Government are now under an obligation to consider whether any of these provisions are necessary at all or whether they wish to abandon them. In saying that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I will speak to the question of whether Clause 87 should stand part of the Bill, which is in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will also speak to the question of whether Clause 88 should stand part.
Many aspects of this Bill are problematic. This Committee on Monday debated one of the biggest aspects—the proposed foreign influence registration scheme—and has just been debating another on damages. I apologise for my unavoidable absence, which meant that I did not speak to the amendment in my name, but it was very adequately covered by my noble friend Lord Marks and subsumed in a very interesting global debate. I venture to suggest that no aspect of this Bill is so lacking in validity or is so stupidly—if I may say so and that word is not unparliamentary—counter- productive as the proposal to deny for 30 years civil legal aid to anyone convicted of a terrorist offence.
The first problem is that in their ECHR memorandum to the Bill, the Government claim that Article 7 of the ECHR, which bans retrospective penalties, is not breached because this is an administrative measure only. However, their argument involves an acknowledgement that the aim of this denial of civil legal aid is symbolic. They say:
“the aim of the measure is symbolic, in that the purpose of the restriction is to reflect the significance of the bonds with the State and society that are broken by the commission of terrorist offences.”
Should we be making law on such a basis? How can it be legal to make law which is to achieve a symbolic purpose? Surely a clash with the ECHR would beckon. Perhaps that is one that this current Government, unfortunately, might welcome.
The second problem is the rule of law challenge regarding access to justice. The report of the Joint Committee on Human rights cites the evidence from the Law Society:
“It is fundamental to the rule of law that our justice system rests on the clear principle that every judgment relies on the merits of the case brought before the court. We should not automatically be excluding people from legal advice and support because of unrelated convictions. To do so will diminish access to justice in our country and could affect the objectivity of our legal system.”
I suggest that that is a very important point. It is not as if the cohort to be affected is simply those convicted of serious terrorist offences, because it is defined broadly, catching some more minor and historic offending—indeed, some which might not be considered terrorist activity at all. It could include the offence of failing to disclose a suspicion that another person is fundraising or money laundering for terrorist purposes. As it covers any conviction, it could also affect individuals given less severe sentences, such as a referral order. It could also bar from accessing civil legal aid individuals convicted of an offence which has since been abolished. The Law Society highlighted to the JCHR that it could affect
“a person fleeing from domestic abuse who is prevented from accessing an injunction against their abuser, and protection for their human rights, because of a twenty-year old conviction for a terrorist offence.”
The ramifications are very wide. The former Attorney-General Sir Jeremy Wright said during the Second Reading debate in the other place:
“I do not think we have ever before contemplated determining someone’s eligibility for civil legal aid based on previous criminal behaviour.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/22; col. 603.]
That was a previous Attorney-General. This sets out a serious question about the basis for these proposed provisions denying civil legal aid.
The third point is about the practical implications. These were raised by the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC. He said:
“Even symbolic restrictions may have practical consequences. No released terrorist offender is going to reoffend merely because their access to civil legal aid is restricted. But legal advice and assistance is relevant to securing help on housing, debt and mental health. A homeless terrorist offender, or one whose mental health needs are unaddressed, will present a higher risk to the public. There is a risk of unintended consequences.”
Do we want to seek to reintegrate people who have committed offences in the past? If we do, denying civil legal aid perhaps 20 or 30 years later for something like housing or debt problems does not seem the right way of going about it. As Jonathan Hall said, it is highly counterproductive. He said:
“A terrorist offender who goes back into society and lives quietly presents a rosier prospect than one who needs perpetual monitoring.”
Those are the practical consequences. This may be some great symbolic declaration, and I am afraid we are a bit too familiar with that sort of symbolism from this Government. In practice, it is counterproductive.
My fourth and last point is that it is counterproductive as it will create more bureaucracy. This was also highlighted by the Law Society. It is going to create large volumes of bureaucracy for the Legal Aid Agency. As far as I know, the Legal Aid Agency is under the remit of the Ministry of Justice. There are certainly other Ministry of Justice agencies affected too. I think before recess we discussed the probate service. I unfortunately have had experience of that myself in the last few years when I was bereaved. There are other agencies under the Ministry of Justice which are seriously struggling to deliver a decent service to the public. Is it a good idea in those circumstances to create more bureaucracy for another agency in the justice family?
It creates more bureaucracy because the Legal Aid Agency will have to confirm whether every applicant for civil legal aid has a previous conviction for terrorism and do lots of digging to find out information about this person. As the JCHR says,
“This may significantly increase the cost to the public purse, while it is unclear how this measure would contribute to public security and safety … Clauses 62-63 do contemplate a lesser form of legal aid, Exceptional Case Funding”,
but this is, in the view of the Law Society
“a very bureaucratic process”
which
“puts in place a significant obstacle to access to justice given the extra work and uncertainty”.
It is not much of a safeguard or a backstop.
All in all, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that, on four grounds, the denial of civil legal aid to people because they have been convicted of a terrorist offence—I am not saying that they are good people—is against the rule of law principles and has practical consequences which are counterproductive, bureaucratic, costly, and so on. We are driven to the conclusion that their whole purpose, as with so much of what the Government seem to be doing these days, is to send some kind of symbolic message, but it does not withstand examination as having any merit at all.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I have added my name to the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that Clause 87 should not stand part of the Bill. I am very grateful to her for so clearly setting out objections to the clause. I declare my interest as a practising barrister acting in public law cases, including representing clients on legal aid.
Noble Lords will know that civil legal aid has been much reduced in scope over many years by successive Governments of different complexions, and many of us regret that that is the case. But where civil legal aid is still available, it helps to ensure the protection of the vital legal rights of individuals and their families; for example, in relation to community care, debt where your home is at risk, homelessness, domestic violence and welfare benefits. It therefore follows that a proposal by the Government to exclude eligibility for legal aid, for reasons that are wholly extraneous both to the nature and merits of the litigation you are seeking to bring and to the financial needs of the individual, need to be very carefully scrutinised.
Under Clause 87, a terrorist conviction, which is a very broad concept indeed, leads to the exclusion of eligibility for legal aid irrespective of whether the court that sentenced the terrorist conviction considered the offence sufficiently serious to merit a lengthy custodial sentence or, indeed, any custodial sentence at all. I appreciate that there are some exceptions in Clause 87, but not by reference to the gravity of the terrorist offence. Clause 87 would also exclude eligibility for legal aid irrespective of the relevance of the terrorist conviction to the legal proceedings for which the individual seeks legal aid.
Can the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government think it is appropriate that a woman who has, some years earlier, received either a non-custodial sentence or a short custodial sentence for a terrorist offence should thereafter be precluded from obtaining legal aid if she claims to be the victim of domestic abuse or if she is homeless? How can that possibly be justified? The Government have previously said that the provisions are justified because they impose consequences for people who have broken their bond with society—that is the phrase used by the Government. Murderers, rapists and paedophiles are not excluded from legal aid for their housing or domestic violence proceedings because of their previous conviction, so how can it be justified to exclude on this absolute basis a person who has been convicted of a terrorist offence, irrespective of the gravity of that offence?
There is a reason why murderers, rapists and paedophiles are not excluded from legal aid and it is very simple: we recognise, and have done so since the legal aid system was instituted by the Labour Government in 1949, that legal aid is vital to the effective protection of basic rights for individuals. I would not normally associate the Minister with crude gestures, because he is far too civilised for that, but this provision is a crude gesture which is inconsistent with basic concepts of the rule of law. It is quite indefensible and has no place in a government Bill.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I have very little to add to the powerful speeches the Committee has already heard, but, as a supplement to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said, I will remind the Minister of two other facts.
First, terrorist offences are by no means all at the top end of seriousness. Schedule A1 to the Sentencing Code includes offences such as
“inviting … support for a proscribed organisation”
which may no longer be concerned with violence, as a number are not, and
“failure to disclose professional belief or suspicion about”
the commission of terrorist offences by others. Those are offences on which the clauses bite.
Secondly, even for those offences which are serious enough to merit a period of imprisonment, recidivism rates for released prisoners are—I think in most developed countries, and certainly in this one—very much lower than the recidivism rates for ordinary crime. Professor Andrew Silke calculated in 2020 that the recidivism rate was around 3% for those who had committed terrorist offences and been released between 2013 and 2019.
I hope that the question the Minister will address is why that particular category of offence merits the removal of a right enjoyed by everybody else, including people convicted of murder, rape and the other most serious crimes that our law knows.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, there is one simple principle that everybody has referred to in the debate: access to justice. I will be brief.
If the principle still stands that cases that are still in scope of legal aid with sufficient merit ought not to be restricted by lack of means to bring them—that principle underlies the availability of legal aid—it should not be undermined by the removal of legal aid from cases that have merit and ought to be brought. What is particularly invidious about these clauses is that the restrictions on the grant of legal aid apply to all cases that might be brought by an individual to whom the clauses apply. As has been pointed out, that is entirely irrespective of whether the cases have any connection with any past terrorist activity or whether they are good or bad, and irrespective of who might be affected by them; for example, members of an individual’s family might lose their rights in a housing case brought against a defaulting landlord where housing conditions were making that tenant’s children ill. These are blanket restrictions that are entirely inappropriate.
As the Committee will know, eligibility for legal aid is governed by a merits test in every case. If a case does not stand a reasonable chance of success, legal aid is not available. There is a financial eligibility test, which means that legal aid will be available only if an applicant is unable to fund litigation. These provisions are positively designed to deprive of legal aid a claimant who might otherwise secure it. A claimant who, by definition, has a good case, would otherwise be eligible on the basis of the merits test, and who cannot afford a lawyer would be deprived, under these provisions, of any legal representation before the courts, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the claimant’s case may be utterly irrelevant to any present or past wrongdoing and vice versa. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out, the gravity of the terrorist offence relied on may be low. That is a denial of access to justice which we simply should not countenance, and I suggest that the Minister should not countenance it either. It is, quite simply, wrong.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 115 in this group, where we call for an assessment of the impact of Clauses 87, 88 and 89 to be published before they come into force.
It has been a powerful but relatively short debate. I shall not repeat the points that have been made, mostly by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, with her four grounds for opposing the clauses standing part. I wanted to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, when he said that the gravity of the offence may be low. I can talk directly to that because, as a sitting magistrate, I have dealt with terrorist incidents that involved graffiti. The defendant in the case pleaded guilty to graffiti but, because of the nature of the graffiti, was charged under the Terrorism Act. We went ahead and fined that offender, but it was an offence under the Terrorism Act.
We have been relooking at Clause 87. Would that sort of example of a terrorist conviction be caught under the provisions, and would that individual who pleaded guilty to a terrorism offence of graffiti lose his right to civil legal aid in the decades to come?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I can briefly explain, first, the Government’s view of the principle behind the provision, then come later to the detail of how it operates. In the Government’s view, looking at it as a matter of principle, through their actions individuals who commit acts of terrorism seek to threaten and undermine the very democratic institutions that are at the heart of our democracy in this country. It is right that persons who have committed acts of terrorism against democracy should be subject to a different approach when it comes to granting civil legal aid. The different approach is, in this case, that these provisions do not entirely deprive a “terrorist” of civil legal aid, because exceptional case funding remains available. That is granted in around 75% of the cases in which it is applied for, so we have a safety net there. The practical effect of what is proposed is that those with the relevant terrorist convictions follow a different route from others. In other words, the automaticity of legal aid is somewhat different if you have committed a terrorist offence.
Apart from the question of principle—and that is the principle that the Government are advancing—the questions that have arisen in this debate essentially focus on two issues, or sub-issues. First, have we drawn the definition of terrorist offence too widely, catching very minor incidents, such as the graffiti incident put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, or the relatively minor terrorist offences to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, drew attention? Secondly, are there particular circumstances, of which domestic abuse is one, where there should be some exception to be made, and where it is going too far to have this blanket restriction, and there are obvious cases where there could be a fully justified grant of legal aid on the normal procedure, rather than forcing someone to go for exceptional case funding? On both those points, I shall undertake to reflect and to look at the underlying impact of these provisions—but the general principle is as I have outlined.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister makes his case as to the general principle but, if that is so strong from the Government’s position, why does it relate only to England and Wales?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The noble Lord, from a Scottish perspective, asks a relevant question. I shall have to take that under advisement and see, but I suspect that it is because there is a different legal regime in Scotland.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I look forward to the Minister’s letter. This Bill applies to everywhere—but, of course, there is separate legal aid legislation in Scotland, which I scrutinised when I was on the Justice Committee in the Scottish Parliament. If the case is so strong for the whole United Kingdom, I am not sure why this is. If he is writing to me, could he add something on the concern about whether this provision is consistent with the commitments in the Good Friday agreement? Does this provision also apply to Northern Ireland, with regard to the permanent removal for all those who previously were beyond the restrictions before the convictions were made, as in the Bill?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
As far as I know, it is not the intention to apply this measure to Northern Ireland, but I shall write to the noble Lord to confirm the Government’s position.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Many years ago, I used to sit on a legal aid committee. What worries me is the responsibilities that will be placed on all legal aid committees that will have this provision in front of them. One wonders, therefore, whether there should be special representation for the person applying for legal aid, and how that is going to be run. But this is a practical problem, and I ask the Minister to reflect on the practical side of the issue.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I shall certainly reflect on the practical side. This would be a decision for the director of casework at the Legal Aid Agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, rightly raised the question of the practical “bureaucracy” associated with the proposal, and we are working with the Legal Aid Agency to see how it can be most conveniently implemented, with minimum disruption.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief, because I know that noble Lords are waiting for the Statement. I thank the Minister for his reply. His first point was that the Government wanted to address the unique situation where, they contend, the people envisaged —those who have committed terrorist offences—have threatened to undermine our democracy. Other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and who I very much thank, including the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Anderson, talked about other extremely serious offences such as murder, rape and, I think, manslaughter. Why just terrorism? Personally, I think that the offence of rape undermines the principle of our modern society, which should exist, about equality between men and women, the dignity of women and our rejection of abuse of women. Apart from very serious terrorist offences, I might judge a rapist on a more serious basis than someone who gets a fine for graffiti, for example, presumably in support of some proscribed organisation. Therefore, I do not think that the argument is very sound, if I may say so.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I advise noble Lords to keep an eye on the annunciator for further information regarding the resumption of the Committee.
Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, in politics there are those issues about which we should, and do, fight hammer and tongs across these Dispatch Boxes and in the other place—issues of taxation, health, Brexit, schools or foreign policy. Gender recognition and the rights of trans people does not have to be one of those hot-button issues. I am afraid that watching the exchanges in the Commons yesterday will delight those who seek to use this issue as a political football. Sure, there is disagreement, but disagreeing well, with respect, is what is needed. What we have, far too often, is denigration, name-calling and attempts to shut down or silence others.
It has been obvious for a very long time that the Scottish and UK Governments just cannot and will not work together, and this latest stand-off is not going to resolve anything. The shadow Secretary of State, Ian Murray, reminded us yesterday that Donald Dewar, the father of devolution, designed Section 35 to protect devolution. It was intended as an enabling mechanism, allowing the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation on devolved competences without changing reserved functions. That was the point of it. The memorandum of understanding that was agreed in response to concerns that Section 35 could be used as a veto was clear. It stated that Section 35 should be used as a “last resort” and that the UK Government and the Scottish Government should
“aim to resolve any difficulties through discussion”.
Have they? The Secretary of State did not have extensive enough discussions with the Scottish Government before taking this action.
Section 35 has never been needed before, not in a quarter of a century of devolution, despite many disagreements, because, in the end, Governments have known that it is their duty to work together. But now, on this of all subjects, the Scottish and UK Governments have decided to make sure that they are in conflict with one another. The SNP Government in Edinburgh are determined to break devolution; UK Ministers are just not interested in it and are prepared to weaponise it. In the end, it is the public who lose out: trans people suffering devastating discrimination, and women’s groups who want their concerns addressed, are put in the middle while a constitutional fight rages on and on. How is it that the Secretary of State can say that there is a version of the GRR Act that the UK Government could support but then not share an outline of what that Act could look like? Perhaps the Minister will do so this evening.
Extensive and clear guidance will need to be issued—of course it will—if the Act is ever going to be implemented, which the Scottish Government say should be provided by the EHRC. Ministers could instruct the EHRC to provide the guidance; why is this not happening? If they genuinely wanted to be helpful and resolve this, Ministers could publish guidance on how the GRR Act would interact with the Equality Act 2010; is this going to happen? The publication of legal advice—I accept that this would be unusual—would assist those who want to see the situation resolved and who want to build trust. Transparency could demonstrate the good intentions that the Government say they are acting on. Will they consider this, in this unique situation?
The Labour Party is proud to be the party of the Equality Act—unlike the Government, I am afraid, who used to laugh at the Act, even though they now rely on it so heavily. Ministers have claimed that they want to protect women and girls, but if the UK Government care so much about this, will the Minister explain why female homicide is skyrocketing and rape convictions have plummeted under their leadership?
We support the principle of updating the Gender Recognition Act; when it was introduced, in 2004, it was world-leading, but it now requires modernisation. But to put this as simply as I can, if there is no discussion about a way forward, this Bill will fall, without any resolution of the issues or any modernisation of the GRA, and those who want to see it fail on issues of substance will not succeed in resolving anything either. This debate will rage on and on, with more vitriol, more anger and less respect, less care and less understanding. Surely the Government can do better than that.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
Will the Minister accept—I think he has to—that it was a very controversial decision to use this power for the first time since devolution, especially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, has said, when the Government lack trust in many quarters regarding their respect for devolution? It has generated a predictable response from the SNP, which is itself divided on the issue and struggling to find a way forward in its interminable campaign for a second referendum.
Will the Minister confirm, nevertheless, that the Government accept that the passing of the gender recognition Bill falls entirely within the powers of the Scottish Government? The Scottish Parliament is adamant that nothing in the Bill impacts on the UK Equality Act. The UK Government say that they have legal advice to the effect that it does, although some lawyers—not all—see the grounds as thin and not justifying the scale of this action. However, as the First Minister has indicated, it appears that it will inevitably be referred to the Court of Session and thence possibly to the Supreme Court. Are the Government’s legal advisers confident of success?
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that it is regrettable that trans people are caught in the crossfire of this dispute. I suggest to the Minister that this is a distraction that suits both Governments, because they are failing to deal with the manifold crises we face in the health service, energy, cost of living, education and transport. These are the central issues dominating the worries and concerns of everyone across Scotland and the whole of the UK. They want their Governments to concentrate on finding ways through the perfect storm that they have helped create. This distraction does not address the needs and priorities of anyone in the UK. Trans people do not deserve to be caught in the middle of it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, it is only after very careful consideration that the Secretary of State for Scotland has decided to make an order under Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 to prevent the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent. He has considered policy and legal advice and determined that he has reasonable grounds to believe that the Bill would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equality legislation.
Transgender people deserve our respect, support and understanding. The Secretary of State’s decision is about the consequences of the legislation for the operation of GB-wide equalities protections and other reserved matters. He has therefore concluded that this is the necessary and correct course of action. The decision has not been taken lightly, as he said repeatedly in the other place yesterday.
The Government would prefer not to be in this situation. We do all we can to respect the devolution settlement and resolve disputes. This is the first time that the Section 35 power of the Scotland Act has been used. The Government recognise that this is a significant decision, but Section 35 was included by the Act’s architects to ensure that, in a situation such as this, devolved law and law throughout the United Kingdom can work together effectively.
If the Scottish Government choose to bring an amended Bill back for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament, we can work together to find a constructive way forward that respects both devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation. We have set out the detailed concerns that the UK Government have with the Bill in the Statement published yesterday. We want to work with the Scottish Government to resolve these issues. The EHRC stands ready to help; its ongoing concerns are on the record.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it is not just trans people caught in the crossfire but women. Internationally, women are losing their rights in some countries as to what they wear, how they are educated, where they can work, their reproductive rights and protection against violence. They are even losing their freedom of speech; I sometimes feel the same is true here for us women. We risk here the undermining of our hard-fought rights, as in the Equality Act. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will do nothing to undermine that Act, either in this or in their repeal of the European Union legislation, which also threatens women’s rights?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The Equality Act 2010, to which this Government are entirely committed, is a reserved matter. On the basis that we have a unitary state in the United Kingdom, we believe that it is a key matter that must be applied equally across all four nations of the United Kingdom. That is precisely why we are concerned that the Bill passed in Scotland, putting aside the merits of the case, will have an adverse impact on the Equality Act 2010. That is why Section 35 has been triggered.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very difficult issue to get your head around. In a previous incarnation, I was a non-executive director of the Scottish Prison Service. I saw the terrible vulnerability of women in prison, many of whom had been abused since being babies. They wanted to be in prison because they felt safe there.
In this morning’s Scottish edition of the Times was the very distressing case of a 22 year-old woman, a sex offender held in Cornton Vale women’s prison, who was up on a charge when she was male for attacking somebody in the male division of Polmont young offender institution. The sexual offences she committed were on a 10 year-old and a 12 year-old in supermarkets in Fife. If we look at this legislation as it stands, there is nothing that can give the kind of protection that is needed for those women. She had male genitalia and there was no third-party verification, as there is not in this new Bill.
Let me be political. I have a very real concern that we have been caught in a trap. Nobody in Scotland is talking about the fiasco over the ferries, the fact that the Scottish education system has gone from being one of the best in the world to one of the worst, or the chaos in our National Health Service, despite the fact that the National Health Service in Scotland gets more money than elsewhere because of the Barnett formula. What will the Minister do about it? This is attacking the devolution settlement. I find it quite odd that the First Minister wants to support devolution; she is against devolution—she wants independence. The irony is that she can now say that big, bad Westminster is interfering in good Scottish Parliament decisions. How will the Minister get out of that one?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The noble Baroness’s well-informed comments indicate the sensitivities that we are dealing with in Scotland and the wider UK. The Bill as its stands risks creating significant complications from two different gender recognition regimes in the UK, which could allow for more of the fraudulent or bad-faith applications that we are very worried about. Adverse effects could include impacts on the operation of single-sex spaces, particularly for women and children, whether in prisons, clubs, associations or schools. There could be adverse effects on protections for equal pay and single-sex spaces.
The question was on whether the UK Government should have engaged more with the Scottish Government in the process. We set out our concerns. The Minister for Women and Equalities met the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice before the Bill moved to stage 3 in the Scottish Parliament. In the last two to three years, the UK Government have consulted widely on the GRA. It remains the Government’s view that this legislation strikes the right balance in the protections mentioned by the noble Baroness. This was well known to the Scottish Government. All the concerns that have been raised on behalf of women’s groups and from notable folks—whether the UN special rapporteur, the independent EU expert on protection for violence against women, or the Equality and Human Rights Commission —were put to the Scottish Government, but they have continued to push ahead with this legislation.
We have not been alone in expressing concerns regarding the Bill’s impact on the Equality Act and women and girls specifically. This has been a constant issue since these proposals were first published. It is very unfortunate that those ongoing concerns were not given more weight and that the legislation was not paused to allow further discussions between the Governments.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that what the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, has ably demonstrated in referring to concerns about the fraudulent use of this provision is the importance of the Government and the Official Opposition being united in their position on the steps proposed by the Scottish Parliament, so that we can put on a united front as the United Kingdom Parliament in exposing that the Scottish Government are using something so profound and sensitive for political purposes and, if there is a difference of view on some of the substance of the matter, object to it on those grounds?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Yes, I agree with the noble Baroness. What is happening is that the boundaries of devolution are being pushed to the limit. Perhaps the architects at the time did not anticipate that we would be here on such an issue, but they put Section 35 into the Act for a reason. It was there at the start and it was voted for by the SNP. It is a means to enable devolution and allow it to work, and to allow the Scottish Parliament to act within the Scotland Act on devolved matters, but there is a requirement to examine whether they will have an impact on the rest of the United Kingdom.
When the Gender Recognition Act was passed in 2004—the former First Minister of Scotland at the time, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will know this—the Scottish Parliament gave legislative consent, through an LCM, to that Act, because it is a devolved matter. The reason they gave was the desirability of having a single coherent gender recognition regime applying uniformly across the UK, and we have not had any evidence of why the desirability of that has changed.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, that prisoners are allocated prisons on a case-by-case basis, according to how suitable they are. I wanted to have a word with the Minister; I am quite sad in my heart that the trans community in Scotland is being used as a political football in this way, as several noble Lords have said. Might the Government give some potentially more optimistic news on what is happening? There are suggestions in the press that the Government intend to have talks with the Scottish Government on the legislation. Can the Minister tell us whether that is likely to happen? I think he intimated that earlier. If so, when is it likely to commence?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
On one level, we are just in the legal mechanics at this point, because concerns were raised by the UK Government—and by many other credible groups—with the Scottish Government, and those were not taken care of in the passing of the Bill. That now moves into a four-week legal process under Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 for us to reject the Bill and for it not to go to Royal Assent. It now goes back to the Scottish Parliament on that basis, and the channels are very open and clear that we are prepared to have a conversation about it. We want to move this forward, but we need to do it on a basis that satisfies the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I do not recall every individual discussion we had in Cabinet during my time as First Minister, but I do recall this discussion in 2004 in great detail. It was quite possibly the most complex discussion we ever had on a single piece of legislation, and that decision to go for a legislative consent Motion and legislate consistently across the UK was not taken lightly at the time. It was taken primarily to protect the interests of transgender people—not to protect the state or the union, but to protect the interests of individuals who had to live and work across the whole of the United Kingdom. So, this issue needs to be taken very seriously and from a point of principle.
The Scotland Act was designed to make sure that we also did not have conflicting legislation that caused difficulties across the UK; therefore, this does need to be looked at in the detail outlined by the Secretary of State. Will the Government guarantee to have constructive discussions with the Scottish Government about finding a way through the difficulties that have been outlined? Will they publish the minutes of the meetings that took place between the Ministers, because there are conflicting claims about those meetings? If there is an agreement reached that allows this legislation to work across the whole of the UK, will the Government withdraw the Section 35 order in the spirit of unity that this would then mean?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
A number of these matters lie fundamentally in another place and in another department. Right now, the Scotland Office is in a situation where, under the architecture, it is pressing the button on Section 35. The Bill now goes back to the Scottish Government, and discussions need to be had with the relevant UK department on this matter. That will require discussion with the UK Minister for Women and Equalities. My understanding is that these channels are open and that a discussion will be had. As to whether minutes are published, et cetera, I cannot comment on that. I guess that if that is the normal procedure, it will be done. There is no attempt to be anything other than fully transparent on this matter. The Scottish Government are within competency in matters of gender. This issue has come to this House and the other place because there is a knock-on effect on the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to the Equality Act.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, one of the points that has been made clear by the First Minister is that she wants to take this issue to court. That is a waste of public money, and it is certainly a waste of time. Think of the time it would take to go through the Outer House, the Inner House and then to the Supreme Court—we are talking about something like 18 months before there is a solution. To pick up a phrase from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, it is not going to take us anywhere. The solution is to get around the table; I think I am echoing something that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, has already said. Judging by what the First Minister said last night, I think there is a suspicion that the Government are not acting in good faith. We need a clear declaration from the Minister that the issue the Government take with the Bill is based on thorough research of its effect; there is no question of bad faith here at all. There is an issue to be discussed, but the sooner it can be, the better. Every effort must be made to bring the two parties together so that we can resolve these various very difficult problems.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his contribution. As a former Supreme Court judge, he knows these matters very well. I completely agree that it would be a waste of public money to go to the courts. In fact, in pressing that button, it was almost as if that was anticipated. Therefore, we need to get around the table and discuss this issue. The UK Government have consulted on this matter, as we have said, over the last two years and believe that the legislation currently provides the right checks and balances. However, the Bill is obviously an attempt to move that legislation forward and therefore should be considered. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has concerns about the Bill, as do many others, and they are on the record. What that says to us is that this is a sensitive issue which requires further consultation.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the Government were absolutely correct in preventing this Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill gaining Royal Assent. Some 347 Bills have gained Royal Assent in the Scottish Parliament, so to take a step to prevent this one in particular shows that there is a clearly a problem. While MSPs and others fully support it, I do not believe that the majority of the Scottish people support it as it stands. There is an obvious and serious adverse impact on the operation of the Equality Act 2010. To suggest, for example, that a 16 year-old with no parental or medical support should be encouraged and lawfully allowed to change gender in weeks is a catastrophe in waiting.
For too long now, the safety and security of women and girls has been continually undermined. This situation is too important to ignore. Would the Minister agree that this issue needs much more discussion and that, as it stands, the Bill should not be allowed to gain Royal Assent at any cost?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend, and I agree. We are in a situation now where we cannot proceed, on the basis that the Scottish Government have pushed forward with the Bill, it has come to us and we have to consider it under Section 35. It needs further consideration. That is why Section 35 has been triggered.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have a very short question—
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the Green Benches have been waiting to get in all through these questions, so we will hear from the Greens first, and then I think the House would probably like to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Baroness. This debate has made many references to the Scottish Government and the Scottish First Minister. I ask the Chamber to acknowledge that we are talking about a law passed by the Scottish Parliament by a significant majority—I hope everyone would acknowledge that. I note also that the First Minister of Wales has said that he would like to introduce the same provisions in Wales and will ask the Government for the right to do so.
I entirely sympathise with the desire for compromise and talks expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. The Statement says, and the Minister has repeated, that the Government want to talk to the Scottish Government and get around the table to come to a compromise. But they are arguing that it is impossible to have different gender recognition certificate systems in different parts of the UK. If this is the case, what kind of compromise are the Government going to offer? How can the Bill be amended rather than just being thrown out, if that is what the Government are demanding?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
That just indicates the sensitivity of the matter we are dealing with. On the face of it, the Scottish Government Bill allows the Equality Act to continue, because the GRC works within the architecture of that Act, but the Bill has changed the criteria for applying for that GRC, and that has a significant impact, as we have discussed. Therefore, it will need to be discussed in detail and sensitively.
At the end of the day, the issue we are dealing with in this Chamber right now is that the Government believe it would be significantly complicated to have two different gender recognition regimes in the UK, and that this would create a lot of problems between Scotland and England. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, up until now, and at all points through the discussion, it was considered that the Scottish system should remain within the UK system. We do not see any evidence for why that has changed.
Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
That this House regrets that the Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/1094) increase penalty fares at a time of (1) substantial disruptions on many services, in particular those of Avanti West Coast, and (2) continuing customer confusion over complex and differing ticket pricing arrangements from different train companies, in a system described as “too fragmented, too complicated, and too expensive to run” by the Department for Transport and the Williams Rail Review in its report, Great British Railways: The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail; and calls on His Majesty’s Government urgently to bring forward legislation as part of its promise to simplify ticketing arrangements.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, nothing perhaps demonstrates better the Government’s tin ear towards the railway system in this country and the problems suffered by passengers on it than the instrument they have put down on penalty fares. To increase the penalty fare from £20 to £100 is somewhat draconian to say the least, and is the reason I have tabled this regret Motion. The Motion talks about substantial disruption to the railway system. Again, to introduce this measure from the Government Benches, given the current situation with the railway system, strikes me as a provocation too far.
Could the Minister define when the penalty fare will be invoked against a passenger? No one would condone people travelling on our railway without a ticket, but the notes on the penalty fare regulations refer to a “valid ticket”. The House will be aware of the concern I have raised previously about the number and variety of different tickets on our system. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the penalty fare clause will be invoked if someone is bearing a ticket which is not valid on a particular service for any reason.
There are 2,576 stations on Network Rail; 45% of them are unstaffed and an equal proportion are partially staffed. Does the Minister appreciate the difficulty of actually buying a ticket at many of these stations? It will be said, of course, that someone who travels from an unstaffed station to an unstaffed station should purchase a ticket from the ticket machine, but there are 55 million different fares on our railway system; I do not think the machine has yet been invented that could cope with all of them. It is pretty difficult on occasions to get the right ticket from a machine, so I would like to know from the Minister whether the penalty clause will be invoked if someone inadvertently buys the wrong ticket.
I said that 45% of our railway stations are unstaffed. One imagines bucolic rural stations, which it would obviously be impractical to fully staff, but the list of unstaffed stations includes stations such as Barry Island, in Wales, where almost 1 million passengers boarded or alighted from trains in 2020—the latest year I could find figures for to use in this debate.
I live very close to Yardley Wood station, in the Birmingham suburbs. It is partially staffed and, for much of the week, the booking office is open only between 6.30 am to about 1 pm. Many of the other stations on the line to Stratford-upon-Avon, which is where services that go through Birmingham’s Yardley Wood terminate, are unstaffed. So if someone taking a train from Yardley Wood in the afternoon, towards either Stratford or Birmingham, finds that the ticket machine is broken or inadvertently purchases the wrong ticket, would he or she be subject to the penalty fare clause?
My regret Motion mentions substantial disruption to our railway system. The Minister is not the Rail Minister; I bet she thinks she is very lucky that she is not, given the current circumstances—she nods in assent. She should have been with me last night at Euston station—I keep inviting her to things, but she never comes—where, between 6 pm and 8 pm, I do not think a single Avanti train either entered or left. In fairness to Avanti—I like to be fair to it, as noble Lords will know —it was not its fault; there was a fatality at Wolverton at 3.30 pm. It is not strictly speaking relevant to my Motion, other than in relation to substantial disruption, but is it really necessary to close four tracks of railway for hours at a time when these fatalities unfortunately occur?
People have been killed on the railway since 1830. It was a Member of Parliament, Mr William Huskisson, who was unwise enough to step down from a train that long ago. If the present circumstances, with the railway closures we have at this time, appertained in 1830, Mr Huskisson would still be somewhere between Liverpool and Manchester, I fear, waiting for treatment. The railways are paralysed when these unfortunate tragedies occur, and the department has to look again at the time it takes to restore normal working.
Again—this is relevant to these regulations and to my regret Motion—thousands of people must have been travelling on trains subsequently and not using the correct ticket as a result of this action. I am sure that common sense would have prevailed, but with my train there was no ticket check at the barrier at Euston, it was impossible for the conductor to get through the train because hundreds of people were on it, in some cases sitting on the luggage racks, and there was a similar situation when we got off at Birmingham. To introduce this fivefold increase in penalty fares given the state of our railway network at present strikes me as not particularly sensible.
The other station that I use regularly to travel to and from London is Birmingham International. Avanti does not just run trains; it is responsible for certain main railway stations, among them Birmingham International. I have to say that travelling to and from Birmingham International does Avanti no credit whatever. Again, if the Minister takes the trouble to travel from there to London, she will find that getting into the station is pretty difficult because the main lift to the concourse has been out of order for months and nothing has been done about it. If she travels after 10 o’clock at night, she will find it impossible to physically buy a ticket on the concourse because there are no staff rostered on the concourse at a main intercity station such as Birmingham International after 10 pm. There are over 20 trains to places such as Bournemouth and London, as well as local trains to Birmingham and Coventry, between 10 pm and the close of play at the end of the railway day, yet there are no staff on duty on the concourse of a major intercity station.
The booking office at Birmingham International has been closed for a couple of years. Far from the booking office staff being deployed, which is the usual ministerial response—“They are deployed out on the platform to assist passengers”—they have been made redundant. Therefore, there are not any staff there, and the only people who sell tickets during the day at Birmingham International—which is, I repeat, a major intercity station—are usually one person and occasionally two, with an iPad, who also deal with train inquiries. Getting a ticket at Birmingham International means getting to the station at least 15 minutes before your train—although, given the timetabling shambles that is Avanti, it is not always necessary to get there 15 minutes early; one could turn up 15 minutes late and the train will still be somewhere in the dim distance.
It is not a straightforward matter of just buying a ticket or not buying a ticket and, of course, many of the train operating companies do not particularly care whether you buy a ticket or not. Why should they? I used to discuss rail privatisation with one or two of my colleagues. I would say, “There are a couple of good things about it—there is a lot of money coming into the railway industry that the Treasury would never have allowed.” Franchisees under the former franchise system were heavily punished for not running trains. Now, in their own eyes, they are heavily punished if they run trains. If they do not run trains, the Government compensate them anyway and pay them a bonus under the current system for, in effect, not running trains. The present system is crazy and is ripping off the taxpayer.
Of course, the Government will say in support of the penalty fares clause that we cannot have people travelling on trains without a ticket, and they are quite right. But on many occasions the train operating companies make no attempt to actually sell tickets. I have a copy of the current issue of Private Eye, where there is a story headed “Signal Failures” about the difficulty of purchasing a ticket. It says:
“Even without the government’s planned ticket-office cull, buying tickets can be challenging. One Eye reader who travelled from Morecambe to London Euston one evening says the ticket offices at Morecambe and Lancaster were already closed; the ticket machine at Lancaster reverted to square one whenever he tried to pay; tickets weren’t checked … on the trains; and when he went to pay retrospectively he found the ticket office at Euston (one of Britain’s biggest stations) had closed early for the night.”
That is by no means a unique experience. It is an example of the failure of the train operating companies to even bother to charge their passengers, and of course it is the taxpayer who picks up the bill at the end of the day.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Snape. His speech was very interesting but I am afraid that everything he said about the problem with getting tickets is true. It is very tempting to refer to Spain, where I believe they have just announced that they will offer free travel to everyone on the trains. That would solve all the problems except those of the Treasury, so it is probably not worth even talking about. It comes down to the failure of the TOCs. They have no incentive because all the income revenue goes to the Treasury. That is where we are at the moment, and we have to find a solution. It must be a way of encouraging more people to use the trains and it must also, I hope, increase the revenue to the Treasury and to the operators in a way which does not put people off. My noble friend’s comments about Birmingham International and everything else were frightening.
We also look forward to hearing from the Minister on where the legislation is; it is part of the SI. She will probably be able to tell us that when she comes to respond.
I have been talking to one or two experts on the ticketing issue. I understand that a year ago, in January 2022, a ticketing system for the whole country was ready to be put in legislation. It is called CORS—the consolidated online retail system. The Department for Transport approved it. It is basically an online system that would allow anyone to buy a ticket between, to and from any station on the network remotely on their iPad. It is guaranteed to give you the cheapest ticket. It means that, with a little bit of checking, it would reduce the need for a large number of ticket inspectors and booking clerks. Obviously, there must be facilities for people who cannot use it—I accept that—but such a system has the great advantage of guaranteeing people the best deal for whatever journey they want to take, and they would be able to check it.
What this system needs, I am told, is for the Department for Transport to put it out to tender. Apparently, it does not need legislation, so why are we bothering to wait for the legislation and other things to come in? If it went out to tender, quite a few companies would want to run it and to make sure that the information they provided was 100% reliable and available to all the different ticket retailers—there are several hundred of them, I think—in this country. One can see that this system would also give people continuous information on their journey, which would certainly help people on Avanti routes, so that they knew what was going on.
During the train strike a week or so ago, I had to come to London from Cornwall, so I caught the National Express bus. The IT system for it was actually rather good. It is probably better than for many of the rail systems that we have because not only does it give you a map of where the bus stop is, saying whether there is a shelter and things like that, but it gives a progress report on where you are going and where you can get off. It was generally very customer-friendly. I believe that something like that, or even better, could be available on CORS. It would also help with something that my noble friend Lord Snape did not mention: if you want to go from, say, Plymouth to Glasgow, it is often much cheaper to buy several tickets for the different sections rather than one complete ticket. There are ways round that if you know them but, again, a computer would in effect do it for you.
There is a solution to this, which would require the Government to get on and put this CORS thing out to tender before the legislation we have all been promised for a long time comes into effect or is even discussed. It needs looking at as a way of not only protecting revenue but doing the most important thing, which is getting passengers back on the train. It is now a year since the system was apparently approved; although the legislation is delayed, there is no reason why this scheme should be delayed. I hope that the Minister will encourage her colleagues to put it out to tender, get on with it and tell us all about it, because I think that it is a really exciting system.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue.
In principle, I fully accept the need to update penalty fares in line with inflation. However, if you look at the £20 fine that was fixed in legislation in 2005, the rates of inflation have been very low in the intervening years since 2005. It is highly unlikely that overall prices have multiplied by a factor of five in the past 18 years. Such a swingeing increase in the level of the fine or penalty fare is tone-deaf in a period of such massive disruption; for example, through strikes on the railway and, leaving the strikes aside, a very poor service from several train operating companies—including TransPennine and Avanti, to name but two. I fear that customers are totally fed up with the service they are getting in some parts of the country. Faced with fines of this size, they are likely to lose their temper with staff; I am not happy with the risks that that might pose.
This is apparently to be called not a “fine” but a “penalty fare”. That invites the question of whether the penalty fare should relate to the size of the fare that you should have paid; surely it should. You might have been going to pay a fare of as low as £5 to go from one stop to the next, or you might have been due to pay a fare of much nearer to £50 or £100. So the £100 fine—let us call it a fine because that is what it is—becomes totally disproportionate if you were due to pay only £5, whereas it is very reasonable if you were due to pay £50.
My belief—it echoes the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Snape and Lord Berkeley—is that the promised reform and simplification of fares must come first. I am frustrated by the delays to government plans. The reform of fares has been promised to us year after year. At the moment, it is only too easy to get the wrong fare by mistake. For example, I believe that there are three different definitions of “peak time” for trains going through Birmingham; Birmingham is featuring largely in our debate this evening.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the principles of punishment. When he was about to set up the police force, Sir Robert Peel coined the concept that it is not the severity of the punishment that deters criminals but the certainty of it. He said that at a time when we were deporting people to the other side of the world for minor theft. The police force was supposed to increase the certainty of being caught; indeed, it did so by a considerable amount. The problem on the railways now is the lack of certainty of being caught and the lack of inspectors on trains. Also, in many stations, gates are left open because there are no staff to supervise them; this happens often late in the evening or early in the morning. There is also a lack of staff to ensure that ticket machines are working. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government incentivise train operating companies to employ additional staff and enforce ticketing rather than imposing what is clearly a haphazard fine regime.
Finally, I want to refer to the complexity of devolution. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to it; however, I have read and reread it, but I do not understand it, so I want to ask the Minister about it. It states:
“If a passenger is travelling on a train in England but is travelling to Wales … then the penalty fare of £100 … can be issued and an authority to travel for the section of the journey within England only. Penalty fares issued within … Wales are a matter for those devolved administrations to determine.”
It goes on to say that:
“Where a penalty fare is issued within England and the passenger wishes to travel to the next station which the train calls at and this is within Scotland or Wales, they should be issued with the penalty fare of £100 reduced to £50 if paid within 21 days but not an authority to travel as part of the penalty fare.”
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for introducing this very interesting debate.
Under this Government, fares are rising and the promised investment is not being delivered. For Ministers to decide that this should be a priority, rather than the introduction of a Great British Railways Bill, therefore beggars belief. This instrument adds further complexity to the ticketing system. I therefore begin by asking: how have the Government communicated these changes to passengers?
The department has said that it seeks to increase penalties to deter fare evasion more efficiently. Can the Minister confirm whether there has been an assessment of the unintended consequences that this could have on individuals who have been unable, rather than unwilling, to purchase a ticket? Given that this has been introduced to address concerns of operators, can she confirm whether the department has also engaged with trade unions to ask their thoughts on the changes?
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, raises a series of points which I echo. I specifically support his criticism of Avanti West Coast. The Government’s decision to extend that contract was seen by the public as a reward for abject failure, and I still cannot understand why the Government chose to hand over millions more in taxpayers’ cash to an operator that has so clearly failed.
I share the noble Lord’s concerns regarding ticketing too. All this is evidence of the broader problem with the Government’s rail policy—a lack of direction. Short-term decision-making has held back long-term planning on the rail network, whereas modernisation, simpler ticketing and guaranteed universal accessibility is clearly not a focus for Ministers. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the delays in implementing the Williams-Shapps review and the promised legislation. Can the Minister confirm whether a railway Bill will be introduced in this Parliament?
The Government must be far more ambitious about our railways and, rather than tinkering with minor changes to penalties, should bring forward the changes that they have promised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shapps, for giving your Lordships’ House and indeed me—
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I deeply apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for getting his name wrong.
This is a great opportunity to be back once again in front of your Lordships’ House to discuss trains, train fares, train ticketing and, of course, train services. I very much appreciate all noble Lords’ contributions this evening.
The regret Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, is linked to a statutory instrument relating to changes to penalty fares. This was laid in your Lordships’ House in October 2022 and comes into force on 23 January 2023. I will provide a little bit more context to ensure that noble Lords are aware of what this SI does. From 23 January 2023, the new penalty fare on the rail network in England will be £100 plus the price of a single fare to the passenger’s intended destination on that train. It is not the £100 alone; there is an additional amount, which will take into account the journey travelled. Another thing to understand is that the £100 penalty is reduced to £50 plus the price of the single fare if it is paid within 21 days. I hope that people will take advantage of that opportunity.
As noted, the penalty fare is currently either £20 or twice the full applicable single fare to the next station that the train calls at, whichever is greater. That sounds a bit more complicated than what we will now have, which offers great clarity to passengers. As noted, the value of the penalty fare has not changed since 2005, which is nearly 20 years ago. It was in response to growing concerns about the impact of this real-term decline in the value of the penalty fare that the Government consulted on these changes to penalty fares in March 2021. The consultation indicated that the £20 value of the penalty fare was just too low to be an effective deterrent and that it should be increased.
The change was put into place to ensure a more effective deterrent. This should reduce the cost of fare evasion from passengers travelling without a valid ticket while ensuring that honest, fare-paying passengers are not unfairly penalised. An estimated £240 million is lost annually due to fare evasion on GB railways. This change aims to reduce the burden on the taxpayer while ensuring that it is fair on the travelling public as well.
Staff who issue penalty fares are trained and authorised in the procedure and are allowed to use their discretion on whether to issue a penalty fare. This helps to mitigate the impact on those passengers whose intention was not to avoid paying but, for whatever reason, have a ticket that does not match their intended journey. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, came up with many examples where this sort of discretion would absolutely be used. Therefore, we do have the flexibility under the new penalty regime as it was under the old penalty regime. In that regard, not much has changed. We will have to put Peel to one side in this case, because it is not an absolute certainty that if one is on a train with a ticket that does not match your intended journey, you will get a penalty fare. There may be reasons why it would not be appropriate. That is fair on passengers and provides the best experience to the travelling public.
However, should a passenger receive a penalty fare and feel that it is really not appropriate, there is a robust appeals process, which was introduced in 2018. That provides a further level of protection for passengers who feel that they have been treated unfairly. This appeals process has three different levels, and the third appeal is considered by an independent panel of three members, none of whom was involved in the handling of the previous two appeals.
It is for train operating companies to manage fare evasion on their services and there are a number of measures that they can use to do this, including penalty fares and unpaid fare notices. Avanti West Coast, for example—a favourite of the noble Lord, Lord Snape—chooses not to issue penalty fares, but it has alternatives. A passenger on an Avanti West Coast service who is unable to produce a valid ticket while travelling may need to purchase a full-price anytime ticket with no discount. As an alternative, they may be issued with an unpaid fare notice requiring them to pay the fare within 21 days. We are trying to set out here how a bit of flexibility is necessary and that a one-size-fits-all process for every service across England will not work.
There is a bit of flexibility to tailor overall revenue protection activity and adjust the action taken to a single passenger, dependent on that passenger’s circumstances. It is not in anyone’s interest for a TOC to operate a universally heavy-handed approach to all passengers travelling with an incorrect ticket. However, TOCs have a right and justifiable obligation to target those passengers who knowingly travel without a valid ticket. In those circumstances, it is right that the passenger without a ticket is appropriately penalised. This acts, among other things, as a deterrent.
The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Snape, raised the issue of the incentives on TOCs to collect revenue. After all, it is not their revenue in the end. The department works with TOCs to ensure that ticketless travel surveys take place biannually to allow revenue protection teams to target known areas of fare evasion to have the maximum effect. Part of the payments made to operators is based on the outcome of those surveys.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked me some questions about Wales. While I have some information about that, I would rather write a letter with a fuller explanation, if that is okay. I will try to include what Wales is doing and any discussions with the Welsh Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, raised the issue of communication, and I agree with him that it is really important that passengers know about these changes and so do rail staff. That is already well in hand. The Rail Delivery Group is leading work with the train operating companies on communications materials, which will include posters, signage, leaflets at stations and websites. The Rail Delivery Group will update its guidelines to reflect the new penalty fares regulations.
The noble Lord highlighted the complexity of ticketing, as set out in Modern Railways magazine—not a magazine with which I am hugely familiar. But tickets in England are hugely complicated and, sometimes, when one is booking online, one may not get the best option. I will make sure that officials look at the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about systems that were considered in the past and how we might roll them out.
The Government remain committed to radically reforming and improving the passenger experience of fares, ticketing and retailing on the railways. We want to simplify the current mass of complicated fares and tickets, while protecting affordable turn-up-and-go tickets and season tickets. There is much work in this area and there will be a real transformation in the way rail travel is bought, paid for and experienced. Removing complexity in ticketing systems will allow all related systems to be simplified to help reduce cost.
I reassure noble Lords that no passenger will be left behind. We will make sure that we serve those who use cash or those who do not have access to a smartphone or the internet. We need to make sure that they too can buy a ticket or access help to buy a ticket at the train station. We are working very closely with the Great British Railways transition team and the sector to build this better ticketing system and a better railway. We will take that further in due course.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. She has given us a very interesting response to many of the questions that noble Lords have raised but, so far, has not mentioned what has happened to the Bill that was promised and mentioned in my noble friend’s Motion, which we are debating. Can the Minister give me some indication of why the Department for Transport has had this proposal to simplify ticketing, by using IT and everything else, for a year? It would save a great deal of money and give people a lot of confidence. According to some people I have talked to, this does not need legislation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has also said that parts of the Bill do not need legislation, so why can we not do that? I appreciate that the Bill is late—we could have a long debate about that—but what is holding this up, if it does not need legislation? I am told it is opposition from the train operating companies, but who is in charge? Minister, you are in charge.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Oh, good! I take the noble Lord’s point. I was going to spell out a number of things that do not require legislation. We want to legislate and we must do it when parliamentary time allows, but there are many things that we can do without legislation. I will take back the specific point about the ticketing system and maybe write to the noble Lord and all who spoke in the debate to see if I can find a little more clarity on that.
While I am on a roll on this, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned long-term planning, which is one of the things that we do not need legislation for and which we have been thinking about. We are developing for publication the first draft of a long-term strategy for rail. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate the opportunity to debate that when it is published, because it sets out a long-term vision for our rail system over the coming decades.
To conclude, the vast majority of passengers who travel on our railways have the right ticket. If they do not, there are understandable circumstances. We accept that there is flexibility in the services that the train operating companies offer. However, we believe that the increase in the penalty fare is a sensible measure to discourage travel without a valid ticket, because it is simply not fair on other passengers or the taxpayer.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for the debate today. I have no doubt that I will be back at this Dispatch Box to discuss the railway system again, and I look forward to it.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who participated in the debate. My noble friend Lord Berkeley reminded me of my failure to mention split ticketing. I could have said how desirable it is to stop that particular practice, although it is understandable that those in the know know how to do it. The magazine to which I referred set out a case of a passenger who was in the know, who used split ticketing to get from London to Edinburgh and back, but he needed 18 different tickets to do it. Such a system is nonsensical.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these matters, was right to point out the disparity between the rate of inflation in 2005 and the fivefold increase in penalty fares, to £100, that the Government propose. The Office for National Statistics informs me through my mobile phone that £20 in 2005 was worth £34.52 at the end of 2022. That is a hell of a difference between £20 and £100, plus the cost of the single fare on top of the penalty, as we were reminded. So it is a pretty indiscriminate increase, presumably plucked out of the air. The Minister did say in conclusion that people had been consulted since 2021 about this increase: she did not tell us who had been consulted, and I just wonder whether Mr Anthony Smith from Transport Focus had been, because I do not think that most passengers would approve.
I am grateful again to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe from the Front Bench, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
National Security Bill
Wednesday 18th January 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security Act 2023 View all National Security Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 68-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Jan 2023)
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“Report on actions taken in response to the ISC report on RussiaWithin six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the effect of the action taken by the Government in response to the recommendations of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament on Russia (HC 632 of Session 2019–21).”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the actions the Government has taken in response to the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on Russia.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I move Amendment 112 and will also speak to Amendment 118. I will introduce the amendments, but my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire will also speak on this group. Amendment 118 is a probing amendment designed to be helpful for the Government and to allow the Minister to inform the Committee about what their views are on the interaction of the Bill—what will be the National Security Act—and the work of the highly regarded Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. In many respects, it makes absolute sense for the provisions under the Bill to fall within the oversight and scrutiny of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Obviously, as it is a parliamentary committee, and because of its remit, there are ways that it will interact with the Bill, but I would be grateful to know whether the Government would support that.
Amendment 112 links to what was a remarkably prescient report from 2020. When I re-read the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee report on Russia before Committee, I found that it highlighted in an almost spooky way many of the practices and approaches of Russia that have come to bear, a year on since the aggression against Ukraine. The amendment seeks for there to be an update from the Government, not just as a response to the recommendations of the committee, which were provided in July 2020 and which I read with interest, but on the ongoing actions as a result. The report had a mixture of seeking clarifications and seeking action, so I would be grateful to know where the Government are with some of the recommendations.
It was interesting to note that the committee report sought clarity on the overseeing of the strategic direction and co-ordination by the National Security Council. It has been re-shaped twice in recent months: Liz Truss got rid of it and changed its operation into a standardised Cabinet sub-committee; I understand that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has now restored it to what it was previously, but this is an opportunity on the record for the Minister to state exactly what the National Security Council is, how it is composed, and how it will interact with the implementation of the Bill. If he wishes to write to me on that point rather than respond today, I would be very happy.
The committee report highlighted in particular some issues directly linked with the Bill on the powers of the Electoral Commission, as we have discussed previously in Committee. We still believe very strongly that the committee’s recommendations on enhancing the powers of the Electoral Commission are valid, and an update on the Government’s position on that would be helpful. The committee also asked for action to be taken on election material and digital imprints; there has been considerable debate about this, but it would be useful to know how that will be operational. The committee also asked for protocol on social media providers, when it comes to hostile state acts. That was one of the areas where the Government noted the recommendations, but I would be grateful to know what action has been taken.
Finally—I know that my noble friend will be referencing this—the committee went into some detail scrutinising illicit finance and the fact that London has been a laundromat. It highlighted some areas that would be needed for action, notwithstanding that it was positive that the Government, in some respects, have brought forward this legislation in response to the ISC’s report. But there are still unanswered questions with regard to how we are operationalising the need to reduce the scope for illicit finance. Now we have economic crime Bill No. 2: the Government dragged their feet somewhat in bringing the first economic crime Bill to us, but we have the first and the second.
I want give one statistic which is illustrative of what I and certainly my noble friend have been highlighting for a number of years regarding the scale of the issue in London. All along the way, the Government said that we were overestimating the impact of illicit finance, not just from Russia but particularly from Russia. I have debated with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, all the Russian sanctions that were put forward. I have welcomed them all, and in some respects they have not gone fast enough, but we have worked together collegiately across all Benches, including the Labour Party. The statistic that I have seen, which the Government published in their anti-corruption work, was that the amount of Russian money in September 2021 that was frozen— not seized—was £44.5 million. That is a substantial sum of course, but we felt that there was more illicit finance operating through London. The most recent figures, since sanctions have been put in place against Russia over the last year, show that that figure is now £18 billion. The gap between £44.5 million and £18 billion highlights the scale of the issue that we were warning against; the Government say that those warnings were unnecessary.
I do not expect the Minister to have any of the details to hand, and I would be grateful if he would write to me giving more information and a breakdown of the difference between the £44.5 million and the £18 billion. That is a colossal sum of money. The Government have found a reason to freeze, as a result of the Russian aggression, assets in London, but that is a very clear example of why there is more to know about the extent of illicit finance through London, and I will be grateful if the Minister will provide more information about that. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 113, and I commend the intentions of the amendments put down by colleagues on the Labour Benches.
What we are talking about here is how we alert the public to the nature of the threat. The Security Minister in the Commons indeed said that one of his greatest concerns in approaching this Bill was to make the public aware of the threats which we face. In the Minister’s absence, one of his colleagues on the Bench, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, said that the overriding purpose of several clauses in the Bill is to convey a message. He said that this is above all a declaratory Bill, rather than a Bill which actually intends to do things, but these amendments are about the Government failing to send a message and, indeed, preferring not to talk about some of the threats which we face. After all, the Bill should alert us not only to the nature of the threats but to where those threats are most likely to come from. I note that the Minister said very little about Russia and not that much about China, North Korea or Iran but did his best to defend the idea that what we regard as friendly foreign powers should be included in our potential concept of threats, as if the message of this Bill should be “Beware of foreigners, particularly those associated with Governments whether democratic or not”. I hope that is not the intention of the Bill, but that is what it looks like at present.
The ISC report states very clearly that there are a number of threats—of course it is concerned with Russia —and that
“it is … the Committee’s view that the UK Intelligence Community should produce an … assessment of potential Russian interference in the EU referendum and that an unclassified summary of it be published”.
The Government have refused to do that, and the only statement in their response about why not is that they have received no evidence of successful interference in British politics, which means that they are aware of a whole range of attempts to interfere in British politics. It might be quite helpful to inform political parties and the public about what those could be.
The Government’s July 2020 response to the ISC’s Russia report is very interesting in a range of ways. It has a section which it entitles
“Defending UK Democracy from Foreign Interference”
and flags up the new defending democracy programme, which was established in 2020, about which, so far, Parliament has been told remarkably little. The Security Minister made a speech about it some weeks ago which was not that much more informative, but he assured us that the defending democracy task force had held its first meeting in November last year, two years after July 2020. I think it would be helpful in informing and alerting the public if we were all told a little more about the defending democracy programme and the defending democracy task force.
The Government’s response goes on to state:
“The Committee will also be aware that … the Government has concluded that it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 General Election.”
The public were not told about that very much either. We all understand that this is mainly because the interference was towards the Conservative Party and the Conservative Party has many links with Russia, Conservative Friends of Russia and so on, which it prefers not to spell out, which may be partly why we are talking about so many other different countries. We remember Boris Johnson’s attempt as Prime Minister to hobble the Intelligence and Security Committee. Thankfully, that has now passed, but the issue of foreign interference in UK politics and public life is an important part of what we are focusing on and should receive more attention.
I have on a number of occasions in recent years argued for a proper review of the golden visa scheme—the tier 1 investor scheme. The Government finally closed it last year and promised to conduct a review. Instead of publishing that review, we had a Written Statement on 12 January 2023 with which the Minister will be familiar because the Statement to this House is in his name. It has no reference to national security risks under this programme. It talks entirely about illicit finance and criminal effects, and in a short two pages it says really very little about the problem as a whole. It states:
“The route attracted a disproportionate number of applicants from the countries identified in the UK’s National Risk Assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing 2020 as particularly relevant to the cross-border money laundering risks faced and posed by the UK.”
The Statement does not say, as the Wikipedia entry on Ben Elliot says, that Ben Elliot raised £2 million in and around the 2019 general election from Russians resident in Britain who were close to the Putin regime. That is something which ought to concern us and about which the Government certainly ought to have been a great deal more concerned. The ISC Russia report indeed talks about the growth of a community of “enablers” in London to service the Russians who had penetrated British political and public life. Ben Elliot’s company, Quintessentially, was one of the leading aspects of this and declared that it specialised in servicing Russian clients.
I stress this not simply to raise a particular name but, after all, he was co-chairman of the Conservative Party—with James Cleverly, the current Foreign Secretary—for 18 months, so we are getting fairly close in to influence and interference here with someone who was described as the Tories’ main fundraiser. Much of this was informal, of course, but the Bill talks a great deal about informal arrangements.
These amendments ask for proper information to Parliament, a stronger role for the Intelligence and Security Committee—which the last Prime Minister but one attempted so ignobly to cut down—and the publication of the review of the golden visa scheme so that we can understand just how far these people penetrated into British public and political life. I remind the Minister that the ISC Russia report says at one point that the penetration of rich Russians into British society and public life had gone so far that it was difficult to disentangle and that we now had to be concerned to mitigate those risks rather than to remove them.
All that the Government say on illicit finance and money laundering in their response to the ISC Russia report is:
“The Government agrees that the transparency of information about political donations is important.”
They then go on to talk about links to Members of the House of Lords. They say nothing about the duties of political parties to ensure that they know where they are getting donations from. No doubt we will come back to this before and during Report.
There are a number of holes in what needs to be done in the Bill to make sure that we strengthen our national security against foreign interference. I trust that the Minister will have some good answers and will come back to us off the Floor to discuss some of these concerns further.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak primarily to my Amendment 120A but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his Amendment 112, signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, which raises some extremely important points around the Russia report published by the ISC in 2020 and the frustration that many of its recommendations either have not been implemented yet or simply will not be implemented by the Government. It would be helpful for the Committee and for us all to know the Government’s intention with respect to all that. As the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Wallace, said, many important points were raised and it would be interesting to see the Government’s view on that. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and Amendment 113, some very important points were made about tier 1 visas, where all that has got to and what progress we have made.
Amendment 116 from my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, which has been referred to in passing by other Members of the Committee, deals with reporting on disinformation originating from foreign powers. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who referred to the issue of how far this country is witnessing attacks from foreign powers that wish to pollute and infect our system, whether businesses or our electoral system. It would be interesting for us to know the extent of that and what the Government are doing about it—as far as the Minister can say within the constraints of this.
It is a question worth asking, because one of the things I think the public want to know is who is responsible for co-ordinating the activity across government to ensure that our country is protected. Is it MI5? Is it GCHQ? Is it the various security parts of different departments? Who brings all that together? I think it is legitimate and does not compromise national security in any way to ask who is responsible for that. How is the activity co-ordinated between a national level, a regional level and a local level? The integrity of all our databases requires action not only in Westminster but in a rural village in the middle of nowhere. Those are legitimate questions, and I think the public would like to know about that.
What is the Government’s view of how far they can inform the public of the threat, in so far as the public can then help with respect to maintaining their own security and, by doing so, that of our country? That was the purpose of Amendment 116. It is obviously a probing amendment, but it seeks to understand something about the scale of the threat we are facing regarding this information and what can be done about it.
My Amendment 120A—which I should say at the outset is supported by my noble friend Lord West, who for personal reasons is unable to be with us, and, as I understand it, by the ISC—would require the Government to revise the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee to reflect any changes to the intelligence and security activities undertaken by the Government as a result of this Bill. In other words, it seeks to update the ISC’s remit to ensure that it has the power to effectively scrutinise intelligence and security activity that will be taking place across government under this new national security regime.
Alongside the Justice and Security Act 2013, the ISC’s Mo outlines, among other areas, the ISC’s remit and the organisations that it oversees. This includes the expenditure administration policy on operations of the agencies, as well as several organisations that form part of the intelligence community. The Bill modernises the offence of espionage and creates a suite of new tools for the intelligence community and law enforcement to defend the UK against state threats.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for contributing to this relatively short debate. Let me first address Amendments 112, 117 and 120A.
Amendments 112 and 117 seek to impose on the Secretary of State a duty to implement the recommendations of the ISC’s report on Russia and to produce a report setting out the action taken. The Committee will already be aware that the Government published their response to the Russia report on the same day that the report itself was published, 21 July 2020. All the recommendations that could be identified within the report were addressed.
On the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, a majority of the ISC’s recommendations had already been implemented by the Government before the report was published: for example, those covering co-ordination of government work on Russia, close working with international partners, and continued exposition and attribution of malign Russian activity. The then Home Secretary reiterated this in a Statement made in the other place on 17 January 2022. I also say that there is ongoing engagement with the committee on these recommendations. The Bill is itself a part of that response, by introducing effective new tools and powers for the police, and security and intelligence agencies, to use against the sophisticated range of threats and actors that we face in the modern day.
I turn to Amendment 118, explained by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, as a probing amendment. Section 3(2) of the Justice and Security Act already provides, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just noted, for the ISC to make reports
“as it considers appropriate concerning any aspect of its functions.”
This provides the ISC with the ability to report on aspects of the Bill which fall within its remit. Furthermore, the amendment as proposed might be taken to imply that the ISC requires explicit legislative nomination to conduct oversight work on a relevant area of security and intelligence policy. The Government therefore cannot support this amendment.
Amendment 120A seeks to mandate the Prime Minister to update the memorandum of understanding between the ISC and the Government. The Committee will be aware that the MoU is subject to continuous review, as again noted by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. We welcome the ISC proposing changes that it would like the Prime Minister to consider, whether due to this legislation or other aspects of its security and intelligence remit. The Prime Minister will consider the proposed changes in due course. The MoU itself states that it is important to avoid duplication. Some of the organisations that the ISC has proposed that its remit should include are very new, and there are discussions under way regarding whether they are best overseen by other parliamentary Select Committees.
I am sure that answer will not particularly please the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but I hope he would accept that it is a reasonable answer, given the current state of affairs.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. I am sure the Minister recognises the damage which was done to the relationship between the ISC and Parliament, and to maintaining public trust, by the various manoeuvres while Boris Johnson was Prime Minister. There was the delay in the publication of the Russia report and the attempt to have a chair appointed by the Prime Minister rather than elected by the committee, et cetera. We need to be reassured—and by “we” I mean Parliament and the interested public—that the ISC has a very clear and respected role, and is not subject to the whims of changing Prime Ministers.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, with the greatest respect, this is a different Government and we have moved on. The ISC very much has the respect of certainly this part of the Government. If I may say so, I have answered the principal question that was being asked: the Prime Minister will indeed consider the proposed changes in due course.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand that the Minister is saying that the Prime Minister will review it, but does he agree with me that it would help if the Prime Minister actually met the ISC? The Intelligence and Security Committee annual report states:
“Since its establishment in 1994, and for 20 years thereafter, the Committee met annually with the Prime Minister to discuss its work, report on key issues … However, the Committee has not had a meeting with a Prime Minister since December 2014. In the previous Annual Report, we stated that we would seek a meeting with the Prime Minister this year; unfortunately, despite requests for suitable dates, we are yet to receive a response from the Prime Minister. The Committee urges the Prime Minister to meet with it as a priority.”
May I ask the Minister to take that message to the Prime Minister? If he is looking at reviewing the MoU in due course, it might help him to meet with the committee.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very fair point. I will certainly make sure that that message is conveyed. As I have said, the Government do not think it would be appropriate at this point to mandate the Prime Minister to update the MoU as proposed, therefore we cannot support this amendment.
I now turn to Amendment 113. The Committee will be aware that the Government committed to a review of visas issued under the route between 2008 and 2015. The Home Secretary made a Written Ministerial Statement on 12 January setting out the findings of that review, including that the review had identified a minority of individuals connected to the tier 1 investor visa route who were potentially at high risk of having obtained wealth through corruption or other illicit financial activity and/or being engaged in serious and organised crime. The Government have set out the findings of the review of the operation of this route and acted to close it. I think it was in February 2022. I therefore submit that the amendment is not necessary.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was selectively quoting back to me various aspects of the WMS. I might selectively quote back to him—I suppose I am quoting myself here. I also said:
“Given the importance of ensuring the independence of the law enforcement process I am unable to say more on the operationally sensitive work being taken forward in this area. Whilst unable to comment specifically due to operational sensitivity of work - as an example of the range of actions we are taking I can say that we have already sanctioned 10 oligarchs who had previously used this route as part of our extensive response to Russian aggression in the Ukraine.”
I think that gives answers as to why we have perhaps not commented in the detail the noble Lord would like.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has also accused me of not talking enough about certain states and talking too much about our allies. He, I think, suggests that this is for party-political reasons. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, would think so little of the Government Front Bench in this House. I gently remind him that, when I am talking about our allies, I am usually responding to questions he has asked me.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I am afraid I do not have all the stats he asked for about Russian money, but I will endeavour to find them. I do not know if they sit within the Home Office, but I will find out where they are, and I will happily write to him.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I apologise if I have gone—as the Minister is advising me—a little far. The point I am making is that the lack of distinction in “any foreign power” is one of the fundamental faults in this Bill. The ISC Russia report on several occasions refers to the threats mainly coming from China, Russia, Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. That is what I understand as well, although I am well aware that there are other potentially hostile states. One of my strongest memories is watching a demonstration outside the Libyan embassy and a policewoman being shot. These things happen; there are hostile states out there. However, that does not mean we cannot distinguish between allies with whom we work and open societies, and those from which there are likely to be threats. It is very important that we do so.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
This Bill does exactly that. We have been talking about FIRS over the last couple of days—the foreign influence registration scheme. There are different tiers specified in that. There is no doubt that this Bill acknowledges where our principal threats come from. Other countries, unfortunately, are also sometimes used as proxies. That is another discussion we have had at considerable length from this Dispatch Box with various noble Lords who have raised that point. I think it has covered very widely exactly what the nature of the threats are and where they come from.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s thorough reply, notwithstanding some of his responses, which he prefaced by saying that he knew they would disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The noble Lord is a very cheerful person for someone who is disappointed. One of the telling facts he highlighted was the difficulty of the committee having an annual meeting since 2014—that speaks for itself. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he is going to take that message back.
I am also grateful that the Minister has committed to provide some more information, which is quite helpful. On the issue of the tier 1 visas and golden visas, we are in a slightly ridiculous position where we have a discrepancy between what should be on the public record as to who received them and what is on the public record as to who is sanctioned. However, the Government are refusing to put the two together and to say who they are, which means we will have difficulty learning lessons as to how this came about, why they were able to secure the visas and what they have done. If the Minister is writing to me with more information, I would be grateful if he could state who is currently under sanction by the UK and has received a tier 1 visa. That would be very helpful information to receive.
I am grateful for the information on the co-ordination and the security council, and for the other information that the Minister provided. With Amendment 120A from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my amendment, I think we are aiming for the same destination but with a different route. I think that the Minister said that the ISC would be able to scrutinise the implementation of all national security aspects of this Bill. If I have taken that incorrectly from the Minister, I am happy for him to correct me on the record. However, I think that we will pursue that aspect. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend, said, we want national security to work and, for that to be done, proper scrutiny by the committee of Parliament needs to be facilitated, with no gaps across the whole panoply. National security is complex and multi-departmental, and a whole-government function, as the Government say—and I respect that—between BEIS, DCMS, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and FCDO. This is a complex area, and the committee is best placed to do it, but it must be equipped to do it. We may want to return to this issue after we have reflected on the Minister’s responses. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“Ministerial appointments: official advice(1) The Cabinet Secretary must publish a memorandum in respect of any ministerial appointments made by the Prime Minister, where advice or concerns were communicated to the Prime Minister by civil servants that the appointment may be counter to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom including because of potential influence from a foreign power.(2) A memorandum under this section must set out that advice or concerns were communicated to the Prime Minister by civil servants, and in respect of which ministerial appointments. (3) A memorandum under this section may not include details of the advice or concerns, where the Cabinet Secretary considers that inclusion of those details may be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Cabinet Secretary to publish a memorandum in circumstances where the Prime Minister made a ministerial appointment and where advice was that the appointment may be counter to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is an amendment which I really did not think it should be necessary to debate, on ministerial appointments by a Prime Minister, where that appointment may raise issues to do with the safety, security and interests of the United Kingdom. The amendment seeks clarification from the Government on the ability for there to be transparency in the operation of the Ministerial Code, but also where there is concern about ministerial appointments.
This is not a partisan point, because we know as a matter of fact that a Home Secretary was sacked because of a significant security breach. The guidance on security of government business was breached considerably, and Liz Truss sacked Suella Braverman, who admitted a breach of government security guidelines. I recognise that none of the material that was shared on a private email system was marked “secret”, so with regard to national security considerations, on the face of what was sent to an incorrect recipient but also what was intended to be sent, it was not secret or top secret. They were not classified documents, and I respect that fact. However, the recipient’s employer—because one of the emails was sent to a member of staff of an MP—replied to Suella Braverman saying:
“Simply asking my team to delete this email and ignore it is not an acceptable response to what appears, on the face of it, to be a potentially serious breach of security … You are nominally in charge of the security of this nation, we have received many warnings even as lowly backbenchers about cyber security.”
The fact that that Minister was then reappointed for political purposes within a matter of days has been well rehearsed. The Minister has responded to this issue in Questions in the Chamber, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also responded, saying:
“Everyone deserves a second chance.”—[Official Report, 22/10/22; col. 1558.]
I know for a fact that not everybody who will fall foul of some of the significant offences under this Bill will receive a second chance—or that some officials will receive it. But it would be useful to know whether there are security concerns about the appointments of Ministers.
The second thing I say concerns something that did not happen but could easily have happened. A Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev, was appointed under considerable concern about security situations. He was appointed to Parliament by Boris Johnson. He could very easily have been asked to be a Government Whip or a Minister: that is not a stretch of the imagination. What is the situation then, when security concerns have been raised about the appointment of a Member to Parliament but there is no mechanism for transparency about concerns about ministerial appointments? I do not besmirch any existing Ministers: these are two factual situations; one is regrettable, of course; and the other has not happened but could easily have happened. Therefore, my amendment seeks clarification as to what mechanisms are in place for it to be transparent when there have been concerns about an individual being appointed to a ministerial position, so that those concerns can be made public. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for speaking to Amendment 114, which seeks to require the Cabinet Secretary to publish information concerning ministerial appointments in scenarios where officials have indicated that the appointment of a particular individual
“may be counter to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom including because of potential influence from a foreign power”.
The Government cannot accept this amendment because the appointment of Ministers is a matter solely for the Prime Minister, in line with his role as the sovereign’s principal adviser. It is critical to the functioning of government that any conversations that occur around appointments are able to take place in confidence. There is a long-standing practice to protect that confidentiality. Without the ability to speak freely on matters that will be personal and sometimes sensitive, particularly where they may include matters of security, the ability of officials to provide meaningful advice ahead of an appointment will be critically undermined. The National Security Bill is concerned principally with the conduct of state actors working for foreign powers or with an intention to benefit a foreign power. Not only is the Bill not the appropriate vehicle for such a change but the Government also firmly believe that any information relating to ministerial appointments and procedures is not appropriate for publication. The Government therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister, and I am not entirely surprised by his response. I think the Government’s concerns regarding confidentiality and protecting Civil Service advice were addressed in the amendment. In fact, it explicitly states that information would not be provided within the memorandum, but that security considerations had been raised should be in the public domain. I hear what the Minister said; we will explore this in the other avenues. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Coaker
“Assessment of interaction with the Official Secrets Act 1989The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of how this Act relates to the Official Secrets Act 1989.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment intends to probe to what extent the Bill furthers the government’s objective to update the Official Secrets Act 1989.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will not keep noble Lords too long on this amendment. There are a couple of points I wish to make and a couple of questions to ask. I say at the outset that Amendment 119 is a probing amendment, obviously, but it allows us to discuss reform, or not, of the Official Secrets Act 1989. As we know, this National Security Bill does not deal with that, but earlier Official Secrets Acts of 1911, 1920 and 1939, which deal with espionage. In that sense, this Bill represents a missed opportunity and leaves many unanswered questions which simply cannot be ignored, questions which Amendment 120 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, setting up an office of the national security whistleblower, also seeks to address.
In the Government’s consultation document for the state threats legislation reforms, it is clear that changes to the Official Secrets Act 1989 appear to be on their way. Is it correct that they will reform the Official Secrets Act 1989 as soon as possible? If they will, can the Minister give any indication of what “as soon as possible” might mean—other than “as soon as possible”?
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I again find myself the only Back-Bencher of my party in the Chamber. This time I cannot claim to be speaking on their behalf, although last time I intervened I felt that I had sufficient support from Labour Members who were not here to be able to speak at large on behalf of the Back-Benchers.
I have an entirely technical point. My noble friend Lord Coaker has tabled an amendment which he described to the House and in the Marshalled List as being intended to probe
“to what extent the Bill furthers the government’s objective to update the Official Secrets Act 1989.”
Of course, in Schedule 16, at the end of the Bill, we see what the Government are doing about repealing—or otherwise—previous Acts, going right back to the Official Secrets Act 1911, as my noble friend Lord Coaker mentioned.
As I say, this is a technical matter. I do not ask for it to be dealt with this evening, but perhaps the Minister’s officials and advisers could look at this. When the Bill was before the House of Commons, the Law Commission gave oral evidence and then submitted written evidence. In that written evidence, it took up the issue of the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920 and commented on their provisions. The Law Commission said, in its recommendation 9:
“The offence of doing an act preparatory to espionage should be retained. Save for that, section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920 should be repealed.”
If we turn to Schedule 16, we learn that the Bill proposes to repeal those Acts in their entirety. The question is, therefore, why the written report of the Law Commission is not being followed. There are great complications when you start having to sew old legislation into modern legislation, and as I have complained before, the legislative process has become too complicated. This is not something to be answered now. The Minister can be relieved of having to give any explanation at the moment, but I wondered if it could be carefully looked at.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his supportive words on the key aspects of my Amendment 120. Obviously, I have not participated in the broader issues of the Bill, but I think I can say on behalf of my colleagues that we are very impressed by his amendment. The probing character of an amendment, certainly in Committee, is a very important tool to try to get responses from the Government.
Given the late hour, I want to focus specifically on my Amendment 120. We heard at Second Reading—in a sense, it has been repeated at various points in Committee; I have been following this a bit in Hansard—how concerned former leading members of the intelligence community are about the consequences of public disclosure. I think the Government have echoed that. There is one very good way to avoid public disclosure, and that is to have an excellent whistleblowing regime and process. That is exactly what my Amendment 120 seeks to do. I understand that my amendment is not ideally drafted, but my goal is to generate a proper and, I hope, fruitful discussion. That is one of the reasons I am rather sad that those former leading members of the intelligence community are not in their places today, but perhaps they will pick up this issue afterwards.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Yes, they were here earlier.
My preference would be to create an overarching office of the whistleblower covering all public and private activity, as I have proposed in my Private Member’s Bill. However, failing that, I suggest that much more immediate action could take place within the security and intelligence services.
Whistleblowers are essential in any and every field of activity. People err and power is abused, and whistle- blowing is both the best deterrent and often a necessary step to cure. But organisations so often welcome whistleblowers in their speeches, and perhaps in very general policy terms, but not in the practical reality.
I have to keep a good distance from sources because here in the House of Lords we do not have the power to protect their confidentiality. But over and again, the message comes that, in the security and intelligence services, various schemes—not all, but various and significant ones—are actually dysfunctional. Retaliation happens and is not exceptional, in the form of career destruction and the threat of the use of the Official Secrets Act—it may be entirely inappropriate, but it is a very frightening threat. Follow-up and proper investigation rarely happen. Instead, wagons are circled and retaliation begins.
In this, I have to say that the intelligence agencies are really no different from so many other parts of the public sector. We have to look only at the experience that the Metropolitan Police is currently going through to realise that there is a certain inbred complacency in many organisations. They are certain if you ask them that they have excellent processes in place, but then some event triggers and exposes problems that have lain underneath for a long time.
At Second Reading, I gave an example of a whistle- blower who spoke out using the existing systems to expose evidence that key equipment was being sourced from a hostile foreign power. That person is still suffering the price of a destroyed career.
Also at Second Reading, in explaining that he had worked with the intelligence community for more than 40 years, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts—I think quite unwittingly—gave another, even more serious illustration of the dysfunctional nature of the system. Referring to the earlier speech that day of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, and his reminder that in regard to extraordinary rendition
“Britain appears to have been involved in at least 70 cases, according to the 2018 ISC report”,
the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts said,
“in my experience, the men and women of the intelligence community were profoundly shocked by the revelations of what had happened in those fraught months and years after 9/11.”—[Official Report, 6/12/22; cols. 137-39.]
I am sure that some people, including the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, were profoundly shocked, but with at least 70 cases, a significant number of people, including those at senior level, must have known, knew it was wrong and either decided or were persuaded to do nothing, because of misguided loyalty, a culture of cover-up and fear that retaliation would destroy their careers.
Speaking out is frightening, disloyalty being the least of the accusations that typically follow. Each person to pluck up the courage to speak out needs to know exactly who they can go to to speak safely and how they can initially do it—most of them wish to do so anonymously initially. They cannot turn for information or advice to a colleague, as that exposes who they are. They cannot go to a senior person, as that exposes who they are. They should never look on the intranet or internet because that is traceable. Even in the health services, nurses use burner phones to report wrong behaviour. A whistleblower has to be absolutely confident that the person they speak to has both the will and, even more importantly, the authority to follow up and investigate an act. That is what whistleblowers look for.
However, it is much more than that. Confidentiality, which is often seen as the greatest protection for a whistleblower, is almost impossible to sustain once an investigation process starts, because the issue and the information themselves direct anyone who is interested to the identity of the whistleblower. So it is absolutely crucial that any person or body that a whistleblower goes to can provide them with protection or, where things go wrong and there is retaliation, with redress.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I wish to stress the importance of how the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will relate to the Official Secrets Act. I am almost in a minority in my own family in not having signed that Act, although I note, looking at the dates, that the version my wife signed in 1979 was the 1939 version, and the version my daughter signed is rather more up to date. It is worth noting that it was 28 years from the first Official Secrets Act to the first revised Act in 1939, and 50 years from then to the second revised version, in 1989. We are now approaching 34 years since the last revision. As the Law Commission suggested, we really need to update the Official Secrets Act.
Part of the disappointment that many of us have with the Bill is that it takes the place of what might have been an effective revision of the entire Official Secrets Act. We all know what happens with legislation in this House. The time taken up for the Bill as it becomes an Act will mean that it will be another four or five years before we get round to a proper revision of the OSA.
I say this to the Minister: part of the argument for taking our time as we complete this Bill is that, for the next four or five years, this is probably it in terms of legislation dealing with this whole area of national security. So we need to make sure that it is well considered; that it addresses our current, changing threats; and that it feeds into and informs the public debate for those who need to understand these things. It should not be rushed. I hope that, in Committee, the Minister has got a real sense of the disappointment and discontent at the quality of the Bill as it now stands. I look forward to our discussions and hearing about the wider consultations that now need to take place before this Bill finishes its time in this House.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, I must confess to being rather puzzled by some of the detail in Amendment 120 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. When I got to proposed new subsection (4), I assumed that the office was intended to be a regulatory body ensuring that the whistleblowing arrangements with regard to national security were appropriate; however, it subsequently became clear in proposed new paragraph (b) that it was intended to be the whistle- blowing channel. Those seems like slightly different roles to me.
I am also puzzled as to why there is a proposal here for a whistleblowing channel that is in fact very narrow. It relates only
“to the commission of an offence under this Act”.
I would have thought that, if there was a need for a whistleblowing channel—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. Amendments must be written to be in scope; it is sometimes quite limiting.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness very much for that clarification; in that case, the amendment certainly needs some amendment itself.
I am also puzzled as to the route proposed that any disclosure, particularly from one of the intelligence agencies, can go to any public authority. Again, that seems a surprising route for a whistleblowing channel for somebody in the intelligence and security agencies.
More particularly, and more importantly, I absolutely fail to recognise the culture of cover-up that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, cites. Having worked in the Security Service for 33 years, I am confident in saying that, far from there being a culture of cover-up, there was in fact a strong willingness to speak up, as far as I could see. There was strong and, at times, fairly heated internal debate on some of the ethical matters that have been cited in this debate. So I do not believe that the characterisation of the intelligence agencies we have just heard in any sense accurate. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, gave the complete list of everybody to whom a member of the agencies could go, I think that almost anybody in the agencies would recognise their ability to go to the internal ethics counsellor—a role that plays an important part in actively encouraging debate of these issues—who has a direct right of access to the director-general of the day; I am sure that that would still be the case. That role has now extended from the Security Service to the other intelligence agencies. Also, it was clear and straightforward how you obtained the contact details for the external counsellor who acted as a whistleblowing channel directly outside the service. Of course, that was put in place specifically because of previous concerns that there was no such provision, and it was reflected in the legislation of the day.
I feel that the detail of this amendment is not clear —certainly not to me. The need for this amendment has not been made clear, in my view, because it is based on a rather misleading characterisation of the internal culture of the intelligence services. In my experience, there has been considerable focus on ethical matters and the ability internally to debate those.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank Members of the Committee for all their speeches. Amendment 119 seeks an assessment of how the Act relates to the Official Secrets Act 1989. As we set out in last week’s debate, the new espionage offences in Part 1 of the Bill replace and reform the existing provisions in the Official Secrets Acts from 1911 to 1939. They carry strict tests for a person to be caught within those sections. For example, the first two offences apply when a person is acting for, on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit a foreign power. This is distinct from the Official Secrets Act 1989, which covers unauthorised disclosures by Crown servants and government contractors. As the Committee knows, the Government are not reforming the 1989 Act through the Bill, as has been observed this evening. Under the existing law, it is possible that a person making a damaging disclosure could commit both the espionage offence in the Official Secrets Act 1911 and an offence under the Official Secrets Act 1989.
Pausing there, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his contribution in relation to the 1911 Act. The difference, drawn out in the fact that you could commit both an offence of espionage under the Official Secrets Act and an offence under the 1989 Act, will continue to be the case. It is possible that a person could commit an offence under two pieces of legislation simultaneously and be charged in relation to both. That is not a matter unknown in the criminal law. Any overlap between the espionage offences in the Bill and the Official Secrets Act 1989 allows us to prosecute damaging acts in the most appropriate way. Where a person commits both a 1989 Act offence and an espionage offence under the Bill, the charging decision would be taken by the Crown Prosecution Service in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, as is always the case. CPS prosecutors select the charges that they consider are most appropriate on the facts of each case, and to reflect the nature of the wrongdoing. I hope that this explanation reassures the Committee that the Government have carefully considered the interaction between our new offences in the Bill and those in the 1989 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, raised a question regarding reform of the 1989 Act, and I will address it directly. The Government’s view is that the Official Secrets Act 1989 is an essential part of our ability to protect national security and sensitive information. However, the views and concerns raised by stakeholders in response to our public consultation for the Bill, including those in favour of not reforming the Act at all, highlight the complexity of the legislation and the wide variety of interests that should properly be considered before pursuing any reform. Given its complexity, we are also concerned that reform of the Official Secrets Act 1989 at this time may distract from the Government’s package of measures in the Bill to counter state threats, and prevent us from providing law enforcement and the intelligence agencies with the tools that they need now directly to tackle these threats. Accordingly, we do not have any immediate plans to pursue reform of the Official Secrets Act 1989, but will continue to keep that position under review. The matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, are well considered. Issues such as whether to increase maximum sentences under the Official Secrets Act 1989 would be considered as part of potential reform proposals and would be viewed in the round with the measures of sentences in the Bill.
Amendment 120 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposes the establishment of a new office for the national security whistleblower. We are told that the aim of such an office would be to protect whistleblowers who make disclosures related to offences under the Bill where disclosures are considered to be in the public interest. Of course I pay tribute to her in her ongoing work and efforts to champion the important cause of whistleblowing. The Government are committed to ensuring that our whistleblowing framework is robust, and I confirm that the business department intends to carry out the promised review of the existing framework, and that further details will be set out in due course in relation to that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. He is aware of the point I raised earlier in Committee, which, as he correctly pointed out, pertained more to the Official Secrets Act in respect of the authorised disclosure of information. The Law Commission’s recommendation is clear—that there should be an independent statutory commissioner, to which individuals can go, who has investigatory powers—but the Minister says that there are no plans to reform the 1989 legislation.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, that they do not recognise this culture, but the Law Commission came to its own view and its own recommendation. Do the Government accept that recommendation but then say that they are not going to do anything about it, or will we have to find a way to bring together the disclosure of information and the points that my noble friend raised? The Law Commission’s recommendation was perfectly clear, and it was not besmirching the culture within the agencies. It was a very clear recommendation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Indeed, the Law Commission made a recommendation about a potential reform to the 1989 Act. As I have already said, that is not the purpose of this Bill and will be a matter for a future reform, which will not be conducted immediately, as I already explained in answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The Law Commission’s recommendation will have considerable weight but, at this stage, I cannot prejudge any government decision in relation to the 1989 Act.
In last week’s debate, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the Government’s plans to update internal whistleblowing guidance. I can confirm that the Government regularly keep this guidance under review and, last year, they updated it to include specific reference to how to raise an issue that would require disclosure without breaching the Official Secrets Act 1989. The updated internal guidance has been shared across departments and agencies, with confirmation from all Whitehall departments that a review of their own processes and procedures has been undertaken or is planned.
Across government, organisations have also continued to undertake activities further to develop a safe and supportive culture for raising concerns. Over the last year, the majority, including all 17 Whitehall departments, have undertaken communications through awareness-raising events and campaigns, including an annual “Speak Up” campaign.
We of course understand that journalists have a specific and important role to play in holding government to account in our democratic society. We also understand that responsible journalists do not want unwittingly to put lives at risk or compromise national security. That is why we have robust processes in place which enable journalists to mitigate the harm caused when considering the publication of potentially damaging information.
For example, during the Government’s public consultation on the Bill, several media stakeholders commented on the value of the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee—the DSMA—which alerts the media to the consequences of disclosing certain types of information and provides advice on how to mitigate damage, while leaving editors to judge whether to publish or broadcast. A number of editors already engage with this valuable process when considering the publication of sensitive information, and we encourage them, and others, to continue to do so.
The Government are committed to ensuring that these channels are safe, effective, and accessible. Accordingly, for the reasons I have just set out, the Government, with regret, cannot accept the tabled amendments and invite their withdrawal.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief, but will start by thanking the Minister for his response and all noble Lords for their contributions to this short but important debate. I am grateful to the Minister for following up on my question from last week about what was happening with the updating of guidance for people in departments across government who wish to raise concerns. But frankly, the headline from what the Minister has said is that the Government have kicked the reform of the Official Secrets Act 1989, which was never particularly on the immediate horizon, into the long grass. That is deeply disappointing because, irrespective of one’s view, the issues of the public interest defence and people being able to come forward—whistleblowers, if you want to call them that—will not go away. Reforming the Official Secrets Act would have enabled us to debate that and come up with an Act that is relevant to 2023 and beyond. As I say, it is deeply disappointing that the Minister has effectively kicked that reform into the long grass, and that is the headline from this response to the amendments. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations under clause 63 attract the affirmative procedure only if they specify a foreign power or other person not already specified. Regulations revoking a specification will be subject to the negative procedure.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Sharpe’s amendment to clause 68, page 46, line 30, which omits the regulation making power in clause 68.
“(fa) regulations under paragraph 27 of Schedule (Public officials);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulations under the new Schedule inserted by Lord Sharpe after Schedule 13 are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“(1A) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any provision of this Act other than section 20 to extend (with or without modifications) to the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia.(1B) An Order in Council under subsection (1A) may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confers power to extend the Bill to the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Clause 20 is excluded from the power because clause 20 is extended to the Sovereign Base Areas by clause 95(1)(b).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 124 creates the power to extend any provision in the Bill with or without modification to the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus by way of Order in Council. The provisions of the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920 extend to the sovereign base areas, and this amendment will allow provisions of the Bill to be extended to the law of the sovereign base areas. This would ensure that harmful activity that the Bill addresses can be prosecuted in sovereign base areas when conducted there.
Clause 20, which provides for the aggravating factor to apply to some service offences in the Armed Forces Act 2006, has been excluded from this power given that it is already being extended to the sovereign base areas though Clause 95(1)(b).
I end by putting on record that the Government consider that any references in this Bill to the sovereign base areas will not in any way undermine the provisions of the 1960 treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus between the United Kingdom, Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. I therefore ask the Committee to support the inclusion of this amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I have very little to say with regard to the government amendment. I recognise the Government’s sensitivity to the ongoing issue of the politics within Cyprus.
As this is the last group in Committee, I thank the Ministers today, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Murray, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for their willingness to engage. As my noble friend Lord Wallace indicated, there is a lot of work to be done in persuading the Committee that the measures in the Bill will meet the Government’s intent. There are some key areas of the Bill where we are looking for more information. I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, indicated on an earlier group that he is reflecting and that there is more to follow. We await the correspondence from the Ministers. We are very happy to meet Ministers before Report. I say from these Benches that it might be advisable for the Government not to be in a rush to schedule Report, so that there can be proper thinking on the many aspects of the Bill about which we have highlighted problems.