House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
Covid-19 resulted in significant reductions to bus service levels and passenger numbers. To mitigate that, the Government have provided more than £2 billion in emergency and recovery funding to keep vital bus services running. On 17 February, we announced a further extension to that support until 30 June. As a result, bus service provision in England outside London remained at more than 85% of pre-covid levels in 2021-22, despite patronage and commercial fare revenue remaining significantly lower.
Nick Fletcher
Stagecoach bus services from Doncaster to Worksop—numbers 21, 22 and 25—have daily cancellations due to driver shortages that have been going on for a long time. Posts are put on the Tickhill Community Forum on Facebook by Clare Cutts every day. At a time when we need to shop more locally and support our economy, what more can we do to put pressure on bus companies to deliver the services that we need?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend, who is a champion for his Don Valley constituency, raises an important issue. I know how important local bus services are to him and to people across the country, and how constituents can be frustrated by service cancellations. Bus operators are facing a number of challenges, which the Government continue to work with the sector to address. I look forward to meeting him in Don Valley in the coming weeks to discuss the issue further with him and other operators.
Mike Amesbury
On Monday evening, I got a letter from Arriva North West about 13 bus routes being scrapped and two depots being closed in the Northwich part of my constituency, as a result of a strategy called “Bus Back Better”. What is better about that? What will the Minister do to ensure that my constituents can get to their place of work, school or college and go about their everyday business? I ask him to step in.
Mr Holden
The hon. Member raises some important questions. I know that Conservative colleagues have met Arriva in recent days, and I met my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) about the Arriva issues in the area yesterday. My understanding is that D&G Bus is already looking to provide some of the services that Arriva has decided to remove itself from. I note the hon. Member’s concern about the issue and if he would like to meet me, I would be delighted.
Ian Levy
Effective and reliable public transport is essential for our local communities. Reductions in local services in Blyth Valley, including the X10 and X11 to Newcastle, mean that my constituents plan their journeys only to find that the buses are late or simply not coming at all. Many groups who are already at a disadvantage, including the young, the old and people on a low income, rely on those vital services to access healthcare, education and leisure. It is critical that we do not let them down. Will my hon. Friend assure me that we will do everything we can to ensure that those bus services run effectively?
Mr Holden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government know how important bus services are to local communities across the country, which is why we recently announced additional investment of £155 million not only to continue protecting those services but to ensure a three-month extension to the £2 cap on bus fares to help working people in places such as Blyth Valley who are getting out there every day. We want to help to address the cost of living crisis and encourage people back on to our network. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of communities and deliver our ambition for everyone with access everywhere.
Luke Pollard
I do not expect the Minister to know about the 31 bus route in Plymouth, but I do expect him to care about the people who can no longer get that bus because it has been axed—the older people who cannot get to their GP or hospital appointments as easily or bring back their shopping from town. Will the Minister agree to adopt Labour’s policy of handing power over bus routes back to communities? Will he finally give the south-west its fair share of bus funding?
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member for his question. Plymouth City Council receives £85,000 a year through the bus service operators grant and has been allocated a total of £599,000 in emergency and recovery funding for bus services since March 2020. I would be delighted to look at that further, and look forward to visiting Plymouth in the near future.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2020, the Government promised to deliver 4,000 zero-emission buses in this Parliament, but just 341 have been ordered, and only six are on our roads. At this rate, it will take 23 years to meet that target, and we will not get diesel buses off our roads completely until the end of the century. With manufacturers ready to deliver a brighter, greener future for Britain’s buses, when will the Minister get out of first gear and match their ambition?
Mr Holden
The hon. Member has clearly missed our announcement this morning of extra buses across the country—an extra £25 million going into York, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and delivering 3,452 zero-emission buses, to date, on that 4,000 target, so we will definitely get there before the end of the Parliament.
Mr Speaker
I did not hear Chorley in that, but maybe the Minister will talk to me later.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is great to see you in such robust form this morning, if I may say so.
A technical consultation on the zero-emission vehicle mandate design’s features was held between April and June of last year. Responses to that consultation are currently being analysed, and the Government will publish their response, alongside a final consultation on the full regulatory proposal, and an accompanying cost-benefit analysis, in the near future.
Matt Western
The industry is extremely concerned about the timings, and fears that it will be left with just six months before implementation on 1 January 2024. Most industry observers would say that at least 24 months is needed for a successful mandate to be introduced. Does he agree that the industry should be concerned about this, and that we need to act much more quickly? Should the Government not also be looking at delivering an infrastructure mandate?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Of course, he will be aware that this is an extremely complex issue, because it involves manufacturers, charge-point providers, energy suppliers and other players in this important and evolving market. There was a Green Paper consultation in 2021. There has been a second consultation on technical issues, as I say, and we work very closely with all those players, and the industry, precisely to ensure that, when this lands with all of its complexities, which it will do in the near future, it lands properly, effectively, and to the benefit of all.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The constituency of Gainsborough is 600 square miles, and it takes half an hour to get anywhere even when travelling at the speed limit. What is the Government plan to help rural areas when electric vehicles become mandatory for sale in 2030?
Jesse Norman
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Government’s plan is for more than 300,000 charge points to be in place by then. That will be led largely by the private sector, and we meet regularly with all the charge point operators. Their plans are escalating and will be massively supported and benefited by the zero-emission vehicle mandate. With that, and technological advances, we anticipate that there will be ample opportunity for people in rural areas to use electric vehicles.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Last year, UK car production slumped to a 66-year low. The covid pandemic, supply chain shortages, and chaos at Dover have left this key industry fighting for survival. Manufacturers are crying out for a shred of certainty, but far from supporting them and the 150,000 workers they employ, this Government are leaving them in a state of limbo. With less than a year to go before it takes effect, why is the Minister still keeping the design of the zero-emission vehicle mandate a well-guarded secret? When can manufacturers expect finally to get some clarity from the Government to allow them to plan for the future?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady wildly overstates the issue with regard to electric vehicles. In 2022, we had the second largest market across Europe for electric vehicles, which demonstrates the level of energy and support we are giving the industry, including £2 billion of public money. We consult closely with both large car manufacturers and small manufacturers, who have quite different interests in many different ways. They will be quite comfortable with this important mandate when it comes out, and they will be because we have consulted extensively on it with them over the past two years.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Although we support a zero-emission vehicle mandate to accelerate the switch to zero-emission driving, the Government need to get a grip on it. Businesses—be they manufacturers, dealerships or fleet purchasers—cannot plan, and consumers are in the dark. That chimes with the overall approach to zero-emission driving, with just over 7,000 EV charging installations last year when 33,000 are required annually to meet the 300,000 target. Will we hear more about the mandate, the charger network expansion and equalising the VAT levied on home charging versus street charging in the upcoming Budget?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I will not comment on the Budget; as a former Financial Secretary, I will certainly not attempt to trespass on the Treasury’s prerogative on tax issues. What he will know, of course, is that the vast majority of that investment is coming from the private sector. Of course, that will itself be massively boosted by the zero-emission vehicle mandate. I met one of the largest charge point operators only this week, and they were perfectly clear that the one thing that will do more than anything else, not just to reduce carbon but to support the development of that industry and that transition, is the mandate, which we will publish, as I say, in the near future.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to start by offering our sincere condolences to the people of Greece following the terrible rail accident yesterday. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the victims, first responders and all those affected. The Prime Minister has written to the Greek Prime Minister to offer the Government’s condolences, and we stand with our colleagues in Greece, ready to offer assistance should they require it.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I meet regularly with Cabinet colleagues and transport industry stakeholders to discuss industrial action, including facilitating a fair and reasonable offer for the trade unions, which I was pleased to see Transport Salaried Staffs Association members vote in favour of last week. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill aims to balance the ability of workers to take strike action with the needs of the public to go about their daily lives. The 12-week consultation on minimum service levels for passenger rail provides the opportunity for the public and stakeholders, including trade unions and transport bodies, to provide their views.
Chris Stephens
May I associate myself with the comments that the Secretary of State made about the situation in Greece? Our thoughts and prayers are with those affected.
The Department’s consultation document for rail minimum services legislation seeks views on setting a minimum service level in Scotland, which is interesting because the responsibility for ScotRail and Caledonian sleeper services are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Secretary of State meet me, as part of the consultation process, to discuss what the response of his Department will be if the Scottish Parliament refuses to implement the minimum services legislation because it assesses that the legislation is not conducive to good industrial relations and dispute resolution?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman will know that the purpose and substance of the Bill is to regulate employment rights and duties, and industrial relations. Those are reserved matters that are within the responsibility of the UK Government. In the consultation on passenger rail in Great Britain, we of course welcome the views of devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for rail has already had such conversations with Transport Ministers from the Scottish Government.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
The Government recognise that there are impacts associated with aircraft noise and keep all relevant evidence under review. The Department for Transport has previously commissioned research on the effects of aviation noise on annoyance, health and wellbeing, and has tasked the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out a further survey this year. All major airports are required, as the hon. Lady will be aware, to map their noise impacts on a common basis every five years, and some do so annually.
Munira Wilson
I thank the Minister for his response. My constituents and thousands of residents across west and south-west London and neighbouring counties constantly have to put up with the roaring engines of aircraft overhead at all hours of the day and during much of the night. There are real fears, based on international evidence, that that noise may intensify as a result of airspace modernisation. Will the Minister commit to reinstating the independent noise ombudsman, and to working with Environment Ministers to make aircraft noise a statutory nuisance, so that those residents might have some redress in future?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady will be aware that there have been noise-related restrictions on major airports including Heathrow for many years and, more recently, noise maps and noise action plans at Heathrow. Of course, we recognise the seriousness of this issue. It is worth saying that technology is already making a significant difference—new aircraft models make 30% to 50% less noise on take-off and landing—but we intend to consult later this year on proposals for the next night-flight regime, beginning in October 2025.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State made no commitment on the production of sustainable aviation fuel in the UK at a recent airports conference. This week, the Minister for aviation in the other place said at a pilots reception that airspace modernisation was stuck in the muck. The Government’s Jet Zero Council has achieved exactly what it said on the tin: zero. Labour has a plan for a cleaner, greener future. Get your finger out, Secretary of State!
Jesse Norman
It seems to have passed the hon. Gentleman by that we had a detailed consultation on SAF investment. We have put £165 million into the advanced fuels fund to support five UK sustainable aviation fuel plants, which builds on the “Green Fuels, Green Skies” competition, and we plan to introduce a sustainable aviation fuels mandate in 2025. Modernisation is an extremely complex issue, but it is also vital, in part in order to ensure a more protective approach where possible to the issue of noise impact, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Transport Committee’s report published today on alternative fuels? One of our recommendations is to build on the work the Government have already done on SAF by introducing a contracts for difference model, which would help to make the UK a world leader in this technology.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his report and the work he is doing as the new Chair of the Transport Committee. We are aware of the calls for CfDs. He may have seen the report published by Philip New on this issue. We are already working on not merely the mandate but a clearing house to support testing and certification. Of course, we will continue to look at the question of CfDs, but the mandate and the work we are doing towards that remains the Government policy, and rightly so.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Decarbonising aviation is difficult, and no one would say otherwise, but there are quick wins to reduce carbon, such as airspace modernisation, which is likely to cost under £30 million, and sustainable aviation fuels, which will be the bridge fuel until future forms of propulsion are introduced. The Government have provided some funding for SAF plants in England and Wales, but the support is dwarfed by support offered elsewhere. Without a CfD model in place to support SAFs, the Government will not get their five plants operating by their target date, and they are nowhere near their long-term targets for SAF use, are they?
Jesse Norman
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman raises the question of airspace modernisation. He may not be aware that the environmental benefits are already in place. The introduction of free route airspace in 2021 over Scotland is estimated by National Air Traffic Services to save the carbon dioxide equivalent of the power used by 3,500 family homes every year. He is right that this is a complex issue, but it is also one on which the Government are taking a wide range of energetic measures, and we will continue to pursue those, as we have described.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
During this Parliament, the Government are investing over £5 billion in highways maintenance for local authorities across England outside London. That is in addition to the sustainable transport settlements provided to eligible mayoral combined authorities. It is up to each local highway authority to decide how best to spend that funding, and the Government do not generally intervene or override local decision making in these matters.
Scott Benton
Additional Government funding for road maintenance has made a significant difference to the quality of road surfaces across many local authorities, including my own in Blackpool. Ahead of the Budget, can the Minister reassure the House that he will continue to lobby the Treasury for additional funding to spend on local roads in England?
Mr Holden
I was delighted to visit recently the site near my hon. Friend’s constituency. Great investment is going into the road to link Windy Harbour to Skippool. That is something that I know he has been campaigning for, alongside our hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
As part of the 2021 spending review, the Department worked hard with the highways sector to develop a strong and evidence-based case to the Treasury for a long-term highway maintenance settlement. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to make every effort this time, pushing equally strongly—perhaps even more strongly —for sustainable funding for our highways. However, it is worth reflecting on the fact that more money is an important factor, but how we decide to spend it is also very important. I look forward to campaigning with him for a council that can really deliver for the people of Blackpool over the coming months.
Mr Speaker
Based on these answers, I hope we are not going to have this for the next two years.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Highway maintenance funding continues to be cut for the remainder of this Parliament, resulting in over a tenth of our roads falling into poor condition. When will the Minister finally bring our roads up to the standards that people expect?
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady should reflect on the fact that we have put £5 billion into pothole funding between 2020 and 2025, with millions of potholes being filled every year. The three-year settlement for highways maintenance announced in the spending review is there, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), I will be pushing the Treasury for more money to go in this direction.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
The railway needs fundamental reform and, last month, I set out how this Government will deliver it. We will move towards a more customer-focused and commercially led industry, bringing track and train together through the creation of Great British Railways as a new guiding mind for the sector. While we move forward with reform, the Government continue to hold both train operators and Network Rail to account to deliver the punctual and reliable services that passengers and taxpayers rightly expect.
Paul Howell
Modernisation takes many forms and, in my constituency of Sedgefield, we eagerly await the modernisation of infrastructure through Ferryhill station’s bid under the Restoring Your Railways scheme, which will be the first stage on the Leamside line. We also have Hitachi Rail, which has played a significant role in levelling up the north-east since the factory was opened by the Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron in 2015. Hitachi has created 800 highly-skilled jobs in the region since that factory opened, and is also driving vital innovation in battery and digital technology to modernise the railways. I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that his Department will make prompt decisions on the business cases under Restoring Your Railways.
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] No, I will decide when you sit down. Sit! We are meant to be asking questions, not make a War and Peace statement before we get there. Come on, quickly.
Paul Howell
Apologies, Mr Speaker. To conclude, I ask my right hon. Friend to visit my constituency and see these outstanding opportunities.
Mr Harper
The Government recognise the contribution of Hitachi to the railway supply chain, particularly its success in winning 89% of long-distance orders since 2010, including the order for High Speed 2 rolling stock. It is important that the Government give full and careful consideration to business cases for new orders, to make sure that they offer best value to the taxpayer, and I recognise my hon. Friend’s continued support for the reopening of Ferryhill station, as well as the work undertaken by Network Rail and Durham County Council. The business case for that scheme has been updated and is being carefully considered by the Department, alongside all bids under the Restoring Your Railways scheme.
Mark Eastwood
After being inundated with complaints from the people of Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale, does my right hon. Friend agree that the TransPennine Express rail service is no longer fit for purpose?
Mr Harper
I welcome that question. I am clear, and have made it very clear to TP, that the current service is unacceptable. That company has delivered a detailed and measurable recovery plan aimed at building back a reliable service, but any substantial improvement to that service requires the co-operation of the trade unions, which is yet to be forthcoming. I have weekly meetings to monitor TP, and both I and the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), have recently met that company to discuss performance improvement. TP’s current contract expires on 28 May this year. The Department, in partnership with Transport for the North, will make decisions in due course and, of course, update the House accordingly.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
At the past two Transport questions, I have asked about Yorkshire’s railway network. In November, the Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), said that assessing options for a new station in Bradford was “an incredibly high priority”, and in January he told me that the Sheffield to Leeds route study would be out “shortly”. I have not heard anything more about either since. When can we expect some good news in Yorkshire?
Mr Harper
The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that we have made progress on that, and we are hoping to set out what will happen on that publicly in the very near future. He does not have too long to wait and I hope he will have news that he will welcome.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Network Rail has said that 278 miles of track must be electrified every year to reach net zero. Last year, the Government added only 1.4 miles of newly electrified track, including Bath, and we are still waiting for electrification. To meet our net zero targets, will the Secretary of State commit to electrifying all new railway lines?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady will know that we have electrified 1,200 miles of the rail network in Great Britain since 2010, and that work continues. We clearly think that electrifying the rail network is important for our net zero commitments, and we will continue to make progress. I hope she will welcome that.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
TransPennine Express has been providing unacceptable levels of service to the north and the midlands for years—well prior to covid—and now they are at truly dire levels. The operator of last resort has made it clear to the Transport Committee that it has capacity and can bring TransPennine Express under its remit. Is the Secretary of State confirming that for ideological reasons he will refuse to step in and provide a better service to the north and the midlands?
Mr Harper
First, in an earlier answer, I said that the service was currently unacceptable. One of the points I made is that, at the moment, ASLEF is refusing to do rest-day working, which is a significant problem. I did what I was asked to do and made sure that a more generous offer for rest-day working could be made. ASLEF is refusing to do so. It requires the co-operation of all involved in rail services to deliver a good service. On the specific contract, it expires on 28 May. We will make decisions and announce them to the House in due course, but I say to the hon. Lady that, if we take services into the operator of last resort, we take over all the things and take them with us. If we do not resolve the issues with the trade unions, then just taking in those services will not actually improve the services to passengers at all. Her obsession with nationalising things is ideological. We want to improve the services for passengers.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. The HS2 construction period extends beyond the horizon of the five-year funding cycles for Network Rail. When it comes to the existing railway, £44 billion has been committed from 2024 to 2029—a 4% real terms increase on maintenance and renewals to keep the railway running safely and reliably.
Geraint Davies
The Minister is aware of the compelling case for Wales to get its population share of HS2, which is £5 billion—particularly as Scotland has had its share—in the light of years of under-investment. He will also be aware that Transport for Wales has worked up £2.5 billion of projects to be delivered in the next 10 to 15 years. Will he commit his officials to working with Transport for Wales to look at joint working and joint funding to move ahead together, so that we can deliver higher productivity, move towards net zero and strengthen the Union? Can we meet in due course to discuss progress?
Huw Merriman
I very much enjoyed the meeting I had with the hon. Member and Professor Mark Barry in January. In regard to the point he makes about HS2, the UK Department for Transport is funded to spend money on heavy rail infrastructure in Wales, rather than the Welsh Government receiving Barnett-based funding. Conversely, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive receive Barnett-based funding, but rail in Scotland and Northern Ireland does not benefit from any UK Department for Transport spending. When it comes to the enhancement portfolio, which we are looking to publish shortly, we very much expect to be working with our partners across Wales, and I continue to make myself available to meet the hon. Member to hear his ideas.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Can the Minister confirm what plans he has for improving the midland main line and reopening the Ivanhoe line through North West Leicestershire? Has his Department done a cost-benefit analysis of full electrification of the midlands main line, and how does he think that might compare with the cost-benefits of the eastern leg of HS2, which is set to run from Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway?
Huw Merriman
The hon. Member makes the point and it is important that we link those projects together so that the full benefits of HS2 drive the enhancements we make to the existing railway, and indeed vice versa. I am happy to write to him to set out further details with regard to the projects he has mentioned.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
The Department requires HS2 Ltd to adopt and implement policies and practices to guard against fraud. HS2 Ltd has an experienced counter-fraud team to protect taxpayer funds against the threats of fraud, bribery, corruption and other malpractice. HS2 Ltd further works with the Department, the Public Sector Fraud Authority, law enforcement and supply chain partners to ensure that Government counter-fraud standards are met or exceeded.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My constituents in South Northamptonshire remain angry and disillusioned about not just the way that their reasonable requests for proper mitigation and compensation are ignored and delayed by HS2, but the huge amount of waste they see daily. I would like the Minister to expand on how, with costs spiralling out of control, he will deliver good value for taxpayers’ money.
Huw Merriman
I have every sympathy with the constituents of my right hon. Friend and others on the line of route. There is disruption, but we seek to minimise and mitigate it. I am aware of the area she represents as my family live close by. I have a meeting with her and officials next week to go through cases she has. I would just say that HS2 will really deliver for this country: 30,000 people employed; 2,500 businesses supporting HS2; 97% of that supply chain in the UK. There are impacts, but there will also be great delivery once the line is built.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
As the Minister will know, plans for the construction of HS2 to Manchester involve the severing and mothballing of the Metrolink line through my constituency to Ashton-under-Lyne. We have put a sensible counter-proposal to HS2 to keep that line open and provide a new depot for the maintenance and storage of the trams. HS2 says that it will cost so much money to do that—more than the cost of installing the entire Metrolink line in the first place—that it cannot be done. What actual oversight is there of the fantasy figures coming out of HS2?
Huw Merriman
There is great oversight of the figures. It relates to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). A report is put out every six months to show the transparency and we do bear down on costs. With regard to the matter mentioned by the hon. Member, I have been to Manchester and heard about the issues there. The problem is that the current two depots are on one side; it would actually make more sense, when the line is built, for them to be on either side. I know that officials from HS2 and the Department for Transport are in discussions with the team in Greater Manchester. The matter is before the Bill Committee, so it would not be appropriate for me to go into further detail.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
Southeastern’s new timetable was designed to improve resilience. The operator faced some initial challenges introducing the new timetable, so established a joint taskforce with Network Rail to identify and resolve issues. Changes have already been made, including adding services and carriages where required and we are already seeing an improvement. The taskforce will continue to monitor performance and make changes as required.
Clive Efford
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer and for his letter of the 28th of last month, but, as he will know, that very evening, there was yet another dangerous incident at London Bridge due to overcrowding. On 7 February, I was on a train which, due to delayed trains, was so overcrowded that someone fainted in my carriage. The system has been cut back to the point where there is no slack in it. Whenever there is a delay, there is dangerous overcrowding. The Minister has to address that before something serious happens to an individual. We were told that there would be no delays when the new system was brought in, because it would be so efficient that we would not have any of that congestion, but it has been worse. The Minister has to face up to that. He gave Southeastern permission to do that. We need to change the timetable.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Member will be receiving another letter from me this morning, because I have always said that I would listen, as did the Secretary of State, and that we would try to make improvements as the case was demonstrated. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who have met me and the Secretary of State to make the case for their constituents. I can confirm that we have agreed to the reinstatement of a direct off-peak service to Charing Cross on the Bexleyheath line, which will run hourly, Monday to Saturday. This service will be in addition to the current timetable, meaning a total of 309 services will operate each week direct to and from Charing Cross on this line. I hope the hon. Member will welcome that good news.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
If the Minister had been on the 8.27 from Chislehurst today, he would not have seen very much by way of improvements, that is for sure, because it ran late, as ever. Is not the problem that, because of the loss of direct services on the Hayes line into Charing Cross and equally the cutback in direct services on the north Kent line into Cannon Street, unsustainable numbers of people are having to change trains at London Bridge? I have seen the chaos there, and I have actually stood outside the station, because it has had to be closed on occasions. It is not safe, Minister. At some point, somebody will get injured or killed as a result of this.
Sir Robert Neill
Will the Minister please get officials to sit down with south-east London MPs and get this sorted out?
Huw Merriman
Of course, I am very sorry about that issue. As my hon. Friend points out, there was a points failure, which caused issues in terms of crowd controls at London Bridge. I have spoken to Network Rail and it is looking to work with Transport for London, which of course has experience of overcrowded tubes, and we will learn lessons from that. However, I also hope that he will have heard about the changes we are making. The timetable change was brought in to try to add more resilience and to reduce cancellations, but we have got issues with Network Rail infrastructure and of course we have industrial action. All those matters I seek to resolve.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
First, may I pay my respects following the tragic rail crash in Greece? I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with our Greek friends.
Last year, the Minister oversaw timetable changes on Southeastern routes, but the Government refused to consult on those changes because they did not want to listen to passengers. In a parliamentary debate in December, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), I and indeed hon. Members from across the House warned the Minister that the upcoming changes and cancellations of Southeastern routes would be bad for passengers and would lead to overcrowding, but he did not listen. Now that these changes have caused the predictable chaos he was warned about, will the Minister finally listen and end the misery this Government are inflicting upon Southeastern passengers?
Huw Merriman
That is patently not the case, because during that debate I made it quite clear that consultations would be better than they had been. I also made it quite clear that I would listen and, if the case were made to change the timetable, I would do so. This morning—obviously, earlier than the lines that have been written—we announced that these changes had been made. In fact, the very first individuals to be made aware of that were the MPs. They have had that information first; it is important to me that they receive that information first. We will continue to listen and learn. We had to make savings on Southeastern, and £10 million was taken off. The savings are because season tickets collapsed to 32% of pre-covid levels. If the hon. Member is pledging to fund the railway no matter what and make no changes—
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, I think we have got the message. Can I just say to Members that this is about equality in going from one side to the other? I know it is important, and I am sure if you catch my eye during topicals you may have a chance of getting in then, but do not glare at me because I am trying to be politically right for both sides.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” It is quite clear that patterns of business travel have changed dramatically post covid, yet when I asked the Minister this week about the balance between first class and standard class travel in the north and the midlands, not only did he not know, but he did not even seem to be interested. Will the Minister now, with these changing business patterns, re-examine the case for HS2, or is he just frightened of the answer?
Huw Merriman
I am not frightened of the answer at all. I am an advocate for HS2 because, as I have mentioned, it will level up the country, interconnect our great cities, reduce the time for a train to Manchester by 54 minutes to one hour and 11 minutes, and deliver not just jobs for this country, but jobs we can export to other high-speed rail lines across the world.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
Me again, Mr Speaker.
The Government recognise the importance of the rolling stock supply chain on both the national and local economies. Since 2010, over 5,300 vehicles ordered by train operators in the UK have been assembled at manufacturing facilities across the country, reflecting in the region of £10.6 billion on orders for rolling stock built in the UK since 2010.
Mrs Hodgson
As we have already heard this morning, Hitachi Rail is one of the anchors of north-east manufacturing expertise and innovation, supporting hundreds of jobs at the Newton Aycliffe site and thousands more in the wider supply chain, and it is incredible that the north-east will have a role in manufacturing the UK’s very first high speed trains for HS2. However, in the interim will the Minister now provide urgent clarity on the short-term rolling stock pipeline so that this exemplar of north-east manufacturing continues to support regional and economic growth long into the future?
Huw Merriman
I was up in the north-east, in Tyne and Wear, last week, where it was a pleasure to meet the Tyne and Wear Metro Nexus team as they unveiled their new Class 555 trains, and I wish them well in that endeavour. Hitachi was one of the bidders for that and of course over 1,000 carriages have been built at the Newton Aycliffe plant, including orders for Great Western, TransPennine Express, East Midlands Railway and West Coast. I will happily write to the hon. Lady to give her the answer she seeks, but I assure her that I am supportive of all our great railway manufacturers in this country.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Last month I was delighted to visit the Hitachi Rail manufacturing facility in Newton Aycliffe, where 800 highly skilled employees are delivering world-class manufacturing excellence. They told me that they need certainty from the Government, but briefings, leaks and rumour about the future of HS2 are pouring out of this Department. Will the Minister categorically deny that his Department is working on any plans that would slash what is left of the eastern leg and leave Yorkshire and the north-east permanently entirely cut off by cutting high-speed platforms at Euston?
Huw Merriman
I hope I made it clear, in answer to one of the hon. Member’s colleagues who was not as supportive of HS2 as I am, that we are absolutely committed to delivering HS2 trains from London to Manchester and going over to the east as well, but of course we have to look at cost pressures. It is absolutely right that HS2 focuses on costs; that should be expected of the Government and the taxpayer. We will continue to do so, but I can tell the hon. Member that I am absolutely committed, as are the Secretary of State and the entire Department, to delivering HS2 and the benefits for this country.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Mark Harper)
It may interest the House to know that today the Government are investing £25 million to roll out 170 zero- emission buses on to our streets. They are built in Northern Ireland by Wrightbus, which I visited just a few weeks ago, and these buses will benefit passengers and communities across Yorkshire, Norfolk and Hampshire, showing how we are pulling together as a Union to decarbonise transport. We have had a lot of conversations about buses, so it is also worth noting that we have extended the bus recovery grant and the popular £2 fare cap, renewing our commitment to the bus sector, getting more passengers on board and helping the public with the cost of living.
Chi Onwurah
In Newcastle, we need reliable, affordable and accessible bus services, but all we get is lame excuses and short-term sticking plasters. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the bus recovery grant will be extended past June, and when will he make the much-promised, long overdue payment of £163 million to Transport North East so that it can improve services?
Mr Harper
We have extended the bus recovery grant for a further quarter and extended the £2 fare cap, which has been very popular. We are currently working on our plans subsequent to June, but the hon. Member will know that we work very closely with devolved Metro Mayors across the country to devolve central Government funding to them so that they can make the right decisions for their local areas, and we will make further announcements in due course.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I welcome the work of the Harrogate Youth Council. They should be aware that 95% of buses have CCTV. The trains I mentioned coming up to Tyne and Wear have been designed to contain and reduce antisocial behaviour. What I would really love to do is take the Harrogate Youth Council’s ideas and, when I meet the British Transport police chief constable next week, try to match them and feed back to my hon. Friend.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Sir Chris Bryant
That would be unfair. Maybe three, even. But they keep offering a meeting to bring together the Welsh Government, the British Government and the local authorities that are interested in the Rhondda tunnel. This has been going on forever and I never, ever get that meeting. When is it going to happen?
Huw Merriman
I hope I am not the one the hon. Gentleman does not like. I can assure him that if he checks his box, he will find an invitation from the roads Minister, the Minister responsible for this at the Department for Transport, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), to meet him and the team from Wales. I hope that he will then be very happy indeed and that we meet his expectations.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Mr Harper
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. About 60% of journeys are made by car, and the car remains incredibly important, particularly in rural areas like his and mine in Gloucestershire. Almost half the Government’s budget for investing in the strategic road network is for renewing, maintaining and operating existing network, but he makes a very good point about ensuring that, as we develop communities and businesses, the road infrastructure is adequate for those developments. I have noted his point carefully and will discuss it with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in due course.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
I would be delighted to. I speak to National Highways on a regular basis. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s point and write to him.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
National Highways has a statutory responsibility in many planning applications, but it seems to be very tardy in coming to conclusions, particularly on the Brocks Pine surf reef application, off the A31, which has now been more than 18 months in indecision. What will be done to ensure that National Highways gets on with it and takes a decision, either yes or no?
Mr Holden
National Highways has been working with the applicant and its transport consultants to resolve questions on this development. The applicant has not yet provided National Highways with the information it needs to enable it to provide a recommendation. I will write to him when it does so.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Holden
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the Windsor framework, which is a fantastic agreement with the European Union to resolve the issues that resulted from the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope every Member of this House will welcome it in due course when they have had time to study it. His point about Wales was, I think, answered by the rail Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). We work very closely with the Welsh Government. We are looking at improvements in the rail network enhancement plan and will make announcements in due course.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Many people in England pay an additional road tax to cross a river, be it the Humber, the Thames, the Tyne, the Mersey, the Trent, the Itchen or the Tamar. In 2020, a freedom of information request revealed that National Highways is responsible for maintaining 9,392 road bridges already. Will the Department investigate bringing all crossings on main routes under National Highways control?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend is a champion for the people of Cornwall. The Department has no plans to introduce tolls anywhere else on the strategic road network, which is a long-standing Government policy. The provision, upkeep and operation of significant crossings is funded by toll incomes at local level, but as always, I would be happy to meet her to discuss that specific local issue.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Huw Merriman
I am happy to meet the hon. Member. I recently had a tour around both the options for East West Rail as it comes into Cambridge. I know that he has issues with residents with properties on the line of route, and I am happy to discuss those cases with him so that I can better advise him and his constituents on how they can get help.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Could the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), tell me the benefits that my constituents will see with the recent award of the South Western Railway contract to FirstGroup and MTR? I would be particularly keen to understand whether the accessible footbridge for Dorchester South station is contained within it.
Huw Merriman
On my hon. Friend’s second point, Dorchester South station is one of 300 applications for the Access For All tranche, which will be announced later this year. I assure him that South Western Railway passengers will gain benefits from the continuity of the service provider, including better real-time information to passengers and other changes that we have in mind to improve the passenger experience. I look forward to working with him on this matter.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The Minister and I have spoken almost daily about the Melton bypass. Could he update me on his conversations with the Treasury about that? I also thank the Government for the five upgrades that they have delivered to the A1, where work has now started.
Mr Holden
I am delighted that my hon. Friend is pleased with the work that we are doing. She has been a real champion of it and has never failed to bend my ear at every opportunity. I hope to make a further announcement on this matter shortly.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I am worried that the Minister did not listen to concerns about the Southeastern timetable from both sides of the House. I travel from St Johns and every single day there are delays and overcrowding. The timetable changes were not consulted on. It is good that Ministers announced some changes, but why not reverse them all and do the right thing? The service was better before.
Huw Merriman
I reiterate that when season tickets are reduced by the figures that we have seen—32% compared with pre-covid levels—we have to make changes to add more resilience, to ensure that trains do not have to cross lines, to reduce cancellations and to improve punctuality. I am meeting the hon. Member and her rail service groups because I do listen and, as has been reflected today, I will make changes where they make sense.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
My hard-pressed constituents are still suffering a totally unacceptable number of cancelled rail services by TransPennine Express every morning—just yesterday from Huddersfield, the 6.49, the 7.01, the 7.30, and the 7.46. How on earth are my constituents expected to get to work, school, college or university? When will TransPennine Express get a grip and when will we strip them of the franchise?
Huw Merriman
As the Secretary of State made clear, we should all try to fix the systemic problems that exist on the route. Let me give one example: at the moment, when a driver calls in sick—and there are sickness rates of 14%—another driver will cover it only if they are working under rest day working. However, the unions will not agree to rest day working, so the train gets cancelled. If hon. Members are interested in fixing these issues, they should look at the parties responsible and not just at the operator.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Further to Question 4, the Minister will be aware of plans to significantly increase flights in and out of London City airport over my constituency and many others in east and south London. Can he assure the House that a decision on the matter will not be made while the Civil Aviation Authority’s survey of noise pollution is still being conducted?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I obviously cannot comment on the situation at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. If he wishes to take the matter up with the aviation Minister, I am sure that she would welcome it.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
What is the Minister doing to ensure there is better information sharing among councils to deliver safer taxi and private hire services across the country?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend will know that his local council, Bolton, is one of the best at information sharing with respect to taxi driving licences across the country. I hope that councils such as Birmingham, Manchester, Sefton, Newcastle and Liverpool will get on board with the voluntary scheme before the mandatory element kicks in soon, because we should not leave people at risk on our services.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
When I met the Minister, he gave me assurances that Southeastern timetables would improve in Erith and Thamesmead. He mentioned this morning that all south-east London MPs had received an update. I am one of the MPs who has not. There is an impact on my constituency, so I would like to know why I have not received that update. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has kindly shown me the letter, which partially addresses some of the issues with off-peak services on the Bexley line, but does not address over- crowding across the board, most of which occurs during peak times. Will the Minister look into the matter urgently?
Huw Merriman
The email with the letter will have been sent to four hon. Members; the hon. Lady is one of them. If it has not yet got through, I suspect that that is because of a systems issue rather than anything else, but as soon as I leave the Chamber I will make sure that she gets it. I make the point again that I am a user of Southeastern and of London Bridge, and I am aware of the issues. We will continue to reflect, adapt and change where the case is made—I assure the hon. Lady of that.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The roads Minister is aware of my campaign to upgrade junctions 28 and 29 of the M1. Will he commit to visiting both junctions and meeting local stakeholders?
Mr Holden
I would be absolutely delighted: I regularly drive on that road and it almost feels as if I have been meeting them, given the slowness of the traffic, particularly at junction 28. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the area to discuss the matter further.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the plans being developed at the University of Sheffield’s advanced manufacturing research centre, with Boeing, to research and potentially to manufacture ultra-lightweight materials for planes. If not, would he like to visit Sheffield to meet the relevant parties and better inform himself of a development that could be really exciting not just for Sheffield, but for the whole UK?
Jesse Norman
I am sure that the aviation Minister in the Lords will be interested. I certainly have an interest, as the former aviation Minister at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who was responsible for the Aerospace Technology Institute. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman of my interest in the matter, and let us take it up further outside the House.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I wish Ministers had seen me trying to drag a baby, a toddler and a buggy up and down the steps at Stroud station as part of my campaign for accessibility measures. I am able-bodied, so it is even more difficult for people with disabilities and elderly people. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Access for All scheme so that I can go back to Great Western Railway and give an update?
Mr Harper
I am grateful for that question from my constituency neighbour across the River Severn. We have spent £900 million on Access for All accessibility upgrades. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her specific proposals for Stroud station.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
May I place on the record my thanks and gratitude to the Department, and to the Secretary of State in particular, for his visit to Wrightbus and for this morning’s announcement of more than £25 million of investment in jobs there? Those jobs will create opportunities for transport in Norfolk, Yorkshire, Portsmouth, Hampshire and York. What a fantastic announcement—I congratulate him on that wonderful news. We have the best product being made by the best workers for everyone across the United Kingdom.
Mr Harper
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I hugely enjoyed my visit last month to Wrightbus, a very impressive company that has grown tremendously over the last few years and is both developing electric buses and working on hydrogen developments. It is fulfilling part of our wish to decarbonise the transport network, and it is also fantastic to see it demonstrating the importance of our Union in delivering on our net zero commitments.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his recent visit to my constituency. Does he agree that the proposal to invest £100 million in a new bus and tram interchange for Bury town centre is an excellent example of the way in which transport investment can level up all parts of the country?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend has made a massive case for investment in his constituency, including Bury market and this new transport infrastructure, which is indeed a great example. I will be meeting officials from Transport for Greater Manchester again in the near future, and will keep my hon. Friend up to date on progress. The excellent work that he does in his constituency does not go unnoticed.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Thanks to the Scottish Government’s help with the cost of living crisis and their promotion of sustainable public transport, about 23 million free bus journeys have been made by people aged under 22 across Scotland. That has undoubtedly benefited not only those young people and their pockets, but the environment. What plans does the Minister have to replicate this successful Scottish Government policy in England?
Mr Holden
All the bus service investment plans across the country contain individual plans tailored for the regions, and that includes the provision of youth services. The British Government are doing it on a tailored basis in accordance with local need. That is where I think those decisions should be taken.
Clive Efford
Yes, Mr Speaker. In his answer to me, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned that he was sending a letter to Members who were affected by the changes that he had announced. When I looked at my emails later, I noted that that communication had been sent at the exact moment I sat down after asking my question, which denied me the opportunity to quiz the Minister further about his announcement. While the off-peak services to Charing Cross are welcome, he has not dealt with the overcrowding at peak times. I do not know how I can obtain redress for this, Mr Speaker, but at least I have put it on the record.
Huw Merriman
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have heard what the hon. Member has said, and I shall be happy to meet him if he wants to discuss the matter further. However, I feel pleased that I have been able both to write to him and to address his concerns in the Chamber.
Business of the House
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 6 March will include the following:
Monday 6 March—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No.2) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.
Tuesday 7 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Public Order Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023, followed by a motion to approve the Non-Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement and Amendment Regulations 2023.
Wednesday 8 March—Estimates day. There will be debates on estimates relating to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in so far as it relates to adult social care; and the Department for Education, in so far as it relates to childcare and early years. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 9 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, followed by a general debate on International Women’s Day, followed by a general debate on brain tumour research funding. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 March—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 March includes the following:
Monday 13 March—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
I also remind colleagues that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement on Wednesday 15 March.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister announced proposals for a public advocate to act on behalf of the victims and the bereaved after public disasters like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing and Grenfell, but I am afraid that, unlike the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the public advocate will have no independence, there will be no data controller and they will not act only at the behest of families—they will effectively be directed by the Secretary of State. Anyone who has been following the infected blood scandal, for example, knows that a public advocate has to be truly independent. It should have been clear to the Deputy Prime Minister from the response to his statement that MPs on both sides of the House want him to go much further. Even Members on his own side raised significant concerns.
If the Deputy Prime Minister will not listen to the Labour Member for Garston and Halewood, who has worked tirelessly, will he listen to his own Back Benchers, including a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and beef up his proposals? Will the Leader of the House please make it clear to the Deputy Prime Minister that this House wants justice for victims and the bereaved?
Labour’s successful motion on Tuesday called on the Government to end the 200-year-old non-domiciled tax status, which costs taxpayers £3.2 billion a year. The next Labour Government will end that tax dodge and invest part of the money in one of the biggest NHS workforce expansions in history, as part of Labour’s plan to grasp the root cause of the crisis in the NHS. The Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Tory party did not even bother to turn up to vote. They sided with wealthy tax avoiders over NHS patients and staff. I wonder why.
I asked the Leader of the House to explain to her constituents why she did not support a similar Labour motion last year. Unsurprisingly, she did not answer at business questions then, so perhaps she will have a go now. Why, in January alone, did more than 5,500 of her constituents and 7,000 of mine have to wait more than two weeks to see a general practitioner? If she will not admit the sorry state to which the Tories have brought the NHS, may I suggest that she at least goes back to the Cabinet to demand that the Government respect the will of this House and implement Labour’s plan to invest in the NHS workforce?
After that, we set out our plan to get Britain back to work. Recent employment support schemes have underperformed and underspent. As a result, the number of economically inactive people is higher than before the pandemic. What will the Government do about it? Labour is calling for the reform of disability benefit assessments, targeted help for people over 50 and those who have long-term ill health, and the devolution of employment support to local areas. Who could disagree with that? Well, not some Tory Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), the leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, has said as much:
“Fixing economic inactivity needs a radical pro-devolution mindset.”
That is all part of Labour’s plan to grow the economy and to boost public finances and household incomes. Does the Leader of the House also agree with Labour? If not, where is the Government’s plan?
The right hon. Lady knows the importance I place on our role as scrutinisers. That includes timely and good-quality answers to written parliamentary questions. Why, to take one example, cannot my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, get answers on whether the Government’s existing policies are even making a difference? He has asked, among many other questions: how many people secure a job after taking part in the sector-based work academy programme? How much funding is allocated to each jobcentre? How many universal credit claimants are undertaking training or education that counts towards their work-related requirements? The list of unanswered questions goes on.
Perhaps the Leader of the House could give this a go, because responses such as “This information is not available,” “The information is not collated,” and, “No such specific assessment has been made,” are very familiar to Members on both sides of the House, but they are not good enough. Will she remind Ministers that they need to answer the questions they are asked? If Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions are not confident about their policies, perhaps they ought to clear their desks and make way for Labour’s brilliant Work and Pensions team, which has a bold plan to get Britain back to work.
I end with another simple request. After the ministerial merry-go-round of the last few years, I might have thought the Minister for the Cabinet Office would be a dab hand at updating the list of ministerial responsibilities. It is essential that MPs, staff and our constituents have a clear understanding of who is responsible for what and how best to contact them. Following the latest reshuffle and Whitehall restructuring, I asked the Cabinet Office for an update, and I was told that one will be published in due course. That was more than 10 days ago. Will the Leader of the House give the Minister for the Cabinet Office a nudge? “In due course.” “Soon.” “Before too long.” That sort of language sums up the Tories’ answers to everything. “Just wait a little longer and it will all be okay,” is what they seem to think. We have had 13 years of this stuff. The British people should not have to wait longer. It is time for a fresh start and a Labour Government.
Penny Mordaunt
First, let me take this opportunity to place on the record, as I have been unable to do so this week, the fact that my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the appalling train accident in Greece. I know that all Members would want to join me in that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I will run through the questions that the hon. Lady has asked me. With regard to the Deputy Prime Minister, there was a statement, in which he would have heard what Members have said and listened to their concerns. However, I will be happy to write to him and make sure that he knows that she has raised the matter this week.
As for the rhetoric we have had from Labour on national missions, I just say to the hon. Lady that a national mission for this country should be the strength of our NHS. If she really wants to get all minds working on that, across all sectors—public, private, philanthropic and charitable—just repeating the rhetoric that large swathes of the population do not care about the NHS is not helpful. We care very much about the NHS. Our record on investment speaks for itself, and she will know that a huge amount of work is ongoing to deal with the very real problem of backlogs because of the pandemic.
The hon. Lady could have spoken about the 92 community diagnostic centres that are open, with diagnostics being one of the main reasons why we still have those waiting list backlogs. She will know that we have massively increased access to GP appointments, with their number per day having increased by 120,000 since this time last year. That is due to the hard work of healthcare professionals, the modernisation that has been adopted, and the hard work of the Secretary of State and his team. She could acknowledge that and move the debate on from some rather outdated rhetoric. I will encourage Labour to do that at every business questions, in all other areas as well.
The hon. Lady invites comparison between the work of the Department for Work and Pensions now and the record of that Department under the last Labour Government, and indeed of the whole Government. I just remind her that we have got 4 million additional people into the workplace, with 2 million being women and 1 million being disabled people who would not otherwise have had those opportunities to work.
I welcome the hon. Lady’s gentle encouragement about the performance of Whitehall Departments. She knows that I take this matter very seriously. I have had permanent secretaries come to see me in my office, particularly, in recent times, the permanent secretary at the Home Office. She will know that we have achieved on the backlog on those questions and the casework that is so important to us in this place—70,000 more pieces of correspondence have been dealt with since this matter was raised in this House. Both Lord True, the Leader of the House of Lords, and I will be seeing all permanent secretaries next week, and we have a list of suggestions on how things can be improved. I will always want Members of this House to have timely access to information, and I shall continue to operate on that basis.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will know, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is a warm and friendly ensemble of parliamentarians, which Ministers enjoy appearing before. I pay tribute to her for doing so, and to all current Cabinet Office Ministers, but is she aware that sometimes our cordial invitation falls on deaf ears when the Ministers concerned are in different Departments but there are matter of interest to our Committee and this House? While she is writing down her little list, may I ask her to add to it the need to remind her colleagues on the Treasury Bench that they should put scrutiny before this House as the foremost obligation in their in-trays?
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, may I also—to prove that I am in a good and charitable mood this morning—wish my right hon. Friend a very happy birthday for this weekend? It would be ungallant of me to say the age but, frankly, I cannot believe it.
Penny Mordaunt
I am the grand old age of twenty-thirty this weekend. I thank my hon. Friend for that very kind remark. He will know that, having been a frequent flyer before his Committee, I take what he says very seriously. I shall certainly ensure that any Secretary of State whom he has invited to give evidence is encouraged to do so.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I am glad to see the Leader of the House in her place today—she has not been tempted away to the seaside, I believe, with her colleagues on their away day. Many happy returns for the weekend as well.
It is perhaps no surprise that the Prime Minister scheduled the away day on a business day. Let us face it, folk are starting to notice that there is an extremely light hand on the Government’s legislative tiller these days. Last night, again, business finished early, and it is happening more often despite the big backlog of Bills, along with last-minute filler debates. It surely exposes the Government as not being in control of their agenda or their Back Benchers.
This Parliament is almost unique in the world for the Government being able to control almost all the business of the House. The Leader of the House might point to Backbench or Opposition Day debates, but the Government can and do unilaterally decide to shift those debates as they see fit. Many other Parliaments have cross-party bureaux or corporate bodies that determine business, so why not this place? Why not explore an amendable and votable business statement, which would mean that Back Benchers from all parties could have some say in the final decisions, and that business would therefore reflect the majority view? If the Government cannot do the job, I am sure that the rest of the House would gladly take it on. Yes, even the SNP, as we work under the constraints of this place—before we leave for our independent Scotland.
The Leader of the House gave a speech yesterday entitled “Trust in Britain”—a bold heading these days. I agreed with quite a few of her points, including on the importance of freedom, for example, even while I marvelled at her ability to separate her Government and her party from blame for the problems that they have caused. She acknowledged that Parliaments are struggling to be effective and relevant in the modern world. Will she take up the challenge to reform, shake up and place her stamp on this issue? I would recommend the report from University College London’s constitution unit, called “Taking back control”—she would like it.
Secondly, there is some good news about Scotland, which I am sure the Leader of the House will welcome. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the Scottish Government’s recent Budget means that the poorest 10% of Scottish families are set to be £580 a year better off than their counterparts in England and Wales. Can we have a debate on what the UK Government can learn from Scotland on protecting the most vulnerable? Surely they are prepared to learn from others on this issue.
Finally, I have a request for the Leader of the House, who likes to use these weekly important business questions —ostensibly about the conduct of her own Government —to answer the questions that she is asked rather than use it purely as a pulpit to attack other democratically elected Governments across the UK. She really needs to understand that the purpose of her being here is to answer for her own Government’s actions, even if that is, understandably, depressing for her.
Penny Mordaunt
Mr Speaker, I want it to be placed on record that the hon. Lady has asked me three questions, and I anticipate that I may have more questions from her honourable colleagues. As a consequence, I would like it placed on record that my space is no longer safe, but I will soldier on. May I just welcome the SNP’s U-turn on allowing media access to their leadership contest hustings and not restricting the candidates to just one question.
Let me turn now, ruthlessly focused, to the three questions that the hon. Lady has asked me this week. She says that we have no business going through the House at the moment. We do have some big Bills to come, and she will know that we have many Bills currently waiting with their lordships. Part of the reason we have not been sitting through the night is that there is quite a lot of agreement in the House about the legislation that the Government are passing. We have had a lot of support from the Opposition Benches, which is partly why she is not having to sit for longer hours and do more.
The hon. Lady asks why we do not have an amendable business statement. I understand why an SNP Member would ask that question, because to the SNP, government is about virtue signalling, dividing nations and political posturing, but government is actually about getting things done and passing legislation. For that reason, we are concerned to control the Floor of the House to ensure that we get done what the people of the country voted for. She and her colleagues might like to try that sometime.
Finally, the hon. Lady said that her constituents were much better off than those in other parts of the UK. I gently point out that her stated policy would make them considerably worse off, because if we ever did have Scottish independence—God forbid—they would immediately lose £2,000 a head, which is the calculated cost of independence to every man, woman and child in Scotland.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
May we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the disaster that is the ultra low emission zone and the discussions that he has had with Mayor Khan about his friends, family and funeral tax, which will have a huge impact on constituencies in outer London and its borders? The expansion of the ULEZ has more to do with raising funds than with improving air quality.
Penny Mordaunt
That is a recurring theme, and the concern is shared by not only Conservative politicians in this place but many politicians of all hues. When Commons business questions sounds more and more like London Assembly questions, something is going badly wrong in London.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Yesterday, at the Women and Equalities Committee, the Minister for Women and Equalities suggested that the recommendations of the Committee’s recent report on the menopause were driven by “a left-wing perspective”. The Committee is cross-party and the report reflected evidence taken from external bodies and individuals. May we have a statement on the appropriateness of a Minister accusing a Select Committee of political bias?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I say to the hon. Lady, who has campaigned so much on that issue, that I do not think that is quite what the Minister said; I think she was talking about an approach to a particular aspect of policy and the Government-run pilot on menopause leave.
On the substance of the policy, however, the hon. Lady knows better than anyone how the Government propose to take the issue forward. We have massive cross-party consensus on it, which is welcome—as a post-menopausal woman, I can tell hon. Members that it is about blinking time. As she knows, the clinical lead who will take it forward will look at what is happening in workplaces and what is good practice, and there will be measures to ensure that all employers are adopting those sensible approaches, which is what we should be focusing on. I want us to continue working cross-party on the issue for women who are yet to go through what we have been through.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Can we have an early debate in Government time on how this House can continue to hold the Government to account and scrutinise their actions, when we seem to be in an era of government-by-WhatsApp, which is secretive and irrational, and is denying us our opportunity to hold the Government to account on an evidence basis?
Penny Mordaunt
I would first point out that it is a good week to say that WhatsApp is secretive. This is deeply regrettable, I think. I would just hope that, on such serious matters as the covid inquiry, the Westminster bubble can rise to the challenge of dealing with this in the manner in which it deserves to be approached.
My hon. Friend will know that the Cabinet Office has very clear policies about WhatsApp messages—what can be decided and how those things are captured and stored—and my understanding is that people’s WhatsApp messages have been captured, and are being captured, for that covid inquiry.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
By the time that we come to deal with the alternative fuel payment pass-through requirement regulations on Tuesday, can the Leader of the House assure me that the Minister will be able to answer the very basic questions that my constituents are asking?
The payments started landing last week, and people who did not expect to get them are getting them, while people who are obviously entitled to them are not. I am being inundated with questions, with people asking me whether that money will be clawed back. They will want answers to those questions. They should have had them by now, but will they at least get them next Tuesday?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that important question, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said today. Anticipating this type of question, I did look at what was on gov.uk, and if one searches for “help with your fuel bills”, there is quite a comprehensive set of answers on there, including for this new scheme. However, if there are specifics that he needs in a timely way, before he has a chance to speak to the Secretary of State directly, I ask him to please let me know, and I will do my best to ensure that he gets answers.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Can we have a debate on the blight of litter and fly-tipping, and its effect on our communities? Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the Huddersfield Litter Bandits, the Holmepride community group, the Honley village volunteers, and many more, who are going out and clearing up other people’s mess? Finally, would she join me in supporting the Kirklees Conservative group, which is proposing longer opening hours at recycling centres to help tackle, in part, the blight of fly-tipping.
Penny Mordaunt
I am very pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those community organisations that care so much about their local environment. I thank them for all their work. Indeed, my hon. Friend’s Conservative group is absolutely right. Part of solving this problem is to make it easier for people to deposit their rubbish in appropriate places. I wish them good luck, and hope that common sense prevails.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Although not announced today, I understand that the small-boats legislation will be coming to the House shortly. The Home Affairs Committee carried out a two-year inquiry into the small-boats issue and made a number of recommendations, some of which the Government are now taking up, including dealing with the asylum backlog. We also visited northern France in January to look at what was happening on the ground.
May I suggest to the Leader of the House that it might be helpful if the Home Affairs Committee did some pre-legislative scrutiny of the small-boats legislation? We want to ensure that the Bill is properly considered, looking at the evidence, as should happen with all Bills coming before this House. It might also help to avoid further legislation having to be brought forward again to deal with the same problem.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that and for illustrating the value of the work that Select Committees do in this place. A huge amount of work and thinking has been done, and I know that the Home Office will have looked at all those pieces of work in arriving at its conclusions. She will know that I will announce business in the usual way, but I would also just say to her that, as well as getting the Bill right—this is such an important matter for everyone in this country —we also need to get it done swiftly. I hope that she will look at the Bill and be content that it does the right things. I urge all Members of this House to pass it swiftly —with scrutiny, and with improvements, if necessary—when it arrives here.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
Further to that issue, in a week when we are told that the asylum applications of thousands of illegal economic migrants will be fast tracked, and when yet another hotel in my constituency has been taken to house illegal entrants to the UK, will the Leader of the House please confirm when we will get a chance to fast-track legislation that deters illegal entry to the UK by providing that anyone who arrives here illegally does not get a passport, and anyone arriving from a safe third country is immediately sent back there? I assure my right hon. Friend that, such is the appetite on the Conservative Benches, we would sit until any hour on any day to accommodate any timetable she may have to deal with this urgent matter.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman knows that we will bring forward a Bill that will do precisely as he asks. I am glad that we have it on record that he will support the Government.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House may be aware of an article in yesterday’s Financial Times about the funding cliff edge faced by universities across the United Kingdom at the end of structural funding in March, which will end 166 projects. In Swansea, we will be looking at a loss of 24 projects and 150 jobs, and she had promised to raise that issue with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, although there have been a couple of BEIS Secretaries since then. As that funding is desperately important for green growth—and shared prosperity funding goes to local authorities rather than to universities—will she urgently raise this matter with Cabinet colleagues, particularly those from the Treasury, ahead of the Budget, so that we can get the green growth research and development that we need to make Britain strong again?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has already raised that with the Chancellor but—belt and braces—I shall make sure that the Chancellor has heard him.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I was thrilled to see in the written ministerial statement that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the Ministry of Defence have jointly agreed to initiate a review into the outputs of Veterans UK. I place on the record my thanks to all Members who supported the survey of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans, including the hon. Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who are both here. May I also thank the Leader of the House for her support for that work, as well as the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who has done some outstanding work on this? The review is a great step forward for our veterans, and I look forward to seeing what it has to say.
Penny Mordaunt
May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work that he and his APPG have done? The survey had a good response, and it is welcome that it focused on all sorts of experiences, particularly the financial concerns that veterans have. I am glad that he has got his praise of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the MOD on the record. This is a step forward: we must ensure that everyone who has served this country is taken care of by this country.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
While we are celebrating, I welcome the Leader of the House to the twenty-thirties. Will she join me in congratulating Historic Environment Scotland on its announcement of the opening of more than 30 historic and ancient sites in Scotland—notably, the ancient Dumbarton Castle in my constituency—that have been closed owing to the impact of climate change? Can we have a debate about the impact of climate change on our historic environment and on how we can work together across these islands to maintain that historic environment for future generations?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue and for his kind remarks about my imminent birthday. He will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way, but I shall also make sure the Secretary of State has heard what he said.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on clean air charging zones? Parliament must not allow regional Mayors in areas such as Greater Manchester to impose excessive, economically damaging taxation on hard-working people during a cost of living crisis. The clean air zone in Greater Manchester and the ULEZ in London are a tax on jobs and aspiration and clearly not fit for purpose.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The focus of this and the reason it is a difficult issue is that we want to make progress on the environment, and we want people to be healthy, but that cannot be done through revenue raising exercises or clobbering households, tradesmen and businesses, which we know is happening. We need innovation and smart policies that allow the acceleration to take up new technologies or buy more recent vehicles, and one way we can do that is allowing businesses to have enough liquidity to invest in this new technology. Taking money off them is not the answer.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Following the question from the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), I also warmly welcome the Government’s statement today on welfare services for veterans in response to our APPG’s veterans survey. Can we have clarification on whether the review will independently analyse the armed forces compensation scheme and war pensions processes? Will the Leader of the House facilitate the meeting promised to me and members of the all-party group at the previous Defence questions?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for demonstrating the cross-party support that there is to look after our veterans. I shall certainly raise this with the MOD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. My understanding is that it is, but I shall confirm that.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Many of my constituents agreed to have a smart meter installed to receive data on real-time energy usage, which a growing number of people rely on to ensure they can effectively budget and find ways to reduce their energy bills, but British Gas only provides a 12-month warranty on its smart meter monitors, and if they break after that, customers cannot even pay to have a new monitor installed. British Gas claims that this is not a problem because people can access the data online or via a smartphone. However, as we know, many of our constituents are unable to use a computer or do not have a computer or a smartphone. Clearly, these people are being let down by their energy supplier, and they are struggling to budget for their bills. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on increasing the statutory minimum period during which energy firms must provide technical support for this technology, so that my constituents can trust that they can rely on a smart meter for more than 12 months?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for shining a spotlight on this. This situation is completely nuts. We have made huge efforts to get people on to smart meters, with all the benefits that it might bring them, and then they are unable to continue using them and have to take manual readings—it is an insane situation. He is right to point out that the legislation covers the first 12 months, but we have reserved the right to introduce further legislation if required. I sincerely hope that that will not be necessary, and I urge British Gas and other such companies to think about the service they are giving their customers, particularly those who have mobility issues and who do not have access to the internet. This is an easy thing to sort out, and they damn well should.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
If the Leader of the House was in the Chamber just before the start of business questions, she will have heard me raise a point of order on a letter I received from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), relating to an issue that I raised in Transport questions. He was announcing that we would get extra train services off-peak on our local lines and said he had written to four MPs. I received that letter just after I asked my question. It has now emerged that Conservative MPs who received that letter were tweeting about it at 9 am this morning. Clearly, there has been favourable treatment of Conservative Members over Opposition Members. As Leader of the House, what does she have to say about that?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman credits us with a level of organisation that would be surprising! In all seriousness, I shall certainly look into that on his behalf. We have just had Transport questions, he has made a point of order, and he has raised the issue with me. The hon. Gentleman has done his due diligence and duty, and I will certainly look into it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, the UK lost 370,000 businesses last year—that is a very big number. Many of those businesses went under because they were unable to cope with the rise in energy costs. In Bath, our business sector is rebounding well, with last year’s Christmas market raising £50 million for the local economy; however, it is extremely worrying that the Government are planning to jeopardise that recovery through cutting business energy support by 85% in April. Can we have a debate in Government time about this emerging national crisis?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that. Our business sector is incredibly resilient. We obviously supported businesses through the energy bill relief scheme, and as she will know, we are bringing in the energy bills discount scheme from April this year for the following 12 months. She will also know that the Budget is coming up, and I know that the Chancellor will be wanting to support local businesses in many ways. I encourage the hon. Lady to make representations to the Chancellor before the Budget.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Yesterday, during the urgent question on testing of care home residents during the covid pandemic, I asked a question of the Social Care Minister, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I raised the fact that on 2 April 2020, I wrote jointly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) to the former Health and Social Care Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), highlighting the urgent need for testing in care homes for staff and residents, and for patients being discharged from hospital. I also highlighted that in June 2021 I asked the right hon. Member for West Suffolk why the Government had not taken up the offer, made early in the pandemic by care providers, of new and unused care facilities to isolate people discharged from hospital before admitting them to care homes.
I have to say that the reply I got from the Social Care Minister yesterday was perfunctory, and overall her responses were lacking in empathy with the bereaved. These questions need to be debated now, in order to help the grieving families of the tens of thousands of residents and hundreds of staff of care homes who died after contracting covid. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on matters around the heavy death toll of residents and staff of care homes from covid?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that I am very aware not just of the formal correspondence that she received but, having spent much of the first year of the pandemic on the phone every day to colleagues from across this House on those early-morning calls, of all the concerns, representations and ideas that were forwarded by Members from across the House to the Government throughout that time.
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important that we have the covid inquiry, which will look at all of these matters. We also need, as has happened with the national resilience team in the Cabinet Office, to ensure that if—God forbid—a situation like that occurred again tomorrow, we would be in the best place and best prepared, and had had those immediate learnings. It is crucial that the covid inquiry is able to address those matters; speaking as someone who may be a witness to that inquiry, I think that is incredibly important. I will make sure that the Department of Health and Social Care has heard what the hon. Lady has said.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
This 20 March marks 20 years since the beginning of Operation Telic. Regardless of anyone’s views about the Iraq war, I am sure the Leader of the House will understand the importance of commemorating the service and sacrifice of the 179 brave servicemen and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. What plans do the Government have to ensure that those people are remembered, and what opportunities will there be for Members in this House to pay our respects?
Penny Mordaunt
May I first welcome this question from the hon. Gentleman? I also welcome that it is he who is asking this question, and I put on record our thanks, including to him personally for the service he gave in that part of the world. We are fortunate to have many Members in this place—about 10% of the Members of this House—to have served in our armed forces, and many of them will have been on Op Telic and served in that part of the world. He is right that it is incredibly important that we remember, educate, commemorate and give thanks for the service that was given, in particular by those 179 armed forces personnel who lost their lives. I know that Mr Speaker will be keen that we mark the anniversary in this place, and I shall write to the Ministry of Defence to make sure that it has heard the hon. Gentleman’s invitation today.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I have been campaigning on the fact that Scottish football fans have to pay to see the men’s national team on TV. Indeed, during a Scotland game, Scottish fans could turn on their TVs to see the England team on free-to-air television—heaven forfend. Today, the Scottish Affairs Committee published a report calling for that issue to be addressed. Can we have a debate on that report? Will the Leader of the House give the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) a nudge for me? Back on 1 December, her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) agreed to meet me to discuss this subject, but her successor has not yet replied to my letter asking her to honour that.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I encourage him to raise it at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions on 9 March, but I shall certainly ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said today.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be aware that there is extensive consensus across all parties to the effect that the homicidal maniacs and clerical fascists of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps should be proscribed and banned. I get that impression from Minister after Minister from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, who come to the Dispatch Box and express sympathy with proscribing the organisation, but it does not quite seem to happen. Has there been any indication from the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of State that they are about to make any kind of decision or an announcement from the Dispatch Box that we will finally ban the IRGC?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that very important matter. It is an opportunity to put on record that all Members of the House are deeply concerned by what is going on, and we will remain focused on exposing the brutality of what is happening. I can confirm that this matter is being looked at, and I shall certainly make sure that the FCDO and Secretary of State have heard his concerns again today.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
On 2 December, the Government announced that it would publish and consult on their disability action plan. Does the Leader of the House know when that will be published? When it is published, will the Leader of the House commit to providing a debate in Government time on this very important piece? If not, perhaps the Leader of the House might want to explain why not.
Penny Mordaunt
We have a record in this place of debating these matters, and I know they are of concern to all Members of the House. There is an opportunity on 6 March to ask the Secretary of State directly about the timetable. I am happy to make those inquiries on the hon. Lady’s behalf, as she has raised it today, and the Government Equalities Office of course has an interest, too.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Why have the Government not made time, as they really should have done, for a debate and a vote on early-day motion 794, which prays against the negative statutory instrument, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill (Prohibition on Submission for Royal Assent) Order 2023?
[That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill (Prohibition on Submission for Royal Assent) Order 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 41), dated 17 January 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 January 2023, be annulled.]
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on such a precise question. He asks why we have not tabled a debate on it; it is because that is not usual practice. The hon. Gentleman knows how to apply for one. If he has any further concerns, he can raise them with my office.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Can we please have a debate on children’s access to education? I often have parents coming to see me who are struggling to get their children into school—their children may have complex needs or mental health issues, or are awaiting an education, health and care plan or a mental health referral, if they can get a referral at all. Parents are really struggling with some of those issues. When we hear Cabinet members suggesting that parents should have their benefits dropped if they cannot get their children into school, that shows a real lack of understanding of some of the struggles parents are facing. I think a debate would be really useful for Members to be informed of some of those challenges.
Penny Mordaunt
I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to a comment that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), made at a policy group. I would certainly welcome any debate on the Floor of the House that highlighted the number of children playing truant under a Labour Government. In my constituency alone, I had 600 children who were out of school for more than three months of the school year—that is Labour’s record. When we came in in 2010, a huge effort was made to get those children back in school, and we have had considerable success at doing that, but I am always interested in what more we can do to ensure that all children are getting access to not just education, but the tailored education they need.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is almost two years since the Government announced that LGBT veterans who were shamelessly dismissed from the armed forces due to their sexuality could apply to have their medals restored. My constituent Richard Davidson’s great-uncle, Lieutenant Colonel Sidney Rumbold, was a hero who fought for our country in world war one, but who was court-martialled and dismissed because he was gay. Richard has applied to have Sidney’s medals restored, but has not received a response in about a year. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister responsible comes to the House to explain why my constituents and others have not had their hard- earned medals restored?
Penny Mordaunt
That was an appalling wrong which I am very pleased we have righted. In addition to veterans being stripped of their medals, the manner in which it was done was the most appalling thing, and incredibly brutal to those individuals. It is right that we correct that. I thank the hon. Lady for getting that name on the record in Hansard. I will certainly write to the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to ensure that this particular case is dealt with swiftly.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Our constituents often exhaust other avenues before contacting their Members of Parliament, so when they do contact their Member of Parliament and we write on their behalf, we should expect a response in a reasonable time. There are lots of cases where that does not happen, but the worst, as far as I am concerned, is a letter I wrote to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 5 November last year, which was transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 23 November. Since then, despite eight chase-ups, my office has not received a substantive response. After I tabled a written question on 24 January, the response from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), was that I would receive a reply in due course. That was on 30 January; it is now 2 March. It has been four months since the initial inquiry, and I have still received no substantive response. I know that the Leader of the House is concerned about this issue because it has been raised in the past. Could we have a debate on this issue so that we can see how widespread it actually is, and do something about it?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear that. That is not an acceptable situation. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the detail he gave in his question and, if he would pass those details to my office, I will raise the matter when I see the permanent secretaries next week.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We are now less than a month away from a new financial year. Over the past few weeks, councils have been setting the budgets that they have been working on for months now, but we still do not have the public health grant for England allocated to local government. Will the Leader of the House crack the whip with the Ministers responsible and get that information out to local governments so that they can finalise their public health allocations in their budgets, and will she apologise to councillors of all political persuasions for this sorry affair having dragged on for so long?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. He tried to get an urgent question on it. He will know that I have raised the matter on his behalf with the relevant Departments. I would just say to him that it is not unusual—there are reasons for it—for those funding allocations to be published this month and sometimes later. I will again make sure that the Department has heard his concerns, but it is not an unusual situation. Of course, we want to make sure people have information in a timely way to make those decisions.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has already raised the issue of access to the alternative fuel payment and some of the chaos around its application. It is the second day of meteorological spring. People who are off grid, and people who do not have a direct relationship with their electricity supplier, are still waiting for the portal through which they can apply for a payment to go live. These are some of the most vulnerable people—in some cases, they are in park homes or canal boats—and they have not had any help with their fuel bills for the whole winter. So can we ask for a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on how and when these people can expect some help with their energy bills?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. Again, I would refer her to the gov.uk website. I will certainly follow up after this meeting and ask someone from the Department to get in touch with her office and her caseworkers to make sure she has the answers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are many things across the world that need to be highlighted, whether it be Nigeria’s elections and the allegations of fraud, the persecution of Christians in India, or the escalation of violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But this morning, I would like to ask a question about the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies having reported that February saw a surge in militant attacks, and the targets of these attacks are the Government and religious minority communities. During the recess, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, I led a delegation to Pakistan, and we saw at first hand the impact on Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus, Shi’as and other minorities in the country. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning these attacks and issuing a statement of support for Pakistan’s religious minorities?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in sending that message. We place great responsibility and focus on freedom of religion. We know that, where there is intolerance, this has a huge impact, with many people displaced and, of course, appalling violence and conflict. That is why the FCDO and other Departments invest so much in combating that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on record today, and for all the work he does to ensure that people around the world can enjoy freedom of religion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Leader of the House for answering the business questions.
Backbench Business
Change of Name by Registered Sex Offenders
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call Sarah Champion, I just remind all Members that they should not refer to any cases that are active before the courts. They can of course discuss the principles of the issue, without referring to specific cases.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the change of name by registered sex offenders.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to lead this debate. I thank all the Members who have supported this campaign. I particularly thank the survivors, many of whom are here today, for their tireless work to try to close this loophole and make sure no one else suffers as they have been forced to.
This debate is specific: it is about registered sex offenders changing their name without the knowledge of the police, leading to many offenders going missing, securing a Disclosure and Barring Service check under the new name and then reoffending. Unless this loophole is closed, it makes a nonsense of the schemes the public rely on to detect offenders. For example, the sex offenders register, the child sex offenders disclosure system, the domestic violence disclosure scheme and the Disclosure and Barring Service all rely on having the correct name.
I first found out about this dangerous loophole through the incredible campaigning work of the Safeguarding Alliance three years ago. Its findings and the impact this has had on survivors are truly chilling. I have repeatedly raised the issue with the Home Office and Justice Ministers, as well as the Master of Rolls, who oversees the enrolled deed poll, yet still no tangible change has taken place.
Currently, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, all registered sex offenders are legally required to notify the police of any change in their personal details, including a change of name and address.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. I think every one of us in this House supports her in everything she does, and we greatly admire her tenacity and courage on these issues. Unfortunately, I cannot stay for the debate as I have other engagements, but does she agree that the fact that, from a period in 2019 to June 2022, there were 11,536 prosecutions of sex offenders for failing to notify the police of a change in their personal information, such as their name, shows the scale of the issue and demonstrates that we must legislate to protect our vulnerable as a matter of urgency? I know that is what she wants and it is certainly what I want as well.
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend, who is as tenacious as I am in trying to challenge these gross abuses of the system. The figures he quotes are Safeguarding Alliance figures that it got as a result of freedom of information requests, but they are only for some police forces, so the scale of the issue is much greater than even that shocking figure.
If a registered sex offender wants to change their name, they must tell the police within three days, or they could face up to five years in prison. But these notification requirements leave the onus entirely on the offender to self-report changes in their personal information. If the sex offender breaches these requirements, and therefore faces prison, they must first be caught.
Data that I and others have collated shows that the scale of this issue is breathtaking. The Home Office confirmed, in responses to my written parliamentary questions, that over 16,000 offenders were charged with a breach of their notification requirements between 2015 and 2020. A Safeguarding Alliance FOI request to the Crown Prosecution Service found that over 11,500 registered sex offenders were prosecuted for failure to notify changes of information between 2019 and 2022. Those breaches are likely to have been for name changes or other such changes. It is clear that offenders are changing their names and not disclosing their new name to the police, but the exact scale of the problem remains impossible to capture. It is important to emphasise that these are only the cases we know about: many more offenders could have breached their notification requirements without the police’s knowledge. Offenders are also required to visit a police station to comply with notification requirements, but only once a year.
Evidently, thousands are getting caught when they breach their requirements, but it appears that many are not. An FOI request by the Safeguarding Alliance to police forces confirmed that at least 913 registered sex offenders have gone missing between 2017 and 2020. However, only 17 of the 45 police forces responded to the request, indicating that that figure is only the tip of the iceberg.
New data secured by the BBC demonstrates the same ongoing pattern, allowing offenders to slip through the cracks. Over 700 registered sex offenders have gone missing in the last three years. It is highly likely that they breached their notification requirements without getting caught, making them an active risk to the public. Again, only 31 of 45 police forces responded to that request.
Many offenders are following the rules. At least 1,400 registered sex offenders have notified police forces of name changes in the past three years, with 21 of the 45 police forces able to provide that data. However, the number of cases where notification requirements are not being obeyed far outweighs those where they are. We cannot rely on a system that depends on registered offenders self-reporting changes in their information. If we do not urgently improve the system, we will have to accept that hundreds more offenders will continue to disappear from the system meant to safeguard us.
When I first learned about this breach, I spoke to my local police chief. He was genuinely stunned. We was unaware of the loophole and asked how he was meant to find someone when they no longer knew who they were looking for. If we are going to protect children and vulnerable people, and prevent further abuse, we must be able to keep track of those who are already known to be a safeguarding risk. Unless we address the failure in the current system, police will continue to be unaware of a name change and the sex offenders register will not be up to date with the new names, therefore considerably reducing its effectiveness.
It is vital we remember not only the danger posed to society by sex offenders changing their names, but the devastating impact it has on their previous victims. Della Wright is an ambassador for the Safeguarding Alliance and a survivor of child sexual abuse. Della has spoken so bravely to tell her story in support of so many other victims who have been impacted by this serious safeguarding loophole. I pay huge credit to her, as her tenacious campaigning is what has brought this issue to public attention.
When Della was a child, a man came to live in her home, becoming one of her primary carers and repeatedly sexually abusing her. Years later, when Della reported the abuse, her abuser was already known to the police and he had committed further sexual offences against many more victims. Della was made aware that he had changed his name; he had changed it at least five times, enabling him to relocate under the radar and evade justice. When Della’s case was finally brought to court, he again changed his name, this time in between being charged and appearing in court for the plea hearing. That slowed down the whole process as new court papers needed to be submitted in the new name.
The additional distress to Della made a complete mockery of the justice system, but sadly Della’s case is far from unique. The Safeguarding Alliance is working with dozens of survivors—a number of them are here today—who have discovered their abuser has changed their name. Many say their perpetrators change their name before charging, meaning their birth name remains unmaligned. Perhaps most chilling for me is that, with a new name, they can apply for a new passport and driving licence, which means they can apply for a clean DBS check in that new name.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does she agree that, in addition to ensuring that registered sex offenders have markers on their files at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and His Majesty’s Passport Office, the DBS should require all applicants to produce a birth certificate to better verify their identity?
Sarah Champion
I support my hon. Friend’s recommendation. Anything we can do to try to close this loophole I support, because the scale of it and the fact that the systems we have in place are not working mean that we need—Minister, we need—urgent attention and urgent reforms.
BBC research found that more than 2,000 criminal record checks carried out by the DBS in the past three years flagged that the applicants had cautions or convictions, and that they had supplied incorrect or missed out personal details, such as their past names. Those figures are shocking. It is a relief that the DBS found so many of those cases but, if even a few slip through the gaps in the system, the consequences are devastating.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and I hope my name was added in support of this debate. It is breathtaking. I raised the issue over six years ago when we had the case of Ben Lewis, who changed his name after being convicted and put on the sex offenders register. He then turned up in Spain, working with children. It was only found out about accidentally, I think through the Australian police. The Home Office acknowledged that this was a problem and said it was taking it on board. There are 67,000 sex offenders on the register in this country and 16,000 have changed their names. This is not just a tip of the iceberg—it is deliberately being used as a cover for their identity and potential future criminal activity. Does she agree that, frankly, other than in exceptional circumstances, people on the sex offenders register should not be allowed to change their name while they are on the sex offenders register and that, secondly, there is absolutely no reason that somebody in prison should be able to change their name while they are serving a prison sentence? It is not necessary and it is clearly for ulterior motives that cannot be good.
Sarah Champion
My personal position is that when someone carries out such heinous crimes, some of their liberties will be taken away. We need the Minister to look very closely at what those liberties are, particularly when there is an incredibly apparent safeguarding risk from names being changed, as the hon. Member outlined. I will come to Ben Lewis, because his case outlines a number of flaws in the system.
Let me say to the Minister that our systems are not joined up. People are actively looking for those weaknesses and exploiting them. I urge her to do all she can to close them as quickly as possible.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is being very generous. My constituents, and those of the hon. Lady and of all Members, want legislation to give safety to mothers and children. We do not see that at the moment, as she has reinforced to the Minister. Does she feel that this debate should be the start of a campaign to change legislation to protect those who are under threat?
Sarah Champion
I completely agree. So many MPs are here, even though on Thursdays we are usually in our constituencies, because they have changed their diaries to show their support and solidarity. I hope that the Minister recognises that.
Registered sex offenders are supposed to inform the police if they go abroad but, again, that does not always happen. Let me turn to the example of Ben Lewis. He was a registered sex offender who changed his name, moved to Spain and obtained a clean DBS check under his new name. He then worked in British schools in Madrid until he was arrested for further offences. I am in touch with the mother of one of the children he abused, and I thank her for all her campaigning to raise awareness of this safeguarding failure, but it should not have happened. Action to stop it happening is long overdue.
Almost two years ago, with cross-party support, I tabled a new clause to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which required the Government to conduct a review into registered sex offenders changing their names. The review has been completed, but Ministers say that it is an internal document and that the findings will not be published. The Home Office also asked former chief constable Mick Creedon to carry out an independent review into the management of sex offenders in the community. One assumes that it should have covered this issue—we do not know the terms—but, again, we have no information on its findings.
This is clearly a matter of acute public interest. More than 37,000 people signed a petition calling for action more than two years ago. Public money is being spent, but we have seen no outcomes. We need transparency to know that Ministers are working to provide solutions to these issues. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on those reviews.
What can be done to address the loophole? There are simple, immediate changes that could take place to address some of the safeguarding failures. The College of Policing guidance states that police can take pre-emptive action where an offender is likely to change their identity or leave the country. Those actions include requesting the Passport Office and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to put an electronic marker on the offender’s file to alert the officer in charge if an application should be made. As I said, a driver’s licence or passport is required for a DBS check, so that would also prevent registered sex offenders acquiring a clean DBS check if applied to all registered sex offenders’ files. However, the guidance states:
“To avoid unnecessary or high volumes of requests to these agencies, enquiries should be limited”
to where, apparently, a specific risk factor applies. That means that it is not being applied to all sex offenders, though I would say that all registered sex offenders are a risk.
I believe that this electronic tagging must be mandatory for all registered sex offenders. I accept that that would only retrospectively alert the police to a name change, but at least it would enable them to act and to keep track of an offender’s identity once a breach occurs, so it would be better than what we have already. It would not pick up on cases in which offenders have already changed their name, so I will do everything I can to work with the Minister and find a solution where offenders have already carried out that change.
In response to BBC FOI requests, neither the Passport Office nor the DVLA was able to provide detailed answers about how often they actually use these measures. The deed poll records team at the Royal Courts of Justice said that
“we simply enrol the change of name applications completed by the applicants.”
That is a very passive position to take. They did say that they would
“check for particular change of name for specific year when a Data Protection Act request had been received”.
Again, that requires police or Ministers to proactively ask for that information, which a sex offender can just change without any restraint. I understand that there may be sensitive information linked to such requests, but parliamentarians and the public must be assured that systems are being used effectively.
I appreciate that electronically flagging every registered sex offender’s file requires additional resources, but surely preventing the risk of more offences would be worth the costs. To be clear, when sex offenders are no longer on the register, such a requirement would not be necessary, in my opinion. However, the current system is being exploited by hundreds of sex offenders, and action needs to be taken now.
I am not asking for a ban on all registered sex offenders changing their name. We must take a nuanced approach, and in any case how would we monitor the scheme if the responsibility were left to them? Circumstances differ, and we must allow police the operational independence to make decisions as to whether offenders should be able to change their name. However, where such decisions are made, victims and survivors must be informed, safeguarding must be prioritised and the systems must be joined up so that registered offenders can be tracked regardless of the name they use.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate. I am so grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for the work she has done for victims and survivors. While Under-Secretaries may come and go, it is so reassuring to see the hon. Lady in her place, constantly standing up for victims and survivors.
I want to tell the story of my constituent Joanna. Joanna is an amazing young woman. She is bright, she is brave and she is beautiful. Joanna is a student paramedic and has just started a family. She has her whole life ahead of her. Joanna wants her story to be told, because for too long there was silence. It is by speaking out that we secure justice for victims and survivors such as Joanna, and we must listen to their voices.
For much of her young life, Joanna was a victim of serious sexual abuse. She was the victim of a manipulative, depraved man called Clive Bundy. The scale and nature of the abuse is beyond comprehension; it was discovered when the police identified sexual images online. Clive Bundy was arrested and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
After serving only seven years, Clive Bundy is up for parole. This child sex offender is no longer Clive Bundy. This person has changed their name by deed poll, and this person has changed their gender identity. Under the law, Clive Bundy no longer exists. Clive Bundy has chosen the name of Claire Fox. Under section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, we cannot say even that this is so. Joanna’s fear is that this new identity erases Clive Bundy, erases the terrible harm that he did, erases Joanna’s experience. She fears that the world can refuse to acknowledge that Clive Bundy and his terrible crimes ever even existed—that we can just pretend that the trauma she still suffers, the trauma Clive Bundy caused her and others, did not happen, because he does not exist.
What is certain is that Claire Fox will be afforded enhanced rights of privacy that should never, ever be afforded to a serious child sex offender. I believe in redemption, I believe in rehabilitation, but that does not and cannot mean that we rewrite the past. It does not mean that these truly horrific crimes simply never happened. Joanna wants the names of Clive Bundy and Claire Fox to be linked on official records because Clive Bundy and Claire Fox are the same person. The law requires us all to pretend that that is not so: the law requires us to pretend that a convicted serial child sex offender, Clive Bundy, no longer exists. The impact on Joanna is deeply distressing. She speaks of her past coming back to haunt her, of the constant fear, of always looking over her shoulder, and of her anxiety that her new life and her young family could be under threat and that she is, in her words,
“once again that young abused scared little girl—that no one protected.”
We are told this is a loophole in the Disclosure and Barring Service which can perhaps be fixed, but I am going to call it what it is. This is a grotesque injustice to victims—victims whom we failed and victims whom we will fail again if we allow the law to pretend that the crimes of sexual offenders like Clive Bundy can be expunged by deed poll and never referred to again.
The question of whether Claire Fox is a continuing threat to society is a matter for the Parole Board, and this is an issue that I will be pursuing with the relevant Minister through separate avenues, but today’s debate is about whether sex offenders can erase their identities. The rights of victims and the vulnerable matter more than the rights of serial child sex offenders. We all know that that is the case. I therefore ask the Minister to be brave enough to say that it is the case, and to have the courage to stand up and change the law for Joanna, and for Della, and for all those victims who will come after them if we do not act.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I actually want to raise the point that has just been raised by the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan). The debate is clearly centred on the law and practice in England and Wales, but similar problems exist in Scotland, and Disclosure Scotland operates the same model.
Let me preface my speech by saying that in a previous life I worked for many years as a specialist sex crimes prosecutor with the national sex crimes unit in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland. I am therefore acutely aware of the importance of the effect of the prosecution of sex crimes, particularly for the protection of women and girls but also for the protection of children and some men. I am also very aware of the importance of safeguarding and of the way in which those who wish to abuse their power by sexually abusing women and children will seek out loopholes and opportunities to find new victims. Today I want to focus on the safe- guarding loophole created by the ability to change identity in a more fundamental way, by simultaneously changing both name and gender.
I should say that I have been assisted in the writing of my speech and my understanding of this issue by Dr Kate Coleman of the organisation Keep Prisons Single Sex, which campaigns for prisons in the United Kingdom to be single-sex but also campaigns for data on offending to be recorded by sex registered at birth through the criminal justice system.
The Disclosure and Barring Service plays a vital and unique role in safeguarding. By processing criminal record checks for individuals who have applied to work in roles where safeguarding considerations apply, it allows organisations access to key information that will assist them in making safer recruiting decisions. The ability of a DBS check to play this role in safe- guarding rests entirely on the relevance, completeness and accuracy of the information returned and displayed on the DBS certificate.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I apologise for being late, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have liked to contribute to this debate, but the ticket machine broke and I missed my train. I apologise for coming into the Chamber just to make an intervention. This is such an important debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing it and for her work.
As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has just said, the ability for people to apply for a DBS check to work with children after changing their name by deed poll entirely defeats the object of the sex offenders register. Does she agree that the requirement for sex offenders to notify the authorities themselves is entirely unfit for purpose and that there needs to be a much more robust and centralised mechanism through which sex offenders can apply to change their name?
Joanna Cherry
I could not agree more.
The hon. Lady reminds me that, at the outset of my speech, I should have congratulated the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) who, as always, is completely across the subject. She often raises important issues, both in this House and in the public domain, that others have not dared to raise. I pay tribute to her for that.
I am talking about the Huntley case because it is disgraceful that, 18 years later, safeguarding loopholes remain whereby applicants can submit identity documents for DBS checks that display a new identity, despite the efforts of various hon. Members. At least the Government have acknowledged the safeguarding loophole whereby registered sex offenders are able to change their name by deed poll, but I am afraid that the ability to change identity in a more fundamental way, about which the hon. Member for Telford spoke so powerfully, by simultaneously changing one’s name and one’s gender, remains unaddressed.
In our public life, across the United Kingdom, self-identification has become a de facto right without legislation. Any individual can easily, and for any reason, change their name and gender on documents commonly used to establish identity via a process of self-declaration. That includes documents such as passports and driving licences, which can be presented for the purposes of a DBS check and show the individual’s new name and acquired gender instead of, and as opposed to, their sex.
The DBS grants enhanced privacy rights to individuals who change their gender when changing their identity. Those are exceptional rights that are granted only to individuals in that group. The result is that identity verification is compromised, meaning that there is no guarantee that the information returned during the check and displayed on the certificate will be accurate or complete. Those exceptional privacy rights also allow an applicant who has changed gender to request that all their previous names are withheld from the DBS certificate that is issued. That right to conceal previous identities is not given to anyone else; disclosing previous identities is a key component of safeguarding, and DBS certificates issued to all other individuals display all other names the applicant has used.
No doubt there were good reasons for the privacy requirements set out in section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act. I hasten to add that I am completely in favour of equal rights for trans people, but I am not in favour of a system that allows sex offenders to exploit the principle of self-declaration to evade the safeguarding process. Applicants who change their gender are also permitted to conceal their sex, and the DBS certificate issued will display their acquired gender instead. That right is not granted to any other individual; the importance of sex to safeguarding means that for all other applicants, their sex is always displayed on the DBS certificate. These are all serious risks to safeguarding that compromise the validity and reliability of the DBS regime.
This is a particular problem as we roll out digital identities, including for DBS checks, because there is a risk that the existing loopholes will be perpetuated in the digital realm. In the drive for convenience and ease of use, digital identities risk creating a new safeguarding loophole. In-person identity verification acts as a safe- guarding protection in and of itself, yet digital identities can be shared remotely, meaning that that important step is removed. The current operation of the DBS regime means that identity verification is compromised and organisations requesting DBS checks cannot have confidence in the information that is disclosed.
There are steps we could take to close the loopholes: the mandatory use of national insurance numbers for DBS checks and identity changes; having DBS certificates that display the sex registered at birth; and having DBS certificates that display other names used for all applicants, including those who have changed gender as part of changing identity. We are talking about rules of safeguarding that apply to people who have been convicted of sex offences, so all of this should be a no-brainer. In order to be effective, the rules of safeguarding must apply equally to everyone.
Tim Loughton
I am pleased that the hon. and learned Lady has raised this issue. It is extraordinary that more than 20 years on from what happened at Soham, we are still addressing here today the issues that came up then. It seems absolutely a no-brainer, as she puts it, that for people who have committed heinous crimes and whose sex offending history shows that they still pose a potential to harm children, the full identity should be available to those who need to see the DBS checks as they are taking them into employment. I think there is a degree of agreement on that. The change of gender qualifications, which I fully understand and which are necessary, should not apply to sex offenders. A full change of name history must be automatically linked at the DBS, and a change of name must be automatically linked to a DBS check, to make sure that all that information is available in respect of those people who pose a risk to vulnerable children.
Joanna Cherry
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He correctly encapsulates what it is that I am asking for: in order to be effective, the rules of safeguarding must apply equally to everyone and there must not be loopholes or get-outs. Whenever the members of one group are excused from the normal requirements of safeguarding, a loophole is created that is ripe for exploitation.
I wish to make one final point. I am sure that we will hear that abusing the process and failing to disclose previous names is an offence, but that is just not good enough. A minor matter of administrative fraud such as making a false declaration is nothing in comparison to the significant risk posed by sex offenders abusing this system, which is really ripped open by the loopholes that I have described. It is high time that the safeguarding loopholes, which result in a situation where people—sex offenders—can change their identity, are addressed.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
In anticipation of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), I should say that I think we are all slightly baffled as to why we are here. This is a ludicrous loophole and we know that it is a problem. We have found out, to a certain extent, the scale of the problem, although there are still questions about that. The fact that there is a problem and that it should be solved is agreed, I think, by Members on both sides of the House, although I wait to hear from the Home Office on that front. It is very clear that we should be solving it. I did a local media interview yesterday, because I had a ten-minute rule Bill on the same subject, and the local BBC reporter, who was trying their very best to be devil’s advocate and to be impartial, reached the point of saying, “Are you banging your head against the wall? This seems an absolute no-brainer.” I feel that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) strayed into that territory.
I shall go back to where I intended to start, which is to thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) not just for securing the debate, but for all the work she has done on the issue. As she knows, I am a latecomer to the matter: I have ended up in this world because of some constituency casework. However, having spent the past two months or so looking into it, I cannot say that I am any the wiser as to why it has not been solved. Undoubtedly, there are some complications. She and I have a small and minor disagreement about how to solve the matter, and I will touch on that.
I should also say thank you to the staff of the Safeguarding Alliance, as I did yesterday, who have provided so much data, so much leadership and so much coherence, and who, I fear, have been banging their heads against the wall a lot more than I have in recent times. It is a great credit to them that so many MPs are in the Chamber today. Many of my Conservative colleagues are in Windsor for an away day. Some lucky Whips and others have drawn the duty of avoiding that, and it was probably wise of them to volunteer to do so.
I do not wish to draw on any of the details that I covered in yesterday’s ten-minute rule Bill, when I set out the problem, as the hon. Member for Rotherham did today, and the sheer horrendousness of this situation. It feels as though we are prioritising the rights of sexual offenders over the rights of the general public and over the rights of people who need to know whether the people working in their schools are safe, whether the people working in their care homes are safe, whether their partner has a past or whether someone who is interacting with their child is safe.
Yesterday, I drew on the Ian Huntley situation and the Bichard inquiry, to which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West referred only seconds ago. That happened in 2004, and yet here we are in the same situation, still talking about the need to prevent sex offenders from changing their name. It is worth noting that the Disclosure and Barring Service that we now use came about as a result of Ian Huntley’s horrendous actions. Indeed, the Bichard inquiry led to the creation of the DBS system, and it is that very system that is being undermined by the ability of offenders to change their name and to escape recognition, thereby creating a blind spot for the authorities.
The hon. and learned Lady and I have a small disagreement over what needs to be done. I am not necessarily sure whether either of us would object to the other’s solution being accepted; it is the problem that needs solving. None the less, it is worth stating to the Minister, in advance of her speech, that I am pretty solutions-agnostic. The fact that there is a problem and that it needs solving is beyond dispute, but how we get to solving that problem is crucial. I think it is worth acknowledging that there are complications to what we are trying to do. Undoubtedly, they are what Home Office and Ministry of Justice officials will use to try to prevent any progress, so I shall put those complications on the record now, so that we can consider them together.
First, we have long and established common law rights in this country to change our name. That is well established in law. My perspective is that a person surrenders certain rights when they are charged and found guilty of an offence by the state. That is my opinion; it is not necessarily the opinion of this House, because we have not voted specifically on this issue. However, as I said yesterday, we have prevented prisoners from exercising their voting rights, which is a clear comparison.
It is worth noting that changing our name through the unenrolled process could not be easier if we tried. Effectively, the wording is:
“I [old name] of [your address] have given up my name [old name] and have adopted for all purposes the name [new name].”
I could leave this Chamber being called John Bercow if someone would kindly countersign my form. It is that simple. I use that example perhaps facetiously. I certainly do not wish to bring Mr Bercow back into this Chamber in any way, shape or form, but it is worth considering that that is the unenrolled process.
There is a slightly different system if someone wants to take the legal route. I changed my name when I was seven years old. My original name is Mark Hannington, which is my dad’s name. I changed it because my mum remarried. It is relatively common and, indeed, incredibly easy to change one’s name. I know that we are talking about a very extreme situation here, because we have to go through those who have committed an offence, are on the sex offenders register, and then wish to change their identity, and then may get a new document and then may get a DBS check. It is a flow chart that has to be followed through. We should consider the processes involved, but it is, none the less, an incredibly easy thing to do.
Yesterday, the Home Office released a statement in response, in part, to the BBC’s latest research, on which the hon. Lady has already touched, about our incredibly “robust” response. I found myself laughing about that in more than one local media interview. I find that very difficult to defend, because it is not a robust response. It might look tough on paper and Home Office officials might have persuaded themselves that this is actually a robust system, but the sheer scale of those breaching the system is huge, and that is before we even get on to the ones that we do not know about. I give great credit to the hon. Member for Rotherham for being so polite when she touched on that particular section; I will not be as polite when I come to her amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Bill in, I think, 2021. Our robust system is no such thing.
One thing we have not touched on is this: what is the sex offenders register? We have 43 different police forces in this country. They each have a version of the sex offenders register, which is usually highly localised. It is, in effect, a document or an Excel spreadsheet of some variety that sits with that force. The super-important national system that captures all offenders and is easy to refer to is no such thing, as I was horrified to discover from my discussions with the Safeguarding Alliance. It is part of the system and it sounds official—it sounds good—but it is not the robust and safeguard-friendly system that we would like to see.
Sarah Champion
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has used every tool that the House provides to fight this campaign and I am grateful to him for doing that in such a cross-party way. On the specifics of the national database, there is HOLMES 2—the Home Office large major enquiry system—but it requires the officer to input the details. It does not flag, so it means that they have to know that someone has changed their name to know that they need to look for them, and the once-a-year check gives someone a lot of scope to go around in their different identity. It is madness. The public believe that the systems are there; they are not there.
Mark Fletcher
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I hope that the cameramen who cover the Chamber had the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley in shot, because her facial expressions said almost everything that I would want to say about that, but I am not necessarily sure that I can.
It is undoubtedly true that there are complications around name changes. The simplest of those is that someone on the sex offenders register may get married, which may provide a complication or a barrier—again, I refer to my previous statements about giving up certain rights. Complications have also been alluded to with regard to changing gender, on which we have heard two excellent speeches, so I will not touch on that further.
Another complication, however, which falls outside what I suggested in my ten-minute rule Bill yesterday, and which I think was vaguely alluded to earlier, is the growing trend for someone to change their name when they are charged with an offence—not necessarily when they have been found guilty, but during the process before they go to court. Someone charged with an offence will therefore go through the court under their new identity—we often see cases in the newspapers of someone “also known as”—then once they have been found guilty, assuming that they are in this instance, and come out the other side, they change their name back to what they were originally known as.
That situation is a bit more complicated. If my ten-minute rule Bill had a flaw—it probably had more than one—it is that it did not capture that. Hon. Members have already alluded to two documents that we keep with us throughout our lives, however: our birth certificate and our national insurance number. They do not change, so if we want our system to be robust, the answer lies in those two bits of information.
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend raises some concerns about where exceptions can be made. We can do that, because as it stands the right for someone to change their name, which is an important right, is not completely unqualified. There are six criteria according to which someone cannot change their name—for example, if it promotes criminal activity; if it promotes racial, sexual or religious intolerance; or if it ridicules people or businesses. I recall that some years ago, a disgruntled customer changed his name to “Halifax building society are complete bastards” or something to that effect—I may be doing Halifax an injustice. Another criterion is if someone is intending to commit fraud, usually by conferring a title or honour on themselves. The situation that he refers to is effectively an attempt to commit fraud, so we need only extend the existing criteria to capture many of those people anyway. It is not a big deal—it is easily done; it is a no-brainer—so let us just get on with it.
Mark Fletcher
My hon. Friend, as always, brilliantly makes an incredibly eloquent point. I imagine that the Minister is scribbling down that suggestion, so I look forward to seeing it in the victims Bill alongside every other sensible recommendation that has come from hon. Members today.
I put some of those complications on the record simply because I acknowledge that this is not a perfect scenario. The issue is an absolute head-banger, however: some 20 years on from a horrific set of crimes in which it was identified, we still have not done anything.
I return to the proposed amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I have read her speech in Committee, in which she eloquently told Della’s story. She tabled a sensible amendment, which was miniscule in the grand scheme of things, to ask for a report into the scale of the problem. One thing that I struggle with is that we do not know how widespread the problem is. We could change the law today to prevent it happening in future, but unfortunately we have had years in which it has been operational and not necessarily allowed, but happening.
I am relying on second-hand testimony, but it was easy to read that the Minister at the time said, “We will happily do the report, so please don’t move your amendment.” It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to do that, but it is unacceptable for the Department not to release said report and to use many different reasons not to publish it. It is a tremendous slap in the face for the work of the hon. Lady, and for those who are sitting in the Gallery and are victims of the problem. I cannot fathom how that has been allowed.
We are dealing with a situation where we know there is a problem, but we do not know the scale of it. Until that report is released, I do not think that any of us will feel satisfied. It may be that that report is quite damning and that the scale is quite bad, or it may be the opposite. Either way, we as lawmakers have been co-operative and constructive with the Government Front-Bench team as far as I have seen—again, I thank the hon. Lady for being generous to me—so I cannot work out why we have not seen that report. I urge the Minister to give thought to that.
I conclude by saying that, simply, I am banging my head against the wall because we need to take action on this issue. I came to it because of constituency casework, and as we have heard, several other MPs have had similar casework. This problem needs to be fixed. The rights of sex offenders and the right of someone to change their name do not trump safeguarding in this country. I urge the Government to think long and hard about any forthcoming opportunities to amend the statute book and to ensure that, legally and operationally, this problem is not allowed to continue.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I congratulate and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has done and said so much on this issue. When it comes to the protection of the most vulnerable and those who often feel that they do not have a voice, she has stood up and elevated their voices in this place and beyond. I also thank my many constituents who have contacted me about this important subject.
Sex offenders are a scourge on our society. They commit the most heinous crimes and the ripple effects of their actions on the victim, their family and their friends cannot be overstated—both in the immediate aftermath of the crime and long into the future. Anyone can fall victim to sex offences, but the victims are often women, girls and young boys.
Della Wright’s story is testimony to the fact that we in this place, to date, have failed to close the loopholes that make it all too easy for sex offenders to mask their identity and avoid detection. In turn, that allows them to go on reoffending, targeting the most vulnerable, and destroying lives.
This has gone on for far too long, and enough really is enough. Current legislation has effectively been rendered redundant, owing to the duty being on the individual sex offender to notify the authorities within three days of changing their name. In thousands of instances, it is apparent that those individuals are not doing the right thing and notifying the police. Why are we shocked? We should not be. And, while we remain shocked, the consequences are being played out every single day in our communities.
Thanks to the extensive work of organisations such as the Safeguarding Alliance, the picture could not be clearer. As lawmakers, we have absolute clarity on what needs to be done, and the Home Office must not drag its feet any longer. Due to the name-change loophole, the sex offenders register, the child sex offender disclosure scheme, the domestic violence disclosure scheme and the Disclosure and Barring Service are effectively rudderless.
Through its work, the Safeguarding Alliance has exposed the scale of this epidemic, which we in this place, and Government, must act on. Every day that we in this place fail to act, we are betraying the bravery and tenacity of survivors such as Della Wright and those whose voices we are yet to hear. Quite frankly, that should shame us all.
To the Home Office, and to the Minister today, I say this: publish the internal review and get legislation on the Floor of the House, because the most vulnerable in our society—the victims—deserve nothing less.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I must congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) for putting the case extremely well yesterday and today. I was also fascinated by what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) had to say based on her experience—and for people dealing with these individuals, it is some experience.
I will not repeat the exercise of describing the problem, or come up with any sort of solutions, but the United Kingdom has probably led the way on legislation dealing with the protection of children. We started that with a proactive approach—rather than a reactive one—which I think is the right way to do it. If it is possible, we get the offender before the offender has got the child. That is the thinking, in a way, behind what we are talking about today.
I went on a parliamentary police course with the Metropolitan police in the early 2000s, which included a session with the Met police paedophile unit. Most people read about cases on the front pages—or some other page—but they do not really know; they do not really have a feel of what it was like. That session with the unit was an enormous shock to me—an absolutely mind-boggling shock. It is unbelievable what some people will do to children.
I asked the then DCI Bob McLachlan, who was head of the unit—a relatively small one, which was a fraction of what it is now—a stupid question. I asked him if he could give me a wild guess about how many active paedophiles there were in England. This was 20 years ago, before the internet really got hold of it, and he said that there were enough active paedophiles in this country to have one for every street. He also said that 20% of them were female. Half of that 20% were females working with males, but the other 10% were females working without males. That has since changed—not the percentages, necessarily, but the numbers—because of the internet.
The biggest basic ground-level step, along the lines of protecting children proactively, was the 2003 anti-grooming legislation. It was a big step; we were the first country to do it, and it has been mimicked across the world.
I know a senior barrister who has worked on a considerable number of high-profile child-protection cases, both as a prosecutor and defender. She said to me, after a glass of wine, that these individuals are the slipperiest, most devious liars she has ever met. It must be expected that what is colloquially known as the “sex offenders list”—there is no actual list that we can look at, but that is the way that the papers put it—means that these individuals will try to get around the system.
They take jobs because the job is secondary to the primary thing they want to do, which is to abuse children. Many have tried to change addresses, and we had to change the law several times to overcome that difficulty. Many of them have got around, for a while, the attempts by the police or probation officers to inspect, but we changed that loophole.
Today, we are looking at another loophole that we can change. If the Minister, for whatever reason, is not going to take forward the ten-minute rule Bill, he can do what happened before we brought in the legislation on grooming. He can put together a small team to look at the problem and come forward, quickly, with legislation that is acceptable to the Department, and to us, to close that loophole. That is what David Blunkett did.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend was one of the first Members to speak to me about the risks that paedophiles, in particular, present to society. Does he agree that the biggest flaw in the legislation around changing names by deed poll is that it is entirely based on the honour and honesty of the sex offender to give the correct details to the current scheme? That is the loophole that we have to close.
Sir Paul Beresford
I completely agree. Putting honesty and these individuals together is an almighty clash; they do not match.
David Blunkett set up a small team in the Home Office to look at the child protection legislation in 2003, and he asked me to join that small team, along with a man called DCI Dave Marshall. As we were starting to look at this, there was a terrible case in which an individual in London had rung a telephone number advertised in Texas. He asked, when the phone was answered, if they could provide him with a five-year-old child for sex. The Texan said, “Come on over; sure we can.” The individual said, “I can’t come over. Can you give me the number of somebody in London?” The Texan cop—because it was a sting—said, “Yes,” and gave the number of the Met police paedophile unit, fortunately.
When the individual rang there, the unit said, “Yes, we’ll provide you with a five-year-old child,” and, of course, when he knocked on the door, expecting a five-year-old child, he got a 6-foot-something police officer, who arrested him. But, the big problem was that they did not know for sure what legislation could be used to prosecute the individual, because he had not seen a child, had not touched a child, and so on. That is where we went back and came up with the grooming legislation.
There is now an opportunity for a loophole, and the paedophiles will constantly look for loopholes, but a loophole can be changed. I hope that, if the ten-minute rule Bill is not acceptable, the Minister will set up a small team of competent people, with both sides of the House represented, as well as police, officials and lawyers, to come up with something quickly to shut down the loophole, because it will be abused. I suspect that—as I have found when dealing with this type of legislation—the people who will avidly read the Hansard report of the debate will be paedophiles, and that some who had not thought of changing their names will now think of doing so and of using and abusing the loophole. Our children are too precious; we have to look after them. I want my grandchildren to be safe.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this important debate—I supported her application—and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. There is cross-party support for tackling this issue. Although I might repeat some of the things that have been said, I want to add my voice to this important debate and support the victims of the terrible crimes that are committed because of a legal loophole, which we in Parliament can fix.
The stories of crimes committed by sex offenders who have changed their names should be a wake-up call for us all. The current name-change process is very poorly regulated and not fit for purpose. Although it is a crime for a sex offender to change their name without notifying the police, the onus to do so lies solely with the offender. As we have already heard, thinking that those guys are going to be honourable and honest is just a mistake. We should not let them get away with it. That creates a legal loophole that makes the reporting system unreliable, meaning that a sex offender can obtain a new legal document to hide their identity and evade justice. The loopholes are used deliberately by sex offenders to continue committing their crimes. That must stop.
I commend Della Wright for her courageous campaigning to close the loophole. It undercuts so much of the progress that we have made in tackling sex offences if perpetrators can just wipe out their past. It renders the sex offenders register, the domestic violence disclosure scheme and DBS checks totally ineffective. Sex offenders should not elude the authorities.
One sex offender changed his name after his release from prison following convictions for sexual assaults against children. His background went undetected despite two encounters with Lincolnshire police and one with social services, and he went on to brutally strip and murder 13-year-old Sandy Hadfield. What a terrible tragedy. Another registered sex offender was able to change his name by deed poll. He moved to Spain, became a teacher and worked as a live-in au pair, despite being barred from working with children. He was arrested only after the school found hidden cameras in its toilets. Where were the checks?
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of childhood trauma, I am aware of the lifelong consequences faced by children who have experienced sexual abuse. Many children carry their traumatic experiences into later life. I want to acknowledge the people sitting in the Public Gallery who have faced those terrible traumas. Those who experience childhood trauma are twice as likely to develop depression and three times as likely to develop anxiety disorders. Again, we must commend all survivors of childhood trauma for the courage and strength with which they continue to live their lives. It is a stain on our country that one in six children has been sexually abused. We need to protect children, and closing the loophole will make it harder for dangerous sex offenders to repeat their crimes.
Ultimately, there is an issue in the wider criminal justice system. Charges were brought in only 4% of recorded rape cases last year. It is highly likely that people who have committed such a crime are walking among us without our knowing. Five women in six do not report their rape to the police. Given that so many survivors of sexual and domestic violence are denied justice, is it any surprise that reporting rates continue to be so low? If we want to encourage women to come forward, they need to be sure that violent and abusive perpetrators are brought and will continue to be brought to justice. It is horrifying to think that even if a woman gets her rapist convicted, they may still escape the consequences and go on to commit a horrific crime after changing their name.
Enabling sex offenders to change their names means that they can lie about their past. The Safeguarding Alliance reports that offenders have used name changes to hide their backgrounds from their new partners and children. I cannot imagine the fear of learning that your partner is not who you thought they were. The lack of a joined-up approach to tackling name changes means that key details of an offender’s past can be missed. There should be a national centralised sex offenders register maintained by the Home Office to ensure an interlinked and joined-up approach is taken to sex offender management. We must place responsibility for name changes on the relevant authorities to ensure that offenders are not able to slip under the radar.
I, too, welcome the Safeguarding Alliance’s proposal of a tagging system for sex offenders’ passports and driving licences, which would stop offenders using official documents to escape justice. Sex offenders should not be able to use new names to secure DBS checks that allow them to work with children and vulnerable people. As we have heard, they do that deliberately, using a job to get to children, young people and, indeed, women, to commit their heinous crimes. There must be a system in which their crimes are flagged when they are applying for employment.
We must take our obligations to victims seriously. We cannot say that we have delivered justice for survivors if the perpetrators are left to secretly carry on their crimes. Abuse never leaves its victims, so sex offenders should never be able to walk away from their crimes in a way that leaves them free to commit new appalling crimes.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
My huge thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for bringing this important subject to the Chamber and to national prominence—her role in this has been extraordinary. I also thank women such as Della who have waived their anonymity to expose the serious failures in the DBS system, and to ensure that the law is changed to keep people safe.
As colleagues will no doubt have seen in their constituencies, most people’s reaction to hearing about this loophole is one of utter disbelief—disbelief that simple changes, such as the deed poll asking if the applicant has a criminal record, have not been made; disbelief that a system that so many of them have encountered—anywhere from their children’s school to local sports clubs—features such a fundamental flaw; and disbelief that, despite years of warning from campaigners, the name change loophole still exists and is treated as an administrative headache, not a serious risk.
I take this opportunity to highlight a concern that the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) have already mentioned. Good intentions have not been balanced with the risk of leaving another avenue to be exploited and that is so dangerous. The DBS grants enhanced privacy rights to individuals who change their gender when changing their identity. Those are exceptional rights that are granted only to individuals from that group. The result is that identity verification is compromised, meaning that there is no guarantee that the information returned during the check and displayed on the certificate will be accurate or complete.
Those exceptional privacy rights also allow an applicant who has changed gender to request that all their previous names are withheld from the DBS certificate that is issued. That right to conceal previous identities is not given to anyone else: disclosing previous identities is a key component of safeguarding, and DBS certificates issued to all other individuals display all other names that the applicant has used.
Applicants who change their gender are also permitted to conceal their sex, and the DBS certificate issued will display their acquired gender instead. That right is not granted to any other individual: the importance of sex to safeguarding means that the sex of all other applicants is always displayed. There cannot be any exceptions in safeguarding. For the system to work, it must apply the same standards to everyone. Sadly, it is simply naive to think that loopholes in the system will not be exploited.
The system relies on the honesty of sex offenders to ensure that it functions as it should, but as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, they are not to be trusted; they are not honest. Data obtained by the BBC from police forces highlights just how flawed this approach is. Between 2019 and 2021, more than 5,500 offences were committed by sex offenders of failing to comply with notification requirements: offences such as not telling the police they were living in a household with a child. The Disclosure and Barring Service found that 2,190 applicants for checks had criminal records and had supplied incorrect or missed out personal details such as past names or aliases. A total of 6,740 prosecutions began over the past three financial years for offences by sex offenders of breaches of a sexual harm prevention order or interim order. The system is broken and we must fix it. We have plenty of damning evidence as to why we should.
After being released from prison only three years into his six-year sentence for indecent assault, following a string of sexual assault convictions against children, Timothy Cuffy changed his name to Timothy Barnett. His new name allowed him to hide his criminal past, including from his new partner and three children. As Timothy Barnett, he answered the door to 13-year-old Sandy Hadfield, who knocked looking for her friend. After giving her vodka, he lured her to a quiet area of the woods, where he attempted to have sex with her before slitting her throat. Owing to his name change, his background went undetected, even after two encounters with Lincolnshire police and one encounter with social services. A system that means a convicted child sex offender is not identified, despite encounters with the police and social services, is one that is fundamentally broken and that led to the most tragic of outcomes in that case.
Sex offenders are not just changing their name post trial to hide their convictions; they are also changing their name at trial, or just before, to protect their name on their birth certificate. That has been highlighted in the high-profile case of Department for International Development worker Peter Davis, who became James Robert Harris before trial, allowing him to keep all records of his birth name clean should he decide to use it again.
This loophole gives sex offenders and abusers, many of whom rely on their ability to manipulate in order to carry out their crimes, an opportunity to hide their criminal history and pass the very checks that are meant to keep the most vulnerable safe. This loophole renders not only the DBS redundant but the domestic violence disclosure scheme, the sex offenders register and the child sex offender disclosure scheme. It seems absurd that we are discussing this 20 years on from the Bichard inquiry, which identified that the ability of serial predator Ian Huntley to change his name by deed poll to Ian Nixon, successfully severing the link with his existing police records, meant that no alarms were raised, and he was employed as a school caretaker. That this loophole still exists, allowing—indeed, enabling—serial predators to create new identities, is a scandal.
We are in this place to be legislators. We are in this place to make decisions and to ask the questions, “What if?” and “How?” We have to safeguard the most vulnerable people in society from these bad actors in all legislation. I pay tribute to everybody in the Gallery today and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham for her outstanding work on this issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the SNP spokesperson to wind up the debate.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this important debate and making excellent points on the scale and seriousness of this problem. I thank the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for sharing the horrific case of her constituent, Joanna; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for highlighting the serious safeguarding issues; and the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for their important and eloquent contributions.
I speak in support of the motion. The fact that someone convicted of a sexual offence may change their name by deed poll to conceal their previous offending history without committing an offence shows that there is an extremely obvious and serious loophole in current legislation. The introduction of new legislation would serve as a strong deterrent to those minded to change their name by deed poll and would provide additional protection for communities, in particular women and girls, who are most likely to be subject to these serious offences.
This is an important issue for all our constituents. Some 37,400 people across the United Kingdom, including 151 people in my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, recently signed a petition to Parliament to revoke the right of registered sex offenders to change their name by deed poll.
Registered sex offenders are currently managed by the police and multi-agency public protection arrangements in all police force areas. Tough checks and a range of legislative measures are available to the police to manage known sex offenders living in the community. However, information received from the Safeguarding Alliance through a freedom of information request revealed that, between 2017 and 2020, at least 913 sex offenders were missing. Those freedom of information figures relate only to those who have notified or have been caught for failure to notify. The figures do not account for the many more registered sex offenders who may be living and working with children and vulnerable adults using a new name and identity. Every one of those registered sex offenders who is missing has the potential to reoffend, and every effort must be made to trace them as a matter of urgency before they have the opportunity to commit further serious sexual offences.
Only 17 police services out of 43 in England and Wales have replied to that extremely important freedom of information request from the Safeguarding Alliance. The limited information available suggests that the total number of registered sex offenders who are missing is likely to be at least several thousand more. It is very concerning and unacceptable that the Safeguarding Alliance only received replies from 17 police services. The failure to respond by 26 police services should be brought to the attention of His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. If we do not know the extent of the problem, we cannot legislate for it.
In the controversial Soham murders case more than 20 years ago, the killer Ian Huntley changed his name by deed poll to apply for a school janitor post, but Humberside police failed to check his record fully. I do not intend to repeat what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West and others about the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham. However, the greatest risk to the public is those convicted of serious sexual offences and placed on the sex offenders register who simply change their name without going through the formalities of changing their name by deed poll.
One extreme example of that is Peter Tobin, a Scottish serial killer with convictions for the serious sexual assault and rape of two 14-year-old girls in England, for which he was sentenced in 1994 to 14 years in prison. He was released in 2004. In 2006, using the false name of Pat McLaughlin, Tobin obtained work as a church handyman in Glasgow, where he murdered 23-year-old Polish student Angelika Kluk and buried her body under the floor of the church. During the subsequent investigation into Tobin’s past, he was convicted of murdering two further young women. He has also been linked to several unsolved disappearances, the murder of several women and young girls and numerous serious sexual assaults throughout the country.
The important point I wish to make is that Tobin is known to have used at least 40 different names and stayed at numerous addresses. He avoided complying with the conditions of notifying Police Scotland and other police services throughout the country when he changed his name and address, which he was required to do, having been placed on the sex offenders register following his conviction in 1994. This illustrates the dangers of sex offenders changing their name by deed poll or otherwise to conceal their true identity, as they pose a significant risk to the public. The tracing, identification and prosecution of these individuals must remain an absolute priority for police services across the country.
In conclusion, I fully understand that there will be circumstances in which an individual previously convicted of sex offences wishes to change their name legally by deed poll with the genuine hope of a fresh start and a new identity. However, if a change in legislation were to prevent just one person from being the subject of a serious sexual assault or worse, it would be totally justified as another measure to keep people safe, particularly women and girls. Such a measure may be controversial—it may be criticised as excessive by some, and considered by others to be a restriction or reduction of their human rights. However, this loophole is a serious flaw in the current legislation; the legislation is not fit for purpose at this time, and must be changed. The duty of this House and all of us in it is to protect people and keep them safe. I therefore offer my full support to closing the loophole, and to any subsequent Bill to prevent registered sex offenders from changing their name by deed poll.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I, like everybody else, rise to give huge and enormous credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I will not say her name, because protocol does not allow it, but there is an element of nominative determinism about her name in these instances. She truly is a great Champion, alongside the Safeguarding Alliance, and has once again ensured that Della’s name rings out in this place. I love to hear from my hon. Friend at all times, both inside this Chamber and outside of it, but I would like not to have to hear from her again on this issue—no offence to her. Let today be the end of these demands.
If we were to do one of those fancy word clouds based on today’s debate, I feel that “no-brainer” is the word that would pop out biggest. It seems absolutely phenomenal that after 20 years, we are still in this position. To talk through some of today’s contributions, the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) told us about the very important case of Joanna in which her perpetrator, Clive Bundy, changed his name. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) talked about a very serious potential safeguarding loophole in certain cases, where it is not just a name change consideration—where there is an advanced level of secrecy with regard to the DBS. Again, going back to the word cloud of this debate, another phrase would be “safeguarding has to come first”. There is nothing else; there is no other priority.
Following on from the Scottish National party Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), I could not agree more that the line here is the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people. That is the line; that is the most important thing; that is the starting point, not the end point. It should be the primary concern, and we must do everything we possibly can to ensure that that is the case. The fact that Ian Huntley’s name was able to ring out across this Chamber so many times today is a harsh reminder of how many years this has been in train.
This Chamber has a long tradition of the constituency of Bolsover being represented in a plain-speaking fashion, should we say; one that does not mince words. Today, that fine tradition was honoured by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher)—I look forward to his contributions at the first King’s Speech. His brave and certain questioning of the Government’s speed, some of the responses they have given, and how robust they claim the law is was refreshing to hear; long may that plain speaking continue. In the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he said that it seems unbelievable that the rights of a perpetrator often trump the rights of a victim. I am here to tell this Chamber and the world that that is true in almost all cases, whether of rape or of domestic abuse, just by the very fact that a perpetrator has legal counsel and support. A victim of a crime is merely evidence in a case—that is it. That is what it feels like to be a victim; certainly for children, it is a very hollow feeling when they are asked to give evidence and take part in these cases for years and years.
Let me give an example. Last night, I went to an event around the case of Joanna Simpson, a woman murdered—sorry, unlawfully killed—whose perpetrator was found guilty of manslaughter, regardless of the fact that he had prepared a grave for her months before. He is due to be released after 13 years of incarceration for her unlawful killing. He knows exactly where her family live, but they are not allowed to know where he will be released to, not even on a regional basis. That is the case for people who suffer sexual crimes: they have absolutely no right to know anything. It is just a fundamental flaw.
Mark Fletcher
I referred earlier to a piece of constituency casework that relates very much to that point. The constituents who have inspired me to be involved in this conversation are desperate for the clarity of knowing the new name of the offender involved, but they are unable to get it. The answers from His Majesty’s Prison Service are hilarious, and I cannot fathom why this is acceptable. I have written to the Minister for clarification on whether HMPS is upholding the regulations correctly, but I support the point that the hon. Lady is making— I entirely agree with her.
Jess Phillips
It seems baffling. I think that if we were to go and speak to anybody on the Clapham omnibus—if we were to go outside and speak to any member of the public—they would not believe that that is the case in most circumstances. They would be absolutely horrified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) called on Home Office Front Benchers to publish the documents, something that we have heard again and again in this House. It is not acceptable that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), our great champion, has forced those documents and that assessment and review to exist, Members in this place cannot see them. I join in those calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree.
I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), because he has been trying to tackle this issue in this place since, I think, the year I was born. [Hon. Members: “Ouch!”] I realise that that sounds like a terribly backhanded compliment, but it is not intended that way at all—when he was citing some of those cases, I was thinking, “I was five then.” He has announced his departure from this place, and he will undoubtedly be remembered for championing the rights of children during his time in this House, specifically those who have suffered from sexual offences. The fact that the legislation on paedophilia that we are all familiar with did not necessarily exist all those years ago, but now exists, is in no small part down to the hon. Gentleman’s work in this place. He is absolutely right to point out that these offenders are manipulative: in the case of Joanna Simpson, which I highlighted, the reason why a manslaughter charge was given rather than a murder charge was the adjustment disorder caused by a divorce—that was the manipulation used. It is terribly hard to adjust to divorce, and almost everybody in the country who has to do that ends up murdering somebody— I don’t think.
There is that level of manipulation, and how our state agencies in fact back that manipulation up. There is an opportunity today, by supporting this motion, to stop some of that manipulation and to stand in its way. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) reminded us why this issue matters, its importance, the lifelong trauma suffered by the victims of these crimes and how we should never forget that. There are victims here today, and many of their names have rung out. If only all the victims, such as Sandy, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), could be here today to listen to this debate. It is not okay that things have taken this long.
I will finish up my remarks. Like the hon. Member for Bolsover, I also changed my name. I did it online. I went online and I changed my name, and a woman called Angela in my office just signed it—that was it. That was what it took. I paid £36. It is probably more now, as inflation has gone up since then. It took absolutely no effort whatever to change my name. It was considerably easier than getting a driving licence or applying for other things. It was very easy for me to change my name with no effort and no check whatever, so I know how easy the process is. We have to make sure that this easy liberty —I am not saying it should not be easy for me, although I was stunned by how easy it was—which I may very well be entitled to, is used with caution, if at all, in the case of those on the sex offenders register. It should certainly never ever be able to be used without the proper processes and systems that flag things up.
Wera Hobhouse
I, too, have changed my name—to make it shorter, to be honest; my name was too difficult. Does the hon. Member agree that we would be happy to go through a more complicated process if that would protect and safeguard young people?
Jess Phillips
I agree. I would have been more than happy to undertake a much more robust process to change my name from the good Northern Irish name of Trainor to Phillips. It would have been no bother to me if it had taken a lot more effort. Many other things in life take a lot more effort when they should not.
Mark Fletcher
I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Member again, and I am grateful to her for taking a second intervention. There is an advantage in some cases for the ease of changing a name, particularly through the unenrolled process, which is for domestic abuse victims. I neglected to mention it, and I am glad that the opportunity has arisen. In some cases there is advantage in not doing the enrolled process, and in the ease with which it happens, and we do not want to affect that. I am sure she would agree on that point.
Jess Phillips
I do agree with the hon. Member on that, and it throws up another anomaly in the system. I have worked with many domestic abuse victims, who have tried desperately to not be able to be found, yet, our state systems, whether that be our family court system or our criminal court system, are willy-nilly giving out details of people against their safeguarding and their request. Once again, it feels like the onus is on the victim to protect themselves and we, as a state, are protecting the perpetrator. The balance is off.
I want to ask the Government directly what action the Home Office is taking to identify the hundreds—if not thousands; as has been identified, we expect it to be far more—who have gone missing. What assessment have the Government done of reoffending in that group? Funnily enough, I asked about reoffending rates and assessments that the Home Office was doing in cases of court delays, where people accused of sexual offences against children or adults are waiting years and years. I wanted to understand what measures were being put in place to ensure that reoffending was not happening in cases waiting for three or four years to get to court. That came across my desk because of a multiple child abuse case, where the victims had been waiting five years for their court date, and it was then put off for another year. They will be adults, incidentally, when they sit in the court room. It was found that the perpetrator in that case was living with children. The House might not be surprised to hear that he had not notified anybody.
I asked the Home Office what assessment was being done of reoffending in this space and I also asked the Ministry of Justice. I did get an answer: they are not doing an assessment of that reoffending. I find that harrowing. Where is the independent review looking into this issue and the management of sex offenders, which was, as we have all said, commissioned a year ago?
I will close my remarks by saying that if we want to know about the offender management that exists in this country, let alone whether it is robust, we need only read any of what HMICFRS—all those letters; we changed it to a ridiculously long name—has written about probation and police forces in this country and the level of reoffending in the groups we are talking about today. We should be under no illusion: safeguarding is not being achieved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her work on this important issue and for securing the debate. I welcome those in the Public Gallery and those listening at home, and I thank the Safeguarding Alliance for all its work. To each and every person who has been sexually abused, be they male, female, young, old, children or adults, I say that the Government do take it seriously.
I reassure Members that we recognise their concerns. It was amusing to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) say that junior Ministers come and go. Of course she is right—we do—but in the short time I am here, I want to make sure that I make a difference on this issue. I have some experience in this field from a job I held previously, and what is salient for me is looking into the eyes of somebody who has been abused, or those of their mother, brother, relative or friend. It is horrendous. These crimes are heinous, and the Government must do more to crack down on those who perpetrate them.
As safeguarding Minister, I reassure the House that I am committed to ensuring that we have the most robust system possible for managing registered sex offenders. While a lot of criticism is made of the system for good reason, it is salient that we are still considered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, to be one of the most stringent countries in the world for the management of sexual offenders, not least because of the sterling work that people in this House have done. But it is not enough, and more has to be done.
It may assist the House if I set out some of the general background in this area. I know that some here will have heard this before, but for those listening at home and for the record, I will turn to the specific concerns regarding registered sex offenders and name changes. Members will be aware that registered sex offenders are required to notify the police of certain personal details. This system is often referred to as the sex offenders register and it applies automatically to those offenders who receive a conviction or caution for a sexual offence. They are required to provide their local police station with a record of, among other things, their name, address, date of birth, bank details and national insurance number, and that must be done annually and, importantly, whenever their details change. That means that registered sex offenders are legally required to inform the police if they change their name. Offenders who are subject to notification requirements are also required to notify the police of all travel outside the United Kingdom. Breach of the notification requirements, including failure to provide notification of a name change, is a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison.
We know that some individuals pose a risk beyond that which can be properly managed by a straightforward notification requirement. We also know that there are individuals who come to the police’s attention and pose a risk, but who have not been convicted of an offence. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 reformed the civil orders available to the police on application to the court to manage those risks. It introduced sexual harm prevention orders, which can be applied to anyone convicted or cautioned for a sexual or violent offence; and sexual risk orders, which can be applied to any individual who poses a risk of sexual harm, even if they have never been convicted. Those orders have been deliberately designed to be as flexible as possible so that they can be tailored to the specific risk an individual poses. They can be used to impose any restriction the court considers necessary to protect the public from sexual harm, which can include restrictions on the ability of the individual who is subject to the order to change their name—something that should be used more frequently, in my view. For both orders, breach is a criminal offence punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment.
Moving on to recent changes, registered sex offenders have committed some of the most abhorrent crimes and we must ensure that our approach mitigates the risk of their seeking to exploit weaknesses in the system. Following proposals from the National Police Chiefs’ Council based on feedback from operational policing on how things can be improved, which the police always have an eye to, we have made changes to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. It is now the case that through both SHPOs and SROs, the courts can impose positive obligations as well as restrictions, including requiring an offender to engage in a behavioural change programme. That is totally new and it has helped in some cases. None of these things will be a panacea, but they do assist. The court must also apply the lower civil standard of proof—namely, the balance of probabilities—which will lead to an increase in such orders being made.
The Secretary of State has a new power to prepare a list of countries deemed to be at high risk of child sex abuse by UK nationals or residents. That list has to be considered by applicants and the courts when applying for or making an order for the purpose of protecting children outside the UK from the risk of sexual harm.
In addition, to ensure that the police, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and others have the right systems in place to share information on registered sex offenders and other dangerous individuals, the Home Office and Ministry of Justice are investing in a new multi-agency public protection system—MAPPS. The new system will enable more effective and automated information sharing, which will, in turn, improve the risk management of all offenders managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements.
Sarah Champion
I believe that many Members are aware of the legislation and restrictions that are being outlined. Does the Minister believe that they are robust enough when a sex offender chooses to ignore them?
Miss Dines
The hon. Lady raises a good point. I never believe that any system designed to protect children and adults—be they men or women, boys or girls— is ever robust enough. There is always a way for a deceptive, calculating perpetrator to get round it. It is not enough for a Government to say, “We’ve done something, which is great.” The Government have to be conscious not to just park that on the side, but to constantly look to the next reform. I hope we can work together to achieve that spirit. To give more context, it is planned that MAPPS will replace the violent and sex offender register—ViSOR—next year.
I turn to the issue of name changes, and some of the good and interesting points raised by Members. I recognise and understand the concerns hon. Members have raised, and I reassure them that this Government and I take these issues seriously. Public protection is and will remain our utmost, foremost priority. I have already outlined the legislative measures that we have put in place, but there is, of course, more that can be done.
There are safeguards built in at an operational level, such as through His Majesty’s Passport Office, which has a watchlist to provide some protection for the public in the passport issuing process. That includes supporting the police in managing offenders of concern, including registered sex offenders, and to prevent those who pose a high risk of harm from obtaining a passport in a new name without the police first being consulted. We also have arrangements in place for the police to notify the Passport Office and other relevant bodies of individuals who pose a risk to the public to ensure that we properly control name changes in those cases.
Jess Phillips
I notice that the Minister mentioned “high risk of harm”, which is often up for debate in these issues. Does she agree that all sex offenders pose a high risk of harm?
Miss Dines
Indeed, all domestic abuse and sex offenders are high risk, which is why, of course, domestic abuse has now been included in the police strategic issues.
As I have set out, we do have safeguards built in. It is important that operational decisions are made in a way that ensures resources are deployed where they will be most effective in mitigating risk. As hon. Members will appreciate, I cannot go into detail about some of the intricacies in this field as, of course, we do not want to give people extra ideas—there are operational sensitivities. As with any matters related to public protection, we must always remain vigilant and front-footed to ensure our approach is as effective as possible.
The issue of name changes has been discussed by the hon. Member for Rotherham and others. The Government have listened to those concerns, as have I, and I am undertaking work to see what more can be done. We know that there is the internal review.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
As has been said, disclosing previous identities is a key component of safeguarding. What can be done under the sensitive applications route to prevent sex offenders who change their identity from exercising their right to have previous names withheld from a DBS certificate?
Miss Dines
I am grateful for that intervention. This is an area that I am particularly interested in, as it poses a conflict of competing interests: that of the person who has had a serious offence perpetrated against them, and that of someone who wants to move on in their life for perhaps bona fide—not necessarily nefarious—reasons. There are competing legal interests that need careful thought, and I am looking into that.
Lucy Allan
I thank the Minister for her response. Will she please work closely with the victims Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is sitting next to her today? He is somebody of great integrity who commands respect across the House. With the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice working together, I know that this problem can be solved. Will the Minister please confirm that?
Miss Dines
If I may say so, I have been afforded the utmost professionalism and courtesy by colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. It has been very helpful. We are working on this matter together; we were discussing it just yesterday.
Mark Fletcher
I thank the Minister for accepting the intervention. I admit that she is on a slightly sticky wicket today. I know that she personally cares passionately about the issues we are discussing. We have mentioned the robust system and not wanting to give people ideas. However, I return to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the review that was meant to be published. Will the Minister commit to at least some of us in this House being able to see that review? We will still not know the scale of the problem until we have seen that. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to letting at least some of us see it.
Miss Dines
The review is now complete and I am carefully considering the findings. There are some immediate actions that can be taken, including work to ensure that law enforcement partners are fully utilising and monitoring the tools, information and resources available, such as those provided by the Passport Office. As hon. Members will understand, some of it is very sensitive. However, I am currently considering it with the Home Secretary.
In addition to the internal review, there is lots of work being done. The former Home Secretary appointed Mick Creedon, a former chief constable of Derbyshire constabulary, to undertake an independent review into sex offender management more generally.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker
I thank the Minister for giving way; she has been very generous with her time. As legislators in this place, we have a privileged position in representing our constituents, and we are subject to the highest scrutiny and security. Will the Minister therefore agree that the review should be shared in full with every Member of the House?
Miss Dines
I very much believe in open transparency, but there must always be checks when things are so sensitive that it would not be of assistance.
Miss Dines
I want to make a bit of progress, but I am very happy to talk about it. I have given way a few times, but I would be interested in taking up any further discussions outside the Chamber.
Serious issues have been raised in relation to name changes and changes of gender. An individual who is transgender and has a criminal history is subject to the same monitoring, rules and checks as any other offender. That is the case regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. A change of name resulting from a change of gender does not relieve the registered sex offender from their notification requirements. Regardless of the route used, everyone applying for a DBS for a criminal record certificate must follow the same identity validation process to demonstrate their current identity. This includes the requirement to provide at least one document previously issued by the Government in the current identity, or consent to providing fingerprints. The DBS sensitive applications route allows transgender applicants, including those who self-identify, to provide their full previous identity information to the DBS, while not disclosing that to a prospective employer or having it printed on their DBS certificate.
There is more to do in this area. I am very interested in this area, with the competing rights of such individuals and those who need protection, and I am looking at this. For applications via this route, the DBS additionally seeks to see a name change deed poll or a separate signed self-declaration to formally record the link between the current name and the identity that is to be protected. An application will also be checked against both male and female genders within the system.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister is absolutely right that there are conflicting rights here, but when rights conflict we have to carry out a weighing exercise, and we are talking about sex offenders here—people with a proven track record of abusing children and vulnerable people—so there is really no competition in that situation.
Miss Dines
I am delighted to agree with the hon. and learned Lady, and that is part of my balancing exercise. Sometimes there is lazy government, where the Government think something is sorted out, we have granted a right or a legal right, and we do not need to do any more. However, we do need to look at how things change, at new legislative changes and at the competition between rights, and I am thoroughly interested in that point.
That is why, for example, a blanket ban—I know the hon. Member for Rotherham is not suggesting that today, although it was suggested yesterday—is perhaps a distinction without too much of a difference, because we all want the same thing. A blanket ban preventing sexual offenders from changing their name is at risk of a court finding it to be discriminatory, unreasonable or disproportionate by focusing on all past offending regardless of the level of danger posed by the individual to the public and ignoring their rights.
What is often cited is that there are good and proper reasons for offenders to change their name. It is often cited that there are implications under the Equality Act 2010 or the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and perhaps more importantly, the European convention on human rights, in relation to the right to a private life. This is where we get into the legal complexity of why successive Governments do not always grapple with that problem. I am determined to have a go at it, with the assistance of everybody in this Chamber.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister is being very generous in taking another intervention. The argument that preventing sex offenders from taking advantage of a process of self-identification of gender to hide their identity somehow breaches the European convention on human rights was put forward in the vexed debate over self-identification in Scotland, and I can tell her that it was widely rubbished by many legal commentators. Will she look into it more carefully, rather than just taking at face value what many of us think is the baseless assertion that such a measure would breach human rights?
Miss Dines
I was not putting these points forward as my views; I was saying that they are often cited as an issue. What we need is a thorough overhaul and to look at how, within a lawful existing framework, we can move forward. I am delighted to say that this is an area I am working on, but the hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right that more needs to be done. The present system, while one of the most robust regimes—if not the most robust regime—in the world, is in my view not quite going far enough, and we need to look at it again. We need to protect members of our society, and as the safeguarding Minister, I take that job very seriously.
In closing, I would like to thank hon. Members for the important points they made during their speeches. I hope I have provided some reassurance that we do have tools that assist in managing the risk of sex offenders, but I do accept and concede that there is always more work to be done. I look up at the Public Gallery as I say that, and I thank those who are there for coming to listen to this.
None the less, the Government can never be complacent. Along with the good things we do, we need to do more. I am shortly to meet the national policing lead for the management of sexual and violent offenders, Chief Constable Michelle Skeer, who has national policing responsibility for sex offender management. I want to look more at what ideas she has and what ideas we can all have together across Government, and indeed across the Opposition, to assist.
As I have made clear, public protection and safety is our No. 1 priority, and we are committed to ensuring that the police and other agencies have more and better tools to assist them to more effectively manage registered sex offenders. In a nutshell, a lot has been done, but there is more to do. We need more joined-up systems, and I am going to try to do my little bit in my short time to address these issues.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
And the final word goes to everyone’s champion on this issue—Sarah Champion.
Sarah Champion
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for her encouraging words and I really look forward to working with her to close this gaping loophole. I also thank every Member who has spoken today, and all those who could not be here but are very supportive of this. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this debate. This is not a political issue, but a cross-party safeguarding issue, and I thank everybody for entering the debate on those terms.
The problem we have is that we are currently reliant on registered sex offenders doing the right thing and telling the police if they are going to be changing their name, for good reasons or nefarious ones. That system is being breached again and again. With the data we can get, which is very incomplete, we know that approximately 200 registered sex offenders are going missing a year and that 2,000 are being prosecuted for breaches of their requirements. So we know that is a problem. How big does the problem need to be before the Government close this loophole? The first step towards that is publishing the report that the Government have done: both the internal report—I understand the sensitivities, but we can have it in redacted form—and the report that is currently being done, and may have been completed, by Mick Creedon. We need to know the reality of this problem, rather than just having to rely on the incredibly brave survivors to tell us what is really happening on the ground.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the change of name by registered sex offenders.
Welsh Affairs
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Carolyn Harris, may I just say that I hope everybody had a superb Saint David’s Day yesterday? I certainly did; it was wonderful to see the young pupils of Ysgol Gymraeg Y Fenni singing outside No. 10 Downing Street, which was brilliant. I am looking forward later today to going to the American ambassador’s residence, where the Monmouth male voice choir will be singing. Over to you, Carolyn.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Welsh affairs.
Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker—thank you. Can I start by saying what an honour it is not just to be opening this Welsh affairs debate in celebration of Saint David’s Day, but indeed to be Welsh? I take great pride in standing up for our little corner of the world, and in representing the city where I was born and raised, and which I am lucky enough to still call my home. I also take great pride in representing Welsh Labour in Swansea East, here at Westminster, and right across the country and beyond.
Some of the most influential MPs to sit on these Benches have done so representing the Labour party in Wales—none more so than Aneurin Bevan, who spearheaded the creation of the NHS; Ann Clwyd, who before the groundbreaking 1997 general election was one of only four women to represent a Welsh constituency; and the fantastic Neil Kinnock, an outstanding Leader of the Opposition for almost a decade, and without doubt the best Prime Minister this country never had. It is a real honour to follow in the steps of such committed and powerful politicians.
I want to use today as an opportunity to step away from politics a little, and to talk about Wales in general. While times are tough for many and the world remains in turmoil, our priority must be to focus on what is best for our communities. The year 2022 was a turbulent one globally, and UK news was dominated by political chaos and the death of our longest ever reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Her death brought the country together in morning, and brought with it a new era under King Charles III. His accession to the throne meant that we welcomed a new Prince and Princess of Wales, and I would like to take this opportunity, in our first Welsh affairs debate since their appointment, to say how delighted we are to have them.
Earlier this month I visited the headquarters of Peace Mala in my constituency. This multi award-winning project for peace was set up by local schoolteacher Pam Evans in 2001 following the atrocities of 9/11. Across the world, the aftermath of the terrorist attacks led to widespread Islamophobia, and in her school she was witnessing worrying levels of racial prejudice and bullying of Asian and Muslim students, causing real concern. Pam’s simple but effective response was to create a symbolic rainbow bracelet that the young people could make and wear to represent unity, harmony and peace. It reminds wearers that our communities are filled with colour and difference, but that we are all connected.
While meeting with Pam and learning more about how this simple initiative has progressed across the world, she told me about an article she had written about St David—also, interestingly, the patron saint of Peace Mala—and she kindly shared it with me. As a proud Welsh woman, I naively thought I knew everything there was to know about our patron saint, but I was fascinated to learn so much more about his history, particularly his links to Swansea. A stone altar that he was gifted by the Patriarch of Jerusalem was brought back to Swansea and placed in Llangyfelach, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), just a couple of miles from my constituency.
As we celebrate St David this week, I am especially drawn to his most famous miracle, which is thought to have taken place in the present-day village of Llanddewi Brefi, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake). While speaking to a large crowd, people towards the back were struggling to see and hear him, at which point the ground beneath his feet is said to have opened and risen up to form a small hill, elevating him so that he was easier to see and hear. I am not sure that anyone would struggle to hear me, but I do quite like the idea of the ground opening and elevating me—and I am sure the Secretary of State for Wales would also like to see that.
I take great pride in visiting projects and organisations around my constituency, such as Peace Mala, and in supporting their work and learning about what they are doing to help our communities. Over the last few months I have visited numerous businesses in my constituency and also those of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), and others to discuss menopause, and I am delighted that so many Welsh organisations and businesses are now stepping up to the plate to provide the right environment for menopausal women, and if they are not providing it now, they are listening to the message and giving consideration to women in their workforce. I have been delighted by the number of massive companies that have contacted me asking for help to devise menopause initiatives. I would love for Swansea, and in fact Wales, to become world leaders for menopause awareness. I would love to work with colleagues across the House to make sure that in all their constituencies the menopause message is delivered to the women who need to hear that we care.
We already have the great advantage in Wales of free access to prescriptions, so women have free hormone replacement therapy. Unfortunately, women in England have had to wait 500 days so far to get anywhere close to where we are in Wales by being able to access an annual prepayment certificate. It would be wonderful if women in England could be in the same position as women in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and have access to free HRT.
I have spoken regularly in this Chamber about my Everyone Deserves campaign, which aims to tackle food poverty and hunger across my constituency and those of others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). Last Christmas we made and delivered over 800 festive hampers and cooked and delivered over 200 Christmas dinners; we deliver them to vulnerable people and to those struggling financially or who are alone—those who need a little more support. We are now preparing for our Easter campaign to ease the burden on families who are currently struggling and to ensure that children across our constituencies get to enjoy a chocolate treat over the Easter break.
But all of this is only possible with support both from those who are able to be there and physically fill the boxes and those who are kind enough to make financial contributions. A couple of years ago, Welsh football legend Gareth Bale stepped in to help, donating £15,000 towards the project. At the height of the covid pandemic, when so many more families than ever before needed our help, this gesture made an enormous difference to our efforts. So as Gareth retires from professional football, after 17 years, I think it is only right that he gets a mention today, not just as one of the greatest wingers of a generation and arguably the best football player ever to wear a Welsh shirt—although I must include Neville Southall as well—but as a true gentleman who has used his platform to help others.
Last Christmas the Everyone Deserves hero was another truly great and talented Welshman: Michael Sheen. I have worked with Michael on numerous projects over the years and, as ever, he got in touch before Christmas to ask what he could do to help. He then proceeded to have a 2023 calendar printed, full of stunning artistic shots of him taken in Margam park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, with every penny, which was nigh-on £10,000, being donated to the Everyone Deserves campaign. That enabled us to know we could provide support and help to Welsh families at a time when so many were struggling.
It is not just big celebrities who help, but so too do local heroes, like Mal Pope and Kev Johns and the cast and crew of the Grand Theatre, where the pantomime played twice a day and at the end of every day they passed around a bucket and asked the audience to give something to the Everyone Deserves campaign. At the end of the pantomime’s run they had raised £18,500, which is allowing me to do more work this Christmas, this summer, this easter. And there is the fantastic Valley Rock Voices Welsh women’s choir from all across south Wales, who every week do a raffle and a collection, and are constantly giving us support and money, allowing us to help other people. Without these local heroes and the generosity of the Welsh people in our communities, so many people would be struggling to provide the basics for their families.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a beautiful and inspiring speech, and I am in awe of her work, particularly with the Everyone Deserves campaign. Does she agree that a particularly wonderful thing about Wales is not only the help in communities for the disadvantaged—I think of the Moorland centre in Splott in my constituency, which helps older people with hot lunches; I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests —but that we do not stop at our borders? Welsh people have always been proudly internationalist; along the road from that centre is the Oasis centre, supported also by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), which assists people fleeing persecution around the world. In Wales, we help our own as well as those who flee to Wales.
Carolyn Harris
Yes, and what makes us unique is that not only do we want to help everyone but we sing while we are doing it.
Last year has been tough for many across Wales. Few will have escaped without feeling the pinch of rising prices in our shops, rocketing fuel bills and the daily struggle to keep in control of family finances. Every community the length and breadth of our nation is facing the same stark reality, and it is the job of every one of us in Westminster and in the Senedd in Cardiff to do everything in our power to change that.
I look forward to hearing other contributions today; I suspect they will celebrate successes and achievements, and no doubt we will have political banter, and I hope we highlight what is best about Wales. But I say to all colleagues that all of us here who represent Welsh constituencies should be and are proud, and we should make our constituents proud of us. It is our job to represent them, and we need to do our very best to make sure their lives are more tolerable.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Diolch yn fawr and congratulations on all your charitable work, Carolyn. Absolutely superb.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
What a terrific privilege it is to follow the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who opened this annual debate on Welsh affairs in the very best traditions of the debate. She has never been afraid to work on a bipartisan, cross-party basis. She demonstrated again her values and her genuine desire to improve the communities she represents, and communities more generally across Wales. I add my voice to that of Mr Deputy Speaker a moment ago in commending her for the work she does, particularly at Christmas time with disadvantaged families in her constituency and throughout the Swansea area. It is really tremendous.
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me so early in the debate. I wish you, belatedly, a happy St David’s day. I did not get to see you yesterday evening at the Guildhall. Maybe you were there, maybe you were not —who knows? There were so many people there. One distinctive thing about celebrating St David’s day, perhaps in contrast to St Patrick’s Day or Burns night celebrations, although this might just reflect my own narrow experience of those two events celebrated by our Celtic cousins, is that it is first and foremost about children.
In opening the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, you referred to the schoolchildren who sang yesterday at the entrance of Downing Street when people were going in for the Prime Minister’s St David’s day reception. In New Palace Yard yesterday, Mr Speaker hoisted y ddraig goch, the red dragon flag, at the start of the day. We also had a choir of schoolchildren. It was wonderful. For generations —you will remember it from your own boyhood, Mr Deputy Speaker—wearing a daffodil or a leek, or more recently a rugby shirt or Welsh national costume, has been a part of the Welsh childhood experience. That is one reason why, as much as I want to maximise St David’s day celebrations—I love the way they seem to grow every year, particularly in London—I am not persuaded that St David’s day should be a national holiday. Would the cultural richness of St David’s day be the same if it was a day for children to remain at home? Schools play a tremendous role in nurturing the St David’s day traditions, giving children a sense of Welsh identity. I put on record my thanks, gratitude and respect to teachers, particularly in Pembrokeshire, for the way, in schools across the county, they nurture St David’s day and help to ensure the traditions pass from one generation to another.
For us in Pembrokeshire, St David’s day has a special resonance. He was one of us, reputedly born on a clifftop on the Pembrokeshire coast. The wonderful holy city of St Davids, in the wild and beautiful north-west peninsular of my constituency, ensures that his memory and legacy will live on forever. For any Member who has not had the opportunity to visit St Davids, it is a wonderful city. It is the smallest city in Britain. It is a beautiful, holy, peaceful place to visit. I know, because I bump into them every so often, that various Members have a particular interest in the area around St Davids and they are very, very welcome. They are also welcome to bring more colleagues.
In Westminster, we are in the middle of Wales week, which seems to grow every year—it is almost a month now! One day is not enough to celebrate; we need more time. This year, Wales week in London is bigger, better and louder than ever. I pay tribute to Dan Langford and the team for the way they have grown this series of events. He told me on Monday that this year there are more than 100 events across London for people with Welsh heritage, Welsh people and people with an interest in Wales to come together and learn something new about Wales and to celebrate.
I referred to the amazing event at the Guildhall in the City of London. It was the first time that I had been and it was a joy to be there in that atmosphere. When the anthem was sung, it was a tremendous spiritual moment for us all. At the event, I heard probably the speech—no disrespect to any speech today—of St David’s day this year. Lowri Roberts is the head of women and girls’ football at the Football Association of Wales. I participated in an event with her on Monday for Wales week in London. I heard her speak then and was extremely impressed, but the speech she gave last night was remarkable. She talked about the role of football in our national life in Wales and the way it has changed, particularly in the last 12 months. Football has a special place for women and girls, and we are seeing a huge exponential growth in women and girls’ football in Wales. It was as much a speech for the men and the boys as it was for the women and the girls, because she spoke not just about sport, gender or Wales, but values, social justice and equality.
I often think that sport plays a bigger role in how we project our identity as a nation than perhaps it does for other countries. When I travel internationally, I say that I am from Wales. I meet people who are not necessarily familiar with the slightly complex structure of our United Kingdom family of nations. When I go to north America, I find that they understand Ireland and the Irish national story, and perhaps the Scottish national story, but sometimes the Welsh national story is less well understood. Sport is an incredibly powerful vehicle in helping to tell that story, especially with the values that our footballers, men and women, have shown over the last 12 months. I am talking not just about their success and achievements in qualifying for various tournaments, but how they, and the team of coaches and administrators around them, have conducted themselves on and off the pitch, representing the very best of who we are in Wales and helping us to tell a very positive and strong story about the Welsh nation.
At the start of this year, we in the Welsh Affairs Committee had the great opportunity, over five days, to visit the United States: New York, Washington DC and Atlanta in Georgia. We were pursuing three inquiries, including how Wales is promoted internationally, particularly in relation to attracting tourism, and the role that Wales plays in delivering net zero and energy security. I want to thank our consul general in New York for facilitating an excellent set of meetings, and our ambassador in Washington, Dame Karen Pierce, for welcoming us to Washington DC. It was a great privilege to present her with a fine bottle of Penderyn whisky.
It was helpful to see the roles played by the UK Government teams and the Welsh Government teams in promoting Wales. I confess that over the years I was one of those people who was a bit sniffy and sceptical about the Welsh Government investing in offices overseas. I have probably been guilty of criticising the Welsh Government for trying to duplicate activities that I thought were rightly the responsibility of UK Government trade or diplomatic teams. What we saw—I hope other members of the Committee agree—was an incredibly strong sense of alignment between the UK Government teams and Welsh Government personnel in trying to further the strategic objectives of promoting the UK and capturing more trade and investment, but the points of difference were really interesting. The teams representing Wales out there, as well as working in very close harmony with their UK counterparts, have an eye on that particular mission to capture something extra for Wales. It was a fascinating visit.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned sport, but another of the ways in which Wales is making waves in the world is in our creative industries. We have seen particular growth in my constituency. Obviously, we have “Doctor Who”, “His Dark Materials” and others, and fantastic music artists. We have the fantastic Aleighcia Scott—it was kind of the Secretary of State to invite her to be a lead singer at the Lancaster House event this week. Wales is punching above its weight in all the creative industries, particularly music, TV and film.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is exactly right, and I encourage him to follow the output of the Welsh Affairs Committee as we continue our inquiry into broadcasting in Wales. He may have seen a few weeks ago that Netflix chose to use the incredibly important forum of the Committee to announce its investment in its first Welsh-language drama. It is great to see Welsh-language productions from Wales, made in Wales and projecting the Welsh language through new global streaming platforms. It is an opportunity to project Welsh culture and identity, and perhaps a challenge and even a threat to some of the traditional broadcasters. Overall, he alludes to a healthy picture.
I referenced our visit to north America, where there are huge opportunities. I often think that we perhaps make too much of the slightly odd colonial experiment in Patagonia and not enough of the Welsh diaspora that moved to the US, particularly in the late 18th and early 19th century. Welsh people were at the heart of the US industrial revolution experience. When the Welsh Affairs Committee was in Washington in January, we had the opportunity to visit Capitol Hill and were hosted by the Friends of Wales Caucus in Congress.
I thank Congressman Morgan Griffith from Virginia for welcoming us and for the fascinating discussion that we had in his office about the links between our nations. He has people in his district with strong Welsh heritage, and there are towns and villages in his district and throughout Pennsylvania that bear the names of Welsh towns and villages that we are familiar with. That means that there are opportunities for us. Sometimes, I think that the Irish and Scottish make far more of their diaspora and use it more intelligently to further strategic and economic objectives than we do. We were looking at that as a Committee. I pay tribute to Ty Francis for his work in creating New York Welsh, a diaspora community in New York City, and for his further work to create a network of people with Welsh heritage internationally who all want to feed back and support the growth of Wales back home.
I will conclude on an area where I feel upbeat and optimistic this St David’s day—energy. Wales has an important role to play in helping the UK to meet energy security objectives and to make strides towards achieving net zero. Wales already has an enormous heritage when it comes to energy. In my constituency, Milford Haven has a history of 50 years of oil and gas processing and import. The opportunity in front of us is the launch of a brand-new industry—floating offshore wind. We have made great strides with fixed-bottom offshore wind in this country, particularly on the eastern seaboard of the UK. But with floating offshore wind, we can have bigger turbines, go to deeper waters where it is windier, get a better load factor on the turbines and create more electricity.
With this new industry we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. I am looking forward to the remarks by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who has been working hard on that. If we do this right, we can create new domestic economic opportunities and genuine supply chains here in the UK and in Wales, and centre this new industry around Port Talbot and Milford Haven. It is great that our ports are collaborating on the Celtic freeport bid. It would be wonderful to hear from the Secretary of State when we might hear the outcome of that bidding process. That is the prize in front of us that is worth capturing. Big industrial economic opportunities do not come along that often in Wales, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have one now and we should seize it.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and some very good points about floating offshore wind. On ensuring that we capture the benefits in Wales, does he agree that a very hard line should be taken with the Crown Estate to ensure that when leasing the seabed, there are clear conditions on the developer to ensure that the manufacturing, the supply chain, the jobs and the skills stay in Wales? We must not make the tremendous and awful mistakes of the past, when we allowed all the supply chains to go overseas.
Stephen Crabb
I agree. We need to achieve alignment between the Crown Estate’s leasing auctions, the Treasury’s contracts for difference process and the commitments that developers make. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that we need to hold their feet to the fire—whether the developers’ or the Crown Estate’s. When companies make promises to create x number of jobs and apprenticeships in his constituency or mine, we want them to be realised. That is the opportunity in front of us.
I have probably exhausted my time. I hope that you feel as upbeat and optimistic as me, Mr Deputy Speaker. We spend a lot of time in this Chamber debating the problems and challenges facing Wales. Sometimes, as a nation we are prone to a little too much negativity. I hope on this St David’s day we can be positive and upbeat, and certainly follow the spirit in which the debate was opened by the hon. Member for Swansea East.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The right hon. Gentleman reminded me and all of us who grew up in Wales of the school eisteddfod, which I thoroughly enjoyed when I went to Dynevor School. We mostly got the afternoon off, so it was great.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I wish everyone a belated happy St David’s day if I did not wish it to them yesterday. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) not only on her wonderful, poetic opening speech, but on the Everyone Deserves a Christmas, Summer and Easter campaign. It seems to be an all-year-round campaign this year. I have had the pleasure of taking part in that initiative, which does a huge amount to tackle holiday hunger by providing hampers to families who are struggling at Christmas. I am proud to say that those hampers provided 447 children and their families across Neath Port Talbot with a lovely Christmas dinner with all the trimmings, plus lots of other treats. It was a great pleasure to be part of the hamper packing process, which also enabled us to hang out with some of our heroes from the Ospreys, the Aberavon Wizards and the Swans—even though I say that as a Bluebird.
That achievement was possible only thanks to the generosity of businesses and individuals across Aberavon and the whole area covered by the Everyone Deserves campaign, whose donations helped pay for the hampers. It also reflects the fact that many of my constituents, and I am sure those of all of our colleagues assembled here, are struggling with the rocketing cost of living. Record energy prices, soaring costs of household essentials, falling wages and the highest interest rates for 40 years are really biting. Real wages in Aberavon have plummeted since 2010, leaving my constituents £1,123 per year worse off on average. Incomes are simply not keeping pace with rising costs, and they no longer cover the essentials. Many talk of a cost of existing crisis rather than a cost of living crisis. Constituents are not putting the heating on or are cutting back on essential groceries. They are worried sick about whether they can pay their energy bills or afford their rent or mortgage payments. The numbers of people turning up to food banks is up, up, up.
In December, more than 33,000 people in Wales experienced financial hardship to the extent of accessing £2.36 million from the Welsh Government’s discretionary assistance fund. The Welsh Government have since pledged £18.8 million to the fund to protect people who are facing financial hardship. Despite having fewer economic levers at their disposal compared with the UK Government, the Welsh Government have stepped up to the plate by providing a £51 million household support fund targeted at those who need it most. They have doubled the winter fuel support payment to £200 to help those on low incomes with their energy bills, and have provided £1.1 million to support food banks, community food partnerships and community hubs.
The Welsh Labour Government are doing their level best to shield Wales from the worst of the crisis, but the reality is that energy bills will go up by £900 in April. Hard-working families are feeling the pinch, while oil and gas giants are celebrating record profits and laughing all the way to the bank. On behalf of my Aberavon constituents, I urge the UK Government to step up and help them and others across the country by closing the loopholes and bringing in a proper one-off windfall tax on energy giants. The money raised could be spent on a package of support for energy bills, passing savings on to households immediately, and stopping the energy price cap going up in April. An end must be put to the scandalous penalties imposed on prepayment meter customers, who should not be paying more than those who pay by direct debit. There also needs to be a three-month moratorium on the forced installation of prepayment meters.
Learning the lessons of the energy crisis is essential to prevent it from happening again. If our country is to better protect itself, we must become more resilient and less exposed to fluctuating global energy prices. That brings me on to a topic that the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) mentioned: floating offshore wind. FLOW will be hugely important in allowing our country to stand more firmly on our own two feet. It will also be essential in helping us reach net zero.
Port Talbot, along with the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, has the potential to be at the heart of this 21st-century green industrial revolution. Our deep-sea harbour, our land for development, our excellent transport links, our world-class steelworks and our existing manufacturing supply chains and skills base make us well placed to deliver 24 GW of FLOW in the Celtic sea, a quarter of the UK’s total target.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. If we are to go down that road, we have to do it on a scale that will make a real change. The problem with our energy policy has been that we have tended to dabble in things without putting investment in. These things are not going to happen by themselves. We need to put investment in, and we need to put it in now.
Stephen Kinnock
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think we can agree that energy policy across the UK has tended to ebb and flow. It has not given investors the clarity or the long-term stability and certainty that they need. These are big investments that require confidence in the Government that things will not shift from one thing to another. Stability, strategic purpose and mission-driven government are what we need.
FLOW is a genuine game changer for the south Wales economy and the labour market, creating thousands of high-quality, high-skill local jobs. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform Aberavon and south Wales and turn us into a green power superpower, and what makes it even more exciting is that it can support green steel making. The steel industry has been crying out for years for UK Government support to mitigate crippling energy costs. UK steel producers pay an estimated 63% more than their German counterparts. They need to be able to compete internationally on a level playing field. Tata Steel estimates that producing 60 floating substructures and turbines a year for FLOW would require 6 million tonnes of steel. The real win-win is that the green, clean energy produced through FLOW can help to produce the green steel that Tata plans to make in its future electric arc furnaces, which will replace the current blast furnace technology, at a lower cost per unit than is possible with the sky-high electricity prices that are currently holding our steelworkers back.
There are two key decisions that the UK Government, working in very close collaboration with the Welsh Government, need to make to kick-start this hugely exciting opportunity. The first is on the freeport bid. Delivering FLOW at the necessary scale and speed will require support. Backing the Celtic freeport bid can unlock £5.5 billion of new investment and 16,000 jobs. It will also provide the launchpad for accelerating the development of FLOW and bring household energy bills down. This is not a transactional opportunity; it is a transformational opportunity.
The second decision is on the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme. FLOWMIS is another vital building block of this game changer for renewable energy. The Welsh Government have already stepped up to the mark and provided a £1 million grant to help the transformation of Port Talbot dock, with a dry dock and other facilities necessary to provide the manufacturing capability for FLOW. It is time the UK Government followed their lead and urgently launched the FLOWMIS programme. FLOWMIS co-funding would demonstrate the UK Government’s clear long-term commitment to developing the ports and the sector, giving confidence to investors and other funding providers to back the project and unlocking sizeable private sector investment potential. I really hope that the Secretary of State will say something about FLOWMIS at the Dispatch Box today.
For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, Welsh coal, slate, copper and steel were known around the world. In the 21st century, if the opportunity is seized, Wales could just as well be known for FLOW. The prize is clear: the creation of a new long-term industry whose high-value manufacturing has “Made in Wales” firmly embossed on the tin. Wales was the cradle of the first industrial revolution; now let us make it the cradle of the green industrial revolution.
It is not just FLOW that could be embossed with “Made in Wales”. Universities in Wales have been at the forefront of innovative ideas that could change the way we live, thanks to the £370 million of EU structural funds that have been invested in university-led projects in Wales. SPECIFIC—the sustainable product engineering centre for innovative functional industrial coatings—is a Swansea University project based in Aberavon. It has been doing wonderful work on creating buildings that store and release heat and electricity from solar energy, but no replacement funds offer the parity of support that is needed for that research and innovation work. More than 60 projects across Wales, including SPECIFIC, now face a very uncertain future. Approximately 1,000 jobs are at risk. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment today to speak with colleagues about bridging funding to enable these important projects to continue, to prevent Wales from losing this talent and to avoid the cliff edge that exists under the shared prosperity fund?
My Aberavon constituents and the people of Wales need something better. They need a UK Labour Government working in tandem with a Welsh Labour Government to deliver for Wales and deliver for our entire United Kingdom.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is well respected on both sides of the House, on securing this debate and opening it wonderfully. It is disappointing that her hair is not red, white and green just for today, but we do like it purple.
Yesterday morning, we went to New Palace Yard with Mr Speaker, some dignitaries and some fantastic children in full traditional attire to see the raising of the Welsh flag above Parliament. The children sang a beautiful song about Dewi Sant and presented Mr Speaker with some lovely daffodils, and those who knew the words sang the national anthem. Before taking pictures, my assistant said, “You don’t have a daffodil like everybody else.” My response was quite a cliché: “I don’t need one. I’ve got my Welsh pride with me in my heart every day, everywhere I go. I don’t need to wear a flower to show it to everybody else.” It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but that is how I and so many people across the length and breadth of Wales really feel about our country.
The feeling of Welsh patriotism, strangely, is often a little bit more like a religion. Such is the depth of feeling of a Welsh person for their country, and everyone knows it. Even in these challenging sporting times for Wales, you will not hear a more stirring national anthem anywhere in the world than the one sung by 70,000 Welsh rugby fans blasting the roof off the Principality stadium. If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, as St David’s day comes just once a year, it is the words of the rarely heard second verse that I find most enjoyable:
“Hen Gymru fynyddig, paradwys y bardd;
Pob dyffryn, pob clogwyn, i’m golwg sydd hardd,
Trwy deimlad gwladgarol, mor swynol yw si,
Ei nentydd, afonydd, i mi.”
For the benefit of those who do not know the verse, the translation is:
“Old land of the mountains, paradise of the poets,
Every valley, every cliff a beauty guards;
Through love of my country, enchanting voices will be
Her streams and rivers to me.”
That speaks volumes about the country and how it is regarded by the people.
A little while back, in preparation for this debate, I asked my constituents via social media to suggest what they would say themselves, or what they would like me to say, about life in Wales and how things are run. I will touch on a number of those themes now, only partly apologising for getting a bit more political during the remainder of my speech. As the hon. Member for Swansea East said in her opening speech, we are here to represent the views of our constituents.
Kathryn had a lot of points to bring up about life in Wales. She wanted to talk about travel, roads, the NHS, the disparities in local authority funding and the north-south divide. Dave asked about dentistry. Julie, a pharmacy worker, asked about the NHS and why there was no uniformity between systems and records. I shall say more about that later. Kyle asked about roads and public transport, Billy had more to say about the NHS, Paul asked about a new train station, and Len made a point about devolution generally, which I will save until the end of my speech. Quentin helpfully asked, “Why is it that male voice choirs always sound so good?”. That is a fair question, but it will remain one of life’s unexplained mysteries, true as it is.
The predominant issue that keeps coming up in the responses from my constituents, and in the many emails and letters that I receive each week asking for help, is health and social care. I was here, in this very spot, exactly a week ago to take part in a debate on the future of the NHS, initiated by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). Opposition Members lined up to take shots at the UK Government for their mismanagement of the NHS. One after another, they rose to their feet saying that Labour had a plan for the NHS. I was delighted to hear it. I intervened a couple of times to commend them for having a plan, and asked if they could please share it with their colleague the Welsh Labour Health Minister, who did not seem to have one at all.
In North Wales, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was put back into special measures earlier this week and all the members of the management board were relieved of their positions, with an interim chair and board put in place until replacements are found. That was the action of the Welsh Health Minister: removing the board which seemed to be the only body even trying to hold the failing executives to account, while allowing the executives and senior management team who had presided over a decade of failure to carry on. For it has been, sadly, a decade of failure—at least. The health board had been in special measures for about eight years until a few weeks before the most recent Senedd election, when it was announced with great fanfare that it was no longer in special measures. The political opportunism was astonishing, as Welsh Labour once again made winning votes a higher priority than the health of the people of north Wales. Nothing had changed, and nothing has changed now. Back into special measures the health board goes, but that does not mean anything: it has been like that for ages, and still nothing changes, including the Welsh Health Minister.
If the level of disastrous oversight of health services in north Wales were seen in England, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition would be calling for the resignation of the Secretary of State and his entire ministerial team, but it’s okay, it’s just north Wales—just north Wales, where only 62% of NHS buildings are operationally safe to use. In England, one in 20 people on waiting lists have been waiting more than a year—5%—while in Wales the figure is one in four, or 25%.
The health service in Wales performs worse in virtually every measurable area than the equivalent in England. Currently, only 51% of “red call” patients are responded to within eight minutes. That is the second longest ambulance wait time ever. Only 23% of amber calls, which include heart attacks and strokes, were responded to within 30 minutes. Where is the outrage? Where are the demands for a better service? Instead, we heard the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), say in a speech last year that the Welsh Government were providing a
“blueprint for what Labour can do across the UK”.
You couldn’t make it up, Mr Deputy Speaker.
However, as I said during last week’s debate, none of these statistics help. While we, as politicians in this place and in the media, spend all our time pointing fingers and trying to apportion blame, we never get to the actual issues. The NHS is failing in all parts of the United Kingdom, under three different ruling parties. This is not a political problem but a structural one, and the more time we spend finding someone to blame and making foolish points that shut down any prospect of sensible debate—such as, “You just want to privatise everything”—the lower is the chance of any positive change that will make a real difference in outcomes for people.
As I mentioned earlier, Julie asked about uniformity of records and systems. It is ridiculous that if I had an accident or a medical problem while on holiday in Cornwall or Inverness, the medical professionals there would not be able to access my records because they are on NHS Wales systems. That enforced division is so harmful to the cohesion of the UK and our sense of community. We have spent years on an issue that thankfully, or hopefully, the Prime Minister seems to have finally solved —an issue that annexed and divided one part of the UK from the rest—but in so many small ways, we segregate and divide ourselves from each other on an ever-increasing basis. It is such a shame.
This morning, I received an email from a local reporter saying that they were running a story on the lack of availability of housing in Flintshire, and asking whether I would like to comment. The sad fact is that over the past three years, 665 new homes have been built in the average constituency across the UK, while in Delyn the figure is just 276, or 40% of the average. We have a huge lack of social housing, with people waiting on the list for years in the hope of a property becoming available, and virtually none are being built. However, I cannot lay the blame at the door of Flintshire County Council, as Flintshire receives the 20th highest funding settlement among the 22 local authorities in Wales every year.
Rob Roberts
Absolutely. I completely agree with my constituency neighbour. As I said, I cannot blame Flintshire County Council for this at all. It does what it can with the meagre resources it receives from the Welsh Government. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), is shouting across the Chamber about the Treasury Bench, but this has nothing to do with the Treasury Bench. I am talking about the way in which the money is divided by the Welsh Government, and how it is allotted to the different authorities. As I said, Flintshire County Council comes 20th out of the 22 Welsh authorities every year.
Rob Roberts
It was the case this year. On a per capita basis, Flintshire was 20th out of 22, as was recently stated by the council’s chief executive. There is no denying it whatsoever.
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend made an interesting point earlier about structural challenges in the NHS. He has now moved on to the subject of local authorities. Does he think that, for a nation of 3.3 million people, a total of 22 local authorities is too many?
Rob Roberts
I think that arguably it is. We should also consider the number of elected representatives we have, and the wish to increase that even further. London—which is a good example—has a population of 10 million, and significantly fewer elected representatives and decision-making bodies. I do agree with my right hon. Friend: 22 is far too many, whereas, in bizarre contrast, one health board covering the huge geographical area and diversity of north Wales seems, sadly, not to be enough.
Flintshire is so poorly funded by the Welsh Government that in order for services to be maintained, council tax in my constituency has risen by about 30% in the past couple of years. Given that my constituency also has about 25% more over-65s and elderly people than the national average, this is a huge problem for a constituency some parts of which are already among the top 10% of the most deprived areas in Wales. Other local authorities are in the top five for funding every year, despite having dozens of millions of pounds in unallocated reserves. It will come as a surprise to no one in the north that four out of the top five local authorities for funding each year are in the south. If Flintshire were simply given the average funding—if the funds were just levelled out and distributed in a fairer way—that would put an additional £20 million a year into Flintshire, and my constituents would not need to see reduced services at an ever-increasing cost.
Finally, let me say a little about transport. The Welsh Government announced recently that it was scrapping the majority of its road building projects, most of which were cancelled because of the attempt to get people out of cars and into other modes of transport. As parliamentarians we spend a great deal of time in London, and we recognise that public transport is better than cars in many instances; but that is London, which contains nearly 10 million people in a small area. In north Wales, about 750,000 people are spread across a vast geography of coastal and mountainous terrain. There is no realistic prospect for people to abandon their cars and use public transport, even if it were good, but unfortunately the public transport facilities throughout north Wales are terrible. Trains and buses run sporadically. When they do run, they are rarely on time. Public transport is simply not feasible, so to hear that the people of north Wales are being told that they should switch to alternative modes of travel, that they should submit to the increasingly pervasive active travel solution that asks pensioners to walk up the steep hills of Delyn’s towns in the name of reducing emissions, is ludicrous.
The roads policy, as well as the Welsh Government’s ridiculous move to reduce the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph from September, is nothing short of an attack on car users, not caring that car use is crucial in north Wales. Along with things like the tourism tax and falling educational standards, it is just another way in which the Welsh Government are systematically destroying the country that many of us love so dearly.
One of my respondents on social media spoke about devolution, which does not work for us in north Wales. It is a failed 25-year experiment that has delivered absolutely nothing for the people of north Wales, and now the Welsh Government want to expand it even further, at the cost of another £100 million.
It is my abiding wish, which I am sure will never come to fruition, that the UK Government look at what is happening in north Wales, put aside their seeming political position of “devolve and forget” and do something to help us by bringing forward measures to test the will of the Welsh people once again on whether they want to continue with this failed experiment.
May 2024 will be the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the Senedd, and I live in hope that 2049 will be the 25th anniversary of its abolition.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), who made an interesting speech. He tempts me to agree with him, but I fear I will have to disappoint him on this occasion. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate and on introducing it in such a wonderful and inspiring way. It really is a pleasure to participate this afternoon after such a fantastic opening.
St David’s Day week is a wonderful opportunity. It appears as if St David’s Day has become even more of a fixture in everyone’s calendar, and it is wonderful to see so many events being organised to remember the patron saint. It is good that Members from Wales have this opportunity to discuss the issues facing Wales today and perhaps in the future.
I was particularly struck by the comments of the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on the exciting potential of floating offshore wind. We sometimes dwell on the negatives, especially given the state of the Six Nations performances this year, so let us dwell on some of the positives. The potential of floating offshore wind is exciting and, as the hon. Member for Aberavon said, it presents an opportunity for another green industrial revolution. The synergy between that source of energy and industry is unique and exciting, and I know it is something that other countries are looking at closely. I hope we can lead on that development.
Although I outline a point of consensus with the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, I have to disagree with him on one important point, which is our patron saint’s origin and place of birth. He is correct to say that there is a legend suggesting that St David was born in Pembrokeshire, but I have it on good authority that there is another account suggesting that St David was actually born in Henfynyw, which is near Aberaeron in my constituency, and that he was a grandson of a king of Ceredigion, no less. Combined with his miraculous exploits at Llanddewi Brefi in the year 550, this surely marks him as potentially the most famous Cardi in history.
I am privileged to represent Ceredigion, and it would be remiss of me not to extol the wonderful attributes of the county’s communities and people. Members will of course be familiar with Ceredigion’s natural beauty—our coast and countryside are rightly the envy of the people of these islands—but it is the resilience of her people that casts Ceredigion as a truly remarkable place.
Other Members will agree that Friday is one of the highlights of our week, when we are able to go out and meet different organisations and people in our constituency who do remarkable things. It is a chance to meet the everyday heroes, such as those volunteering in local initiatives such as Home-Start and food banks. It gives us a sense of perspective, which is important in politics. I place on record my thanks to all the people in Ceredigion who give so generously of their time to support others in the community.
Like so many other areas, the cost of living crisis has hit Ceredigion hard. I worry that such is its severity that it risks exacerbating longer-term demographic trends, endangering the county’s future vibrancy and prosperity. The wealth of any county, or country for that matter, is its people. As such, it is impossible to consider the results of the 2021 census without a degree of trepidation. Ceredigion recorded a 5.8% reduction in its total population, exceeding the decline of other areas, such as the 3.7% decrease in Gwynedd and the 1.2% drop in Ynys Môn. It is a demographic trend that is decades old, and Ceredigion’s experience is influenced by an even older tendency for populations to aggregate in more urban centres.
We need to consider how Government action can address some of the underlying drivers of rural depopulation and, at the very least, try to mitigate its consequences. A declining or reducing population impacts on the funding and provision of key public services. The hon. Member for Delyn mentioned the difficulties of funding local services, and a declining population does not help in that regard. It also makes it harder to recruit doctors for our surgeries, teachers for our schools and nurses for our hospitals. It saps the energy from civic initiatives, hinders economic growth and, at the worst, weathers the social fabric of local communities. We need only pass a closed school or a shuttered pub to understand the consequences of rural depopulation.
Yet, in the age of digital working and levelling up, we need not despair. The covid pandemic demonstrated that it is possible to live in areas such as Ceredigion and pursue careers that, in the past, might have required people to relocate to Cardiff, Bristol, London or elsewhere. Digital connectively offers possibilities of which previous generations of Cardis could only dream. Ceredigion’s economy would benefit significantly if its digital infra- structure could be brought into the 21st century.
Sadly, we still trail the UK averages for both superfast and gigabit broadband, so it is vital that the next iteration of the Government’s Project Gigabit programme brings forward much-needed investment in Ceredigion’s digital infrastructure without delay. I was grateful for the Minister’s response yesterday that he is willing to meet me to discuss this, because we still have areas of the county that have not only no access to broadband but no mobile coverage. Those areas should be prioritised in any new programme. In pursuing a levelling-up agenda, the Government could do much worse than to prioritise improvements to the digital infrastructure of rural areas.
If we are to counter such tectonic demographic trends, we also need to see structural funding from the shared prosperity fund and some creative thinking. I was interested to attend the recent session organised by the Welsh Affairs Committee with representatives of the Scottish Government, with whom I discussed some of their proposals for a rural visa pilot scheme. Although the levers to deliver the project are held by the UK Government, it is something we should consider. The Scottish Government have proposed a community-driven approach to migration that would respond to the distinct needs of rural communities to act as a counterbalance to an ageing demographic and rural depopulation. Such a policy should be explored further, as it could help to boost economic prosperity be ensuring that industries secure the skills and labour they require to grow, and that public services can ensure they have the people needed to maintain key services.
We need a long-term strategy to address the consequences and drivers of rural depopulation. I am not proposing for a moment that I have the answers today, but individual policies such as a rural visa pilot or enhanced investment in broadband can nevertheless make an important contribution to mitigating some of the worst consequences of these demographic trends that Ceredigion and other rural areas are facing.
Before concluding, let me take the opportunity to raise an issue in the hope that the Secretary of State can use his good offices to look into it. We speak a lot in this place about energy efficiency and the need to decarbonise housing. In this cost of living crisis, with the current price of energy, there is a great deal of interest among the public in improving the energy efficiency of their homes. We should all be pursuing and supporting that. I am conscious that at present the flagship energy efficiency policy is ECO4—the fourth phase of the energy company obligation. Although I agree that retrofitting projects will have to play an important role in the broader energy efficiency mission, I am concerned about the implementation of ECO4 locally in my constituency.
I have been contacted by too many constituents with complaints and concerns about the way in which this scheme is being administered and run locally. Some have told me that they were supposed to receive support under the ECO4 scheme but it has ended up making things worse for them. We know that in rural areas the housing stock tends to be more inefficient and that fuel poverty in rural areas is a very pressing issue. So the fact that a policy designed to help ends up making things worse is a problem that demands urgent Government attention.
Let me give one example, that of an elderly household who undertook a project under ECO4. It was supposed to take three weeks for them to be connected and for their home to be fully insulated, with a new system, but they ended up being without any heat during the worst of the winter cold weather for several months. That is just one of many other instances that have been brought to my attention. We need to look again at how ECO4 is monitored and we need clearer lines of accountability. There is no doubt that a lot of good can be done if we can ensure that the energy-efficiency of our housing is much improved, but at the moment the policies that aim to realise that simply are not working.
I was about to start speaking to you in Welsh there, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to conclude by again thanking the hon. Member for Swansea East for securing this debate and wishing everyone a happy, belated, St David’s Day.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), a good friend, for securing this debate and congratulate her on doing so. It has been a great week; the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) has spoken about the Wales in London events, which have been tremendous. Being at the Guildhall last night with so many people celebrating our Welshness was an honour and I really enjoyed it. It is funny that we are here.
My hon. Friend has spoken about the amazing work she has done with colleagues, and I have had the honour of being able to work with her as well. This gives me the opportunity to talk a little about a charity—this goes hand in hand with the work she has been doing—called The Sharing Table. It was set up a few years ago by Andrew Copson, an amazing man who has given his time to fundraise, with a lot of support from local people, and to make partnerships, particularly with Gower Gin; Andrew and Siân support the charity, as key partners. The Shared Table delivered more than 130 hampers of locally sourced meat and veg to people in Gower last Christmas—when this started it was just 13 hampers in 2019. I thank Hugh Phillips, the butcher, and Shepherds for making that possible, along with Carolyn Harris—sorry, I meant to say, “My hon. Friend”. I do that all the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, but I do apologise.
That charity has also put and is putting small kitchens into schools. We talk about food poverty, but it is important that young people and families learn how to cook and what different food tastes like when we face a health crisis and a cost of living crisis. It is important that children learn what different fruits and vegetables taste like and what to do with them. One of the latest kitchens that has opened is in the constituency of my hon. Friend, in Morriston. I hope that by working alongside Swansea Council the charity will put more kitchens into schools and work with young people and their parents so that they can cook a well-balanced family meal. That is key and that work is amazing.
The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire mentioned the beautiful city of St Davids in his constituency. I spend many of my holidays there and I do not send him any emails to say that I am there. I was honoured to be there at Christmas to spend time with my family, and being in the cathedral for mass is a wonderful experience. If anybody gets the opportunity to do that at Christmas, it really is something special.
I do not wish to leave out the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), my very good friend. As he knows, Aberaeron, has a special place in my heart. My auntie and uncle live there and my godparents used to live there. I am not going to go through everybody and say how wonderful their constituency is, because I must say that the Gower constituency is the most beautiful place to live. I am very proud of everybody who lives there—my constituents, who continue to support me and give generously.
My constituents also speak highly of the potential of Swansea bay. I know that the Secretary of State has done a lot of work on what was to be the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, which we now hope will realise itself in the blue lagoon project. The potential of Wales and the green industrial revolution has been mentioned. I do look to him for support for the Labour-led Swansea Council and its leader Rob Stewart in terms of harnessing the tidal energy that we have in Swansea bay.
I will have a bit of a rant now, Mr Deputy Speaker. A year ago today, I spoke up in this House about the Welsh Rugby Union. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire told us how he had heard an amazing advocate for women’s football, and football, in Wales last night. There are many, many people who are amazing advocates for rugby in Wales, and I am one of them. I believe passionately that being Welsh also means having a sense of identity. For me, many, many moons ago, that meant being able to represent my country by playing rugby for Wales. I find it really hard to believe that we are too scared—the hon. Member for Ceredigion also made reference to rugby—because we are having a bit of a tough time in Wales. It makes me sad that we cannot big up the talent that we have. I want to big up our talent. We have an amazing captain of our men’s team in Ken Owens. He is an amazing man, one of the bravest. All the team are brave, because the situation in which they find themselves is really difficult for all of them and for their families, but they are not looking for pity. What they want is to make rugby better. I did not stand up in this House a year ago to say, “Isn’t it terrible what’s going on? Isn’t rugby awful in Wales?” It is our job in this place to call out poor practice and poor governance when they impact on how we feel about our sport, which is rugby in Wales.
Since I spoke up about the culture of misogyny and sexism a year ago, much has happened. I know that the former Secretary of State met the women’s team. He told me that, by the time he had left the Chamber, he had been invited by the Welsh Rugby Union to pay a visit to the Vale to meet the women’s team. I was really disappointed—not with him, I was glad he went—that, having spoken out, nothing much really happened. It took some very brave women and an amazing journalistic team in “BBC Wales Investigates” to pull together evidence of the poor behaviour in the Welsh Rugby Union. In my inbox, I have more than 30 emails to reply to. They are from women and families—and men—who have written to tell me about their experiences with the Welsh Rugby Union. That is a lot of people who want to tell me about their experiences, but there are also quite a few people who do not want to tell of their experiences to anybody, because they fear the backlash. Charlotte Wathan, who spoke out in the BBC Wales programme, is scared that she will never get a job now. She may have made herself unemployable. She needs to work, but she has spoken out. She has not done that because she wants to be on a 30-minute programme on BBC Wales, and have the focus of everything on her.
Another woman who spoke out was anonymous. An actor spoke her words. Why was that? Why did Amanda Blanc, the chief executive of Aviva, step down from the executive board? To be honest, why were those questions not asked? So far what we have seen is the departure of the chief executive of the WRU, which is probably right. But it is not just about one person. This is a cultural system that is impacting not just on women in sport—in this case rugby—but on the men. That is because the culture has also impacted on the wellbeing of our men’s team as well. It is a culture and it is everywhere.
I am glad that a taskforce has been set up by Sport Resolutions, funded by the WRU, to address these issues. I ask the Secretary of State to support me—I have told him how many people want to speak out—and to look for reassurances from Sport Resolutions. Will he state today that the anonymity of the people who need to speak to Sport Resolutions and to the taskforce that it is setting up will be kept at all costs? Otherwise, we will never get to the bottom of it, which makes the taskforce absolutely futile.
I never thought that after nearly six years in this place, I would be standing in the Chamber ranting about rugby, but it means so much to me and it makes our country proud. Somebody said, “All this talking down of rugby in Wales is not going to encourage young people to play sport,” but that is nonsense. Playing sport—whatever sport it is—getting out there and being part of a team is the best thing that anyone can do. It is brilliant.
I am not saying that Wales is a terrible place or that rugby is a terrible sport; it is not. In my heart, I want it to be better—the best it can be. I want Warren Gatland to go to that World cup, with Ken Owens running out as the captain, and do the best he can to show how brilliant it is to be Welsh, so that we can feel proud of those boys and girls on the pitch. The women’s Six Nations is coming up, and the girls had quite a good season last year, so it is an exciting time to be in rugby.
Jonathan Davies, or Jiffy as we fondly know him, spoke out on “Scrum V” just after the programme had aired on BBC Wales. He said that this is a moment in time—a turning point—and that if the Welsh Rugby Union and rugby in Wales do not get their act together now, they never will. As parliamentarians, we have to put pressure on the Welsh Rugby Union to make the right decisions and to be transparent.
Rob Roberts
The hon. Lady is making a wonderful speech. She is right that the range of subjects that we discuss in the Chamber is often a surprise to the general public, and rugby in Wales is a particularly hot topic. Does she agree, in the spirit of what she has said, that the people who are trying to brush this issue under the carpet need to understand that, in such cases, sunlight is often the best disinfectant?
Tonia Antoniazzi
It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member, but sunlight, transparency and asking those questions are the best things.
I find it hard to believe that there have been such a number of grievances and non-disclosure agreements at the Welsh Rugby Union. Let us make no bones about it: all organisations will have grievances and non-disclosure agreements, but it is important that someone sitting on an executive board should be told how many there are and what their nature is, otherwise they might go to a Senedd Select Committee and not be able to tell it how many grievances and non-disclosure agreements there are. I find that difficult, because the data should be held by human resources and available to at least the executive committee. What does it tell us when there are no minutes of meetings and the minutes are not routinely published or available? It tells us that there is no sunlight, which we need to have.
When I am told that what has happened at the WRU is bigger than at Yorkshire cricket, and that is confirmed by others who know what is going on, I hope that we will all—I am not precious about it—stand up and ask those questions if we have the opportunity to meet the WRU. We need a root and branch review of rugby in Wales and what it means for everybody in all those clubs across Wales, from a small child starting off in tag rugby to those in our elite male and female games, as well as the mums and dads watching on the sidelines and washing the kit. I have met with my clubs since this has all come out and, interestingly, they have been quite engaging. We all need to ask our rugby clubs—although this is not just about rugby—how they engage with women and girls. They do not have to have a women’s team, because it is not all about playing. It is about being part of a club, being a rugby wife, rugby mum or rugby sister—a fan of the sport. If we can get clubs to audit the skills of the women and girls involved in them, that will encourage them to get more women sitting on their committees. Having more women give up their time to do that is how we will get more parity and equality of representation at the top of the WRU.
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Lady is making a remarkable and important speech. She was at the Guildhall last night. Does she remember the remarks of Noel Mooney from the Football Association of Wales about its transition from being dominated by men to something approaching parity between men and women, and how that led to better quality of decisions? An audit of how clubs involve and work with women—the kind of exercise that the hon. Lady talks about—is valuable in its own right, but it will also lead to better decision making because more diverse viewpoints help the decision-making process.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, because he is right that Noel Mooney, the chief exec of the Football Association of Wales, did say last night that the dynamic has changed and that different ideas have been brought to the table, leading to better leadership and management.
I have a good friend who lives in Australia. She sits on the board of Rugby Victoria, which has imposed 50:50 representation. She has been ridiculed by other people that she is only on the board because of certain body parts, which is ridiculous. It is actually brilliant, however, because she is not a rugby player, but her daughters are, her son is, and her husband was. That is what I am trying to say. We had all-women shortlists to get better representation in the Labour party. That is the kind of thing we need to do in order to move forward. Clubs need to change their perception of what a woman’s place in rugby is. It is a cultural issue that all sports have problems with.
A word that has been said to me is “tokenism”. People say, “It’s just tokenism, Tonia. We don’t buy into it.” I do not buy into tokenism, because this is not about that; it is about being the best we can. However, we did see tokenism, disappointingly, in a knee-jerk reaction from the WRU when it decided to say, “We’re banning Tom Jones’s famous song ‘Delilah’.” I had not heard “Delilah” for donkey’s years, but I went to a rugby match, and everybody in the bar and on the train was singing it, and it was uncomfortable. I am not going to rant on about “Delilah”. It gets sung. We know the words. We all know that the words are wrong, and it would be great if we could change some of them, but hey-ho.
The word tokenism strikes at me. At the time of the WRU decision, Louis Rees-Zammit tweeted:
“All the things they need to do and they do that first…”
It is true; the WRU needs to do better for everybody involved in the sport, be they our little ones playing, the regions—that is a whole other debate—or the elite team. The Secretary of State is well placed to have those conversations, and I know that he has spoken with Nigel Walker, the interim chief executive. I know what a great man Nigel Walker is, and I hope that he and Ieuan Evans can turn this around, but it needs a massive shift.
I think I have finished talking about Welsh rugby union and rugby in Wales, but I hope that everybody in this House will join me in saying that we absolutely love rugby and want to big up our players, and that it represents who we are at every single level, whether we have played, watched or just gone along to help out. It is everybody’s; it is ours.
On another note—still on rugby, but with a different edge—the people who go to rugby clubs are all volunteers. I know that the Secretary of State met Rachel, one of my constituents, at Lancaster House. Rachel runs Tempo Time Credits, which is a brilliant way of getting people to do more volunteering and of encouraging more diverse groups of people to volunteer and support their local community. Rugby is a sure-fire win to get people involved. Our Tempo Time Credit volunteers can provide support to local rugby clubs, and they then get rewarded, perhaps with tickets to go to the Scarlets or the Blues—they could go to the Ospreys, but I suppose it depends. [Interruption.] Definitely. I do not want to cause a war in the Chamber. I just wanted to give a really big shout out to all those volunteers, because they make sport happen, not just in Wales but across the United Kingdom. For us, that is really important.
I will bring my comments to close. I thank everybody who has made this debate happen. I am grateful for the diversity of debate when we talk about Welsh Affairs. I am a very proud Welsh-Italian, and I am proud to have been able to stand up in the Chamber today and speak for those who feel that they do not have a voice.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Diolch yn fawr iawn. I give great thanks to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for her excellent speech, and to my other neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for introducing this great St David’s day debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), partly because my father is from Aberystwyth in Ceredigion. That part of the family goes back, through my mam-gu, to Henry Richard. On my mother Betty’s side, the family has been in Swansea for five generations.
I will use this opportunity to mention Betty Boothroyd. Shortly after I was first elected to this place in 1997— I am the longest serving Member in the Chamber apart from you, Mr Deputy Speaker—Betty Boothroyd gave me her autobiography to give to my mother, and it was signed, “From one Betty to another. Keep your son in order!” My mother was very happy about that. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Betty Boothroyd was a great authority, a warm person and a fantastic tribute to this House.
We are all proud of Wales, of what Wales has done, and of the opportunities that we had in Wales, but I think we in here all accept that Wales has been particularly hard hit by years of austerity and now by the cost of living and inflationary crisis, with people who are, on average, poorer, older and sicker than the rest of the UK. The average earnings in Wales are something like 73% of the UK average, compared with Scotland, where they are 93% of the UK average. Because of that, we get a Barnett consequential of £1.20 for every £1 spent on services. Incidentally, Scotland gets £1.26, even though it is richer.
In recent years, and in the last 13 years in particular, austerity has hit public services, jobs and benefits disproportionately hard in Wales. I credit the work that has been done in various constituencies to help the poorest in need. We have seen the amazing emergence of food banks, and I regret the normalisation of food banks. Across the UK, one in four people are in food insecurity, and that is not where we should be. We need to think again about how we can move forward from this situation.
There were complaints from the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) about the health service. It is worth mentioning that the cost of treating someone who is malnourished through poverty is three times the cost of treating someone who is well nourished. In Wales, the health service is facing more people, and it is costing more to treat them, because of the level of austerity that has been inflicted. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the need for a proper windfall tax to get the country back on track. It is important to remember that we need to get our fair share of investment in Wales.
I mentioned rail investment at Transport questions this morning. Unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, we are not getting our so-called Barnett population share of the High Speed 2 money. The estimated cost has gone up to something like £100 billion, which works out at £3,500 for every household in the UK—it is an amazingly high cost. HS2 is a north-south spinal route that will reduce the time it takes to get from London to Manchester from two hours and 10 minutes to one hour and 10 minutes, but it still takes three hours to get to Swansea. It will displace investment from south Wales in particular to Manchester and elsewhere. The Barnett consequential should be a £5 billion investment, but we are not getting that. This is on the back of us getting 1.5% of the UK rail enhancement investment over something like 20 years for 5% of the population and 11% of the rail lines. It is time the Government looked to give us some money so that we can modernise, electrify and increase productivity and the wealth and health of the nation.
As I pointed out this morning, Transport for Wales has generated £2.5 billion of shovel-ready schemes to be delivered over the next 15 years—they are ready to go. I hope the Secretary of State will support me in calling on the Department for Transport to work with Transport for Wales and co-fund shovel-ready projects, to move them forward sooner rather than later. We want to increase productivity, we want wages to go up, and we want to deliver net zero, and that is vital.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making important points about rail infrastructure. He will know that I have long campaigned for St Mellons Parkway to be built in the east of Cardiff, and we now have crucial funding from the levelling-up fund to create an essential link in the centre of Cardiff. I heard again and again from businesses that those rail links to Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool would help to grow their businesses and opportunities. For that, they need investment from the UK Government in those lines into Wales.
Geraint Davies
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would go further: in south Wales specifically, one of the things we need to look at is the link between Swansea, Cardiff and Bristol. That is a regional economy of 3 million people, and obviously it is part of the Union because it goes outside of Wales, but we only get about one service an hour, compared with Manchester to Leeds, which gets something like eight services an hour. There is a lot of talk about the northern powerhouse, but we need linkages in Wales, and between south Wales and the west, to make that hub work. Rather than everything having to go out of London, we should have localised economic prosperity in that way.
The point I am trying to make is that we need to alleviate poor health and low wealth through investment in infrastructure. We also need to invest in research and development, and in a green future. Something else that I raised this morning is that we are at a cliff edge in Wales, where we face the loss of 1,000 jobs in universities from 60 projects that are focused on generating green growth in the future. The structural funding from the EU is suddenly coming to an end, and the shared prosperity fund is delivered through local authorities, rather than being centrally divided among universities across the UK, as the structural funds have been in order to fire up new green projects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon mentioned one of those projects, which is the cladding of homes to create their own power stations. There are also projects to dig up plastic waste from landfill and convert it into carbon nanotubes to be used in electric car batteries, medical instruments and mobile phones. There are projects to convert slag heaps from steelworks that represent billions of pounds of liabilities into billions of pounds of assets by a simple process using water, which converts them into iron ore, zinc and hydrogen. There are projects that take off-peak renewable energy that is currently not being used—the renewable energy that is not going into the grid at breakfast time and teatime—and convert it into hydrogen to be put into the gas grid, for instance, or into hydrogen transport.
All those cutting-edge projects are suddenly going to end unless we get bridge funding of £71 million for Welsh universities in particular, and £170 million for 166 projects across the UK. Again, that issue has been highlighted in the Financial Times. I hope the Chancellor will stop those projects from collapsing, because that R&D is vital for future green growth and exports, and that the Secretary of State will urge him to provide that bridge funding so that we can move forward.
There is a lot more we could be urging the Government to do, including a carbon border tax to ensure that if we do get the steel in Port Talbot and elsewhere to be produced through arc furnaces, so that it is less carbon intensive, carbon-intensive imports from China and elsewhere pay a tax, as will happen in the EU. Otherwise, we will end up in a situation where we are substituting clean south Walian steel with dirty Chinese steel. Following what is, in my view, the good news of the Windsor framework, which recognises and acknowledges the opportunities for Northern Ireland to link into the single market and trade with the United Kingdom, I also hope that trade from Wales to Northern Ireland and to Ireland will be facilitated through more rail infrastructure, so that we ensure our economy is vibrant and we do not simply see businesses moving from Wales to Northern Ireland.
I very much hope that we can get back on track. We are in an awful place. There has been a normalisation of food banks. They are meant to be one-off crisis points, but people are now increasingly dependent on food pantries and other facilities for an ongoing supply of food. We need to move away from that position by investing in transport and in our prosperity and productivity, and reach a situation where there is less strain on the health service and where we can be strong again. That requires investment across the piece, so that as a Union and a nation, we can be strong again for the future. Happy St David’s day.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I wish all Members a happy belated St David’s day, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate. As the only Member with a non-Welsh constituency to take part in the debate so far, I see myself as a friend and neighbour who is here to help contribute and to celebrate St David’s day. I hope that the story I tell shows the strong links that exist not only between my community in Midlothian and Wales, but more widely across Scotland. We have a shared history of friendship, and I promise that I will not mention the current Six Nations too much. Our time in the glory and the light will no doubt be short, as is always the way of it.
It has been an interesting debate so far. The sense of community and support for others that we heard from the hon. Member for Swansea East plays a large part in the shared fellowship between Scotland and Wales, and I will talk more about that. Midlothian’s links to Wales are long and many, and they are not just through the rugby clubs in Lasswade, Dalkeith and Penicuik, where long-standing exchanges go back and forward annually during what was the Five Nations and is now the Six Nations.
Far back beyond that, one of the great unknowns of industrial heritage came through Midlothian on his way to Wales, and that is the story I am keen to share today. Archibald Hood was the first president of the Cardiff Caledonian club. He was born in Kilmarnock in 1823 and worked from his early teens in the pit where his dad was an overman. Hood became a giant of engineering and innovation. How we do not know more about him is surprising to me. I first heard of him on a visit to the Rosewell miners bowling club, where they list the names of past presidents on the wall. They told me a bit about him, so when this debate came up today, I thought it was a great opportunity to say more.
From an early age, Hood had a desire to improve himself and spent much of his spare time, which was not a lot, extending his knowledge, in particular of mining and geological matters. He had a successful early career in south Ayrshire and became friends with William Walker, another pioneer of the south Ayrshire coal trade, eventually marrying his eldest daughter Cochrina. To this day, there is a street in Rosewell called Cochrina Place. Many of the streets and areas around Midlothian find their origins in the times of Hood and his workings.
In 1856, Hood moved east with a lease on the Whitehill colliery in Rosewell in my constituency. Mining was not new to the community, but Hood certainly brought new innovation, a new vision and progression to Whitehill and smaller collieries at Skeltiemuir and Gorton, both well-known local land names that exist to this day. Like others of the time, Hood looked out for his employees and his workforce. He did not just take on the mine itself; he established good housing for the miners and their families. He made sure they all had a garden space and created a community for them—a model for the village that was later carried with him when he travelled further. He recognised the importance of such conditions to having a good workforce.
The House might ask why I am saying so much about Hood, but having been so successful in his time in Midlothian, he took that interest further and took it from Rosewell to the Rhondda valley. I recommend the book “From Rosewell to the Rhondda” by Archie Blyth to anyone. It is the story of Archibald Hood in much more detail than I am able to go into today.
In 1860, Archibald Hood was commissioned by two Liverpool-based Scots, Archibald Campbell and Gilbert Mitchell-Innes, to visit south Wales and,
“like Joshua spy out the promised land.”
He quickly assessed the sites they had sent him to, but realised they would not be as successful as they had thought. However, he took the opportunity to look at other possibilities, which took him to the Rhondda valley.
In April 1862, he negotiated a lease for the upper coal seam at Llwynypia—I apologise profoundly to everybody in the Chamber for my pronunciation, which I know is hopeless, but Members know what I mean—as well as the No. 3 Rhondda seam at Brithweunydd. Operations began under the auspices of the Glamorgan Coal Company, which was soon one of the top six companies in the south Wales coalfield, with coal marketed under the name Hoods Merthyr—apparently one of the very best brands that could be got in steel production. I am not suggesting that this level of quality and innovation came to south Wales only from Scotland; Members can draw their own conclusion from that. However, it was certainly a time when Scotland was exporting much expertise in such fields around the world.
With opportunities expanding, Hood moved to Cardiff with his family, where his home on Newport Road was named Sherwood—again, after the houses he had built for his employees in Bonnyrigg. The Sherwood estate is still there today, and houses many families. However, Hood did not just lift profits there; instead, he did the same as he had done in Rosewell. I believe that the model village from Rosewell is very much replicated in the Rhondda valley, where he was held in high regard by his employees. In many ways, it is a classic rags to riches story. Hood took his success from Scotland and never forgot his roots. Although clearly a successful businessman, he had a strong social conscience and a real desire to provide good-quality housing and community for his workforce. That was something he never forgot. It went beyond the physical. As one report highlighted after his death, speaking of the village he had built for his employees,
“In short it is the only place in the Rhondda in which sports have been actively encouraged by the colliery proprietor”,
again going back to our shared links through sport.
Hood was in many ways a visionary of his time, although there do seem to be questions over some of his tactics in negotiating contracts with his workforce, but we will focus on the positives for today. After establishing local churches in Rosewell, he later took this to Wales, where he played a big part in the establishment of the Presbyterian Church in Cardiff. It is testament to the regard in which he was held by his employees that on his death in 1902, at a very good age for the time, his workforce joined together to erect a statue to him, raising £600, which by my reckoning is just short of £100,000 in today’s money—no small feat. To this day, the bronze statue to Archibald Hood overlooks the Rhondda valley, pointing towards his colliery. It was the first public commissioned statue in the area.
This is a tale of the shared heritage that we enjoy. There are clearly differences between us all in our outlooks and the way in which we want to take things forward, but today I am looking at our shared past and how we can use that to celebrate St David’s day across the wider Welsh family—as an Owen, I can certainly appeal to that. There are so many links that we share, both coming from Midlothian in Scotland to Wales, and vice versa. Long may that tradition continue.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), the deputy leader of Welsh Labour, for securing this debate, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it and all colleagues present for their contributions to a wide-ranging debate on Welsh affairs.
A year ago, when we last held this debate, we did so in the shadow of Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, which was just beginning. Like then, I know that today the thoughts of people across Wales, and of Members across this House, remain with the people of Ukraine. As a nation of sanctuary, we in Wales have a proud history of welcoming those fleeing conflict and persecution. In the past year, more than 3,000 people fleeing Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion have found sanctuary through the Welsh Government’s super-sponsor scheme. I met some of them together with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is no longer in his place, and the Leader of the Opposition in Cardiff last week, and it was a real privilege to spend time with them. I am sure that Members across the House will join me in wishing all our Ukrainian friends a happy first St David’s Day in Wales, and in thanking everyone who has supported them.
We have heard some wide-ranging and heartfelt contributions from Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East has been such a superb champion on behalf of the 13 million women across the United Kingdom who are going through the menopause. In her own unique way, in a wide-ranging speech about all the things that she has done and which we are so proud of, she has really shown that her work on menopause means that menopause matters—it really does.
The Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), talked about this year’s Wales Week in London being bigger, better and louder than ever. It certainly was last night in the Guildhall, which was a really enjoyable occasion. I was thinking, when he was talking about the Welsh diaspora globally, that years ago I went to Ellis Island in New York, and there was this fantastic exhibit of a map of America. We could press a button showing our nationality, and it would tell us how many Welsh people lived in every state in the United States. That has always stayed with me, and I have taken my children back there to see it, because I was so impressed by it. It just shows how far and wide the Welsh can spread.
The right hon. Member also talked about football and that superb speech by Lowri Roberts last night, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, and about the wonderful Gareth Bale, who, quietly and without fuss, has shown his real generosity to people in Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) made a great speech about the floating offshore wind that we all want to see. He really is, I think, Mr Steel —a proud champion for his constituents and the steel- workers in Port Talbot.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) talked about which can claim St David as its own: Pembrokeshire or Ceredigion. I think probably Pembrokeshire is in the lead at the moment, but we will see. It was a very thoughtful contribution about digital infrastructure, and about how extending the digital infrastructure in rural areas is going to help stem that demographic of young people leaving our rural communities.
We then had a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who reminded us that a year ago she stood up in this Chamber to warn about the trouble brewing in the Welsh Rugby Union. All of us want to see not just strong teams on the pitch that we are really proud of—and we are really proud of them—but a strong team off the pitch and in the boardroom of the WRU, so that it changes its culture, has a fresh start and can make us proud. We all want to see that, and I am sure I speak for everybody across the House on that.
I initially misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and I thought he was saying that Betty Boothroyd was his mother, but clearly not. He talked about the impact of inequality, including the financial inequality that leads to health inequality.
We have covered lots of issues—some political, some not—but I think the issue that we all recognise has dominated Wales for the last 12 months is the cost of living crisis. Households and businesses in every single one of our constituencies have had to deal with soaring inflation, rising food bills and skyrocketing energy costs. Decisions taken by successive Conservative Governments have added to those pressures. Under this Government, Welsh households are facing the highest tax burden in 70 years, the biggest forecasted drop in living standards since records began and the longest pay squeeze for more than 150 years.
Yet, despite the challenging backdrop, Welsh Labour is showing the real difference that the Labour party in government can make. Our Welsh Labour Government are delivering a fairer Wales, where care workers are paid the real living wage, where all our primary school pupils can get a free school meal, and where students get the most generous support in the UK. The Welsh Government have promised to guarantee education, training or employment for everyone under 25. Our young person’s guarantee has supported more than 11,000 young people into work. New protections for tenants have come into place, ending unfair no-fault evictions—while, in contrast, in England there is a failed manifesto promise to deliver those protections for tenants.
In Wales, under a Labour Government, we are achieving some of the highest recycling rates in the world, which my constituents are very proud of, tackling plastic pollution and planting a national forest. Not only are our Welsh Labour Government taking action on the challenges of today; we are also looking ahead to the future. We have not banned offshore wind, and we have had no talk of fracking with a Labour Government who protect our Welsh environment for the sake of future generations. And our Welsh geography means that, as we have heard today, we are uniquely placed to be at the forefront of the developing floating offshore wind network, which will be vital to hitting the UK’s net-zero target. FLOW—as I now know it is called, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon—is a massive opportunity for Welsh steel and to grow our supply chain in Wales, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that the supply chain creates jobs in Wales, boosting the Welsh economy.
We must not have a repeat of what has happened with HS2, where there has been no commitment from the Government to use Welsh or UK steel in the building of that huge infrastructure project. That has failed our steel industry and our steelworkers, to the extent that even the Business Secretary said recently that having a steel industry in the UK is not a given—what a lack of ambition this Government have for the industry and for Welsh and British business. This tells me that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was not joking when he let slip what he really thought of UK business.
Floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea could make an enormous contribution to meeting the UK’s future energy needs and our energy security. Under this Government, currently the largest onshore wind farm in Wales is owned by Sweden, so our energy bills are paying for schools and hospitals in Stockholm. We need a UK Labour Government who will lead the way, so that we can harness this potential and deliver the economic benefits to Wales.
Returning to the cost of living crisis in Wales, all of us know that people in every part of Wales are facing financial pressures. For many people, it is an impossible task each week to pay basic bills like heating, food, shopping, and the rent or mortgage. That reckless Tory mini-Budget last September has left a lasting and painful legacy across Wales, and no amount of spin or pretence as to who is responsible for the chaos and cost will wash with the Welsh public. They know who has stepped in and done everything they can to help put money back into peoples’ pockets: their Welsh Labour Government and their Welsh Labour councils, which is why there is now not a single Conservative-led council left in Wales. They also know what a Government with integrity look like, because they re-elected the Welsh Labour Government led by Mark Drakeford, with Labour matching its best ever Senedd election result.
At the next general election, people across Wales can elect a UK Labour Government: a Government who will be on the side of working families, making work pay; who will provide certainty and stability, not chaos and short-term fixes; who will seize those new opportunities, not watch from the sidelines while we fall behind in the global race; who will give people skills and opportunities, not leave their potential untapped; and who have strong, purposeful, ambitious leadership that puts country first, not party, driving power and opportunity into every nation and region.
Wales has a great future. A stronger, fairer, greener, more secure, more prosperous and more positive future is there for all of us.
The Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone in the Chamber dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus.
I begin by offering my hearty congratulations to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who always talks a lot of sense and always has something worth listening to. I would like to think that we all share the values she espouses when she talks about the charities she supports in her constituency—I think they rang bells with all of us—but we know that she does not just talk the talk, but walks the walk in what she does. She has been campaigning on menopause and mentioned the difference in treatment between women in England and Wales. I have been informed that, as of April, women in England will be able to get a one-year prescription payment certificate, partly as a result of her campaign, so that is worth mentioning. She has been a campaigner on many issues and I thank her for securing the debate.
In the brief time I have, I will try to go around the Chamber and mention something from all the speeches and pick up on some of the questions. If I leave anything out, forgive me—I am sure it will be taken up at a later date. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) spoke next. He started by talking about the importance of football, including women’s football. As a parent who has watched many football matches, I believe a lot can be learned from women’s football and the way it is played in a supportive and nurturing environment. I welcomed listening to the inspirational speech by the head of women’s football yesterday in London.
My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke about the importance of steel and FLOWMIS. On floating offshore wind, the Government are very supportive and we look forward to bringing 4 GW by 2035 in the Celtic sea. I have been engaging with the companies involved and the Crown Estate about how quickly we can bring that forward. There will be an announcement shortly on FLOWMIS—I am told that it will be very shortly indeed, but I am unable to give a date. The Government also very recently brought in an energy-intensive users scheme to ensure that steel companies, which the hon. Member for Aberavon feels very passionately about, are not losing out, in competition terms, to companies in the rest of Europe, which are paying less per megawatt hour for the electricity they use.
Stephen Crabb
What the Secretary of State says about the FLOWMIS announcement is really significant. It is very good to hear confirmation from the Treasury Front Bench that there will be an announcement. I do not expect him to go into detail, but that pot of money is meant to be shared between ports in Scotland and Wales. Wales should get its fair share and that has to mean at least half.
David T. C. Davies
My right hon. Friend is tempting me here. Clearly, Wales should get its fair share of that—as Secretary of State for Wales, I am hardly going to disagree. On what that fair share is and how it is calculated, I do not have access to the exact detail yet, but he, as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and I will certainly be taking a very strong interest.
I will come back to universities, which I think were raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon. Before I do, the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) made a very good point about the state of the national health service in Wales. If we are honest about it, we have all heard and dealt with constituents who have grave concerns. The fact that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board is back in special measures is proof positive that there is a problem and where there is a problem it needs to be acknowledged. Somebody in the Welsh Government needs to get on and deal with it. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) in her summing up mentioned a lot of things, which I will come on to in a moment, but did not mention the national health service. Given that the Labour party says it has a plan for the national health service, it was surprising that she did not want to draw attention to her own party’s running of it in Wales, where it has been in charge for around 20 years.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) made a very good point about depopulation, which I think would be shared in many rural areas. If we can get broadband rolled out in the way we want to, I believe it would help. We have seen a change in the way society works over the past three or four years, partly as a result of covid. Many more people will be able to work from home and that may be positive. He said that he did not have all the answers— I certainly do not, either. I hope he would recognise that growth deals that are being put together by local authorities in all areas across Wales hold part of the problems. He will know that in his area, tourism and agriculture are strong. Growth deals are being set up specifically to deal with that and to offer people careers rather than jobs, precisely because that is a widely recognised problem across the political spectrum. We want young people to be able to stay in their own areas, rather than having to go to the big cities to work.
The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) made a powerful and insightful speech. She has spoken out on misogyny in sport and rugby before, including around 12 months ago and, unfortunately, not enough action was taken. Everyone will have listened carefully to what she said. She has spoken out on women’s issues in other areas than just sport, and I suspect she has had quite a lot of abuse on social media in the past for some of her comments when standing up for women’s rights. I fear that many women who have spoken out will probably get abuse on social media from cowardly people who probably would not look them in the eyes and say to them what they say online.
The hon. Lady knows that I have no locus in the WRU. After the allegations were made, I reached out to the WRU and asked for a meeting to discuss them. I met Nigel Walker briefly, who I find an impressive individual, but it was informal and I do not feel that we got down to address those issues. My office has been in touch with the WRU and I would be pleased to meet a little more formally and go through some of them. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that those people with complaints need them to be treated with anonymity and respect. I fear it may not just be rugby; many organisations probably have to deal with some of the issues that recently have been confronted.
The hon. Lady for Swansea West—[Interruption.] Do forgive me, I have not celebrated dydd gŵyl Dewi yet today. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) was somewhat critical of Labour’s plan for HS2, which was put together around 2008-09 and was continued by the subsequent Conservative and coalition Governments. As I understand it, the reason that the Labour Government gave—
Geraint Davies
With all due respect, I was not critical of it as such. I said that we should get our fair share of the investment—the £5 billion. Will he support that? He is the Welsh Secretary—he should.
David T. C. Davies
I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman calculates that figure—we have discussed that before.
David T. C. Davies
I think that the current cost would be rather less than £100 billion for HS2. Also, it is being built over many years. If we took the £50 billion figure over 10 years, that is £5 billion a year. Five per cent. of that would be considerably less than the huge increase in funding already given to the Welsh Government by the UK Government—£2.5 billion of record-breaking funding.
David T. C. Davies
I will give way, but let me make one last point. It is an England-Wales project because Wales will benefit, particularly north Wales, from the faster connections via Crewe. That was always made clear, and I am not aware that the Labour Government said anything different.
Geraint Davies
Would the Secretary of State support the shovel-ready schemes already developed by Transport for Wales, which are worth £2.5 billion to be invested over 15 years—half the amount we should get? I raised that with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), this morning, who said that his officials would work with Transport for Wales. Would he support joint funding so that we can get that going rather than resisting all investment in Wales?
David T. C. Davies
I am aware of probably three schemes ongoing at the moment within the rail network enhancements pipeline project, which I hope will be brought to fruition shortly, but I support as much spending as possible on the railways in Wales.
I might be being discourteous to the shadow Secretary of State, because I promised to speak for about seven minutes. Let me quickly say, because it was of interest to the hon. Member for Swansea West, that on university research funding, I committed to go around all the eight universities in Wales as quickly as I could. I am currently doing that, and I think I am on about No. 5. I have been looking at what they have to offer in terms of research, to see the best of it and to bring everyone to an event in London to meet UK Research and Innovation so that we can get more UKRI funding into Wales. That is something that I am happy to update him about shortly.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) made a wonderful speech. He almost seemed to be apologetic about representing a non-Welsh constituency, but most of us in this Chamber are proud Unionists and we welcome hon. Members from all parts of the Union. He spoke about the fantastic character Archibald Hood, who is described in the book “From Rosewell to the Rhondda”. Clearly Mr Hood, 150 years ago, was making the most of the opportunities we have to move around the Union. Let me say tapadh leat, which I think is Scottish Gaelic for thank you, to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Cardiff Central rightly acknowledged the huge bravery of the Ukrainian people, 6,000 of whom are in Wales. In Chepstow last week, I met Ukrainian constituents, as the hon. Lady has done—they are now our constituents. We say, “Croeso mawr i bob un ohonyn nhw.” They are all incredibly welcome in Wales. We hope that they have an opportunity to go back to their country at some point, but we are delighted that they are here at the moment.
The hon. Member made a point about the cost of living crisis. I will take a leaf out of my own book and say that we absolutely acknowledge it: there is a cost of living crisis. That is why we have been prioritising our help for pensioners by making sure that pensions, benefits and the minimum wage go up in line with inflation. We have been making payments of £900 to those who are on benefits, £300 to pensioners and £150 to those who are on disability benefits. We are spending £18 billion this winter to ensure that around half of people’s energy bills are being paid. What we certainly will not do is ban meal deals, because that would hit people in the pocket.
Rob Roberts
The shadow Secretary of State said that Welsh Labour is putting more money in the pockets of Welsh people. Labour has a penchant for fantasy economics. Does the Secretary of State agree that before devolution the average wage in Wales was exactly the same as the average wage in Scotland, but now—25 years later—it is 20% lower?
David T. C. Davies
It is tempting, but I promised the hon. Member for Cardiff Central that I would speak for only seven or eight minutes and I have overrun, so I will simply thank everyone for a very constructive debate today and say, “Diolch yn fawr iawn i bawb. Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With the leave of the House, I call Carolyn Harris to wind up the debate.
Carolyn Harris
How wonderful it has been to have so many communities across Wales represented today—from Caswell to Cardiff, from Pembroke to Penlan, from Aberavon to Aberystwyth, from Delyn to Dunvant.
Carolyn Harris
Not all hon. Members have been able to speak in this debate, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) is here on the Front Bench, I will say, “And from Merthyr to Monmouth.” Whether we have talked about rugby or renewables, about cost of living or community, we have all spoken with passion not just for Wales, but for being Welsh, which is something we are all most definitely very proud of. When we wake up of a morning before coming to this wonderful building, we want to be able to look in the mirror, look ourselves in the eye and say, “What I do, what I say and how I behave are what my constituents would want. This is how they would want me to represent them.”
I have just two more things to say. First, I must say thank you to Scotland for Keir Hardie. Secondly, I sincerely apologise to the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), who I truly feel has been let down: I had not thought of coming with red and green hair, but I promise to do better next St David’s day.
A happy belated St David’s day. Thank you, one and all.
Mr Deputy Speaker
May I thank the House for the exemplary courtesy with which this debate has been conducted?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Welsh affairs.
North and East Syria: Autonomous Administration
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and declaring that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Kurdistan in Turkey and Syria.
Last month I had the privilege of travelling to Kurdistan in Iraq and the region known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria for the third time. When I visited in 2017, I was told that that I was the first British Member of Parliament to travel to Syria since the outbreak of the civil war. I followed that up with another trip in 2019, with the hon. Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) and for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and last month I was accompanied by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), whom I thank for being present today.
I first undertook these visits to raise awareness of the plight of the Kurdish people in the region and their struggle against ISIS, but what I have seen and experienced there has been greater than the struggle of the Kurds in the north-eastern corner of Syria. It is, in my view, a struggle for democracy, for a multi-religious and multi-ethnic, feminist-based organisation of society: a struggle not only against ISIS, but at times, very realistically, a struggle against Damascus, and against pressures from both Baghdad and Ankara that are frankly unhelpful.
Our Kurdish allies in the region have answered the call to defeat ISIS and are still keeping us safe from them. During my visit to the Syrian region, we were told that more than 20,000 foreign fighters and their families from more than 50 countries were currently in detention, including ISIS fighters from Britain, a number of whom I have met. The authorities have requested the establishment of an international criminal tribunal to bring due process and justice to the region, and to a conflict that seems to be increasingly forgotten. When I asked the north-eastern Syrian authorities whether they thought they had enough evidence to convict Shamima Begum there, in their area, they assured me that they did, and could use it if a tribunal were set up. However, it cannot be left to the authorities of a war-torn country which has had the world’s worst extremists exported to it to be the sole administrators of justice. They themselves say they cannot do it alone, and that they need our help. May I therefore ask the Minister what support the Government can provide to help the autonomous region to administer justice for the tens of thousands of foreign fighters, and—more important, of course—the victims of those fighters?
This cannot wait. Last year ISIS launched an attack on the prison where the fighters are being held in an attempt to break them out. I have visited the prisons and camps, and the prisoners are not pleasant people at all. It was explained to me that Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, fell within weeks with just 1,000 ISIS fighters, and we now have tens of thousands held in camps. All it would need is an earthquake in that region, and we can imagine the disaster that could unfold. I was warned that “what comes after ISIS could be even worse”. We must mobilise the international community to establish a criminal tribunal and adopt a co-ordinated approach in delivering justice—delivering justice where the crimes were committed and not necessarily here, as we did in Rwanda and in Sierra Leone.
I believe that a British fighter who is convicted in Syria should serve his or her sentence in a British prison or another prison of appointment, and, furthermore, that if a fighter from a former Soviet republic in central Asia such as Turkmenistan—I am told there are quite a number of them—is found guilty of a crime, we must find a way to share the burden in the western community. That is what we have done in the case of previous international tribunals, and although the scale of this is larger, I would say that the need is greater, because the threat is to us as well as to people in the region. This is necessary not only for the sake of justice, but for our own safety. Although currently stable, the situation could deteriorate, and the consequences of that will be catastrophic.
Let me now say something about the destabilising effect in the region. I was told in every meeting, by every official, that the largest stabilising force in the region is Turkey. The authorities allege that the constant barrage of attacks being made against civilian and political leaders in the autonomous region is having profound effects on the running of the authority. We were told of an attack that had happened when we were there. In the midst of everyone’s efforts to focus on earthquake recovery, attacks were still ongoing. Turkey is now threatening to expand its land invasion into northern Syria, specifically targeting cities such as Kobane, which I visited on my first trip. It was rebuilt after ISIS’s absolute devastation. The Kurds are claiming that the Turkish Government used Islamists and dangerous terrorists to secure much of its occupied lands in Syria. This has ended up harbouring the very terrorists whom we have a mandate to defeat under UN resolutions.
Can we have a statement from the Foreign Office condemning the use of drones in north-east Syria against the autonomous region and our allies, who are fighting with our service personnel against the ongoing ISIS threat? Further, on the threat of a wider invasion, what consequences would there be for a NATO ally that proceeded with an invasion against our Kurdish allies, with whom our service personnel are embedded?
It saddens me to highlight Turkey, which is the great country of Atatürk and Labour’s sister parties, the CHP and the HDP. The country has a secular tradition, but Turkish aggression and intimidation are now expanding beyond its borders. We all know of the Turkish Government’s treatment of Sweden and Finland on their entry to NATO, and they are now using similar tactics to target British MPs and British Kurds who speak out.
Last year, a colleague and I were targeted by a smear from the Turkish embassy, which wrote to Mr Speaker about our visiting hunger strikers. It claimed in The Sun that we were supporting terrorism by visiting a protester who was calling out the maltreatment of opposition leaders in Turkey. I remind the House that Turkey has locked up the most politicians, journalists and judges of any country—any country—in the world.
In September 2022, a life-long Labour activist who had been granted security clearance for many conferences was denied access to the Labour conference by the security agencies, I am told at the behest of Turkey, because of her work in north-east Syria, a region that we do not define as run by terrorists. We make a distinction; Turkey does not.
A few weeks ago, pressure was put on Members of this House and Members of the other place to withdraw from a Trades Union Congress-supported event on freedom for Öcalan, the incarcerated leader of many Kurds. His incarceration and treatment has been condemned by the Council of Europe.
This week it was confirmed to me by senior sources that the Turkish embassy is keeping a dossier on me and other Members of Parliament who believe in an open, multi-ethnic, democratic Turkey and who are against the current regime. The embassy is passing on these bits of information to party management and the press agencies when it thinks it can undermine or silence us.
If China, or even an ally such as Saudi Arabia, tried to undermine political parties and Members of this House, it would be outrageous and the Government would act. Turkey is rightly a proud NATO ally that I want to see lifted from the current veil of Islamic nationalism that is taking root, so will the Minister meet me to discuss these concerns and to see what we can do to ensure that no foreign Government, even an ally, can bully MPs, parties or the Kurdish diaspora?
Finally, I will turn to refugees, the camps for internally displaced people and nation building. We visited and heard from civil society. There are three camps of close to 50,000 people, and a huge proportion of them are children and young people. These camps do not have adequate toilets, and they have only limited clean water and medical facilities. They have problems with lice and scabies outbreaks. The authorities are doing the best they can, but they are largely being ignored by the international community. They have no assistance from the United Nations or other Governments. Damascus is preventing UN agencies from fully supporting these camps, and it will not allow them to support our allies. Aid is urgently needed. Will the Minister therefore explore the use of our own aid, and our connections with aid agencies and the UN, to seek direct support for these camps? The aid currently given to Damascus does not get to the region, where it is desperately needed.
Those in the majority Kurdish areas could not be schooled in their mother tongue or freely practise their traditions while under the control of Assad’s regime. After the Arab spring, their fledgling democracy emerged, before it came under the existential threat of ISIS, which stood against everything they and we believed in. ISIS subjugated women and brutally oppressed its own people in an authoritarian death cult. Yet, with international support, these people have re-emerged and they are trying to rebuild a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. We owe them the support to help build that future, even if imperfect. They do not seek separation from Syria; they want autonomy and democracy within it. They need not only our help in containing the continuing threat of ISIS, but protection from neighbouring Governments and their own Government to prevent their being destroyed. Support for the autonomous region in north and east Syria is not only in our geostrategic interest, but is the morally right thing to do.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate. I also declare an interest, as I have recently been to the region, with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), on a not only fascinating, but hugely informative visit.
Yesterday, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) made an oral statement on the earthquake in Turkey and Syria. I spoke in that statement and highlighted the killing of a Syrian Democratic Forces solider in Kobane on 12 February. Previously, I had tabled several written parliamentary questions on this issue, seeking an assessment from the Government on whom they believed were responsible for that attack and others. Unfortunately, I received what I can only consider an indifferent response from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who gave the same reply to two different questions:
“While we do not have authoritative estimates of casualties, we engage directly with partners to encourage restraint from activity that could lead to further destabilisation or civilian loss of life. Security and stability in the region are necessary to prevent worsening of the already serious humanitarian situation in northern Syria—including in the wake of the 6 February earthquake—and enable the Global Coalition and its partners to continue the fight against Daesh.”
At yesterday’s statement, the Minister of State, who is responsible for development and Africa said, in response to my comments:
“My hon. Friend has seen at first hand the impact of the Syrian regime on those poor people who have suffered not only from Assad and the Russian war machine, but now from this dreadful earthquake.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2023; Vol. 728, c. 807.]
At no point did I accuse any faction of orchestrating this attack, even though the discussions that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and I held with many stakeholders in the north-east autonomous region, including the leader of the SDF, concluded that the drone attacks are being carried out by the Turkish military authorities. So a straightforward question to ask the Minister today is: who does she believe is perpetrating these attacks, the Syrian Government or the Turkish Government?
Just over five years ago, Iraq declared that its territory was released from besiegement by Daesh, but it was only three years ago that Daesh was defeated in Syria after losing the battle of Baghuz Fawqani. Unfortunately, the military eradication of Daesh has not meant its complete elimination. At least 12,000 combatants were captured during the conflict and many others remain at large as sleeper cells. These people are brutal fighters who answered an international call to create a Daesh caliphate, travelling from more than 50 countries, including the UK, Kurdistan, Uzbekistan, Turkestan and other Russian speaking countries, as well as Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria. They remain in detention facilities run by the SDF, subject to a Syrian judicial process that is not able to prosecute them under international law, as the autonomous region is not a state—it is, as it says, a region.
These prisoners remain an active threat to the security of Syria and the western world, including the UK. They should be prosecuted in international courts in the locations in which they are held, not their countries of origin. Prosecutions in home countries will be for Daesh membership, and not for the crimes committed in Iraq and Syria. The investigations, evidence and witnesses to their atrocities remain in the region, and that is where the international community needs to assist, but no assistance has been forthcoming. Regardless of where these people might be convicted, any sentence, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has said, could be served in their country of origin, but prosecutions must be in Syria. The presence of these people is not just a drain on the society and public services of the country, but an active threat. Three months ago, a US Central Command report warned of their continuing threat to the region’s security. Last January, Daesh forces attempted a prison breakout at the al-Hawl detention centre near Hasakar, which escalated into a 10-day battle in the surrounding area.
The threat of Daesh insurgents is real. In the past year, US and coalition forces have taken part in 313 operations in both Syria and Iraq, eliminating 686 fighters. On 16 February, the Daesh leader in the autonomous region, Hamza al-Homsi, was killed by a US-led mission. Al-Homsi was not a well-known figure in the terror organisation outside of the region, but, given the efforts to eliminate him, it can be accepted that he was a legitimate threat. There was another raid just a week before. This time a US and SDF raid killed Ibrahim al-Qahtani, another Daesh official, who is understood to have planned an attack on an SDF detention facility that is holding captured Daesh fighters.
Then there are the internal displaced person camps. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and I visited the Washokani IDP camp in the al-Hasakeh governorate. This is a temporary “home” to more than 16,000 people who have lost their properties in parts of Syria because of the conflict between Government forces and Daesh. Living in almost 2,000 shelters, people exist mainly on the money that they borrow from friends and relatives outside of their particular area. Many of them cannot afford to feed their families and are either relying on selling their own property or asking friends for additional funds. As has been said, this is because the international community does not provide resources to IDPs or their camps, only to international refugees. The reality is that Assad is not going anywhere and nor are the people in the camps.
Human Rights Watch claims that Turkish air and artillery strikes have compounded the insecurity of the camps. Even before the attacks, at least 42 people had been killed during 2022 in al-Hawl, the largest camp, some by ISIS loyalists, and scores were killed in an attempted ISIS prison breakout. Multiple children have drowned in sewage pits, died in tent fires, and even been run over by water trucks. Then there have been hundreds of deaths from treatable illnesses. In the al-Hawl camp, there have been reports of at least 24 murders—six people in May of last year alone—including not just camp inmates but aid workers.
The second threat to the security of the region is that the children in these camps are prime targets for radicalisation. The international community must put efforts into removing these children by repatriating them to their countries or communities of origin, while also improving conditions in the camp. The combination of Daesh prisoners and IDP camps ensures that there remains a literal Daesh army in detention in Iraq and Syria.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown for securing today’s Adjournment debate, and I make no apology for covering some of the same issues as he did in his speech. A failure to address them will have lasting repercussions for this Government. As the Prime Minister keeps telling us, he wants to stop the boats. If he wants to do that, he has to stop the violence in countries such as Syria. They need to be secure, and that can only occur if military action is stopped.
The interference by Turkey on its southern border is a major cause of instability. The international community is preoccupied by the invasion of Ukraine, but this is not an either/or situation, and attention can be shared with Syria. In November, speaking about a land invasion, President Erdogan said that the new military offensive was planned to take place
“at the most convenient time for us”
and would target the regions of Tel Rifaat, Manbij and Kobane. Will the Minister confirm that such as act, by a member of NATO, would be condemned by His Majesty’s Government?
Finally, the painful truth is that the earthquake in Gaziantep has probably bought the people of the north and east autonomous region a bit more time of peace, but we should take this opportunity to ensure that it lasts. The diversity of the region shows that a governance system can exist among people of different religions. Most ethnic Kurdish and Arab people adhere to Sunni Islam, while ethnic Syrian people are generally Syriac Orthodox, Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Catholic or adherents of the Assyrian Church of the East, and there are also Yazidis and secular groups. They can co-exist. If the international community brings stability to this region, it could act as a template for governance across the whole of Syria, and possibly other parts of the middle east. I urge the Minister not to let this chance slip by.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for securing this debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) is currently on ministerial duties abroad and sends his apologies, but it is my pleasure to be able to respond on the Government’s behalf to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). I am grateful for their contributions and will try my best to respond, but as this is not my policy area, I commit to ensuring that all questions are responded to in writing should I fail to respond sufficiently.
I offer my deepest condolences to all those affected by the devastating earthquake that struck northern Syria and Turkey three weeks ago. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for leading an important debate in Westminster Hall on 23 February about the earthquake, and to the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who set out in detail in his statement yesterday the work that we and many countries are doing to help in that incredibly difficult crisis.
The impact of the earthquake in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria itself was mercifully limited, but the region is nevertheless of continuing vital concern to UK interests in Syria and the wider region. It is the principal remaining battleground for the Global Coalition against Daesh, of which the UK is an integral part, against the extremist threat that lingers in Syria and Iraq. Daesh has been defeated territorially, and for that we pay tribute to the courage and sacrifices made by coalition forces, and our partners the Syrian Democratic Forces, in dealing Daesh such a terrible blow. Even without territory, Daesh’s ability to direct, enable and inspire attacks continues to represent the most significant global terrorist threat, including to the UK, our people and our interests overseas. Daesh’s major assault on a prison in Hasakah in January 2022 and other recent attacks underlined the need for that continued close co-operation between coalition forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces.
The situation on the ground in northern Syria remains complex and difficult, and the economic and humanitarian situation in north-eastern Syria is deteriorating, threatening to perpetuate the conditions under which groups such as Daesh thrive. The threat emanating from camps and detention centres is particularly acute, and I thank hon. Members for highlighting specific examples. We are cognisant of the fact that securing Daesh’s complete defeat will not be quick or easy, but our commitment to the coalition’s mission is resolute. The UK is a leading member of the Global Coalition against Daesh and, with our regional allies, we are committed to ensuring they cannot resurge in this area.
The coalition has helped to liberate more than 110,000 sq km of Syria and Iraq, along with approximately 8 million civilians. The UK is pleased to host the coalition’s communication cell, which plays an important role in countering Daesh’s extremist messages and hateful propaganda, convening the resources and expertise of other international partners as well as our own. We remain committed to advocating for the interests of the local population, including by respecting the rights of all minorities in Syria, just as we remain committed to supporting the work of the Global Coalition against Daesh, in which Kurdish communities and representatives play an important part.
With conflict, stability and security funding, we are helping to build the resilience of local communities to prevent the Daesh threat from emanating from north-east Syria, as well as helping communities to recover from the brutality of life under Daesh. We continue to offer significant humanitarian and early recovery assistance to alleviate the suffering and build the resilience of conflict-affected populations, with a strong focus on the agency of women and girls.
UK aid in north-east Syria is focused on reaching those who are most in need, providing vital life-saving assistance, and supporting conflict-affected communities to build resilience and re-establish their livelihoods. Many of those in need have been forcibly displaced, and most displaced families are led by women. May I reassure the House that our early recovery support is tailored to strengthen those breadwinners’ skills and access to jobs, while tackling the sexual and economic violence that undermines the resilience of women and their families and communities?
The UK is playing a leading role with international partners to improve conditions in camps such as al-Hawl and al-Roj, where the needs and threats are most acute. As hon. Members have highlighted, there are some difficult situations there, so improving conditions is critical.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I note that the brief that the Minister is reading—that is fair enough—says that we are giving the people there support. When her colleague writes to me, could he outline in particular what support is going to which camps? On the ground, we were told that there is no support for internally displaced people, and that there is still only limited support for some extremist fighter families. It would be wrong, would it not, for more support to go to people allied to Daesh than to victims of Daesh? It would be good if that could be clarified.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I have no doubt that that has been noted and we will make sure that a response is forthcoming.
I can give some information that I have to hand. In the first half of financial year 2022-23, we provided more than 100,000 medical consultations, provided mental health support to more than 4,000 people, provided 4,000 more people with sexual and gender-based violence services, and provided more than 3,000 people with sexual and reproductive health services.
Ultimately, it will be extremely difficult to tackle the challenges in north-east Syria sustainably without a political solution. That is why the UK remains committed to the Syrian political process established by UN Security Council resolution 2254. We firmly believe that that resolution offers a clear path out of the conflict, protecting the rights of all Syrians, in which civil society, women and minorities must play a role. We will continue to support UN special envoy Geir Pedersen in his efforts to speed things up. Like many of our international partners, we are frustrated by the slow rate of progress. The responsibility for that lies squarely at the feet of the Assad regime, who we urge to engage seriously with the UN-led process. We believe that that is the only path to lasting and inclusive peace.
Dr Offord
As the Minister has acknowledged, this is not part of her usual brief, so I think that she is doing very well. The problem is that Assad has made it clear that he is not going anywhere. The conflict has now been going on for more than a decade—11 years—and we will have to come to a solution whereby we work in conjunction to ensure that people can either return or live a normal life. Last year, I visited the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan. Those people are not going anywhere, but their lives are on hold until we come up with a solution.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank my hon. Friend for his points. Clearly, the challenges are great, but we will use all the tools at our disposal to try to drive towards lasting and inclusive peace, which we know those many citizens absolutely deserve.
The UK understands the profound importance of continuing our role as an active member of the coalition against Daesh. We will support and work alongside our allies for as long as it takes. I thank the Members of this House and the other place who continue to highlight the continuing challenges in the region, particularly in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Although I am speaking for him in his absence, I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, would be happy to meet Members to discuss these issues in more detail.
I assure Members that we will continue to be a key humanitarian donor and to stand by the people of north-east Syria at this most challenging of times.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
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
Hospice Sector: Fiscal Support and Cost of Living
(1 year, 8 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
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fiscal support to the hospice sector and increases in the cost of living.
I am delighted to have secured this debate on fiscal support for hospices and the hospice sector. Hospices across the UK care for some of the most vulnerable people in society and their families. I commend all the healthcare professionals and support staff, as well as the volunteers, who work in our hospices, such as Ayrshire Hospice. Ayrshire Hospice operates a number of charity shops, including two in my constituency in Largs and Kilwinning. We owe a debt of gratitude to all those who work in and for our hospices for the care they provide to our loved ones.
Some 300,000 people across the UK are cared for in hospices in their final weeks and days. Importantly, the families of those in the final stages of their life also receive vital support from hospices. I know this debate matters to Members across the House, and I want to congratulate the all-party parliamentary group on hospice and end of life care on its work. I also congratulate its co-chair, the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who wanted to be here but was unable to be. Last night, the all-party group launched a report on the impact of covid-19 on dying, death and bereavement. The report makes for quite harrowing reading, and I hope the Government will act on its recommendations. The report, launched by the hon. Gentleman, coincides timeously with this debate. I want to thank Hospice UK and Marie Curie for the excellent briefings they have provided to help inform today’s proceedings.
Since I was first elected in 2015, I have done as much as I can to highlight the challenges of bereavement and bereavement-related issues. Part of that conversation, of course, is hospices, which provide specialised care for terminally ill people, palliative care and incalculable levels of support for those watching their loved one pass away without suffering or pain—thanks, in great part, to the work of hospice staff. That is important because bereavement is debilitating in so many ways, and how a loved one dies affects how we grieve and the nature of that grief. We know that profound and persistent grief—complex grief disorder—can easily derail the lives of the bereaved and the wider family unit, because how a person dies is unfortunately very much part of how we remember them.
End of life care impacts not just the patient, but all their loved ones. The specialised support of compassionate palliative care cannot be easily replicated in a hospital setting. That is why hospices exist and why this debate matters. The need for hospice services is greater now than ever. More and more people have been developing serious illnesses since screening for diseases was badly disrupted during the pandemic, and many patients and families have subsequently found themselves referred for hospice care. The need for hospice care and palliative care is expected to increase over the coming years. Hospice UK is deeply concerned that the sector will simply and increasingly be unable to cope with that demand.
More generally, hospices are woven into the very fabric of bereavement services across the UK, and it is truly horrifying that they are facing an existential crisis. The reasons for that existential crisis are easy to understand. Hospices across the UK are facing up to fivefold increases in their energy costs. For some sectors, rationing and reducing energy consumption may be an option, but for hospices it is clearly not. They need to keep medical equipment running, and those in their care need to be in appropriately heated environments.
Frankly, no one can understand why, as of 1 April, hospices will be eligible for the same level of reduced support as other sectors under the new energy bills discount scheme—the same level of support as offered to pubs and restaurants. No one wishes to diminish the important role of pubs and restaurants, which are important parts of our community infrastructure, but we can hardly compare the services provided by a hospice to those provided by a pub. There is no equivalence, and for them to be eligible for the same level of energy support is, quite frankly, bewildering.
Moreover, hospices cannot pass on increased costs to customers. That is simply not an option for them, but it is always an option, at least to some extent, for private business. The reduced level of energy support that will come into effect on 1 April is so inadequate for hospices as to threaten their very existence. It cannot be the Government’s intention to leave hospices so exposed during the cost of living crisis that they simply cannot continue to operate. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns that I and other participants in the debate will raise, and that this important matter will be addressed in the upcoming Budget.
At this juncture, let me quote the chief executive of Sue Ryder, who has thrown the challenges our hospices face into stark relief. Heidi Travis said:
“I think it will come as a surprise to many that their local hospice is reliant on the generosity of members of the public who choose to donate or fundraise.
Put plainly, in order to pay the salaries of our doctors and nurses who provide expert care, pain and symptom management to people at the end of their lives, we rely on people buying second-hand clothes from our charity shops or running a marathon and asking their friends and family for sponsorship. It is unfathomable that such a critical part of our healthcare system is hanging by a thread.”
That is a stark assessment of the challenges that hospices are dealing with. Charity shops are an important part of fundraising that I am sure we all try to support. There is no disputing, however, that Heidi Travis makes an important point. The way hospices are funded would be unacceptable in any other area of healthcare. Imagine, for example, if maternity services relied on second-hand jean sales to fund care. There would rightfully be uproar. Yet to care for dying people, hospices must rely on increasingly fragile sources of income at a time when their costs are soaring. NHS services have their energy bills paid for by the Government, but hospices are—uniquely, among providers of essential care—unreasonably expected to absorb astronomical and eye-watering energy costs so that they can continue to carry out the important work they do.
It is vital to remember that hospices receive only about 30% of their funding from statutory sources—in Scotland the figure is 40%. That is simply too low, and it is despite the fact that they are a critical part of our health and care system, play a role in reducing pressure on our NHS, and provide support and training for health and care workers. On average, two thirds of adult hospice income and four fifths of children’s hospice income is raised through fundraising. At best, that is an uncertain funding model, and as the cost of living bites deeper into household income, our communities’ ability to provide even that charitable support is diminished.
Hospices also need to keep pace with NHS pay rises. They spend 71% of their expenditure on staff, and as pay rates understandably rise to keep up with inflation, they have to fund the spiralling costs. The Scottish Government provided an additional £16.9 million to hospices during the pandemic, and have committed to ensuring that any and all consequential funding for them will be allocated to the sector in full. However, hospices desperately need to know that from 1 April—a few short weeks away—the Chancellor will deliver support for hospices in the spring statement to ensure they can continue to deliver their essential services every single day of every single year.
The services that our hospices provide cannot be valued simply in pounds, shillings and pence. They provide a peaceful and painless passing to our terminally ill loved ones, and we all agree that we cannot put a price on that. They need help to pay their costs, not least their energy costs, beyond the offer in the energy bills support scheme. The Government need a more comprehensive understanding and appreciation of the vital work they do, and must provide support to develop a more sustainable, secure funding model across the board. If we do not properly support and value our hospices, we are in danger of losing them. The situation is astonishingly stark.
Let us hope that the spring Budget will deliver a more sustainable, long-term, secure funding model for our hospices, because that is becoming increasingly urgent. If we can secure that, everyone across the UK, regardless of where their lives happen to end, will be able to access the best possible end-of-life care. I ask the Minister: who would want anything less for their loved one? I hope that, when he has heard hon. Members’ arguments, he will provide some hope and assurance to our beleaguered hospice sector.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this timely and important debate.
The work of hospices is incredible. I am lucky that North London Hospice has a facility in my constituency, as well as others in north London. The support it provides is absolutely essential, not just to people at the end of their lives, but to their family and friends. In my constituency, we have a wellbeing centre that provides therapies and counselling. We also have something called a death café, where people can talk about end of life. I was very lucky to know a constituent, Joy Watkins, who has sadly passed away now. She said that going to the death café enabled her to make choices about the end of her life. She could make choices about who to spend time with and about the finances that she would make use of at the end of her life. It transformed the way in which she handled the end of her life. The work of hospices is clearly incredible, and we need to celebrate it.
Hospices are very much part of the community. As the hon. Lady said, they rely on fundraising for much of their support. The statutory support from the clinical commissioning groups can range from 1% to 50%, and the rest of it has to be found through fundraising. Marie Curie said in its briefing that as much as 80% of hospices’ finances come from fundraising efforts such as marathon runs.
I do not know whether many people read in yesterday’s newspapers that a 13-year-old boy, Max Woosey, has raised over £700,000 for his hospice in north Devon by camping outside in a tent for three years. People make those superhuman efforts because they care so much about the services provided by hospices.
As has been the case for many charities, hospices have been hit by the cost of living crisis. People are tightening their belts because they are struggling to make ends meet, which has an impact on the amount of money raised by charities. It hits them hard because there is less money to go around, so they have to make savings. Hospices are different from most charities, however, because they have no choice about the support they provide. People are there to receive end-of-life care, and hospices have to meet their energy costs to provide that care. They also have to provide support through the specially trained hospice staff who assist people at the end of life. Clearly, hospices do not have any choice about whether they spend their money on energy bills, so they are in desperate need of support.
In my constituency, North London Hospice now faces an energy bill of more than £460,000 in 2023-24—an increase of £280,000. That is a huge amount of money, and it is more that can be bridged by any additional fundraising efforts. Although the energy bills discount scheme is welcome, it needs to be extended because, as I mentioned earlier, hospices do not have any other means of finding extra money. Fundraising is already very tight for hospices, so we need to make sure that we ask the Government for this funding. The Budget is only a couple of weeks away, and I hope that the Chancellor listens to our request.
There is also a wider argument, which I am not proposing to make today, about the funding for hospices generally. The service they provide should not just be a voluntary service that is topped up by whatever fundraising available. Hospices actually help the NHS by providing additional assistance. There should not be a postcode lottery whereby clinical commissioning groups choose to give hospices funding according to how they are prioritised in their areas. We need to look at the funding model for hospices.
Today, however, we are asking, in these very unusual and extreme circumstances, for the Chancellor to find additional money to support hospices, because it is some of our most vulnerable people who need their support. They are literally at the end of their lives, and hospices have no other way to receive funding. I urge the Minister—though it may not be up to him; it may be down to the Chancellor—to find the additional funding.
Before I close, I thank Hospice UK and Marie Curie for the excellent briefings they have provided for today’s debate. It is a shame that more Members are not present. I know that if the debate had taken place at another time, it would have been very well attended. I will leave it there, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I may have to leave before the end of the debate, so I apologise for that in advance, Mr Paisley.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I confess that I had planned to make a couple of interventions, as opposed to a speech, but given that more hon. Members could not be present, I will try to add a bit more to what I was going to say. Forgive me if I am a little rusty and not very well prepared.
I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this really important debate. I have a particular interest in children’s hospices, because there happens to be a Shooting Star children’s hospice in Hampton, in my constituency. It is a much-loved institution in the area that serves children not just from my constituency, but from right across London and Surrey, and well beyond. It looks after children with life-limiting conditions and those who, sadly, have terminal conditions, and it provides respite care as well as ongoing care, particularly at the end of life. The hospice is therefore highly valued by the families it has served, and they were keen for me to make representations to Ministers.
I am fond of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), but I am disappointed that there is not a Treasury Minister present, given that the debate is about fiscal support for the hospice sector and hon. Members will be largely talking about funding streams. I know it is the job of the Department of Health and Social Care to advocate for them, but at the end of day it is a Treasury decision. We therefore call on the Chancellor and his Ministers to think about funding for hospices.
Demand has been rising, particularly in the children’s hospice sector; it rose about 40% between 2009-10 and 2017-18. At the same time, as we have heard, costs, including staff costs, are rising across the sector. From visiting Shooting Star, I know hospices are constantly trying to compete with the NHS and the rest of the social care sector, which are increasingly going after the same staff. The staff shortages across the sector are well documented. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned energy costs, but I will give a specific example from Shooting Star. It is paying £90,000 per year in energy costs. That is predicted to skyrocket to £230,000 per year by the end of September 2023—about two and a half times the current spend. That £140,000 increase is equal to the cost of covering the hospice’s family support line for three years, or the salary of three nurses.
As the hon. Member laid out, hospices have not been classified as an energy-intensive industry, whereas many other places—including even botanical gardens, I think—have been. Hospices are therefore not getting the additional support, yet supporting care for those with very serious conditions is an energy-intensive task. Hon. Members who have visited hospices will have seen the paraphernalia and the equipment, and children and their families also have to be kept warm. It is absurd. I plead with the Minister to make strong representations to his colleagues in the Treasury to ensure hospices are reclassified as energy intensive. Earlier this week in departmental questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) asked the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to consider a specific fund to support hospices with their energy costs. The Secretary of State said he would look at those concerns. I therefore task the Minister with speaking to both the Secretary of State and colleagues at the Treasury to see what can be done to support Shooting Star and many other hospices.
We have heard that food and other supply costs are rising, which brings me to funding streams. We know that hospices are heavily reliant on fundraising, and in recent years, children’s hospices have been receiving a children’s hospice grant from NHS England, which they are grateful for. In 2023-24, that funding is due to rise to £25 million. I recognise and welcome that, and I thank the Department of Health and Social Care for making the grant available. However—and this is an important “however”—beyond 2023-24, there is no guarantee that that funding will continue. The grant represents about £1 in every £6 that children’s hospices spend. Another important point is there is no commitment that NHS England will continue to deliver it as a ringfenced grant. If it is not directly distributed to children’s hospices as a ringfenced grant from NHS England centrally, but is instead devolved down to integrated care boards, some of which are already projecting deficits, there is concern that the grant may go to plug black holes in ICB budgets. When the Minister rises to speak, will he first give some sort of commitment on funding continuing between 2023 and 2024? Clearly the quantum cannot be specified while discussions are ongoing with the Treasury, but will he give some reassurance to the children’s hospice sector that that money will continue beyond 2023-24, and that it will be centrally administered as a ringfenced grant rather than going via ICBs?
Together for Short Lives says that if that grant were to be cut, nearly one in five children’s hospices would cut end of life care, over a quarter would cut symptom management services and nearly two thirds would cut short breaks for respite. Children who are critically ill and very sick deserve better, so I implore the Minister to provide those assurances to Shooting Star in my constituency and all the children’s hospices across the country that provide such vital support and care.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing today’s very important debate and on her powerful opening speech.
The debate is particularly timely as yesterday Marie Curie launched its annual great daffodil appeal and, as my hon. Friend said, the all-party party parliamentary group on hospice and end of life care launched its significant report, “The Lasting Impact of Covid-19 on Death, Dying and Bereavement”. I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff on their work in producing that report. I note that the report is dedicated to the memory of the late member for Birmingham, Erdington, Jack Dromey, who chaired the APPG for many years with great passion, but did not live to see the report published.
Death is a fact of life; the mortality rate of the human race is 100%. More people are living longer, which means more people are dying later in life, and they are dying of more complicated and longer term conditions, which require more intensive care and support. That is often where the hospice movement comes into its own, because it provides a range of services to people, including respite care and wider support not just for residents, but for their families and friends. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) noted, the increasing complication in medical conditions is also true for those who lead shorter lives, and the children’s hospice movement does incredibly important work. As she said, children’s hospices are experiencing many of the challenges outlined today.
We have heard a number of moving stories and testimonies that speak to the value of the hospice movement today. Almost everybody will know somebody who has spent time, and perhaps passed away, in a hospice. I think of the late Liz Quinn, a tireless activist for the Scottish National party in Glasgow and real mentor to me over the years, who spent her final weeks, just before the 2017 election, in the care of the Marie Curie centre in Glasgow. Another close friend, Melanie, whose experiences I have shared in this house before and who has advocated for Marie Curie’s #DyingInPoverty campaign, has been living with terminal cancer and is now in the incredibly wonderful, compassionate care of the Highland Hospice in Inverness. I cannot speak highly enough of the support the hospice provides, not just to her but to her family and friends, such as myself.
I have not yet had the privilege of visiting the new Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice in Bellahouston Park in Glasgow, but a few years ago I visited its old facility on Carlton Place. The sense of peace, care and compassion was almost tangible. Many people in the west of Scotland also know the dedication of staff and volunteers at the St Margaret of Scotland Hospice in Clydebank. All this work builds on a tradition that dates back to the pioneering work of Dame Cicely Saunders in the 1960s, further to the work of Jeanne Garnier in 19th century France.
The specialist services provided by hospices come with specialist and specific costs. As everyone who has spoken already has said, energy is the first and foremost of those costs. Medical equipment needs to run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and residents need to be kept warm and comfortable—that is one of the key aspects of palliative care. The steep increases in energy prices are having an immediate and significant impact. The Hospice UK briefing speaks of some hospices facing up to fivefold increases in energy bills.
Wider inflationary pressures are also having an impact. Food and nutrition are crucial in providing holistic care, helping people to maintain their strength as they live through what is often their final illness. Hospices need to be able to provide residents with nutritious meals of the best possible quality, but those costs are spiralling as well, potentially costing the sector as much as £100 million a year extra. On top of that, staff have to be properly remunerated. Hospice UK estimates that 71% of costs are related to staff. Every staff member will be feeling the individual and household pressures of the cost of living, and organisations want to be able to pay their staff a fair and decent wage. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) drew out, there is a risk of a squeeze on fundraising and traditional sources of donations because of the financial pressures that many people are experiencing.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran was not wrong to say that this is becoming an existential issue for many hospices around the country. If hospices cannot provide the service that they do, the cost will be borne elsewhere. It will have to be borne by the NHS more directly—people staying in hospital for longer, and patients not getting through as quickly as they might—or local care services will have to provide more intensive support for people in their own homes. Of course people should be supported to die in their home if that is what they want, but that is not done without cost, and that cost has to be met from somewhere. If it is not met by the local authority, the NHS or the hospice sector, it will be met by households, which in turn will lead to a further spiral.
Even when there are pressures on funding, we must think about the preventive elements of spending efficiently and effectively, whether it is the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury. The Treasury ultimately holds the purse strings, and Members were right to say that it would have been useful to hear from the Treasury, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), is capable. The Government speak with one voice, and I am sure he will pass all this on.
There has to be a recognition of the stark financial situation and action to address it. As others have said, hospices are not pubs or restaurants—they do not pass their costs on to customers. The next phase of the energy bills discount scheme has to recognise that and provide targeted support for organisations that need it most. The hon. Member for Twickenham is right: zoos, museums and botanic gardens play incredibly valuable and important roles for society and the economy, but it seems incongruous to say the least that they should qualify for more support than the hospice sector does under the Government schemes.
The Government must also think about how they can address staff and skill shortages. They do not like to hear it, but the reality is that Brexit has caused a black hole in labour supply in the United Kingdom. The Government have to invest both in medium and long-term training and skills development, so that hospices provide attractive careers for people who already live in the United Kingdom. It is inspiring to see the care that is provided in the hospice sector, and people should want to make that a career. It is a privilege to support people at the very end of their lives, but we cannot expect people to do that for free. They have to be rewarded, have their skills recognised, be paid a decent wage and be trained to an appropriate level, so the Government must invest in that area.
The Government also have to address short-term challenges, which means they have to be far more generous with their visa regime. They might even think about some of the asylum seekers, who may or may not have come here on small boats, who are currently sitting in cramped and crowded hotel rooms, playing cards and watching TV, who have qualifications and training in nursing and medicine. They want help the country that they have come to. They have fled persecution and want to make their homes here. I meet such people all the time, not just in my constituency but around the country. Perhaps the Government should think about allowing those people to contribute to our society, particularly the hospice sector.
The Government should think about what lessons they can learn from the Scottish Government’s approach. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about the investment that they are making in the hospice sector. They had a strategic framework for action and are now developing a strategy on palliative and end of life care. They are also providing £7 million a year to the Children’s Hospices Across Scotland movement. Parking places at hospices will be exempt from workplace parking levies, and there is an ambition to create a national care service that will ensure consistency and fairness at national level with services that are designed and delivered locally.
I want to end on the note of consensus that has come through in the debate so far by paying tribute to the incredible work of the hospice movement, which supports people through some of the most difficult times of their lives. I recognise that hospices are experiencing their own difficult times, so we have to do everything we possibly can to support them.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Paisley. I pay tribute to and thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who secured this important debate. I also praise the important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who is no longer in his seat, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady).
I pay tribute to the vital role that the hospice movement plays in the UK. I particularly want to mention Hospice UK and Marie Curie, who do so much in this area. The palliative care and services that hospices deliver is crucial to improving the quality of life for people with terminal illnesses. They are vital to a dignified, comfortable and compassionate end of life. Hospices serve a huge number of our communities. As we heard today, in the UK in 2020-21 more than 300,000 people received care from hospices; that is against a backdrop of more than 650,000 deaths in the UK in 2021. Hospices also work across the system to reduce the pressure on the NHS and to train and support health and care workers.
Hospices care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. As we have heard today, the majority of hospices rely on charitable funding for a significant amount of the funding they use to deliver services. Prior to the pandemic, an average of 34% of adult hospice funding and 18% of children’s hospice funding came from the Government, but now many are struggling to pay the rising costs of energy, food and staff. Hospices face additional costs of around £100 million a year. Those who run them worry about the future of their services and the level of service that they will be able to provide, but reducing energy consumption in hospices, as we have heard, is not an option. They need to keep medical machines running and the in-patient units warm for those receiving care.
I am sure the Minister will point us towards the energy bills discount scheme, but, as we have heard today, under that scheme hospices will be eligible for the same reduced level of support as pubs and restaurants, and even less support than a zoo or a museum. I appreciate this is not in the Minister’s brief, but I would be grateful if he set out the rationale for that and whether the Government have a plan to reassess and address that in the coming Budget. Although NHS services may have their energy bills paid for by the Government, hospices will be expected to raise money to pay the astronomical bills that they will receive after April.
How do the Government expect already struggling communities to keep hospices running? I am sure the Minister agrees with me about how unfair that is, and I am sure he also agrees with the praise for the hospice sector we have heard this afternoon. In February, a written question in the House of Lords asked the Government what assessment they had made of the impact of the increased cost of living and energy costs on hospices in England. Sadly, the answer was:
“No assessment has been made.”
I would be grateful if the Minister gave a commitment to carry out such an assessment.
The NHS long-term plan includes a welcome ambition to improve end-of-life care. I struggle to see how that ambition will be met, in the light of hospices being under such fiscal pressure. It feels like Government support of the sector is lacking. So many of us will, at some point, rely on hospices to take care of us or our loved ones. Following the pandemic, we see even more referrals to hospices. I will be interested to hear from the Minister what assessments have been made of the ambition to improve end-of-life care in the light of the compelling arguments that Members have set out this afternoon.
Yesterday, the APPG for hospice and end of life care released its report, “The Lasting Impact of COVID-19 on Death, Dying and Bereavement”. One of its recommendations is that the Government should conduct a review of hospice funding in England. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the Government will be considering those recommendations and when we are likely to hear the response. Hospices do such fantastic work, in providing care in the most unimaginable of circumstances. We need to ensure that they continue to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this debate and thank her for the support that she gives to the palliative, end-of-life care and bereavement sectors. The Minister for Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), is unfortunately unable to be here today, so I am here to represent the Government. I extend my gratitude to all Members here today for their contributions, which I have heard and learned from. I pay tribute to my own local hospices in Leicestershire, LOROS—the Leicestershire and Rutland Organisation for the Relief of Suffering—and Rainbows, for the work that they do.
The Government are acutely aware of the pressures and challenges posed by the rising costs that have been mentioned in today’s debate. While they affect us all in every sector, the impact on the hospice sector has rightly been raised for debate. Everyone here recognises the incredible importance of palliative and end-of-life care services, and the invaluable work that hospices, charities and the people who support them do to ensure that dignity, care and compassion are present in our lives when we need them most.
The efforts of organisations such as Hospice UK and Together for Short Lives play a vital role in ensuring that we as a nation provide world-leading palliative and end-of-life care. Like pretty much everyone in the country, I thank them. I take this opportunity to say thank you for everything that they do.
The hospice sector supports more than 200,000 people with life-limiting conditions in the UK each year, as well as tens of thousands of family members with bereavement support. We know we have an ageing population presenting with more complex health needs for more years of life. On average, about 600,000 people die every year in the UK, and that number is expected to increase. With that expected increase, the number of people needing palliative care is also likely to rise. Health is of course a devolved policy area, so in terms of direct hospice policy, I can only speak to the English experience, although I will of course talk about some UK-wide areas that are highly relevant, such as energy policy.
While so much palliative and end-of-life care is provided by NHS staff and services, hospices also provide significant support to people at the end of their life and to those important to them. They are mainly independent charitable organisations that receive funding from a mix of public sources and charitable donations. The sense of purpose that is shared with the community—the community cares for the hospice and the hospice cares for the community—is something that we should cherish. I see that strongly in my constituency. It is emblematic of the incredible rallying of compassion and care that we see around hospices all over the country. We should also note the important role that hospices played at the height of the covid pandemic when considering their important place in their communities.
In England, integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning end-of-life and palliative care services to meet the reasonable needs of their local populations. In the Health and Care Act 2022, palliative care services were specifically added to the list of services that an ICB must commission. That will ensure a more consistent national approach and support commissioners in prioritising end-of-life and palliative care, as hon. Members have called for. In July 2022, NHS England published new statutory guidance on palliative and end-of-life care to support commissioners with that new duty. It includes specific reference to ensuring the sufficient provision of specialist palliative care services and hospice beds, and ensuring their future financial sustainability.
I recognise the importance of quality palliative and end-of-life care for children and young people. NHS England is investing £23 million via the children’s hospice grant by March 2023, rising to £25 million by 2023-24, in order to provide care close to home for seriously ill children when they need it.
On the question that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) asked, although we only set out funding to date in the spending review, that does not mean that all funding will be cut off at that point. We are exploring exactly how that funding will be provided in the future. Furthermore, this financial year, NHS England has made £5 million of match funding available to ICBs for local children’s palliative and end-of-life care services. That will rise to £7 million in 2023-24, demonstrating the value of those services.
The funding of hospices and the sector is indicative of the Government’s commitment to their work and the vital societal role that they play. We recognise, however, that hospices, like every other organisation and household across the country, are having to contend with a range of budgetary pressures, including huge energy costs following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Munira Wilson
I thank the Minister for addressing one of my key questions about the children’s hospice grant. I am sure the sector will be grateful to hear that it is expected to continue. Although hospices will understand that he cannot commit to that at this stage, the problem is that if they do not know what they will get for the next three to four years, how can they make plans for their workforces and services? Will he say anything more than that something will continue? I do not know whether he is coming to this, but will he also say something about the ringfenced grant being administered directly, rather than via ICBs?
Neil O’Brien
Those are both really important points. The hon. Lady knows that it is not for me to set out the future of funding, but I hear the points she makes about ensuring that funding flows to hospices and that they are prioritised by ICBs, and about providing as much certainty as quickly as possible. Both those points have landed with me.
To meet the energy pressures, the UK Government’s energy bill relief scheme provides a price reduction in wholesale gas and electricity prices for all UK businesses and all other non-domestic customers. That means that they will pay wholesale energy costs below half of the expected prices this winter. A new scheme—the energy bills discount scheme, which has been mentioned— was announced in January, ahead of the current scheme ending in March. It is intended to help hospices’ budgetary planning into the future and provide certainty. That follows a Treasury-led review of the energy bill relief scheme some months ago.
The energy bills discount scheme will provide all eligible non-domestic energy users, such as hospices, with a discount on high energy bills until March 2024. It will apply to all UK domestic energy users in the voluntary and public sector, including hospices. We will invest up to £5.5 billion to support those non-domestic users. Furthermore, hospices may also be entitled to a reduction in VAT from 20% to 5% and exclusion from the main rates of the climate change levy on the energy they use for non-business purposes, as long as they meet the criteria in the scheme.
In addition to those two specifically energy-focused interventions, in 2022 NHS England released £1.5 billion in additional funding to ICBs to provide support for inflationary pressures, with local ICBs deciding how best to distribute that funding according to local need, including to palliative and end-of-life care providers such as hospices. I have previously mentioned the steps we have already taken in legislation and guidance to ensure that hospices are prioritised by ICBs.
A large part of hospice activity—probably the majority—actually takes place in people’s homes. That is why we are also taking action on domestic energy pressures. In fact, this winter we are spending a total of £55 billion to help households and businesses with their energy bills. That is among the largest support packages in Europe. A typical household will save about £900 this winter under the energy price guarantee, in addition to the £400 energy bill support scheme for households. On top of that, we are also spending £9.3 billion over the next five years on energy efficiency and clean heat, making people’s homes easier and cheaper to heat.
To help with some of the other cost of living pressures on households—which is the last thing people need when they are in need of hospice care—we are taking measures such as the extra £900 cost of living payment for 8 million poorer households, the largest ever increase to the national living wage for 2 million workers, and a total of £26 billion for cost of living support next year. I hope some of these supportive measures will reassure Members about the Government’s commitment to the sustainability of the hospice sector, particularly during this challenging fiscal period. I understand that the rising cost of living has caused all kinds of uncertainties, and we continue to engage proactively with the sector to try to understand the issues it faces.
Neil O’Brien
I will close my speech by again expressing my thanks to those who have attended the debate—including the hon. Lady, to whom I now give way.
Munira Wilson
I thank the Minister for giving way again. On his point about the energy bill relief scheme, will he at least acknowledge the absurdity of leaving hospices out of the energy-intensive grouping, while botanical gardens, zoos and museums, deserving though they are, have been included? Does he not recognise that that is utterly absurd, given the sort of services that hospices are delivering?
Neil O’Brien
Although this is not my policy area, as I understand it, this applies to the energy-intensive and the traded sectors, so organisations need to pass through two different filters to qualify: they have to be very energy intensive and in the traded sector. That would explain the organisations that are chosen or not chosen, but as I said earlier, I absolutely hear the point that the hon. Lady is making.
I pay tribute to all those working in and supporting the palliative and end-of-life care sector and providing essential support to those who need it. I hope I have reassured Members of the Government’s commitment to supporting these invaluable services.
Patricia Gibson
I thank everybody who has turned up to participate in this important debate and made important contributions from various parts of the UK about the challenges in their constituencies. I thank the Minister for coming along; I know that this is not his exact portfolio area, but I thank him for his answers.
We have heard from across the House about the invaluable support that hospices provide in helping our loved ones pass away free from pain and suffering, the importance of that for those left behind—the bereaved—and the intensity of the grief they suffer. It was remiss of me not to say this in my opening speech, but I specifically requested, as did the hospice sector, that a Treasury Minister respond to this debate. Despite that request—this does not reflect on the Minister who turned out—my debate was immediately passed to the Department of Health and Social Care. Given that the motion refers to “fiscal support”, that was disappointing, and I am sure that the hospice sector will share my disappointment. That is no meant as any disrespect to the Minister who has turned up. The reason why it was important for a Treasury Minister to be here is that we are on the verge of the spring Budget, and it was hoped that this would be a good time to catch their ear.
We have heard from every speaker today about concerns that the hospice sector has been classified in the same category as botanical gardens, pubs and restaurants for energy support from 1 April. The Minister said that that is because the businesses receiving additional support are energy-intensive and in the traded sector. The common-sense response to that is that we therefore need a specific sector for hospices. If they do not fit into the sectors to which additional support can be given, they deserve to be made a special case. I know that the Minister cannot speak on behalf of the Treasury, but I am concerned that the call for additional energy support for hospices does not appear to have made any progress. I am sure that everybody who participated in this debate will want to continue to pursue that.
I hope that the Minister will feed back to his colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care that there is no denying that, whatever progress we make or do not make on energy bills, we need a more sustainable, long-term, comprehensive funding plan for hospices. They are struggling to survive. I mentioned the comment from the chief executive of Sue Ryder about hospices relying for essential income on bake sales, selling second-hand clothes and sponsored walks. All those things are very worthy, and they make a valuable contribution, but by themselves they inherently mean that the financial stability of hospices is undermined. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said, long-term planning for the hospice sector is important.
I hope that the Minister will agree with the need for a long-term plan, and that he has paid close attention to the representations made across the Chamber today. No Government want to preside over the demise and loss of our hospice sector, and I am sure that the current Government do not want to be in that position. That is why we need urgent action now to save our hospices.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered fiscal support to the hospice sector and increases in the cost of living.
Written Statements
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ajax Armoured Vehicle
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Alex Chalk)
As part of my commitment to keep Parliament informed on the programme, I wish to provide a further update on the Ajax equipment project being delivered as part of the armoured cavalry programme. Ajax reliability and growth trials commenced on 31 January 2023 and are progressing as expected, with more than 1,390 km driven and four battlefield mission tests completed as of 28 February 2023.
[HCWS596]
Independent Review of Veterans Welfare Services
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
This is a joint statement from me and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)
We are pleased to inform the House that we have commissioned a review of the role and scope of welfare provision for veterans, including by the Ministry of Defence under the Veterans UK banner. Much has changed in this sector’s landscape over the last three years and expectations from within the armed forces community have changed too. The time is now right for us to take a fresh look at our support to ensure that we are meeting the needs of this community.
This review will build on the positive work already being undertaken across Government under the strategy for our veterans, including the Ministry of Defence’s £40 million digitisation project, which will significantly improve customer service and the process for managing claims through the MOD. This review will encompass the MOD’S veterans’ welfare services, as well as the Northern Ireland veterans support office, and the Government’s role in the veterans’ gateway and how they fit into wider Government support to veterans. It will also align with the reviews of the armed forces compensation scheme and veterans advisory and pensions committees that are due to report in the spring. The review will be led by a senior civil servant, with the independent veterans’ adviser and other key stakeholders providing advice and will last approximately three months. A copy of the review and the Government response will be placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS593]
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
Today, I am proud to announce publication of the “Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Alternative Provision (AP) Improvement Plan”. This is a joint publication with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This plan sets out the next steps we will take to deliver a more positive experience for children, young people and families.
Our “Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and Alternative Provision Green Paper”, published in March 2022, set out proposals to deliver a more inclusive system. What we heard through the consultation on the proposals set out in the Green Paper—particularly from parents and families—gives us confidence to establish a new national SEND and alternative provision system with the mission to:
fulfil children’s potential: children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities or attending alternative provision will enjoy their childhood, achieve their goals and be well prepared for adulthood and employment;
build parents’ trust: parents and carers experience a fairer, easily navigable system (across education, health and care) that restores their confidence that their children will get the right support, in the right place, at the right time;
provide financial sustainability: local leaders make the best use of record investment in the high needs budget to meet children and young people’s needs and improve outcomes, placing local authorities on a stable financial footing.
The improvement plan sets out that we will establish a single national system that delivers for every child and young person with special educational needs and disabilities from birth to age 25 so that they enjoy their childhood, achieve good outcomes, and are well prepared for their next step, whether that is employment, higher education or adult services.
To deliver consistent experience regardless of the school a child attends, where they live or their family background, we will develop new national special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision standards, covering early years, school, and post-16 provision, setting out what types of support should be available and who should be responsible for making sure this happens, based on the best possible evidence. This will include clarity on the types of support that should be ordinarily available in mainstream settings. This will give families confidence and clarity on how their children’s needs will be met.
New practice guides, based on the best available evidence, will equip frontline professionals to identify needs early, accurately, and consistently so that the right support can be put in place. We will give families greater confidence that their child will be supported to fulfil their potential through improved mainstream provision in their local setting.
A few weeks ago I launched “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, an implementation strategy and consultation which sets out our plans to transform children’s social care. We have worked closely to ensure that these two sets of reforms lock tightly together, putting families at the heart of the system of help and support.
We are building a confident, expert workforce across education, health and care to ensure children get the early support they need to fulfil their potential. We will introduce a new special educational needs co-ordinator national professional qualification for schools to give these vital staff with the knowledge, training and practical skills to support children with special educational needs. We are also already offering training for up to 5,000 new early years special educational needs co-ordinators.
We are also investing £21 million to train 400 educational psychologists to provide expert advice on supporting individual needs. We will extend funding, by up to an additional £6 million, for specialist taskforces which work directly in alternative provision schools and include for example mental health professionals, family workers, and speech and language therapists.
We are delivering a new approach to alternative provision, so it is used as an intervention for young people to stay in or return quickly to mainstream, instead of being a destination. Alternative provision settings will need to follow the new national standards, which will set out how the new approach should be delivered, and will form a critical part of local partnerships and inclusion plans.
We want children and young people who need an education, health and care plan or specialist provision, to get prompt access to the support they need, within a less adversarial system. We will reduce bureaucracy through new standardised education, health and care plans and promoting the use of digital technology.
I appreciate how crucial it is to have the right school places within the local area. To that end we are investing £2.6 billion between now and 2025 to fund new special and alternative provision places and improve existing provision. I can now announce we are opening 33 new special free schools, with a further 49 in the pipeline, and we will shortly be launching competitions to run those schools.
To support young people into employment, we will invest £18 million to double the capacity of the supported internships programme and continue to work with the Department for Work and Pensions on the introduction of the adjustments passport so that employers know what support young people require. New guidance to support effective transitions, including into employment, will mean that young people are supported from day one.
I know how important it is that accountability is strengthened across the system so that everyone is held to account for delivering for children and young people with special educational needs or who require alternative provision. My Department will have a role in reviewing new local inclusion plans and will offer support and challenge where necessary. New Ofsted and Care Quality Commission Area SEND inspections, launched in January of this year, will have a greater focus on the outcomes and experiences of children, young people and families.
We will test our key reforms, such as national standards, through the creation of up to nine regional expert partnerships through our £70 million Change Programme. This will help build a strong evidence base to inform future funding and legislation and allow us to guard against unintended consequences.
Oversight of reform will be provided through a new National Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and Alternative Provision Implementation Board jointly chaired by me and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who is the Minister responsible for mental health and the women’s health strategy.
[HCWS595]
Manchester Arena Inquiry Report: Volume 3
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
Today the Manchester Arena inquiry has published the third and final volume (volume 3) of its report, which has been laid before the House. The report can be found at www.manchesterarenainquiry.org.uk and on gov.uk.
Volume 3 relates to the radicalisation of the perpetrator; the planning and preparation for the attack; and whether the attack could have been prevented.
The awful attack carried out on 22 May 2017 prematurely ended the lives of 22 people and fundamentally damaged many more. They and their loved ones are foremost in our thoughts today. I am grateful for the strength and courage of the victims’ families and the survivors, who bravely live with the consequences of the attack every day, and to all those who have shared their experiences with the inquiry.
I would also like to thank Sir John Saunders and his team who have spent more than three years investigating this atrocious attack. The Government are committed to maximising learning from the inquiry and will now carefully study the three volumes of findings and analysis and well over 150 recommendations and consider how best to take them forward.
[HCWS597]
Singapore Convention on Mediation: Government Response to Consultation
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Christopher Bellamy KC), has made the following statement:
Today I am publishing the Government response to the consultation on the United Nations Convention on international settlement agreements resulting from mediation (New York, 2018) (the “Singapore Convention on Mediation").
In an increasingly globalised world, it is important that businesses have the confidence to trade across borders in the knowledge that private international law rules are in place to determine which country’s courts will hear a dispute raising cross-border issues (jurisdiction), which country’s law will apply (applicable law) and whether a judgment obtained in one country will be recognised and enforced in another (recognition and enforcement). These rules also establish procedures for cooperation in areas such as the taking of evidence, the service of legal documents and co-operation between competent authorities.
The Singapore convention on mediation (“the Convention") is a private international law agreement which provides a framework to allow for the recognition and enforcement of international commercial settlement agreements reached via mediation. It enables a party which has mediated their dispute to enforce the resulting cross-border mediated agreement in any country that is party to the convention without needing to commence an action for breach of contract.
The convention has garnered international support and recognition since it opened for signature in August 2019, with 55 countries having already signed it, including a number of the UK’s key trading partners and 18 of the UK’s fellow Commonwealth nations. The convention has been ratified by 10 countries to date, namely Fiji, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Ecuador, Honduras, Turkey, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Singapore.
With this global reach, the convention presents opportunities for the UK to strengthen its relationships with our existing international partners and to establish new relationships. It will also reaffirm the UK’s intention to build upon its long history of leadership in international law-making fora such as the United Nations and the Hague Conference on private international law.
Mediation as a dispute resolution process is integral to the UK justice system. It can provide a cost-effective method of resolving disputes whilst also aiming to preserve important and potentially long-standing business relationships. It is estimated that commercial mediation can save businesses around £5.9 billion per year in management time, damaged relationships, lost productivity, and legal fees. In February 2023, the value of UK mediated cases each year was estimated at approximately £20 billion.
The convention provides a uniform framework for the effective recognition and enforcement of international mediated settlement agreements resulting from commercial disputes. Its non-reciprocal nature means that the settlement agreements that UK courts may be asked to enforce, as a party to the convention, do not need to have been concluded in the jurisdiction of another state party. Parties to international mediated settlement agreements will therefore be able to have their settlement agreements recognised and enforced in the UK under the convention rules, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they were reached. This wide application of the convention will reinforce and potentially increase the UK’s attractiveness as a respected jurisdiction for international dispute resolution.
The Government launched a public consultation in February 2022 to seek the views of the UK’s flourishing legal sector and mediation community on whether the UK should become a party to the convention. The majority of the responses were in favour of the UK joining the convention. In practical terms, many respondents noted that joining the convention will mean that where it might be necessary to enforce a mediated agreement, having a direct route for enforcement would be preferable to the current practice of having to enforce by way of a breach of contract or following a court order. Respondents also generally agreed that becoming party would signal the UK’s commitment to mediation, further enhance the UK’s status as an attractive international dispute resolution hub, promote the UK legal sector and increase the credibility of UK-based mediators.
For these reasons, the Government has concluded that it is the right time for the UK to become a party to the convention to provide for recognition and enforcement of international commercial mediation settlement agreements throughout the UK. This decision will be a clear signal to our international partners that the UK is committed to maintaining and strengthening its position as a centre for dispute resolution and to promote the UK’s flourishing legal and mediation sectors.
The UK will sign the convention as soon as possible, as an important signal of our intentions to remain a world leader in this area and as a clear indication of the UK's commitment to mediation. We will work to ratify at a later date once all necessary implementing legislation is in place and after the convention has been laid before Parliament under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
I invite you to consider the Government response to the consultation, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-singapore-convention-on-mediation.
[HCWS592]
Pensions Dashboard
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
Pensions dashboards will allow individuals to view information about their pensions, including state pension, in one place online. This will put savers in control and help reconnect them with their lost pension pots—for example, where a pension scheme has lost contact with a member—transforming how consumers think and plan for their retirement.
The pensions dashboards programme, under the supervision of the Money and Pensions Service, is responsible for delivering the digital architecture which underpins pensions dashboards. The project is a significant undertaking, requiring the development of new technology that will permit individuals to find their pensions by searching thousands of pension schemes which collectively hold millions of pensions records. The first connection deadline is currently 31 August 2023. However, additional time is required to deliver the complex technical solution to enable the connection of pension providers and schemes, in accordance with the connection deadlines set out in the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022 and the Financial Conduct Authority’s corresponding pensions dashboard rules for pension providers. More time is needed to deliver this complex build, and for the pensions industry to help facilitate the successful connection of a wide range of different IT systems to the dashboards digital architecture.
Given these delays, I have initiated a reset of the pensions dashboards programme in which DWP will play a full role. The new Chair of the Programme Board will develop a new plan for delivery.
The framework set out in the regulations for pensions dashboards remains fit for purpose. DWP will legislate at the earliest opportunity to amend the timing of these obligations to provide clarity to schemes. We will ensure that the pensions industry has adequate time and the necessary technical information to prepare for any revised connection deadlines. I will provide a further update to the House before summer recess.
Pensions dashboards will be a vital tool to help savers plan for their retirement and the Government remain thoroughly committed to their delivery. I know this commitment is shared across the pensions industry. The huge consumer benefits of pensions dashboards are yet to be realised, but it is vital that the foundation upon which the dashboards ecosystem is built is safe, secure, and works for both the pensions industry users connecting to it and the end users of the service. While there are issues to work through, we must not lose sight of these benefits. It is essential that scheme preparation for pensions dashboards continues, and we will press ahead to deliver this technology.
[HCWS594]
House of Lords
Mental Capacity Act 2005: Small Payments Scheme
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they will respond to the findings of their consultation on the Mental Capacity Act 2005: Small Payments Scheme, which closed on 12 January 2022.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government published their response to the small payments consultation on 28 February, and a copy of the response is in the Library. The Government consider that it is better to improve the processes of the Court of Protection than to legislate for a separate small payments scheme for adults lacking mental capacity.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful for that reply. It is a happy coincidence that, after waiting 13 months for a response, one appeared 24 hours before this Question was reached. I very much regret that the Government are not proceeding with the small payments scheme. We now have the absurd position that a parent of an 18 year-old with a learning disability can receive tens of thousands of pounds, rightly, from the Department for Work and Pensions after a home visit to make sure that the money is being correctly applied, but the same parent of that same child cannot access the child trust fund—in which the average sum involved is £2,400—without going through a lengthy, bureaucratic and at times expensive process involving the Court of Protection, which deters many parents from going through it. If the Department for Work and Pensions is satisfied that the parent can act as an appointee, looking after tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, why cannot the MoJ agree to a similar process, enabling that parent to access the child trust funds that have been provided by the family itself?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that there is a problem in this area, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising it. On his specific point about the DWP payments, the Government see an important distinction between public money being paid for the living expenses of a dependent adult lacking mental capacity on the one hand, and the way we deal with the private property and capital of an adult lacking mental capacity on the other hand. In relation to the latter point, the Government are extremely reluctant to undermine the general principle of the 2005 Act that anyone wishing to take decisions on behalf of an adult lacking mental capacity must be authorised by the Court of Protection.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his tenacity on this issue. Does the Minister agree with me that, while the vast majority of parents and carers will act in the best interests of their loved ones, proper processes still need to be in place to protect the assets of vulnerable people? The Government have said, and the Minister repeated just now, that they intend to improve the processes of going through the Court of Protection—specifically, improving processing times and simplifying court forms. Can the Minister say what progress has been made in this regard?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, yes; I am able to fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We identified two problems. The first was the clunky—if I may use that expression—procedures of the Court of Protection, and the second was a general lack of awareness of the general law under the 2005 Act. On the first, the Court of Protection has in the meantime been digitalised. As from this month, anyone can apply online for the relevant authorisation, known as a “deputyship”. The relevant pilot reduced waiting times from 24 weeks to eight weeks, and the court forms are being worked on at the moment with a view to making them simpler and more user-friendly. So, there is good progress at the level of the Court of Protection. On the second problem, the general awareness of the need to observe the 2005 Act, we are in the process of a cross-government consultation to improve and raise public awareness.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, some child trust providers such as OneFamily and Foresters Financial have developed a simplified process, working with families and using the DWP appointee scheme as a proxy to protect against fraud or abuse. In the recent MoJ consultation on this issue, 87% of respondents liked this way of working. Why have the Government rejected it?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, essentially, there was general support for the idea of some sort of scheme, or at least some simplification of the process, but no consensus on what safeguards we should have. In particular, most banks and financial services companies expressed concerns about what they would have to do to carry out the relevant checks. There would be quite a small demand and it would be quite expensive for most institutions to provide the relevant service. In those circumstances, the Government decided that this was a case where we should avoid legislation and work to improve the present system.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, do His Majesty’s Government know how many of the 6 million child trust fund holders lack capacity? If this is not known, how can fund providers be sure that it is right to release funds to third parties? I ask this question because there is concern that some fund providers are not as diligent as they ought to be in this regard.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I cannot comment on how fund providers operate their relevant systems. The number of adults holding child trust funds who have become adults and lack capacity is quite small—it is thought to be around 1% to 2% percent—but it is none the less significant and the risk of abuse is quite prominent.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have recently been alongside someone who had tried to become an appointee. Can my noble friend the Minister please talk to the DWP about its system to become an appointee for somebody, because it is not simple? Is there not then a case for basically not duplicating the processes? Once you get through the appointee hoops, which are considerable, should you not automatically get a deputyship—so you just have to do it once?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government are extremely reluctant at the moment to confuse two things. One is the processes by which the DWP works, and the other is the legal process by which an adult lacking capacity can have somebody else act on their behalf. That is a job for the Court of Protection. It is not just a question of child trust funds, although that is an important issue. This can go on throughout a child’s life, and it is quite likely that a child lacking capacity who reaches the age of 18 will continue to lack capacity for many years to come, and there will be important decisions to take. That really should be supervised by the Court of Protection and not by the DWP.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to work with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on this important issue. When I led on the implementation of the child trust fund prior to the 2005 Act, we never foresaw that this situation would arise. Is it not a scandal that the cost to the financial institutions should take priority over the cost to these young people, who cannot access their funds? We understand about the Mental Capacity Act and understand the dangers and the safeguards necessary. But, after what has happened with the magistrates’ courts over the issue of pre-payment meters, can anybody really believe that the court system should take precedence over personal support to parents and young people?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, it is not simply a question of cost to financial institutions. There is a whole range of problems here and an essential tension between protection against abuse and simplicity of process. In this area, where it is possible to have very different views, the Government feel that the principle established in the 2005 Act, placing responsibility with the Court of Protection, is right.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, raised this, I said that he had put his finger on an absurdity, and it is quite clear that I was right on that one at least. Can the Government give us some undertaking of what they are doing to make sure that, when parents put money into funds for their children’s future, they are told all the things they have to do to make sure the child can access it properly? Saying that there should be greater awareness will not help; you need one place to go that says, “This is the legal process”.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government will do all they can to raise public awareness. If, for example, the DVLA can inform me regularly that my driving licence needs to be renewed when I get to 70, surely we can have some similar process when a child reaches the age of 18.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I commend the Minister for actually answering the questions put to him, rather than reading from a brief before him. Is there any way he could pass that skill on to his colleagues?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, my colleagues are already skilful enough.
Criminal Justice System: Translation and Interpreting Services
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the right for people engaged with the criminal justice system to access translation and interpreting services will be affected by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill; and if so, in what ways.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so declare an interest as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the right to a fair trial is fundamental to our criminal justice system. Translation and interpreting services play an important part in ensuring the fairness of proceedings for all parties, so their provision is a priority for the Government. As we consider the retained EU law for which the Ministry of Justice is responsible, we will make sure that there is no adverse impact on translation and interpreting services.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, that is an encouraging reply but I would be grateful for further clarification. Although the Minister said that there is no intention to remove this right, a briefing I have had from the Library suggests that it is more complicated than it looks because the right to these services was transposed into domestic law via no fewer than 18 different measures, some of which are thought to fall within the scope of the Bill and some not, and apparently it is debatable whether others do or do not. Can the Minister please reassure the House that there is a process for review and scrutiny, across all relevant departments, to ensure that we do not end up with the unintended consequence of the right to translators remaining, for example, in police stations but not in courts, or in tribunals but not in prisons?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. Allow me to explain that the right to translation and interpretation services is a right at common law and integral to the right of a fair trial. It is enshrined in Article 5 of the ECHR, which deals with the police station, and Article 6, which deals with the fair trial point. Neither of those are affected by the present retained EU law Bill so the substance of the domestic provisions will continue.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in debate on the Bill, the Minister taking it through described most of our laws as a mishmash of UK-derived law and EU-derived law. This is another example. All these laws, once the Bill comes into force, will also lose the case law and interpretation that came with them. What is the MoJ’s assessment of the workload that the British legal system will have to take on in order to retest all the laws that will be revoked or assimilated into UK law?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, this is not the moment to debate the wider points of the retained EU law Bill. As for the Ministry of Justice, most retained EU law has already been removed. We are left with some 23 pieces of legislation out of 3,700. I am not best placed to describe or consider the wider implications of the Bill, and, with respect, I think that is for another occasion.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is correct in saying that there are 23 identified Ministry of Justice items on the Government’s dashboard, and that was as of 28 February. Is the Minister satisfied that the Ministry of Justice review of the relevant legislation from the ministry’s point of view is complete and that that number of 23 will be the end of the story?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am satisfied, as far as we can ever be satisfied in this exercise, that that is the correct figure. One cannot ever rule out something turning up, but as far as I know that is a correct working hypothesis.
Electric Cars: Export to EU
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
The modern rules of origin we negotiated with the EU underpin our unprecedented zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement. These rules were developed with industry to reflect the needs of UK electric vehicle manufacturing. We are aware of the supply chain challenges, also caused by external factors, including Russia’s war in Ukraine. This is why our officials are in constant dialogue with the sector to support it to access the maximum benefits of this agreement and other assistance.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. He did not say what his department is doing about the clause in the trade and co-operation agreement that kicks in at the end of this year—in 2024—where, if there is not 40% of local content in UK-manufactured electric vehicles, they will be subject to up to 22% tariffs when exporting to the EU, and that will have a knock-on effect on other free trade agreements. Will the Minister undertake specifically to go back to the European Union to look at that clause, because we will not be able to export electric vehicles from this country economically unless it is put on hold at the end of this year.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point, and I hope I answered his Question to some extent. It is very important that we invest in future vehicle manufacture in this country. In the papers I brought with me to this great House are lists of the enormous number of subsidies, grants, credits and other mechanisms of support to ensure that we can build here the electric vehicles and the batteries we need, homegrown in the United Kingdom, to ensure that we have almost 100% of content of these vehicles when we sell them—not just to the European Union but all around the world. It is important to mention the automotive transformation fund and how it has helped Stellantis and Nissan, both of which are successfully working on producing batteries following, crucially, a critical mineral supply deal with Indonesia which I personally signed one month ago. There is work to do, let us be under no illusion, but the Government are committed to it. Huge amounts of money and a great deal of resource, including the attention of His Majesty’s Government, have been committed to it.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former member of the Government’s Automotive Council UK, looking at investment in this important industry of ours. The Americans have set aside £102 billion to encourage inward investment in new technologies, including electrification of the whole of their car and automotive industry. There is no doubt, looking at what we are putting aside here, that we are barely in the game. There is £850 million set aside to entice and encourage people here, which sounds a lot of money, but it is not, compared to what other people are doing. Jaguar Land Rover has asked the Government for half a billion pounds for a mega battery factory in Somerset, as opposed to Spain. It is crucial for the long-term interest of our industry that we do not let this investment disappear from our shores, otherwise, my dear friends, there will be no industry in this country in 10 years’ time.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I greatly thank the noble Lord for his intervention and for the important promotion of this industry. I say to anyone who is thinking of locating their business in Spain that Ferrovial announced yesterday that it is leaving Spain because it is one of the least hospitable environments in Europe to do business, whereas we know that Britain remains the top destination for doing business in Europe and the second most important destination for foreign direct investment in the world. It is important to remember and celebrate that last year we raised more money for technology and start-ups, which is precisely what we are talking about with the battery and EV industry, than France and Germany combined, more than China, and more than India. It is a testament to this Government’s efforts to ensure that we have the subsidies and support, including government support, to enable our citizenry—some of the best educated in the world—to take advantage of this. I take the point made by the noble Lord very seriously. We are doing a huge amount: the facts bear it out, the money is coming here and so is the industry.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister perhaps be so kind as to answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the use of the machinery of the trade and co-operation agreement to take up with the European Union any difficulties that might arise through a change in circumstances described, because it is really important? With the presumably better climate that now exists for our dealings with the European Union, surely this is the time to raise the matter in the appropriate top-level committee of the TCA.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
We work with all our partners to ensure that trade with the European Union is as seamless and friction-free as possible, and I know that we all congratulate the Prime Minister on the resolution of the situation in Northern Ireland. I believe personally and passionately from my conversations over the last few days alone—including at a breakfast I attended with the Spanish Business Council—that this will allow a substantial number of the market access barriers, the other areas of friction, to be removed. This was demonstrated when we saw the reintroduction of discussions on the Horizon programme almost immediately following the announcement of the Windsor Framework, so I am very confident that a practical solution can be reached, but these are short-term measures. The reality is that we need to build our own capacity in this country, invest in it and support it, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that unless we rapidly increase the back-up with electric vehicle charging in this country, there will be no electric cars going to the EU, or anywhere else for that matter, from this country? What confidence can my noble friend give to those who are considering switching to electric vehicles or already have them, because the infrastructure is lagging behind the demand, and if the Government seek to achieve their targets, they need to invest more within this country?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My noble friend is clearly hoping to upgrade his car from his 23 year-old Range Rover. We are very aware of the need, as we are as individuals in this House, to ensure that the infrastructure is there. It takes time, it is very costly, there has been government investment, but he is absolutely right that further focus is required, and I am very happy to write to him on the specifics, because it is important that everything fits together.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, it is all well and good the Minister telling us all this, but a new report from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit warns that UK motorists could miss out on £9 billion-worth of savings on electric vehicles due to the shrunken second-hand car market, which could be as many as 2.1 million vehicles smaller by 2033, if the Government continue to fail to boost EV take-up. This will be bad for drivers, bad for the country and bad for the environment, with low-income drivers forced to continue running petrol cars. What positive steps will the Government now take to buck this trend and ensure a viable second-hand car market for EV vehicles?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
It strikes me that, if you want to have a second-hand car market in EVs in this country, you need to build more new EVs in the first place. That is why we are investing heavily in making sure both that we have the facilities and capacity to procure critical minerals to enable us to make batteries, which are the core component in such cars, and that we have the partners in this country to develop the battery technology. We are not simply looking at manufacturing; we are also investing heavily in the R&D around battery design. Our real strength and core defence against the future are our brains. The investment that we have made in concepts, such as our investment of more than £500 million in the Faraday Institution in Coventry, is a good representation of the work that we are trying to do. This does not happen overnight. It is truly a national endeavour. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that the Government’s focus is on this incredibly important and topical subject.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, there was news this week that the failed Britishvolt company has been bought by a newly established company based abroad and that the site will not be used as intended to create a much-needed gigafactory to supply manufacturers of electric vehicles. Can the Minister clarify how the new plans fit into the Government’s priorities for the industry? What funding has already been given to this project? Are there plans to give it any further funding?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
This is an ongoing commercial issue so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on some of the specific points that the noble Baroness makes. However, we did support Britishvolt originally—I am happy to write to her with the specific numbers—as we have supported all battery endeavours in this country. It is the right thing to do. These are new technologies and companies. They are being created by entrepreneurs taking significant risk; we should celebrate that. It is not a straight line, however. We must be prepared for disruption in this market; there will be volatility. The important thing is that the Government stand behind this industry. We want a car industry in this country that builds high-quality electric vehicles with batteries made here, to sell to the rest of the world and take advantage of our post-Brexit vision for Britain.
Stormont Brake
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how the Stormont Brake mechanism in the new Windsor Framework will work in practice in relation to European Union legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, the Stormont brake gives the Northern Ireland Assembly a powerful new safeguard. If the brake is pulled, the United Kingdom can veto new EU goods laws that would have significant lasting effects on the everyday lives of the people of Northern Ireland. The brake has been introduced by fundamentally rewriting the dynamic alignment provisions of the treaty; that is a permanent change and ends the automatic ratchet of EU law.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer but, for absolute clarity, would the brake be exercised when 30 MLAs sign a petition of concern, or would it be subject to a further vote in the Assembly on a cross-community basis? When will we see the legal text showing how the brake will operate in practice—or has it already been prepared and shown to others?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Of course, she and I both served on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and she continues to serve on the European Affairs Committee’s Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. As far back as our first report, we highlighted the problems created by the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland, which the Government’s proposals now seek to address.
The noble Baroness asked some specific questions about the process. Of course, the Command Paper and supporting documentation set out the framework. There are some details that are yet to be filled in and will be dealt with in legislation; they will follow consultations with the Northern Ireland parties, which my right honourable friend the Northern Ireland Secretary intends to begin almost immediately.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Stormont brake will apply to future laws. Can he tell us whether it will apply to the existing superstructure of EU laws that applies to the EU single market and customs codes for goods in Northern Ireland? Does the Stormont brake apply to the existing superstructure of EU laws in Northern Ireland?
Lord Caine (Con)
As my noble friend—he is my noble friend—will be aware, one of the effects of the Windsor Framework is to reduce very significantly the amount of EU law that will be applicable in Northern Ireland. I think the figure is something like 1,700 pages of text have been removed. Northern Ireland will now be subject to less than 3% of EU law. On my noble friend’s specific question, the brake will apply to new laws that fall within the existing protocol or amendments to laws that fall within the existing protocol.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ritchie highlighted the complexity of the Stormont brake. The Minister rightly indicated that he will hold consultations with the political parties in Northern Ireland. Can he tell the House about the nature of those consultations? As he knows, the purpose of this mechanism is, as he has told us, to address the so-called democratic deficit in Northern Ireland because of the working of the single market. However, does he not agree that the greatest democratic deficit is the continued suspension of the Executive and the Assembly in Northern Ireland? He may rest assured that those of us on this side of the House will support the Government in all their attempts to restore those institutions for the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the distinguished former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for his tone and his comments. On the nature of the engagement, I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend intends to speak to the Northern Ireland parties directly in the coming days. That will be followed by technical engagement at official level and further political engagement—but we intend to move rapidly on this because we recognise its importance.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord about the absolute necessity and priority of restoring the institutions. It is the Government’s hope that the Windsor Framework will now allow us to move forward in a way that allows the institutions to be fully restored and works to build a better Northern Ireland for everybody. Speaking as somebody who believes passionately in the union of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland, let me say that the surest foundation for strengthening the union is a Northern Ireland that works.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, in agreeing very much with what my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, have just said, do not all those in Northern Ireland who have been elected to the Assembly now have a duty to meet and discuss together the historic achievement of the Prime Minister, which will not be bettered, so that we can move forward as a United Kingdom?
Lord Caine (Con)
I very much agree with the sentiments behind my noble friend’s question. As I have indicated, the Secretary of State will speak to all the Northern Ireland parties in the very near future. I agree with my noble friend about the achievements of the 1998 Belfast agreement; as we approach its 25th anniversary, it is important that we seek to move that forward. He is absolutely right.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for her Question. I fully accept that both the SDLP and the Alliance Party have difficulties with the Stormont brake. On the other side of the argument, the Centre For The Union published overnight its eagerly awaited text, which argues that, in principle, it is sympathetic to the Stormont brake. That is an important moment in this struggle to see the return of Stormont.
There is a lot of concern about how the brake might work in practice. I want to put a question to the Minister. Over the past two years, Northern Ireland has been much dominated by the efforts initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is in his place, to introduce derogations from the operation of the original protocol. As far as I can see, most of those derogations are now embodied in the new deal, but this was done to effect stability and was done unilaterally. Now that there is an international agreement that underpins the actions of the British Government with respect to the Stormont brake, surely it is logical that, when a decision is not unilateral but is based on the international agreement, the British Government can be relied on to pursue again the objective of stability in Northern Ireland as firmly as they have done over the past two years—and in rather more favourable international circumstances.
Lord Caine (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I must call him my noble friend, because we go back so many years. He makes very important points. I thank him for his contributions on these subjects, not only today but over a number of months and years. Of course, he is right to highlight the importance of stability, to which I referred in an earlier answer. That is the surest foundation for the union and for strengthening Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.
On the broader point, he referred to derogations. So much of what we have had to do through grace periods and easements has now been made permanent because of the Windsor Framework. That allows us to move on. In a similar vein to my noble friend Lord Cormack, I hope that one of the consequences of this is that we can now move forward, not just in Northern Ireland but in our broader relationships with friends, partners and colleagues in the European Union.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the agreement and hope that it will lead very soon to a return to a functioning Assembly and Executive—for if there is no Stormont, there is no Stormont brake. Given the very real concerns of the Alliance Party and the SDLP, can the Minister say whether the Government intend to introduce a review mechanism to assess how the Stormont brake is working in practice once it is up and running?
Lord Caine (Con)
Of course, and I recognise that different parties will have different views and concerns. One purpose of the engagement that my right honourable friend will undertake in the coming days will be to establish what they are and where we can find agreement. As I said in my Answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the framework—the clue is in the name—sets out the framework for the Stormont brake, but there are some details to be filled in as to how things are codified. There will need to be legislation in this area setting out things in more detail, and I am sure that will be part of it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the framework sounds like an improvement. However, as we here well know, the legal text is what counts. Some of us who have read the EU legal text have some concerns. Not publishing that legal text as quickly as possible allows rumour and distrust to grow, so I would urge it.
When the Minister says that 1,700 pages will be removed, how many laws and regulations does that include? Although 1,700 pages sounds a lot, you need only look at our legislation table to know that that could be one law and half a regulation, depending on how long it is. We want specifics, or we do not know what we are being asked to consider as positive or not.
Lord Caine (Con)
The noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I cannot tell her off the top of my head the precise number of EU laws that remain within Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, it is below 3%. That 3% is those laws which are essential for Northern Ireland’s privileged access to the single market, on which so many sectors, especially agrifood and dairy, continue to rely. At the outset, the noble Baroness referred to the agreement as a whole. I am in no doubt that this is a substantial improvement on the existing protocol and something that everybody should get behind.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Thursday 2nd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords 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: HL Bill 89-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (2 Mar 2023)
Baroness Humphreys
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that—(a) would be within the legislative competence of—(i) the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament,(ii) Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of Senedd Cymru, or(iii) 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—(i) the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone,(ii) the Welsh Ministers acting alone, or(iii) Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive.”Member's explanatory statement
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 each of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Ireland Assembly or Executive.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for adding their names to this amendment and for their support. I will also refer briefly to Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord.
Amendment 29 is the first in a series of amendments which will enable your Lordships to explore the position of the devolved Governments on this Bill and to examine their response to it in detail. I will be speaking about the response of the Welsh Government, of course, but I recognise that other devolved Governments will have similar experiences and different problems.
The amendment restricts the sunsetting of EU legislation so that it does not apply to legislation that is within the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations—in essence, protecting the ability of the devolved Administrations to sunset their own retained EU laws. In general, I think it fair to say that the Welsh Government and the Senedd have very serious concerns about many aspects of the Bill, echoing those expressed by many of your Lordships at Second Reading. They have so many concerns that the Counsel General for Wales went so far as to say that the Welsh Government fundamentally oppose the whole intent of the Bill.
The Welsh Government’s position is that retained EU law works well for them in their areas of devolved competence and, again in the words of the Counsel General for Wales, that they had no intention of repealing, revoking or amending retained EU law to an arbitrary deadline, preferring gradually to amend the law as appropriate with evidence-gathering, public consultation and legislative scrutiny in the normal way over time, as with any body of law. Without the certainty that Amendment 29 gives and without an extension to the sunset, which we will debate in a later group, the Bill no longer gives them that option.
Amendment 29 addresses the concerns of the Welsh Government and Senedd Members who fear that the UK Government will attempt to take some responsibility—or just responsibility—for the sunsetting of laws in Wales. In January, the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee was very concerned about the position of devolved retained EU law and asked whether the Welsh Government had received reassurance from the UK Government that they will not change or remove devolved retained EU law without the consent of the Senedd. The Counsel General had not received reassurances a month ago. Can the Minister give those reassurances today? Senedd Members are obviously concerned about the impact of the UK Government proposing legislation such as this. They believe that by default it could repeal essential economic, social and environmental protections—protections that the Welsh Government believe are essential for the operation of their policies on behalf of the people of Wales, and that this is unacceptable.
The Welsh Government have said that their prime focus is
“firstly to ensure that we analyse and retain our own EU retained law, that we focus on that law that’s been made within Wales”.
This is the primary reason for putting down this amendment. It is designed to ensure that the legislative competence of the Senedd is recognised and protected, and that responsibility for sunsetting EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation lies with the Senedd.
My noble friend’s Amendment 49 asks for a progress report on the identification of EU legislation that has been incorporated into law by the devolved Administrations. I will leave my noble friend to deal with the details when she speaks to her amendment, but I will make a brief comment. I did expect this exercise to be a joint venture, with the UK Government assisting or even leading in the identification of the various pieces of legislation that fall under the Bill, but a few difficulties have arisen. This amendment has my full support and I hope the Minister will update the Committee on progress. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, which has my full support, but I will also speak briefly to two other amendments in this group in my name—Amendments 34 and 55—which have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy.
Everything the noble Baroness said on Wales applies equally to the position in Scotland, which is just as acute and difficult. I will give some figures on the problem we face. If you examine the dashboard and look, for example, at entries that relate to the responsibilities of Defra, which cover a lot of the work done in Wales and Scotland, you will find 1,781 such entries. Mention is made in this clause of legislation relating to Wales and Scotland, but the numbers are tiny compared to those recorded for Defra itself: there are only 30 relating to Scotland and 15 to Wales, and they concern only agriculture among Defra’s much wider responsibilities. So, I detect that the no doubt authoritative information in the dashboard is incomplete, especially for the devolved Administrations, which illustrates the great problem to which these amendments direct our attention.
May I venture to suggest one other problem, which relates to the relationship with the devolved Administrations? In its report of some two years ago, the Constitution Committee indicated, with the support of the Government’s reply, that the watchwords in dealing with the devolved Administrations should be “respect” and “co-operation”, and that, indeed, is what the noble Baroness’s amendment is all about. One of the extraordinary things about the Bill is that there was no sign of any attempt to discuss the sunset date with the devolved Administrations before it was introduced last September. If I am wrong about this, I am sure I will be corrected by the Minister, but all the signs are that the work simply was not done before the sunset date was set. Indeed, before the Bill reached this House, I do not think much work was done otherwise.
I therefore have a particular question for the Minister on something to which this House is entitled to an answer anyway: what is the present state of discussions with these two devolved Administrations about the possibility of a legislative consent agreement? As the Bill stands, it is clear that neither Administration would give its consent, but the Government’s responsibility is to continue discussions with them. We need to know what work is being done, whether work is continuing to achieve agreement and what the disagreements, if any, relate to. We probably all know what they are, but the Minister needs to update the House at some point during Committee. When the matter comes back on Report, we will expect a complete account of the relationship with the devolved Administrations in relation to legislative consent.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 29 seeks to remove all legislation that is within devolved competence from the automatic sunset. It will then be for the Government to find another date after discussion with the devolved Administrations. As I said when we discussed this on Tuesday, I believe in sunset dates to make sure there is some pressure to get the work done, but it must be a proper date that is discussed with the devolved Administrations so they can reasonably meet it.
Amendment 49, which is supported by my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is a probing amendment seeking information that should have been in the Government’s hands long ago. It makes the same point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, on the lack of a clear and comprehensive statement. There is a real problem here of finding out what the legislation is dealing with. Direct EU legislation is not difficult to find and, from the work we do in the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, we can identify it readily. The difficulty arises with EU-derived subordinate legislation and UK legislation relating to the subject matter, which has to be sorted out and understood before one gets into identifying what EU-derived legislation needs to be dealt with. This suggests that each SI in these subject areas needs to be examined and studied very carefully to see what legislative power is being exercised.
Once again, I stress that the Committee needs to know what risks the devolved Administrations are being confronted with. We need a full, frank, detailed and honest assessment. We will come back to this matter when we discuss my noble and learned friend Lord Judge’s Amendment 32 in a later group. For these reasons, I support Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
I turn to an entirely different matter that is the subject of Amendments 34 and 55, which deal with sunsetting the common frameworks. Amendment 34 seeks to disapply the sunset to legislation relevant to the policy content of the common frameworks. Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is similar. Amendment 55 suggests a different sunset for the common frameworks, at the end of 2026.
The problem that these amendments seek to address is that, as far as I can detect, the Bill seems to ignore and thus undermine the role of the common frameworks, which are designed to be guided by consensus across all four Governments. That is what “common” means in this rather strange formula; the frameworks are common to the four Administrations, which all have a share in this process, which proceeds with discussion and common understanding. They allow for divergence for reasons of policy, as Section 10 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act recognises, but only where there is agreement among them all. There is a dispute resolution process, but I do not believe that it was designed for the kinds of disagreements that may arise if the procedures in the Bill are applied to them. The Minister needs to consider the position of the common frameworks much more carefully regarding the work that is proposed.
I should give some indication of the ground that the common frameworks cover and their importance to the way in which the United Kingdom’s internal market is being developed, with the willing co-operation of the devolved Administrations. There are 32 common frameworks, extending over the work of seven government departments, ranging from what was BEIS to the Department for Transport. Fourteen of them relate to Defra, as I mentioned earlier, and its equivalents in the devolved Administrations. I will not set out the full list, but they include animal health and welfare, chemicals and pesticides, ozone-depleting substances and fluoridated gases, plant health, air quality, and food labelling and compositional standards. These are extremely important areas of our internal market, which are well settled in the frameworks and should not be disturbed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I serve on the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. We have met with a level of frustration about this Bill and the delay in some of those common frameworks coming forward. They are an important element of devolution and provide for that element of divergence.
I support Amendment 29. I have other amendments in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in this group but, in relation to Amendment 29 and the issue of sunsetting, could the Minister indicate how the Government will protect the new Windsor agreement, which underpins devolution in Northern Ireland, from 1 January 2024, given the revocation of retained EU law from that date?
The purpose of Amendment 147 and, in particular, Amendment 33 is to ensure that Northern Ireland is removed from inclusion in this Bill—in fact, Amendment 147 states that—due to the influence and impact of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, because I believe that the Windsor agreement of this week is simply an implementation plan of the protocol with mitigations. In this regard, I refer to Article 2 as well as to environmental considerations. Amendment 33 would prevent the automatic revocation or sunsetting of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained EU legislation that relates to human rights, equality and environmental protections as they affect Northern Ireland. This would include all such legislation that falls within the scope of Article 2 of the protocol.
I and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, have spoken to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which are tasked with statutory oversight of the UK Government’s commitment under Article 2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to ensure no diminution of certain equality and human rights protections in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit. These equality and human rights protections relate back to the Good Friday agreement of 10 April 1998. Quite rightly—this is the purpose of these amendments—both commissions are concerned that this commitment has not been properly considered in the development of the Bill and that the proposed sunsetting of EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained direct EU legislation risks a breach of Article 2 unless all relevant legislation is identified and preserved by the set deadlines.
This pressure is exacerbated by the absence of an Executive in Northern Ireland at the moment. Could the Minister provide us with some detail about any work that has been ongoing in relation to that? Both commissions believe that the Bill should be amended to include a clause confirming that the provisions of the Bill are without prejudice to Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Amendment 142 in our names, which is in another group, refers to this. Both commissions have welcomed assurances by the UK Government of their commitment to Article 2 and their acknowledgment that the commitment is non-controversial. However, a number of concerns have been identified.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. If cannot respond today, maybe he could come back to me in writing. Could he set out the steps that will be put in place to mitigate the risk of inadvertent failure on the part of the Government or devolved authorities to preserve or restate all relevant EU-derived subordinate legislation in Northern Ireland and retained EU legislation within the scope of Article 2, within the set deadlines in the Bill, in the absence of the Bill being amended to include measures that protect against this risk? Would the Minister also set out in detail—I would be grateful if he could do so in writing—what consideration was given to ensuring compliance with Article 2 in the development of the Bill, including in the identification of the specified legislation?
In relation to Amendment 142, there is a concern that the environment will not be properly protected. There is therefore a need for Northern Ireland to be removed from this. In an area of political instability, where the Executive and Assembly are currently not operating, we need full measures within the legislation to ensure that Northern Ireland is not covered and that it is removed in terms of the environment. Will the Minister specify the steps that he will take on behalf of the Government to do just that?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 35 in my name. I thank Michael Clancy and everyone at the Law Society of Scotland for helping me prepare for this group of amendments and another group of amendments which will follow. A lot of what I will say echoes what has already been argued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with much of which I was in agreement.
The effect of Amendment 35 is to ensure that the sunset provision in Clause 1 will not apply to any common framework. I pay tribute to the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee and the work it does, not just in relation to this Bill but on other matters as well. One of the most successful methods to manage intra-UK divergence has been the creation of common frameworks, which are defined in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 as a
“consensus between a Minister of the Crown and one or more devolved administrations as to how devolved or transferred matters previously governed by EU law are to be regulated after IP completion day.”
The Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, in its report entitled Common Frameworks: An Unfulfilled Opportunity?, noted that
“the UK Government considers how legislation it brings forward might conflict with relevant common frameworks, impede their successful operation, and affect the health of the Union.”
The Government responded to that conclusion in the report by saying:
“The Retained EU Law … Bill”—
the Bill before us today—
“insofar as it introduces the date for the sunsetting of retained EU law … will impact upon most if not all of the Common Frameworks. The UK Government has committed to the proper use of Common Frameworks and will not seek to make changes to REUL falling within them without following the ministerial-agreed process in each Framework.”
That statement is welcome, but it does not go far enough and it does not welcome the current state of play.
Noble lords may be aware that, last week, the Scottish Parliament voted to withhold its consent for the UK Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill; it did so as a means of calling for the Bill to be withdrawn. Earlier, on 10 February, Angus Robertson, Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, sent a letter to the incoming Secretary of State for Business and Trade setting out the concerns of the Scottish Government in this regard and noting that these concerns had been raised previously with the UK Government at the time that the Bill was before the House of Commons. The Government have had ample opportunity to listen to the concerns so eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, in relation to the Welsh Government, and those raised by the Culture Secretary in the Scottish Parliament, Angus Robertson, and have declined to act on those concerns.
I would like to give my noble friend the opportunity to comment on the amendments that the Scottish Government have set out, one of which closely echoes Amendment 27 which I moved on Tuesday this week. Their option one is to remove the sunset clause in Clause 1 from the Bill entirely. Their option two is to remove devolved areas from the sunset clause in Clause 1. Their option three is to keep the sunset but move it to a later date and enable Scottish Ministers to extend it. Their option four is to enable Scottish Ministers to extend the sunset date in Clause 1.
The UK Government cannot continue in this arbitrary fashion, overriding the wishes of two separate nations, having this week celebrated the very good news regarding the Northern Ireland protocol. This is an opportunity for my noble friend to make good the commitments in the common framework agreements, as echoed in the conclusions of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee, and I urge him to choose one of the options. I argue that my Amendment 27 is the best, but one of these options must be agreed, otherwise we will simply not make any progress with this Bill.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
I support Amendments 34 and 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Murphy, who cannot be in his place, and Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I declare my interest as chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee.
I start by saying how much I support Amendment 29. The noble Baroness made a powerful and explicit speech about the real, practical concerns that are now so evident in the Welsh Senedd, the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and the Welsh Government. The exam question for the Minister, and for the Front Bench as a whole, is whether they are prepared to legislate without the consent of the Welsh and Scottish Governments. I would very much like an answer to that question at the end of the debate—the Minister is nodding already.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 29 in the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope and others.
A couple of weeks ago your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, went to Cardiff and Edinburgh to take evidence in the context of our current inquiry into the future of UK-EU relations. During those visits, on which we talked to Members of the Senedd and the Parliament in Edinburgh, the points about this Bill, and above all the points covered by my noble and learned friend’s amendment, were raised forcefully with us by representatives of all parties, including the party that supports the Government, in both Cardiff and Edinburgh. They told us they were completely in the dark about the application of this Bill if it became an Act, and in particular about how it would impact on the areas that my noble and learned friend has drawn attention to, which are devolved and are the responsibility of the Scottish and Welsh Governments. They said they were really worried that this would lead to many unforeseen negative consequences.
They said there had been no contact or discussion at the political level between either the Welsh or Scottish Government and Whitehall about these measures. There had been contact at official level, of course, and in previous parts of the debate on the Bill here, Ministers have said, “Oh, well, there are some jolly good contacts going on at official level and civil servants are talking to each other”. That will not do; it is not enough. There must be a dialogue with the Welsh and Scottish Governments about this issue; it deeply concerns them.
I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply to the debate on this amendment, will give certain undertakings in that respect. Above all, I hope he will commit and say categorically that if this amendment is not put to a decision today—it is of course axiomatic that it will not be—these contacts at political level with the Welsh and Scottish Governments will take place between today and Report and he will report back to this House what has passed in those contacts. Without that, we are just heading towards greater and completely unnecessary discord. I hope this point can be taken on board. I do not think it a great deal to ask the Minister to commit himself to. Frankly, it is astonishing that it has not happened already.
One of the things that was quite clear from our contacts in both Cardiff and Edinburgh was that this absence of certainty about what is covered by the sunset clause is itself extremely damaging. Nobody has been able to tell them the list of measures that would be affected by the sunset clause. So I hope the Minister can respond positively when he comes to reply to this debate.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I rise to give a few words of support to the amendments in this group, particularly those led by my noble friends Lady Humphreys and Lady Randerson. To pick up the phrase just used by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, it is astonishing that the Government are proposing to create such discord with this Bill and by their failure to respect the devolved Administrations and include them in the processes of consideration.
As an Englishwoman, though with roots throughout these islands, I am no expert either on the devolution settlement or on common frameworks—very far from it—but our party is a unionist one, which surely means fostering, respecting and supporting the operation of the union.
In paragraph 60 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, there is a very clear statement:
“The Government also remains committed to respecting the devolution settlements and the Sewel Convention, and has ensured that the Bill will not alter the devolution settlements”—
that does not appear to be the case—
“and will not intrinsically create greater intra-UK divergence”.
Quite a lot of weight is put on “intrinsically” in that sentence, because it has great potential to create intra-UK divergence and thus seems very contrary to government policy. On Monday we heard the Prime Minister deliver a passionate statement of support for unionism. He passionately said, “I am a unionist”—he also said, “I am a Brexiter”, but I was not so keen on that bit. The Bill does not illustrate that passionate unionism from the Government.
Coming specifically to the effect on Northern Ireland, I fully agreed with the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. We on these Benches are also extremely concerned about the Bill’s impact on the Northern Ireland protocol, and in particular on Article 2 on the upholding of rights under EU law, including human rights. We hear with great concern the view of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which argues that the Bill risks the basis of the Good Friday agreement. That cannot be at all overlooked.
I have a few questions in reference to the Windsor Framework that I hope the Minister can answer. First, will the Stormont brake apply to any laws affected by the REUL Bill or only to new legislation? Has the Prime Minister agreed with the EU to retain all EU law affected by this Bill in Northern Ireland as part of the Windsor Framework? If not, will that not undermine the Windsor Framework? Have the Government agreed to amend this Bill as part of the deal done on Monday in the Windsor Framework on the Northern Ireland protocol?
Practically speaking—given that, sadly, there is no sign yet that the Northern Ireland Executive will be up and running soon—who will be making decisions on which EU law is protected from the sunset? The situation in Northern Ireland is of course very delicate. Given that either removing retained EU law or pulling the Stormont brake could trigger a breakdown in trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, will the Minister commit that that will happen only when there is cross-community support for doing so? That question is perhaps more on the framework.
With regard to the Bill, there are major concerns about the devolution settlements, the common frameworks and, not least arising from the Windsor Framework, the effect specifically on Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister can cover all those concerns in his response.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I am going to return to a subject that I raised the other day with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and this follows on from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said earlier today. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, cannot be in her place today, so I shall say something about Amendment 49. This goes to three questions that I want to ask and the extent of what we do and do not know.
The first issue that arises is the extent of our knowledge of what is EU retained law. Behind the very helpful dashboard there is a spreadsheet. Like most spreadsheets, it is searchable, so it is extremely helpful in that respect. Under column L, one can find the designation “Territorial application”. When you look down it, you find that some are UK-wide, some are GB-wide and some apply to the Isle of Man, but you also find that some instances are “Scotland only” or “Wales only”. I thought I would see which ones related to Wales only, and they are all Defra ones. I may have made a mistake, because I had to do this research on my own, as I do not have a band of civil servants to cross-check it, but one could see that each of those instruments apart from one had been made prior to 1999—that is to say, when Defra, as opposed to the territorial Secretaries of State, would probably have had responsibility. Some of them are very specialist, dealing with the designation of areas with the Llŷn peninsula, for example, or dealing with the Welsh language.
It seems plain to me from examining that schedule that the Government have gone through the Whitehall departments, department by department, and unearthed what they have. I would like to know if that is right, because I could not find anything in the list that dealt with the territorial offices. The first question that arises relates to pre-1999 legislation, prior to devolution coming into effect. Where is it? It must have been made by either the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or departments in Whitehall. Where is all that material? Whose responsibility is it to find it out? That was work done in London by the UK Government at that stage. Of course, the further one goes back, the more difficult it is to find. If it has all been transferred to the respective devolved legislatures, one hopes that nothing got lost on the way, because one knows that the risk in moving papers around is that you lose them. It would be helpful to have some explanation of who is responsible for pre-1999 legislation.
The second part of that question probably arises more in respect of Wales than in the other two devolved nations. Because the Welsh settlement has moved more over the years, whose responsibility is it to find out things that were the responsibility of, say, a London department before it was moved, and where it is now?
The third part of that question is: who is looking at the post-1999 instruments made by the devolved nations? Obviously, that requires substantial resources. I hope that I have understood correctly, from looking at the spreadsheet, that there is nothing on that spreadsheet—and, in consequence, nothing on the screen that is more helpfully looked at by some—that deals with devolved instruments, but it would be very helpful to know that. The fact that the territorial Secretaries of State are not on the spreadsheet shows that there is a potentially very large lacuna. I will come to why that is so important in a moment.
The second question that arises is in relation to consequential amendments made by statutory instruments. We are all familiar with Bills, these days, and statutory instruments that have provision for consequential amendments. Sometimes whole Bills are made-up of consequentials. I looked through the spreadsheet to see whether I could find any statutory instruments where it was clear that there have to be consequential amendments. I could not find any, so I did the exercise the other way around: I put into one of the commercial search engines the number of a directive, and then tried to see what it threw up. I did this in relation to one of the instruments mentioned in the common frameworks—one of the waste directives—and the search engine threw up three categories of result. The first was the possibility of amendment to primary legislation. That is not a problem, because the Bill exempts that, wherever the legislation was made. Secondly, it threw up the instrument itself but, thirdly, it also threw up consequential amendments. I do not entirely understand how consequential amendments are to be dealt with, because they are not in the spreadsheet.
That is extremely important, because the instrument that I happened to pick on contained an awful lot of consequential amendments to other instruments that used the definition in the directive, by reference to the directive itself, of what waste was. If you miss one of those consequential amendments, what is the position? You have got rid of the EU retained law, and there does not seem to be a saving provision in the Act to save measures that people have overlooked. I will come to explain how that arises in a moment. It seems to me that it is only really this House that can look at what is involved and judge the practicality of doing all this by the end of the year, or even by 2026.
The question then turns to resources. What resources are being made available to the devolved Governments? I think it is a matter of common knowledge that Whitehall is pretty tight on resources—or so it is said, and I believe with truth, by many who work for our Civil Service—but one knows that the devolved Governments are in even greater difficulty. So what money and what number of lawyers, research assistants or whoever is being found to help the devolved Governments?
Why does this matter? I have been involved in what I call legal archaeology in a number of instances. The first related to latent damage policies. That is not entirely irrelevant since, when asbestosis came along, because of the way in which policies were written, one had to go and find what had happened prior to the war. There were all sorts of problems with that: floods, fires and—something that of course would not arise in relation to the EU—bomb damage. I have also been involved in this in various islands in the West Indies, where trying to find out what has happened in the period since their independence has actually been very difficult.
Thirdly, and most relevantly, I was personally involved in working on the legislation that resulted from the decision to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor. It is interesting to know that the legislation was first envisaged as abolishing it but was quickly changed to the reform of the office of the Lord Chancellor. Now, why was that? One is not, of course, concerned with the centuries since the creation of that office in pre-Norman, or at least in Norman, times—it is thought to go back over that span of time. However, it was an immense task to find out what the Lord Chancellor had accreted over the years.
In a way, I am sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is not in his place. He would recall that I had a discussion with him in relation to one of the Boundary Commission Bills as to the fact that one piece that was overlooked, I am fairly certain from my own recollection, was about the person who appointed the office of the deputy chairman. It was thought inappropriate that the Lord Chancellor could have a selection over a judge. I raised this as an amendment and it went to ping-pong, but we did not get anywhere. What it shows is that you can overlook things, but of course in that case it did not matter because the now Sir Robert Buckland was there; he could take on the job and discharge the appointment with absolute impartiality.
In this case, once we have abolished something and taken it away, there is nothing there. If the Government really are insistent on any of this, why can we not have some sort of saving clause so that, if some mistake has been made, it can be rectified? It took a very long time—from 2005 to 2019, I think—for the mistake in relation to the appointment of the deputy chairman of the Boundary Commission to be appreciated.
I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer these very detailed questions on methods of search and what is there, which all needs setting out. However, I say three things. First, the House must have this information. We cannot go on in the dark any longer. We need to know the search methods, the limitations and what is excluded.
Lord Deben (Con)
If something does not exist because it has been overlooked, how would case law which refers to it work? As I understand it, that case law is to be abolished, so we cannot actually use any of it. What would happen then?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
We will probably come to the whole question of case law in the next set of amendments and I do not want to trespass on anyone else’s thunder. The real difficulty with this provision is, as regards the devolved and other legislatures, that if there is a reference in other legislation to something that someone has overlooked, what actually happens? I do not know the answer but, presumably, there is just a void in the statute. I am sorry that I am unable to answer the noble Lord.
To go back to my three points, we must have, first, a proper and detailed explanation of what the search methods do and do not cover, and how we are to address these problems. Secondly, we must have an assurance that there are enough bodies to do the work. When we know what the problem is and the number of bodies available, we can then judge more accurately—this is very important for the amendments to which we are coming—the amount of time that will be required. Thirdly, what do we do if there is a mistake? I do not believe that infallibility rests in any sense within, and never would be claimed by, any Government these days.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, follow that. Briefly, I seek a specific clarification on the sunset clauses. Can the Minister tell us how it is proposed to resolve an apparent conflict in powers between the Secretary of State and those of devolved Administrations contained in the Bill? The power to extend the sunset deadline in Clause 2(1) is reserved for UK Ministers only. In contrast, the power to remove the sunset entirely in Clause 1(2), and so to keep pieces of retained EU law indefinitely, is granted to both UK and devolved Ministers. UK Ministers and Ministers in the devolved Governments may well diverge on the application of sunset dates, as well as on policy decisions.
I also remind the Minister that the RPC ruled that the Government’s impact assessment cost-benefit analysis of the impact on devolved nations is “weak”. What plans are there to address this inadequacy? I also remind him that since the RPC published its opinion, a further thousand pieces of legislation have been added to the dashboard.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, within this important group introduced so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I support in particular Amendments 34 and 55 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, with whom I am delighted to sit on the Common Frameworks Committee—noble Lords will be sick to death of hearing about the common frameworks by the end of this—which is under the marvellous chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Andrews.
As noble Lords will know, common frameworks are a voluntary way of bringing the nations of the UK together and being the building blocks for the new UK internal market post Brexit. The legal underpinning for these frameworks is EU-derived subordinate legislation and retained EU law, the very law threatened by the Bill and its insistence on sunsetting by the end of 2023. Along with other members of the committee, I do not wish to see a large part of our economic relationship with the devolved nations damaged or threatened by having a question mark, even if it is only a question mark and not definitive, hanging over these frameworks.
If we take as a quick example a snapshot of the framework law in the Department for Business and Trade, we do not know what is to become of the European Public Limited-Liability Companies Regulations, or the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, or the late payment of commercial debts regulations of 1998, 2002, 2015—and on and on. This is not exactly law to make your heart sing but it is vital to the smooth running of the UK’s new internal market.
If we take the framework law in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, we discover that we have signed up to international conventions through EU retained law, but we are not sure—as we heard in our tutorial from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—whether the SIs for them are to be included on the now infamous dashboard. Just to make things more uncertain, if that is possible with this Bill, some of this retained law has Northern Ireland aligned directly with EU law and some has not.
In the Department of Health and Social Care, we have secondary legislation on nutrition and health claims, on vitamins and minerals and on foods intended for infants and young children. They are a brave Government, in the words of Sir Humphrey, who would bring uncertainty to such law. The food safety and hygiene provisional common framework is again based on retained EU law and it involves Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, as many of them do. It deals with issues raised by noble Lords last week in Committee such as food labelling, food contaminants, flavourings, additives and, very importantly for farmers in the devolved nations, animal feed.
The consumer protection enforcement authorities across the UK need certainty. If they are going to be able to bring perpetrators to book in the future, they need to know that all the legal pages are still in the book. The stand-alone SIs in this framework include everything from EU regulations on curry leaves to the Fukushima power station disaster to rice from China. That is not even to go through all the SIs arising out of them on jam and honey. I will do so if noble Lords would like me to, but I think we do not have the time—there are a lot of them.
Like Mr Micawber, we are hoping, regarding common frameworks, that everything will turn out for the best and all this primary and secondary EU-derived law will, if needed, be retained. But here is the rub: we hope but, as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Hope of Craighead, have said, we do not know. We do not know how law in scope is to be retained, reformed and revoked. We do not yet know all the law that is in scope. Perhaps at this very moment the National Archives is hunting for it down the back of the national sofa. We do not know where the DAs are in going through their devolved law to see what needs keeping and letting go. We do not know whether the devolved authorities have the time, the political inclination or the Civil Service resources, as noble Lords have said, for such a sifting exercise and to feed that data onto the dashboard. The Northern Ireland Assembly, as we know, is not even meeting at the moment.
We do not know whether the devolved authorities are mining the National Archives as the UK Government are. We do not know when the dashboard will be complete, or how we will know when it is. We do not know whether the upper limit of the National Archives search is every piece of legislation since the UK joined the EU. Maybe that is a department by department choice, in which case we do not know which departments are going back 40 years and which have decided not to.
Finally, as a Committee we were told in correspondence with Ministers that some retained EU law had been orphaned due to the machinery of government changes. I have no idea what that means—maybe the National Archives does, but we do not. No wonder we are getting urgent lobbying from across every possible UK sector. They want to know what is going on with this Bill and what it means for them. We can only tell them at this stage that we do not know. What a fine mess the right honourable Jacob Rees-Mogg has got us into.
Lord Cormack (Con)
And not for the first time. As the noble Baroness was talking about the dashboard, I could not help but just carry the analogy a little further. How much is hidden in the glove compartment?
This has been a very interesting debate. It was extremely well introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. What I want, above all, is a period of stability for our country. I want to feel that the United Kingdom is more united after these turbulent years than it has been of late. I took great encouragement from that happy photograph of the Prime Minister with the President of the European Union on Monday. I want to feel that we really are beginning to build a proper relationship with our former partners, but our remaining friends and allies. If anything underlines the need for that, it is one word: Ukraine.
I do not know, any more than any of us do, precisely what we are dealing with. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, made that plain in her speech with regard to the devolved Governments. I happened to be one of those who fought quite strongly against devolution, because I thought it would threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My noble friend interjects that I was right. Well, I may have been right, but I lost. We all lost. The fact is that we have devolved Administrations. Two of them are active and I devoutly hope and pray that the third will be active again very soon. It is very important that we make this system work. All we are asking for is for my noble friend Lord Callanan to adopt as his motto “festina lente”—make haste slowly—and make real progress as one does so.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, made a very wise speech. He laid out just the sort of complexities that we face. I just hope that this Bill, which I believe to be unnecessary in its present form, and premature, can be paused. I hope it can go into the same compartment that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill has now gone into. That is what I hope for. I believe passionately—the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, underlines this—that this is going to do harm to our United Kingdom and to our relations with our European friends and former partners. Neither of those things is in the interest of our country or is going to contribute to a stable future for it.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I am not sure I am wise to rise and speak, but I feel as a matter of honesty I must, in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas, who spoke brilliantly.
Let me confess that I was Cabinet Secretary during devolution legislation and its implementation. I oversaw the implementation of devolution. I can confirm everything that my noble and learned friend said. It was messy behind the scenes. Noble Lords may not remember that the legislation went through Parliament amazingly easily and very fast. A lot of points that are being raised now should have been raised in different ways on that legislation. I was under instructions from the then Prime Minister Mr Blair that my misgivings about whether it would weaken the union—I shared them—should be set aside and we should use devolution as a way of strengthening the union, and implement it with harmony.
I had in place a structure with my colleagues in Wales and Scotland to oversee the effective implementation. There were endless points of the kind that my noble and learned friend raised from before 1999 and on the legislation, which we had to sort out. I had monthly meetings—these went on for years—with my Permanent Secretary colleagues from Wales and Scotland in particular to discuss and go through detailed issues which arose on the legislation on assets, personalities, quangos and everything, some of which were legal and some of which were not. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that I cannot remember them now. It is a blessing. I have tried to shed them, because they were difficult. But what I can say is that we dealt with them in the end with good will, good lawyers and great ingenuity. And we dealt with them—if I can confess it in the privacy of this Chamber—with a certain amount of fudge, because some of them were impossible to deal with without good will and pragmatism.
But I am certain that this Bill has overlooked a great deal. I am afraid that there will be more horrible loose ends for my successors to try to sort out. The amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope and others have put down are wise. The Government should allow themselves every scope for sorting things out for years to come, whatever the sunsetting clause says, because there will be awful problems to sort out.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, being a bear of rather little brain, it has taken me quite a long time to digest the extremely helpful and valuable contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. He approached the issue from the perspective of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but, given that the United Kingdom is a single market, which is a single integrated entity, what will the consequences be for England of the kind of overlooking that he described? We do not seem to have touched on that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will share the deep concerns of Green parties around these islands about the issues that we have been discussing. Like Members from all corners of your Lordships’ House, Green parties would like to see the Bill thrown out altogether, although the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, of a pause and a chance to think and understand is, at least, a positive alternative that we should consider. We have heard lots of metaphors—the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, gave us one. I am imagining the fudge, which you have unwisely packed in your suitcase when flying back from a hot place, dripping out all over everything and making a mess everywhere. That is possibly a useful metaphor for where the Bill has put us.
I put on the record a highly unusual and important joint letter written to the Financial Times on 28 November by the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution from the Scottish Government and the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution from the Welsh Government. A small part of it said:
“This bill allows UK ministers to take decisions in policy areas that are devolved to the Welsh senedd and the Scottish parliament and to do so without consultation or the need for their consent.”
That is essentially what we have been talking about.
There has been an implicit point in our debate that has not been made explicitly. I will draw particularly on the work of Dr Viviane Gravey from Queen’s University Belfast, who points out that the laws have been transposed into the nations of these islands in different ways, so we have huge diversity. That means that the devolved nations cannot help each other out. A natural situation would be that, with the issues of resources that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, raised, ideally, people would help each other out and work co-operatively. In most cases, that will not work in this situation because each nation is different.
I will briefly highlight some of the ways in which the nations are different. On Wales, we have not discussed this much but there is a huge impact on the well-being of future generations Act, which has to be considered in the context of the Bill mentioning no increase in “regulatory burden”. That and the well-being of future generations Act are profoundly contradictory, and I do not see any way of resolving that contradiction.
Many people with vastly more knowledge than I—including the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and others—have commented on Northern Ireland. I saw some telling figures. Until autumn, when the caretaker Ministers ceased to hold office, the Department for Infrastructure had identified 500 rules and regulations and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had identified 600 rules and regulations—experts describe that as the tip of the iceberg. Given all of the issues that Northern Ireland needs to deal with, dumping that on it as well is simply unacceptable. That is why, in the context of this group, Amendment 29 from the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and others at least takes us to the core of the issues that we need to address.
On Scotland, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, covered a great deal of this, but I will mention some conclusions from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which said that this would create incredible legal uncertainty about human rights and the ability to deliver them, and it would make it difficult to enforce those rights if the Bill goes through in its current form.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made an important point about the tone and direction of travel here. The Windsor agreement is a significant reset in our approach to our relationship with Brussels. The tone and approach have changed in a positive manner. I suggest that we need to see a similar change in tone and approach at Westminster, where, under previous Prime Ministers, we saw an extremely aggressive and unco-operative approach towards the nations of these islands. We need a different tone and approach in this not very united kingdom. Dealing with the Bill—stopping it, pausing it or at least implementing something like Amendment 29—is absolutely essential.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I will refer specifically to Amendment 29, in the names of my noble friend Lady Humphreys and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The Welsh Government and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee of the Senedd have both examined the Bill closely and they did not like what they saw. They agree with each other that the Senedd’s consent is required for all clauses and schedules, with the exception of Clause 18. However, given the background of a lack of consultation and dialogue, to which several noble Lords referred, we are not likely to get that consent.
The problem is that the Bill does not just infringe on devolved powers—it tramples all over them. The Welsh Government have called it a “power grab”. The injury to devolution throughout the Bill is compounded by the lack of preparation and background information provided by the Government. These issues have been well rehearsed here—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to them in detail. The Welsh Government and the Senedd committee agree that, for a start, Clause 2 needs to be amended to grant Welsh Ministers similar powers to those granted to UK Ministers to extend the sunset date in relation to devolved matters.
On sunsetting, June 2026—the fallback date—is of maximum practical inconvenience to the devolved Administrations because it coincides with elections. There are two possibilities for how the date was plucked out of the air: one is that it was chosen deliberately to make life difficult for the devolved Administrations, and the other—I agree that this is probably more likely—is that it is an example of the sort of poor, substandard legislation that you write when you do not consult the people affected. It would have been so easy to choose a different date.
The Senedd committee’s report reflects concerns already expressed about deficiencies in the dashboard and emphasises the need for it
“to identify how each piece of retained EU law falls across reserved and devolved competencies.”
Without doubt, it is essential that, when Welsh and Scottish REUL is added to the dashboard, it is clearly identified. So when will this happen? Can it be confirmed that this will happen? If it does not happen, that means that this truly is a Government just for England. It is essential that Wales and Scotland legislation is identified.
The committee’s report also emphasised the pressure of time, both on legislatures and the Governments in Scotland and Wales. It is essential that all REUL that the Government do not intend to save or reform is identified by the end of September and laid before all the legislatures of the UK.
Amendment 49, in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is designed to probe these issues. The Welsh Government have made no secret of the pressure they are under—other noble Lords have referred to that—and the Minister acknowledged in her response to me last week that there was an issue of resources. The simple time pressure is compounded by the lack of coherent information from the Government. It is more difficult to get on and do what you are supposed to be doing if you do not know what that is. What will the Government’s policy be in relation to any failure by a devolved Administration to update their chosen items of REUL and obliterate as required references to EU law? They might choose not to do it, or they might just not have the time to do it. Does that mean that the UK Government will take over the role of the devolved Administrations and take things out of their hands if by mistake or due to lack of resources they cannot get round to it?
As I understand it, the devolved Administrations are also required to search for REUL made by Secretaries of State prior to devolution, which seems tantamount to having to do the job of the UK Government for them. Have I got that right? Can it be clarified, please?
As many noble Lords have said, the state of the dashboard is central to the pressures that I have referred to. The latest count of Welsh REUL on the dashboard is apparently in the teens. I am assured that when they have counted it all it will be in the many hundreds, and the Government have not yet been able to take account of that situation. What estimate do the Government have of how many hundreds of pieces of REUL both Scotland and Wales will have? It will be different numbers, obviously, because law has developed differently, and they have different powers. I noted in an earlier debate that the Government have failed to clarify when or even if we will get a final list, when or even if we will be told what legislation is to be dropped entirely, and when or even if we will be given a definitive list of legislation to be amended. All this is essential not just to us here doing our work but to both the Scottish and Welsh legislatures, and I hope that it will in time be relevant and important to the Northern Ireland Assembly as well when it is up and running.
On Northern Ireland, I do not want to repeat the vital questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and my noble friend Lady Ludford, but I emphasise the importance of them. In the past 36 hours or so, I have been trying to get my head around the implications for this Bill of the Windsor Framework by working through a couple of examples—not quite at the level of detail with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, did so, but in my own humble way. I think that the Windsor Framework probably requires substantial rewriting of this Bill; it certainly requires substantial reinterpretation—I understand that because it is such a skeletal Bill it might be possible to bend it to the new circumstances, but we need a new interpretation. Please can we at the very least have a major ministerial Statement on the impact of Windsor Framework on REUL which has an impact on the Stormont brake? The three are intertwined. We need more than a letter; we need the opportunity to ask questions and to understand how it will work.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this is a complete mess. I have listened very carefully to everything that has been said, and I could not identify a speech with which I disagreed. There are two principal problems with the Government’s approach: first, a lack of respect for the devolved Administrations, and, secondly, a chronic case of overconfidence on the part of Ministers.
It is difficult to know exactly where to start; I have so many notes. Which of these particular criticisms is the most important? I will allow the Minister to decide when she responds. It is clear that the dashboard has not been getting updated properly in partnership with the devolved Administrations. The sunset cannot be extended by devolved Administrations on their own, even if they feel that they cannot deal with the burden of the work imposed on them in time. Can the Minister write to update us on the work being done with the devolved Administrations on the dashboard, because it seems that that really underlies some of the concerns we have? From Wales and Scotland, we are picking up a deep dissatisfaction with how this work has taken place.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made the really important point that the Government have had time between the Bill being debated in the other place and arriving here today to finesse their approach, shall we say, but I do not think that much has changed. This is a particular concern, as noble Lords have said, given the commitment made earlier this week by the Prime Minister, when he revealed the Windsor Framework, which we were all very pleased to see. We are very glad that the agreement announced earlier in the week has taken place; we were very concerned about the approach that the Government had taken prior to that, so we welcome it very much. If the measures are not dealt with by the dashboard and they fall, we could end up in a situation where we have divergence, not through a matter of policy or intent by the Government, but as a consequence of inaction and, in effect, by mistake. There may be consequences of that, which perhaps could be more pronounced for Northern Ireland than for elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I was very taken by the way that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, put this—as there being horrible loose ends. That is a very good way of describing it.
These are very practical concerns and a number of noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Andrews, have highlighted them. Like her, I completely support common frameworks. I remember when we debated them at length as part of the Brexit process. We tabled amendments to strength them, to make sure we had good oversight of them, and that there was proper engagement by the Ministers in the devolved Administrations. I think we did okay on some of that. Obviously, this is still relatively young, and we had all hoped, I think, that that process would become smoother and a little more relaxed, and that there could be more shared decision-making. I am particularly concerned about this, given my ambition—which I think is shared by many Ministers on the Government side, too—to see more devolution in England. So we really want this approach to improve as the years go on; it is not a surprise that there are shaky moments in the early years.
The Bill, perhaps more than any other we have seen, shows a complete disrespect to the devolved Administrations, and this lack of trust and respect is becoming more and more pronounced. There have been some sharp examples in recent months, and we need to get away from them. With this process, there is an opportunity to change our approach and to demonstrate that we want to work differently—and there is a real benefit to be gained from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, drew our attention to the lack of political engagement, as he put it, with the devolved Administrations, which is deeply concerning. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, as is his habit, is shaking his head from a sedentary position. If what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said is not true—as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has just suggested—perhaps the Minister could write to us to explain what form that political engagement is taking, what is being discussed and what progress has been made.
Trust matters, and I am afraid that it is in very short supply at the moment. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his speech, because he developed a point that we were trying to make in the debates on previous groups about the risk of things being missed from the dashboard. There were points in our previous discussion where I felt that the Minister was almost saying, “Look, you are worrying unnecessarily—our civil servants know what they are doing, and we will have a very thorough look at this”. The noble and learned Lord described it as legal archaeology; I am a trained archaeologist, and I know very well how easy it is to miss things or to look at a site with a particular priority in mind. You can find very different conclusions looking at something today than you would have done looking at it 20 years ago, because your understanding develops all the time. That is one of the reasons that children are very good at archaeology: they spot absolutely everything.
The point that the noble and learned Lord was making is that things will be missed. Even the Government acknowledge that; they do not claim that the dashboard is comprehensive, or that it ever will be. That was clear from the letter that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, sent us before the last Committee debate. I would not be surprised if she would want to withdraw that letter but, as she has not done so yet, it is the basis for our discussions. It is very clear from that that the dashboard will not be a comprehensive assessment of all retained EU law.
The request from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for an explanation of the search methods is very good idea. We were told—with some pride—that one of the search methods was a key word search for “Europe” at the National Archives.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It is one search method.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Ministers are saying that it is one search method, but that was the example given to us when we probed this at the roundtable meeting. That was the choice made by Ministers’ officials as an example intended to reassure us—but we are not reassured. The suggestion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for a fuller explanation is very good and helpful; it might provide the reassurance that Ministers were attempting to demonstrate earlier in the week.
While discussing the issue of devolution, I shall ask the Minister a question on something I do not quite follow—and Committee stage is about asking questions about things we do not quite follow. Perhaps she might write to me about it, but I draw her attention to paragraph 11(3) of Schedule 4, under Part 3, which describes the process that the Government want Welsh Ministers to undertake when they are tackling regulations. Can she explain this process? It says that Welsh Ministers will have to make a statement of their opinion on a particular measure; they will have to provide
“a draft of the instrument, and … a memorandum setting out the statement and the reasons for the Welsh Ministers’ opinion.”
That seems slightly different to the process we are undertaking here. In principle, there is nothing necessarily wrong with there being a difference, but I would like to understand what that is about and how the Government came to that. Was that something that came out of dialogue with the Welsh Government, or has it grown up through the department? Why is that happening?
There is no way that this will not come back on Report. I would be happy to support any of the amendments tabled in this group. We on these Benches would be very happy to work with noble Lords from across the House on arriving at an amendment that we think would achieve our aims most effectively. I look forward to doing that, but the preference would be that the Government had some further thought on this and brought back their own amendment, which would treat the devolved Administrations with far more respect and deal with the issues of overconfidence and the fact that measures are, likely if not certain, to be missed.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very full and comprehensive debate—I did not expect anything less, given the subject matter. Amendments 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 49, 55 and 147 seek to amend the sunset clause and the territorial scope of the Bill for the devolved Governments. I can but reiterate that the UK Government remain fully committed to the Sewel convention, committed to devolution and committed to working collaboratively and constructively with the devolved Governments. We have been proactively engaging with the devolved Governments, at both ministerial and official level, on the progress of the Bill and the wider retained EU law reform programme. The former Business Secretary engaged with the devolved Governments following the introduction of the Bill and, indeed, I have personally engaged with the Welsh Government to assure them of our respect and willingness to co-operate over legislative matters in general going forward.
In response to the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson, Lady Hayman and Lady Chapman, I reassure the Committee that we are committed to working with the devolved Governments as we update the dashboard. We have established regular intergovernmental meetings intended to support devolved Government counterparts with the identification of which REUL is devolved or reserved as part of the REUL reform programme. The majority of the powers in the Bill are conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments, including the power to preserve retained EU law. This will enable them to make active decisions about the REUL within the devolved competence and decide which REUL they wish to preserve and assimilate, and which retained EU law they wish to allow to sunset. We remain committed to continuing discussions with the devolved Governments throughout the Bill’s passage over the use of concurrent powers within the Bill to ensure that they work for all parts of the UK. It is our expectation that the department will follow standard procedures regarding consultation and engagement with the devolved Governments during policy development.
I turn to Amendments 34, 35 and 36. These would exempt legislation relating to common frameworks from the sunset, restricting the sunset and preventing it delivering its objective to incentivise genuine reform across the United Kingdom. Among the proposed conditions is a proposal for a process to be agreed between the UK and devolved Governments for retained EU law within the scope of the common frameworks. We believe that common frameworks are integral to managing regulatory divergence in the areas they cover and provide a flexible governance tool for both the UK and devolved Governments. REUL is in scope of the common frameworks. This includes not just REUL operating within devolved competence but that same REUL operating in England. In some cases, this REUL will be UK-wide.
We believe it is simply not necessary to carve out REUL in scope of common frameworks. These are designed to manage divergence, including that which may result from the sunset. Both the UK and devolved Governments agree that, where common frameworks are operating, they are the right mechanism for discussing REUL reform in the areas they cover. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who raised concerns about regulatory divergence, the Government will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments to manage intra-UK divergence, including through existing collaborative mechanisms, such as the common frameworks programme, which has been developed with the devolved Governments to enable joint working in devolved areas. The Government are committed to following common framework processes where they apply, to allow for a collaborative discussion of REUL reform.
Similar to previous amendments, Amendment 55 seeks to change the sunset date for legislation relating to the common frameworks to the end of 2026. That is likely to include devolved REUL, and also REUL in other UK jurisdictions corresponding to a devolved area. However, this amendment, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, would amend the extension power in Clause 2, rather than just the sunset in Clause 1. While it is of course not appropriate to change the sunset date through Clause 2 alone, I reiterate that we simply do not believe there is a need to do so for retained EU law in scope of common frameworks. Moreover, pushing back the sunset for this legislation would remove the impetus for devolved Governments and relevant departments to review this legislation. Clause 2 already contains an extension mechanism capable of pushing the sunset back to 2026 for specified instruments or descriptions of legislation. We will work closely with the devolved authorities to ensure that selected legislation, including that within scope of common frameworks, is subject to an extended sunset where appropriate.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, what the Minister said about common frameworks is very encouraging and I absolutely understand what she has been saying in her description of the system. But is the procedure in Clause 2 capable of, let us say, exempting a particular common framework from the sunset in Clause 1? Does it fall within the formula set out in Clause 2, so that we could take, for example, the common framework on animal health, labelling or the ozone layer, and specify a common framework to be excluded? It would be encouraging if that were the case.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We can, indeed, exclude a specific category of law from the REUL exclusions if it relates to a specific area such as animal health, or a particular category of common framework.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
If that is the case, the logic is that all the common frameworks could be exempt. Is that not the case? If we can exempt one SI on animal welfare, there are 50 SIs on animal welfare; what would stop us exempting the whole of that tranche of SIs?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
While we will have the power to exempt, the whole point about the sunset date is to retain the rigour of going through the REUL legislation that we have—but we do still retain the ability, in Clause 2, to exempt certain categories from sunset.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness think that common frameworks will be a specific category?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thought we were still discussing exemptions. Will the noble Baroness repeat her question?
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
I am asking whether there is the power to exempt a whole category, because we have not heard that before. Would not common frameworks, because they are discrete and have an integrity of their own, serving specific purposes, constitute a specific category?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think the answer is, not in their entirety, but a specific category that falls within common frameworks could indeed be excluded.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Will the noble Baroness point us to where in the Bill we can find the definition of a category?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I will have to send that sort of detail out in writing, along with the other letters we are going to be writing in response to other questions.
Lord Fox (LD)
I apologise for intervening. I think what I heard is that Clause 2 gives the Government the power to do this; I did not hear from the noble Baroness that the Government have any inclination to actually use that power. Will she explain what criteria the Government would use to actually apply the power that she has just revealed to the Committee?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We will bear that in mind, but I cannot give specific criteria: we want to retain the ability to exclude specific pieces of legislation, as I have said, within a specific category.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think I have taken enough interventions and I would like to make progress, please.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I just make the point that, by definition, to be included in a common framework, the legislation concerned has been extensively examined by all the Governments concerned in the last couple of years. Therefore, it will not be subject to the sorts of anomalies that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to in our last debate.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I take the noble Baroness’s point.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I have tried not to intervene so far, but I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness has just said: does this mean that, if an application is made to a Minister to extend the sunset for a category or description of legislation, in accordance with Clause 2, and the Minister refuses, it will be “open sesame” for judicial review by those who regard such a decision as disproportionate and could render the whole of this legislation into something that will be litigated in the courts for years to come?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s intervention but I cannot possibly respond at this stage. We must make progress.
Amendment 29 proposes exempting REUL within the competence of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the sunset. This would remove the devolved Governments’ incentive to review legislation on their statute books and hinders the sunset’s intention to bring about genuine reform. A sunset is the quickest and most effective way to accelerate the review of REUL on the UK statute book by a specific date in the near future. This will incentivise genuine REUL reform in a way that will work best for all parts of the UK. The territorial scope of the Bill will be UK-wide, and it is constitutionally appropriate that the sunset applies across all parts of the UK. However, the sunset does not affect the devolution settlements, nor is it intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments. Rather, this will enable the devolved Governments to make active—
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
The noble Baroness may well be coming to this, and she should tell me if she is. If the sunset brings rigour, as she has said, to the devolved Administrations—and to us, of course—does that mean that the Government accept our arguments about the lack of resources for the devolved Administrations and the lack of capacity of civil servants, because there are so few of them going through all this retained EU law throughout the devolved Administrations?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We do not accept that. We know that there are capacity restraints within the devolved Governments, but the UK Government are also helping them go through the whole body of retained law. That work will progress and is an ongoing project as we go through this year. I may come on to more detail for the noble Baroness.
In relation to the noble Baroness’s specific comments on Northern Ireland, the Windsor Framework has no impact on the Bill. She can also rest assured that we have already committed to making sure that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think we need to make progress.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Minister is answering a different question.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I know, but we do need to make progress. This is the 10th intervention, and I am on paragraph 17. I think there is a limit to the number of interventions I need to take—but I will take the noble Baroness’s, because she is on the Front Bench.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sorry, but my understanding is that there is not a limit on the number of interventions the Minister can take. Progress would probably be better if we had a better Bill in front of us. She answered a question by saying that the Windsor agreement has no impact on the Bill, but my question was whether the Bill could have an impact on the Windsor agreement, which is a very different thing.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It has no impact on the Windsor agreement. I am assured by my colleagues and my briefing here that it has no impact.
Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to ensure that the UK Government have a complete understanding of their catalogue of REUL by allowing a Minister of the Crown to request that the devolved Governments identify REUL in areas of devolved competence within the scope of the sunset. While I concur with the sentiment of this amendment, again, the Government do not believe it is necessary but recognise the importance of having a shared and single understanding of reserved and devolved REUL across the UK Government and the devolved Governments.
We have established regular intergovernmental meetings intended to support devolved government counterparts with the identification of which REUL is devolved or reserved, as part of the REUL reform programme. Departments are also actively engaging directly with their devolved government counterparts as part of their business-as-usual engagement on the devolved status of REUL and their plans for REUL reform. On the point about pre-1999 legislation, where the legislation is devolved, the decision should be for devolved government Ministers, just like any other piece of devolved REUL. We will set out in writing the methodology for identifying REUL on the dashboard, as already committed by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in the session on Tuesday.
Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, would exempt from the sunset legislation relating to human rights, equality or environmental protection to the extent that the legislation has effect in Northern Ireland, including legislation within scope of Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol. We fully intend to maintain the UK’s leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, equality, the rule of law and environmental protections. We are proud of our long and diverse history of freedoms and are committed to ensuring that the necessary legislation is in place to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the withdrawal agreement, the Northern Ireland protocol, and the trade and co-operation agreement after the sunset date.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am sorry. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that there was no Machiavellian intent; rather, that date provides a ceiling for the presence of retained EU law on the UK’s statute book and gives adequate time to complete reform of the most ambitious nature in all areas. The 10th anniversary of the referendum vote served this purpose and offers a full-circle moment by which the UK can proudly proclaim that it has regained its sovereignty and has a fully independent domestic statute book—
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am unfamiliar with modern parlance. Could the Minister please define a “full-circle moment”?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think it is just a way of describing the 10-year anniversary of the referendum vote. It is just vernacular—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The process is finally complete.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The process is finally complete, as my noble friend suggests.
On impact assessments, properly assessing the impact of government policy is an important principle of good governance, and the Government will continue to be committed to the appraisal of any regulatory changes relating to retained EU law. The nature of this appraisal will depend on the type of changes the departments make and the expected significance of the impacts. Where measures are being revoked, departments will be expected to undertake proportionate analytical appraisal, and we are exploring the appropriate steps we can take to appraise the resulting impacts.
I am fully conscious that a number of other specific points were raised, but I undertake that we will write back, particularly on methodology and definitions. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and offered their support to the devolved Administrations and recognised their very legitimate concerns regarding their devolved settlements.
Many of us might not like the Bill, but in this Committee we have seen this House at its very best. We have heard a number of speeches today that could be described as masterclasses, and it has been a pleasure and an honour to listen to them.
I will not comment on the noble Baroness’s reply other than to say that I appreciated her statement that the Government are committed to the Sewel convention. However, over the last few years, actions have spoken louder than words, so she will forgive me if I do not hold my breath.
I also welcome the commitment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to work across the House on amendments on Report; we on these Benches commit to that process.
We have been debating this for two hours and five minutes, and if everybody else is like me, lunchtime is calling. Therefore I will just say that the noble Baroness’s response will have given food for thought to those of us in this Chamber today, and we will doubtless want to renew our deliberations on Report. In light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes a power to except things from the sunset. The power is contained in new Clause (Exceptions to sunset under section 1).
Independent Public Advocate
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Today I can announce that we intend to legislate as soon as possible to introduce an independent public advocate, to put victims and the bereaved at the heart of our response to large-scale public disasters; to make sure that they get the support they deserve through public inquests and inquiries; and to make sure that they get the answers they need to move forward in their lives.
I know the whole House will recall that fateful day of 15 April 1989, when thousands of fans prepared to watch the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. Ninety-seven men, women and children lost their lives, unlawfully killed in our country’s worst ever sporting disaster. What happened at Hillsborough was a monumental and devastating tragedy.
Of course, for Hillsborough’s survivors and the bereaved, that terrible day was just the beginning of a 34-year ordeal. It was followed by an appalling injustice. Fans were blamed for their own injuries. Survivors and the bereaved were blocked at every turn in their search for answers. We must learn the lessons of Hillsborough and we must make sure that this never happens again.
In terms of the wider context, major disasters of that kind are mercifully quite rare in the United Kingdom. But, as Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester bombings have shown, when they do happen, victims, families and the communities that are affected and represented have not received the answers to their questions, nor the support they need. We are duty bound, as a Government and as a House, to make sure that that never happens again and positively to ensure that those families and communities never again have to struggle in anguish against a system created to help them, in order to get the truth, and some measure of accountability.
The independent public advocate will go some way to making good on the Government’s long-standing promise to ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough victims, and other victims, is never repeated. It will be passed into law and be made up of a panel of experts to guide survivors and the bereaved in the aftermath of major disasters. It will deliver six important outcomes that I will outline for the House.
First, the IPA will provide practical support to the families of the deceased, and individuals, or their representatives, who have suffered a devastating or life-changing injury. That practical support will include helping them to understand their rights, such as their right to receive certain information at inquests or inquiries, and signposting them to support services; for example, financial or mental health support. The IPA will help victims every step of the way, from the immediate aftermath of a tragic event, right through to the conclusion of investigations, inquiries or inquests. We will make IPA support available to the closest next of kin relative, both parents where they are separated or divorced, or to a close friend if there is no close family. The IPA will also offer support to injured victims or their representatives.
Secondly, the IPA will give the victims a voice when they need it most. It will advocate on their behalf with public authorities and the Government; for example, where they have concerns about the engagement and responsiveness of public authorities such as the police or local authorities, or where the victims and bereaved want an investigation or inquiry set up more swiftly, to ensure maximum transparency.
Thirdly, the IPA will give a voice to the wider communities, not just the directly affected victims and bereaved, that have been most affected. We will set up a register of advocates from a range of different professions, backgrounds and geographical areas, including doctors, social workers, emergency workers, members of the clergy, people with media-handling experience—often that is another burden that victims will not have experienced—and others. Communities will be able to nominate an advocate to act on their behalf to express their concerns and ensure that their voice is heard as a community.
Fourthly, the IPA will be supported by full-time, permanent staff so that it can act swiftly when a tragedy occurs to make sure that the support is there for the victims and the families from day one. Critically in this regard, the IPA will be there to consult with and represent victims and their families before any inquiry is set up, so it will be able to make representations on the type of inquiry, whether it is statutory or non-statutory, and other important functional issues, such as the data controller powers available to any inquiry and the relationship it may have with the IPA in the exercise of such functions.
Fifthly, the scope of the IPA will be extended to cover events in England and Wales, but of course we are mindful of the devolved settlements, so we will work with all the devolved Administrations to ensure that our plans are co-ordinated with the support offered outside England and Wales.
Sixthly and finally, although the IPA is first and foremost about doing better by the victims and survivors, it will also be in the wider interests of the public. It will ensure that we achieve a better relationship between public bodies, the Government and the bereaved; that we get better, quicker answers; and that we can learn and act on the lessons from such tragedies more decisively.
The preparatory work is well under way to establish the IPA, and we will place it on a statutory footing as soon as possible. I will say more about the legislative vehicle shortly.
Of course, there have been other important reforms in recent years to support and empower victims and their families. We have made inquests more sympathetic to the bereaved, with a refreshed, accessible guide to coroner services. We have removed means testing for exceptional case funding for legal representation at an inquest. If families meet the exceptional case funding criteria, they will be entitled to legal aid whatever their means.
More broadly, we are putting victims at the heart of our justice system by quadrupling victims funding compared with 2010 and through the upcoming victims Bill. The creation of the independent public advocate to give greater voice to the victims and the bereaved of major tragedies is the next important step forward.
I know that Members across the House will join me in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families for their courage and determination despite every setback. They have always maintained that their struggle for truth and justice for the 97 was of national significance, and I agree entirely. I also pay tribute to the families of those who died in Grenfell Tower and the Manchester Arena bombing. Our hearts go out to them for their loss and I pay tribute to them for their dignified courage.
I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to honourable Members in this House and those in the other place who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue, including my right honourable friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the right honourable Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the honourable Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), Lord Wills, the Mayor of Liverpool and others, for their steadfast commitment to establishing an IPA. I will continue to work closely with parliamentarians, the Hillsborough families, the Grenfell groups and the families of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing to ensure that their experiences are taken into account and we get the detail of the IPA right as we establish it.
I pay particular tribute to the right reverend James Jones KBE for his work on the Hillsborough disaster and his important report. I met him last week and the Government will respond to the wider report this spring. We know in our heads and hearts that there is still much more to do to heal the wounds from that horrendous and heartbreaking tragedy, but this is an important step forward. The IPA will make a real difference. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the Statement which he just read out; there is much to welcome in it. I add my thanks to all those mentioned in it. Above all, the Government’s action yesterday is a tribute to the heroic campaigning of the Hillsborough families over decades. However, as the families themselves have said, the Government have not gone far enough.
Your Lordships will recall that the idea of an independent public advocate was born in your Lordships’ House seven years ago, when the Private Member’s Bill of my noble friend Lord Wills had its Second Reading; my noble friend sends his apologies—his health prevents him being here today but I know that he supports what I am going to say. As a Minister, my noble friend was the key architect of the Hillsborough panel. His experiences led him to draft his Public Advocate Bill, which was supported by all sides of your Lordships’ House at Second Reading. Since then, he has continued to campaign for it, alongside the right honourable Maria Eagle, who has championed it in the other place.
Two key elements of that Private Member’s Bill are missing from the Government’s Statement. First, the Statement denies effective agency to bereaved families in calling the independent public advocate into being. We should understand how profoundly the Hillsborough families and others bereaved by public disasters have felt let down by successive Governments in the aftermath of a public tragedy. We must offer them reassurance that others similarly bereaved in future will not be similarly let down. We must give them the agency that the Government are currently denying them.
Secondly, the independent public advocate must have the power to establish a Hillsborough-type panel. It was only that panel which exposed the cover-ups in the aftermath of the disaster and secured the transparency that the families deserved and for which they have campaigned. The Labour Government who set up the panel and the Conservative Government who supported it to its conclusion set a welcome precedent. This Government must not now row back on that precedent.
Yesterday, through this Statement, the Government indicated their willingness to make changes to their earlier proposals. I welcome that. We will hold them to that commitment to ensure that bereaved families in future receive the agency and transparency that they are owed and for which the Hillsborough families have campaigned for so long and so heroically. I have one question for the Minister: when might we expect to see the victims Bill?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one piece of legislation that I am very glad to see but very sorry, of course, that it had to happen. We have here a response to things going very badly wrong. The three examples mentioned are things that we did not expect to go wrong but did, with horrible consequences. They all have in common that they happened quickly and on one day. I can think of a few other things. My noble friend Lady Brinton, who hoped to be here but has not been able to make it, gave the example of contaminated blood. Would this be caught by any definition as a case where independent public advocacy is required?
I am still not clear on whether one person or a panel is coming through here. That is probably my fault. When will the trigger point to get involved be? Will it be case law? Will it be a judgment? To add to that, my example was the accounting cock-up—I cannot think of any other way to put it, although that is putting it too mildly—with the Post Office system. That is a massive problem that has caused tremendous harm and, it is assumed, loss of life through suicide on numerous occasions. Where the trigger point will be is very important.
My noble friend Lady Brinton was also going to ask how much resource could be called on. It will probably have to vary because there will be differing circumstances and different bodies to call on. How will the Government have the resources to follow it through? Will they set a precedent of what is initially available and where to go, because in all three cases—here and in the two that I have just mentioned—there will be slightly different requirements to do stuff. A fixed panel will not to be able to do it—end of story. There needs to be a greater degree of flexibility than just having a panel. The capacity to call in expertise as one goes through will be needed.
I hope we will have further discussion on this before we get legislation. We will have to know, or we will have yet another long and brutal session in Committee and on Report to get this out. An issue such as this should not have that because we have had all the discussion already. We know what we are trying to get at. If we know that we will be removing a few cases from this which have to go somewhere else, then fair enough. There will have to be a line drawn somewhere, but there will be an argument about what the trigger point is.
My principal point is: what is the trigger point for having the body brought into action? That must be set. If the Government do not know now, can we know the process by which they will decide? The first time that we decide will be incredibly important for what follows. Will resources after that follow the individual case or will they remain in place? Let us ensure that we know exactly what is happening here, because I am afraid that without that, we are getting nowhere.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their comments and interventions. I begin by indicating and reiterating the willingness of the Government to work collaboratively across party with all these measures and to consider possible changes to the scheme that I have briefly outlined. Speaking for myself, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, it seems very sensible to have those discussions in early course so that we do not get into a legislative battle when the Bill is already set in stone.
On the specific points raised, and subject to my renewed expression of willingness to discuss this, whether to give agency to the families is a very important point for further discussion. At the moment, it is envisaged that the Government should trigger the appointment or operation of the public advocate in particular circumstances, but the question of what power to give the families to trigger it is for further discussion.
Similarly, the power to establish a Hillsborough-type panel is something that we need to consider in some detail, not least with a view to avoiding duplication. We have had some expertly conducted inquiries—on Grenfell by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and on Manchester Arena by Sir John Saunders. One does not want to duplicate or overconfuse the issue; we need to work out the exact relationship between that kind of statutory inquiry and this kind of operation. Those are matters for further discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the issue of scope. The concept at the moment is that of an event—a specific disaster like the three that we have been talking about: Hillsborough, Manchester and Grenfell. Whether contaminated blood, the Post Office and the NHS-type scandals that we have unfortunately experienced over the years fall within the definition is for further reflection. They are probably not events, as presently constituted, so we need to think about this further. Will this have a roving remit for everything that goes badly wrong somewhere in the system or is it directed specifically at major disasters? At the moment, the Government’s thinking is the latter but, again, I express my willingness to consider this further.
On resources, clearly this will not work unless sufficient resources are available. Exactly how that is done, where they come from and on whose budget they fall are all details that need to be refined.
We have taken a decision in principle. It is now for everyone to work collectively across the parties to sort out the details and make this work, in the interests of the families, whom we will consult fully to make sure that we have filled in the gaps, closed the loops and got a good working system to make sure that Hillsborough never happens again.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he say when we might expect the victims Bill?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am sorry; I hope the victims Bill will be with the House shortly, in this Session.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, as we speak about this broadly welcome announcement, the much-admired Sir John Saunders is literally in the process of delivering his final report on the Manchester Arena disaster. That is an inquiry that started life as an inquest. In the Statement, the noble Lord referred to the cost of inquests but not to the cost of inquiries. One of the most compelling conclusions one draws from the Manchester Arena inquiry—as I am sure Sir John Saunders would recognise—is the great skill and proper attention to detail of the solicitors and counsel who appeared for the families in that inquiry, some of whom had to be paid from funds raised by the families, not from public funds.
Can we be assured that the IPA will ensure that families remain properly and independently represented by solicitors and counsel at such inquiries as those into Manchester Arena or Grenfell? Is it recognised that what is being announced, far from being a cost-saving venture, may increase the costs of representation on the issues raised at such inquiries? It would be in the spirit of this announcement to recognise that as a proper inevitability of giving victims the correct voice.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, makes a very powerful point. I think it is related to all the issues we have in this particular area, in relation to legal aid, costs to the system, legal aid for inquests and other inquiries. The principle of proper representation is accepted, I am sure, on the part of the Government. How exactly we implement it and where the funding comes from is a matter for further discussion, I hope on a consensual and collaborative basis.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
In the same spirit as that question from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, I have a concern about equality of arms in terms of representation before inquests and inquiries across the piece. I understand concerns about spiralling costs in some of these matters, but it seems to me that often, particularly in inquests but also in inquiries, public bodies are heavily represented. It seems totally iniquitous that public money will be spent with no upper limit to represent those public bodies that may be in the frame for negligence or wrongdoing, but that there is only exceptional case funding and tighter caps on the victims and their families. Is this perhaps something that the Minister, in the collaborative tone that he has adopted, might think about? Might that potentially be within the scope of the Bill itself, or at least the package that should support this enterprise?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for that question. The question of equality of arms is very much on the Government’s minds at the moment. The point has also been raised by Sir Bob Neill and the Justice Committee that there should be parity and equality of representation. We should do something to level up the ability of families who are up against what appears the be the apparatus or full panoply of the state, as part of levelling up in general. I think that the IPA is an important step in that direction; exactly how we ensure that kind of equality of arms, how it is funded and how we go about it, is something I look forward to having further discussion with all parties about.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, that brings me to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that we really do need to know in statute what the trigger point should be. I ask that we now consider, when it is decided that we will have an IPA intervention, how that will relate to coroners and the inquest system, because these disasters almost invariably will involve deaths. One of the things during the quashing of the first Hillsborough inquest that struck the court was how many processes there had been—all perfectly legitimate and entirely in accordance with the statutes. But we do need to have one process, as the Minister said.
Finally, if this is going to be a government decision, I have two points. First, is it susceptible to judicial review? Secondly, how can we make sure that the Government respond quickly? One of the problems with this case and others is that there has been a sort of lassitude in government responses. If a disaster such as this happens, what is needed is a very urgent response.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for those comments and questions. Again, I think that these are matters for further reflection; it is very important that the noble and learned Lord has put them on the record. The questions of judicial review and how quickly and so forth are for further consideration; it is certainly envisaged that the independent public advocate would be able to act very quickly.
I think, if I may say so, that the Hillsborough situation was, tragically and very regrettably, distorted by a cover-up that defeated even one of the noble and learned Lord’s predecessors, the Lord Chief Justice at the time, Sir Peter Taylor. Any system that you can devise will always have difficulty coping with that kind of situation. But, in terms of speed of process, not repeating the process, having one process and defining the trigger event, those are all very important issues that we need to reflect on further.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement and am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating it. In line with some of the questions that have just been put to him, can I press him slightly further on the phrase used in the Statement, “major disasters”? The Secretary of State would presumably decide on behalf of the Government that such and such an event is considered a major disaster that triggers the independent public advocate. Is that correct? Do the Government have any sense of what a major disaster is going to be defined as being?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I think the statute will have to make an attempt to define what it means by “major disaster”. As presently envisaged, one is thinking of what one can loosely describe as one-off disasters, such as the ones we have been discussing: perhaps the 7/7 bombings, the Paddington train crash of some years ago and those kinds of things. At least so far, government reflection has not extended to things such as the Post Office scandal, which arose over many years, or the contaminated blood scandal, which arose over many years, or the North Staffordshire NHS scandal that eventually came to light, because those were ongoing things going wrong. They were certainly in one sense disastrous, but it was not quite envisaged that they would be a disaster in terms of the statute. However, I say again that the exact scope of this new independent public advocate is a matter for close consideration.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement repeated by the Minister today, and we look forward to the legislation, of course. I go back to the inquest issue, because it is intimately connected with the Statement that has been made today. I was pleased to hear the Minister say in reply to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that the Government were looking very carefully at equality of arms. I put it to him that the only way of dealing with that issue—I cannot think of any other—is increasing legal aid at inquests for interested parties. Is there an alternative? If there is one, what is it?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government have already announced a review of civil legal aid, and inquests are within the scope of that review. We will therefore take the powerful point that the noble Lord has made under advisement in that context.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for the Statement in relation to the independent advocate. It is essential that we move forward with this as quickly as we can within the Bill. Thinking through the wider ramifications, particularly in relation to case law, what the scope is and what the trigger points are, are critical. My noble and learned friend mentioned that the staff would be permanent. For how long would those staff be permanent, and over what period? We almost look at not only the diversity in arms to call, so to speak, but also the diversity of skills and expertise, and that will change depending on what triggers those particular investigations. There will need to be an end-to-end process. I wonder whether the independent advocate is going to be someone who is going to be appointed and is going to be there for many years or whether it is a short-term appointment for a specific period, so that victims can be empowered to have confidence in the system.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those questions. It is not at present envisaged that a person will be permanently appointed as the independent public advocate and always there on the off-chance that a disaster happens. What is envisaged is that there should be a permanent secretariat, which I think would have to be provided by the Ministry of Justice. When a disaster happens, that secretariat would become engaged, make immediate contact with the families, the emergency services and everybody else involved in those tragic and difficult events, and very quickly—I really do mean very quickly—make a recommendation to the Secretary of State to appoint an independent public advocate.
Such a person would be appointed and, from that point onwards, would take over the job of making sure that the victims and their families are fully supported in the areas of mental health and other problems, and are prepared properly for inquests and so on. The gap that is identified at the moment—of who is looking after the victims, the families and the bereaved—would be filled by that function. Details need to be fleshed out, but that is the broad scope as envisaged, subject to further discussion.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome this announcement and the Government’s willingness to have ongoing discussions to shape this. Can my noble and learned friend the Minister reconfirm that families, survivors and victims—those with first-hand experience who have not had a chance to feed into this process since the 2018 consultation—will be given a voice? As we have talked about, their voice needs to be heard now so that we can shape this correctly. Secondly, there is an assumption that there may be an inquiry. There might not always be an inquiry; it might just be that the independent public advocate and panel help people through said disaster. As part of the ongoing discussions, can we make sure that the question of whether they have the power to compel evidence will be raised? That was a big problem with Hillsborough. If there is not to be an inquiry, that may be an important part of their role.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those questions. I can confirm that the families will be involved in the discussion and creation of this new office. The question of the powers of the independent public advocate, particularly to compel the production of documents and so forth, also needs further discussion and elaboration.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Thursday 2nd March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords 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: HL Bill 89-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (2 Mar 2023)
Lord Judge
“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply—(a) to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, that is specified in regulations made by a relevant national authority,(b) where an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, is being replaced, restated or reproduced, until one month after the replacement instrument has been laid before both Houses of Parliament, or(c) where an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, is not being replaced, restated or reproduced, until one month after a Minister of the Crown has made a statement to that effect in each House of Parliament.(2A) Where subsection (2)(b) or (c) applies to an instrument, or a provision of an instrument, and both Houses of Parliament resolve prior to the date in subsection (1) that the instrument be retained, then the Government must make regulations under subsection (2)(a) specifying that instrument.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to set out in advance what they propose will happen to each instrument covered by the sunset Clause, giving Parliament the ability to scrutinise these decisions. It would also allow Parliament to overrule the Executive and choose to retain specified instruments if both Houses agree.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I feel like Henry V before the siege of Harfleur. Looking around, I see:
“greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start”.
Just like those poor chaps outside Harfleur, I suspect your Lordships all want it to be over quickly, and that is my intention.
This amendment is very simple. It is my answer to the letter I received from the Government about the Bill which I read out to the Chamber at Second Reading. It does not seek to preserve a single law, in any of the 4,000 pieces of material we are looking at, which Parliament wishes to revoke. Equally, it does not seek to revoke a single law which Parliament wishes to retain. It has nothing to do with that. Its objective is to ask that Parliament has a chance to look at what is proposed and to examine those proposals, not for a very long time, so that Parliament and not the Executive can decide.
If this amendment, or any of the amendments in this group, had reflected the statute in draft—the Bill, in other words—most of the arguments we have had over however long it has been would have been quite unnecessary. Maybe an amendment of this kind would have achieved that; I am not particularly supporting my own but all the amendments in this group.
Let us just go back. Probably the most persuasive argument against joining the Common Market in 1972 was that it gifted power over our legislative processes to an institution which was not wholly elected here and was not answerable exclusively to the electorate in the United Kingdom. That argument was rejected and lost, and the result is that, through the processes which we supported, we have been subject to laws directly enforceable here in the United Kingdom, created by a system of directions from the Common Market—now the European Union—which were converted into unchallengeable statutory instruments. As we now know, there are something like 4,000 still extant.
Given the time available, I will not explain what a pernicious effect all that had on the way in which statutory instruments have taken over primary legislation. But, importantly—I am stating the obvious, yet it is overlooked from time to time—what we call EU retained law is British law. It is our law; it came from an outside source and was introduced here to be enforced here, through our statutory and parliamentary system, but it is our law.
I cannot begin to imagine how the country as a whole would react if, instead of being able to dismiss it as EU retained law, we were able to look at this problem: we are going to give the Government the power to revoke all the laws relating to the environment and to employment—all the issues argued about in this House. Having done that, we will give them the power to bring in new ones, changing the way in which they operate. If we did not have this disguise of “EU retained”, I venture to suggest that no Government would be doing what this Government are doing about this particular group of laws. Until we appreciate that we are dealing with our law, which is subject to this Bill, we are not facing the reality of it.
Let us go to the most powerful argument in favour of Brexit: legislative processes should be returned to Parliament. Of course, that is the answer to “What happened when we entered the Common Market?” We will change it and go back to where we were. I do not think that “Taking back control” was just a happy slogan; it reflected a true constitutional principle. However—this is the heart of the amendment—it did not follow that this power should be given to a Minister of the Crown. It is as simple as that. The objective was not for the Executive to take back control; it was for Parliament to take back control. If we are going to honour the whole basis on which taking back control was designed to work, and was seen and appreciated to be going to work, we have to do what is required and return this power to Parliament.
The idea that we will suddenly cease to have secondary legislation is nonsense; we need secondary legislation. However, for these issues, we need proper examination and proper scrutiny. The proposal in this amendment is that we should have it. It does not propose—and could not, as I emphasised earlier—the survival of a single EU law. It could not, unless Parliament agreed. That is the objective of the amendment.
I understood the argument at Second Reading that this Bill does no more than was done to us by the EU, so why should this power that was given to the Common Market not be exercised by a Minister of the Crown? In effect, the argument was that we should just obey what we are told. However, those who advanced that argument had believed it to be wrong—a mistake and a constitutional aberration. If you believe that, surely the mistake that was made in 1972 should not be repeated here in 2023. I beg to move.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 141A in my name, which has cross-party support, for which I am most grateful. Noble Lords in all parts of the Committee have been fiercely critical of the cut-off date. However, even if the present draconian date is replaced with something a little saner, the task of assessing and taking decisions on so many instruments will be huge.
My amendment, like several others in this group, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has remarked, is designed to give Parliament a say in that process. As many noble Lords on both sides of the issue acknowledge, some of these instruments will be of no great significance. But there will be many of much greater weight, whose survival, whether in their original or an amended form, will be of huge importance to our fellow citizens. There will of course be instruments, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out in his lapidary intervention on the first day of Committee, whose survival unamended will be almost a matter of course because we would not want to get rid of them—nobody would.
In this group, Amendments 43, 50, 62A and of course the amendment we are now specifically debating seek to give an active role to Parliament in an otherwise Executive-dominated process. My amendment goes a little further in providing for a substantial parliamentary assessment—including whether there has been adequate consultation—and for a process of suggested amendment, as part of what one might call this triaging activity. It does not deal with the unannounced repeal, which is a real problem. It could easily be adapted to do precisely that on Report, if that were acceptable. Of course, the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, does that.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, as well as producing a helpful amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, produced a helpful phrase: “unannounced repeal”. That neatly gives a focus to what we are talking about: the washing down the plughole of things that have not been announced or discussed, without the involvement of any parliamentary process specific to them, beyond the Bill itself.
I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. In all the discussions when he and I were members of the Constitution Committee of this House and we considered the EU withdrawal Bill, I do not remember anyone saying, “What will happen is that we’ll set a very short timetable, and everything will have to be dealt with by extra-parliamentary processes during that short period”. We had many discussions with senior judges and others, and the assumption was that law would be moved over—or assimilated, to use the Government’s preferred phrase—into UK law and then dealt with as time and necessity required. Some things would be changed quite quickly because they needed to be updated, but others were doing no harm and could be dealt with later. My feeling was that obsolete or irrelevant things would best be dealt with by something like the Law Commission process, which goes through legislation, identifies what does not need to be on the statute book any more and brings in legislation that deals with it. There were perfectly good procedures available to us by which we could have done that. Instead, we have this fierce timetable.
I therefore support the aims of Amendment 141A, which would create a sifting process, just as I support the aims of Amendment 32. As I said, Amendment 32 is significant because it deals with the unannounced repeals. It is bad enough having inadequate parliamentary processes to discuss those measures which will replace or modify retained European law; I think we all know how limited and inadequate the processes are. Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, that amendable statutory instruments are a difficult route to go down, there are a few occasions when it happens—but it is really quite difficult. That suggests again that primary legislation should be the vehicle for making significant changes which we probably would never have made by secondary legislation if we had been doing it ourselves rather than being part of a European process. I say in passing, however, that occasionally discussions about how this European legislation was created slightly ignore co-decision in the work of the European Parliament, which is surprising given that the Minister was himself a Member of the European Parliament.
However, I am as worried about the unannounced repeals section—that is, those things which will disappear or effectively be taken off the statute book simply by the decision of a Minister. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, likes to talk about Henry VIII powers. The nearest parallel I can find for what is being done is the Declaration of Indulgence of 1672, with the crucial difference that that declaration had a very noble purpose: to provide a degree of religious freedom to Catholics and dissenters. It is still not a very desirable process, because basically it was His Majesty’s Ministers saying, “We’re never going to get it through this Parliament, so we will just do it.” That is how the Declaration of Indulgence worked. I think that we have better procedures available to us now and that we should use them, and the Executive should not seek to legislate or dispense with legislation. That is a particularly dangerous precedent. If the Executive can dispense with legislation that they do not like without any action by Parliament, we are in very dangerous waters. Of course, they do not have to do anything; they just have to leave it to the sunset—the sun will set surely as it always does. In this case, the sunset takes with it legislation which they identify as stuff they do not want but which Parliament might wish to keep, might wish to reinforce its view on or might wish to have modified but should have the opportunity to consider and decide on. The purpose of Amendment 32 is to ensure that Parliament cannot be ignored in this process.
My final point arises from the helpful comments of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, in the House on 26 February—no, it was last night.
Lord Beith (LD)
Was it Tuesday? The dates of this Bill are becoming a blur in my mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said:
“Defra’s default approach will be to retain EU law unless there is a good reason either to repeal it or to reform it”.—[Official Report, 28/2/23; col. 205.]
He repeated that later in the proceedings, and I think we were all pleased to hear it, particularly as it related to environmental legislation, public health and other important things. It was a very significant thing he said, but it is not how the Bill is constructed; the Bill is constructed to make it so easy to repeal the legislation that a Minister does not really have to do anything other than not put it in the box marked “reform” or “reintroduce”. I would like to feel that the attitude taken by one Defra Minister will not only be supported and reinforced by the Leader of the House and others on the Front Bench but might start to colour the attitude of other government departments as they see how undesirable it is for law to be removed or dispensed with at the whim of Ministers or simply because everything goes that way unless selected otherwise. This is not an acceptable way to proceed.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 44. I am grateful for the explicit support of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, who apologises for having had to leave for an engagement in the north.
About three weeks ago, I stepped from the golden sands of the Cross Benches into my first meeting of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, for his objective and clear chairing of that committee, which I found very helpful as a newcomer. The first meeting that I attended took me straight into constitutional quicksand, rather than golden sands, in which I was looking at provisions which seemed to do the exact opposite of what we were told was the purpose of Brexit. The report of the Select Committee, which I recommend strongly to noble Lords, is clear that much of the Bill is nothing else than a dilution of parliamentary scrutiny and, therefore, a dilution of parliamentary democracy itself.
I hope that this debate will not develop into a discussion about whether we should have Brexited or whether we should remain, because that is not my intention at all. For me, this is a debate about what Brexit is intended to achieve and whether we are achieving it in a way that is consistent with parliamentary practice—a key part of our constitution. As I recall, the slogans of Brexit were undeniable. I overheard one about “bringing our democracy home”. However, the Bill actually sends our democracy from this building to the intellectual suburbs, where it will not be part of our law-making process. My Amendment 44, which is a probing amendment, is an attempt to show how easily a solution can be reached which does not dilute our democracy. To devise Amendment 44, I reached into my metaphorical bathroom cupboard and pulled from it the sharpest, but non-existent, instrument: what somebody else called Occam’s razor. That is the principle by which you look at a complicated problem and see if there is a series of simple solutions; you usually find that they are much the best way of solving that problem.
I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that we should set up an independent body led by a judicial figure, preferably a serving Court of Appeal judge—as leads, for example, the Law Commission, although this would be a different kind of commission from the Law Commission. With colleagues and staff, that body would consider the questioned laws in real time on the basis of the demands of time placed by this legislation. It would produce reports with recommendations, including for modification, and those recommendations would be placed before—yes—Parliament for the approval or otherwise of both Houses. Thus, we would sustain parliamentary democracy entirely by this simple process; it is Occam’s razor at work. Ministers would of course play their part; they would take part in the discussions with the commission, would be able to suggest changes and objections, and would be free to make representations to both the commission and Parliament—but Parliament would decide.
I have seen an opinion of Sir Jeffrey Jowell KCMG KC on the Bill, on the instructions of a number of respected NGOs. I do not simply use Sir Jeffrey as an argument ad maiorem; he is a most distinguished and authoritative figure of the law on constitutional matters. I will quote some of what he said in that opinion:
“The claim that the Bill promotes sovereignty is hollow, as it is an exceptional example of Parliament relinquishing its key responsibilities … Insofar as the Bill may be justified by some procedures being in place for the scrutiny of Statutory Instruments by Parliament, this rings equally hollow, since those procedures provide no opportunity to amend the secondary legislation and in practice have rarely been effective in halting its passage … The Bill also offends the rule of law which requires our law to be accessible, clear and predictable.”
Those citations, and there are many more in his opinion, really tell the story about the Bill and what is at its centre. My draft new clause may be the right or wrong template—I do not mind whether my amendment or some other amendment passes—but we have to try to agree something that sustains parliamentary sovereignty, which the Bill does not. Let us not sully Brexit by the criticism that is available at the moment that it has diluted and damaged our democracy at home.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, of which Amendment 62A is the key one. It covers much the same ground as that of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. It would bring this whole process back under parliamentary scrutiny by establishing a Joint Committee of both Houses which would do the review that we understand is currently taking a lot of the time of civil servants in Whitehall: their work would be absolutely germane to the work of this committee. My Joint Committee is similar to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane; the only substantive difference is that my amendments in this group are actually remnants of a rather more ambitious original intention—namely, to delete all the first three clauses of the Bill and establish, right from the beginning, that this was a parliamentary process, not a process by the Executive alone. I still think there is merit in attaching this concept right at the beginning, before we go into more detail.
The other amendments in this group all attempt to bring some control back to Parliament. My noble friend Lady Chapman and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, wish to clarify what laws fall into which groups; then we would have a process for dealing with them systematically—through the Joint Committee, in my view, in the first instance, and then being brought back, with that Joint Committee’s recommendations, to Parliament. Of course, it is not intended that that would preclude any other initiative by the Government. If the Government wish to do this more urgently, they have every right to bring legislation, either in the form of an Act or a statutory instrument, in the normal way. The Government have raised the issue of reviewing the totality of anything that has any smell of Europe about it but, if that is what they intend, let us do it in a parliamentary way.
I just want to recall two episodes of history which might perhaps remind those who oppose departing from the Government’s view of this. The first is relatively recent. In 2018, when we were still in bitter post-Brexit arguments, many of us nevertheless accepted that we had to clarify the position of European-derived law in this House and in Parliament as a whole. We accepted the suggestion of the Government that they would make clear that EU law that had been accepted during the 50 years of our membership of the European Union and its predecessors would be part of UK law. We did not realise at the time that it was not quite the same as the rest of EU law. The reasons we accepted it were, first, that we needed some stability, for business and other elements of society, immediately following the completion of Brexit; and, secondly, that the Government needed a bit of time to consider how they would deal with that law—whether they wanted to change it, amend it or revoke it. We never contemplated, at that time, that we would have a process that completely departed from normal practice in Parliament and effectively put so much power into the hands of Ministers. That power, if it were through a statutory instrument, would be subject to only minimal scrutiny—but perhaps more importantly, and equally or rather more worryingly to parties outside, is that a whole chunk of what was European law, and is now deemed to be retained EU law, could actually fall in less than 10 months’ time, without any discussion whatever in this House or another place. That also needs to be dealt with at this stage. We need to delete the sunset clause for the end of this year and, if people think it is necessary to have an eventual sunset clause, then let us accept what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was arguing in our last sitting.
The other episode of history is perhaps a bit more esoteric, but it might appeal to some on the Conservative Back Benches and the Brexiteer press, if I can put it that way, who claim that we have escaped the tyranny and domination of Brussels. There are plenty of precedents in history for this. When all the countries of the British Empire attained their independence from the old Commonwealth—the old dominions in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, more than a century ago, and even the establishment of the Irish Free State, right through to the countries of Africa and the Caribbean—part of that independent settlement, except where it was surrounded by war, was always that the rules which applied during the colonial period would continue to apply until the new independent judiciary and legislature changed them in Jamaica or the Irish Free State, for example. That remained the case in almost every country which gained independence from the British Empire. Those that did not follow this precept—Zimbabwe, for example—are usually crucified by the right wing in this country for doing so.
In most cases, there was a peaceful transfer of power, as there has been a peaceful transfer of power from Brussels back to this Parliament. We should follow the example of the Macmillans and the others who gave independence to all those countries. Even with the establishment of the Irish Free State, as I said, you still get Irish lawyers in the Irish courts quoting case law from Victorian times. This issue has an implication for case law as well, which we will come to at a later stage.
I hope that whatever the Government do in relation to this debate, they will see all the different proposals in this group and elsewhere and bring back on Report a proposition of their own which restores the systematic assessment of EU retained law to Parliament—with decisions resting with Parliament, not in the hands of Ministers—and prevents it from disappearing as the bells chime on New Year’s Eve later this year.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to two amendments in this group: Amendment 32 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and Amendment 141A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. I have done so because, if the Government were to accept them, they would significantly enhance the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the legislation arising out of this Bill more effectively. They would do so by introducing for the first time the beginnings of a triaging system, which would enable the House to focus its efforts on those probably relatively fewer bits of legislation that really matter and ignore the rather larger number that do not.
My noble friend on the Front Bench has taken a lot of “incoming” over the past couple of days. I have some sympathy with the conflicting advice he has been given. If I were to distil what he has been criticised for, I would say that the concerns about the Bill relate to uncertainty about the Government’s approach to specific policy areas on the one hand, and the lack of parliamentary involvement on the other. These two amendments—and indeed some others in this group—would go a long way to answering those criticisms and concerns. I hope my noble friend will listen carefully to the arguments being put forward, because he might catch the sound of the cavalry arriving to bring some help to his rather beleaguered post.
We have heard a magisterial speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on Amendment 32. I am not a lawyer, and in such circumstances, to try to add to a speech made by a past Lord Chief Justice would indeed invite an accusation of hubris. Therefore I hope that Members of the Committee will come with me, if not into the weeds then into the grass—the long grass—and explore on a more practical level what I believe these amendments will achieve, how important they are in ensuring that Parliament is not taken for granted, and how they will lead to a greater level of public acceptance of the implications of particular policy choices, so reducing disconnect between the governors and the governed. Finally, in consequence of all this, I will explain why I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench and the Government will give very serious consideration to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, have proposed.
I want to draw on my experience of the past three years as chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. During that time I have seen the sands of power and influence trickling through Parliament’s fingers, which has meant that the Government have gained more power at the expense of Parliament. This has long roots here. It probably began with the Blair Government, who had a very substantial majority and thought they could use secondary legislation to push stuff through quickly. It has had twists along the way with things such as the pandemic, where emergency legislation has been used for purposes for which it was not originally intended. However, the real game-changer has of course been, as we all know, the emergence of skeleton Bills—framework Bills—of which what we are discussing today is a classic example.
It is worth pausing momentarily to think about what my noble friend is going to say on why this group of amendments should not be accepted. I think the first thing the Government will claim is that, if they were to be accepted, it would be likely to lead to the government machinery being gummed up by additional legislative time taken. I reject that—it is not true. In the 600 or 700 instruments that the SLSC looks at every year, between two-thirds and three-quarters are entirely uncontroversial—they are essentially technical—and I am firmly of the view that no lesser a proportion of the regulations that will come from the Bill will fall under the same category. They will essentially be technical and uncontroversial and will not give rise to controversy, which means that your Lordships’ House and the Government will have a much smaller population of instruments on which to focus their attention.
The second thing that I think the Government will allege is of course that both Houses give their consent to each regulation. We have all heard the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is not in his place today, on the question of amendability, and the noble Lord who just spoke referred to that as well. Technically, we know it is true, but the consent is the equivalent of having a pistol at your forehead which will fire bullets marked “constitutional crisis” and “the Strathclyde review”. In those circumstances, I argue that the consent is grudging at best.
What is really valuable about these amendments and indeed the others is that for the first time we can begin to concentrate on what really matters. This is by any standards an immensely complex Bill, and the actions taken under it will set the course for this country for many years. This House—indeed, Parliament as a whole—is entitled to know what the Government is thinking, not just in broad statements of principle but in their detailed application, which is, after all, what really matters to every citizen. If my noble friend and the Government are concerned about the generally adverse reaction to the Bill, I gently remind them that sunshine will be the best answer and these two amendments represent sunshine.
I am not against the Bill—I voted to leave the European Union and I believe it was the right thing to do—but I am also a democrat, and I voted to bring back powers to the United Kingdom. Although this is happening, sadly, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham memorably pointed out at Second Reading, those powers have been sent to the wrong address. If I may continue with his analogy, I regard these two amendments as attempts to redirect the repatriation of powers to their proper destination, and that is why I support them.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which was incredibly helpful and really got to the heart of what this group of amendments seeks to do. I could support any one of them; they all try to do a similar thing in slightly different ways.
The amendment I have tabled, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seeks to deal with perhaps the most dangerous element of the way the Government are approaching this task, in that it would prevent what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, described as the unannounced revocation of law. Things happening by accident is what we are increasingly concerned about, especially given the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about the inadequacies of the way the Government may be—we hope to find out more about what they are doing—endeavouring to identify all the retained EU law.
There are many concerns about the Bill, which colleagues have described in detail in this debate, but there are three which stood out to me above some of the others when I first read the Bill. The first is the total lack of clarity about which laws are going to be revoked. The second is the regulatory cliff edge which means that all retained law will be revoked by default—no matter what the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said—at the end of this year. The third is the complete lack of parliamentary accountability and consent in the process. This amendment addresses those three concerns. Clearly, other concerns are addressed by other amendments, which I also support.
Amendment 43 is as simple as we could craft it. It is based on common-sense principles that I believe noble Lords from all sides can agree: that if the Government want to revoke a law, they should be able to, but they should be able to tell Parliament which law it is that they want to remove. The removal of the law should be an active choice, not a passive default, and should require Parliament’s consent. There is nothing in this amendment that prevents the Government achieving their stated aim of dealing with all retained EU law. Our amendment requires simply that, if the Government wish to revoke a retained piece of EU law, they must proactively submit to Parliament a list of the specific items they wish to revoke. We are not stopping anything happening; we just want this to be done in a much safer way. Both Houses would then need to vote to approve that list. Law which is not specifically revoked is retained. That is it.
As was said at Second Reading, it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to review law that has been retained from our long period as a member of the European Union. We have no argument with this. We might not like what the Government want to do and the decisions that they might make, but we do not argue with the Government’s intention to examine this class of law—although it is just UK law. It is a bit like, I suppose, if the Labour Party were to win an election and say, “Do you know what? We did not like the way that last Government behaved. We’re going to sunset everything they did and hope for the best”. I should say that that will not be in our manifesto; I say it just to highlight the insanity of the way this Government are going about this.
The amendment does not frustrate the fundamental process. It would require the Government to follow a very reasonable, proportionate approach. It could be done in a timely way—I know time is important to the Minister, who wants this to be done quickly, and this could be done relatively quickly. Through this amendment, we would have a very simple but democratic mechanism for changing EU law. It would ensure that the process of reviewing retained law does not cause as much uncertainty as the Government’s regulatory cliff edge is generating today. It would mean that important decisions about workers’ rights, environmental standards and consumer protections cannot happen by default, or worse, by accident. It would restore Parliament’s proper, sovereign role.
I know some have objected to the processes that created these EU laws in the first place. The Minister is one of them, I think, and I respect that view. He has said that he regarded that process as distant and undemocratic. I do not agree but he is entitled to hold that view. However, it is really difficult to take those complaints seriously when the Government are choosing to support the nonsensical, undemocratic Executive power grab that this Bill, as currently drafted, represents. It is reckless.
Your Lordships’ House, or the Government, should amend the Bill with a simple, straightforward process that sits much better within our constitutional traditions. My amendment is a common-sense amendment that respects the sovereignty of this Parliament, and I commend it. However, I would be very happy to work with noble Lords from all sides—indeed, I look forward to it—on coming together should the Government choose not to take the recommendation embodied by this group of amendments. We would be neglectful if we allowed this Bill to proceed any further without the safeguards that the amendments in this group would provide.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 42, 43 and 50 and the Clause 1 stand part debate, to which I have added my name.
What was clear from last week’s debate—we have alluded to it a number of times since then—is that the Government have absolutely no intention of providing a comprehensive list of retained EU law under the jurisdiction of this Bill. It is clear that the decisions taken by departments to retain, amend or revoke will be announced unilaterally via the dashboard. In the case of revoking, it is an act of either commission or omission—we will not know until we see it on the dashboard. However, if there is no list then we will not even know that something has been revoked. The former—the lack of a list—informs the latter: the fact that we will not know whether laws have been revoked or otherwise.
That is why this set of amendments, in the number of forms that we have seen, is so important. Through Amendment 32, we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, my noble friend Lord Beith, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, how the Government should set out in advance what they are seeking to do and give Parliament a chance to overrule the Executive and choose to retain specific named instruments, rather than waiting for the automatic disposal of these laws. The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Kirkhope, in Amendment 44, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in Amendment 141A, set out other ways of seeking to achieve a similar end. The point has been made that there are a number of ways of doing this.
It was a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, set out Amendment 43, to which I have added my name; I was happy to do so because, in the amendment, she sets out very ably a process by which Parliament can retain its control over what is going on in this law. It would avoid the really important issue, to which I and other Peers have already alluded, of the unknown repeal of laws—that is, the accidental revocation or deliberate obfuscation of revocation that may happen as a result of this law. This is a well-drafted amendment that we would be very happy to see go forward.
Amendment 42, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Ludford, complements what we have heard already about a process of consultation, about how these laws and regulations should be consulted on. It sets out four objectives for the consultation. The first is to consider whether the legislation under review is fit for purpose. It may not be. Ministers have talked about reindeer and whatnot. I am sure that we do not really need those but there cannot be many of the 4,000 or so laws that refer to reindeer. Let us assume that that the majority of them are addressing areas of concern to the greater public. Are they fit for purpose?
The second objective is to consider whether alternative regulation would achieve different or preferable goals. The third objective is to consider whether alternative regulation would provide greater benefits to consumers, workers, businesses, the environment, animal welfare, and public safety, to name a few. The fourth objective is to consider whether alternative regulation would provide greater legal certainty, and there is a great deal of legal uncertainty coming the way of this Bill if it stays as it is. I cannot see why this approach is unreasonable, and I am sure that the Minister will agree with me and adopt this straightaway.
Much has been said about sunsetting. Some speakers on the Government Benches have set out their view that without sunsetting, departments would somehow be dragging their heels. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said last week to your Lordships that
“the sunset was introduced to incentivise departments to think boldly and constructively about their regulations and to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens.”—[Official Report, 23/2/15; col. 1820.]
Just before lunch, we heard the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, say that the sunset’s purpose is to “incentivise genuine reform”. These confirm that the purpose of the sunset is, in the Government’s view, to get civil servants to get on with it. That may be so, but what is it that are they getting on with, or that the Government would have them get on with? I suggest that they are injecting the largest single slug of legislative uncertainty into national life that any of us can remember. I say to my noble friend Lord Beith that I am afraid that I do not go back to the 1600s, when it last happened—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Neither does the noble Lord, Lord Beith!
Lord Fox (LD)
I beg my noble friend’s pardon. Perhaps there is a reason why the departments might favour a slower, stepwise and consultative approach. We have also tabled an amendment that opposes Clause 1 standing part of the Bill. That is to give time to have that stepwise, considered and consultative approach, as many of us believe it should be. It removes the sunset altogether and it gives us time. Clearly, this element of the Bill, if not the others, was the product of the imagination of the Conservative MP for North East Somerset. This Bill is a legacy from his short-lived time in BEIS and, like almost everything produced in that thankfully brief period of administration, it delivers chaos and an unworkable Bill. The Government Front Bench might appreciate our help in removing this very difficult thing, for what will become a very difficult effort.
Finally in this group, my noble friend Lady Ludford and I have tabled Amendment 50, which seeks to deliver a super-affirmative process. I should point out that the dash comes between “super” and “affirmative”; it is the affirmation that is super, not the process. The process is for revoking EU-derived subordinate legislation or retained direct EU legislation. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, earlier. Once again, this is about parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment seeks to address the huge democratic shortcomings of this Bill, as outlined by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In the “Bypassing Parliament” section of its report, the committee observes:
“The Bill gives to Ministers (rather than Parliament) the power to decide, in relation to a considerable amount of REUL, what is to be … revoked and not replaced … revoked and replaced with something broadly similar … revoked and replaced with something very different, or … retained.”
That is, in a nutshell, what we are discussing. The committee also noted:
“Parliament will not know, at the time it grants the powers, what the Government intend to do with those powers.”
I will not dwell on this amendment to create the super-affirmative process, except to highlight a couple of features. The first, under proposed new subsection (2), is:
“For each instrument that is proposed to be revoked, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament … a draft of the regulations; and … a document which explains the draft regulations.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, there is a period of 30 days for this process.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am absolutely amazed that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has such faith in the bureaucrats of this country such that, if you do not give them deadlines, they will still keep to the timescale. It is remarkable when you think that one of the tasks of all our departments is to review their legislation to see whether it is still current. At intervals, Ministers have said that they will produce only one new law in return for two revoked, but nothing ever happens. This is one of the inadequacies of the system in which we live, but we will let that pass.
I listened to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, with great attention, as I always do. But this is the first time I actually agreed with most of them. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, I campaigned to leave the EU. I did not actually stand on people’s doorsteps and say, “We have a wonderful scheme here. We have a drastically undemocratic system of people living in Europe dictating the laws that we should have in this land. But we are not going to restore parliamentary democracy; we are going to hand over all this power to the Executive.” If I had said that on doorsteps, and people like me who wanted to leave the EU had put that argument forward widely, it is quite possible that we would not have left the EU at all.
I am spoiled for choice with the amendments I could back in this group, but I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and his Amendment 62A. I think that we need a sifting committee and the all-party one that he advocates is very much one that I would support.
I have been told that at least 40% of our retained EU legislation will be put back on the statute book unchanged. I suspect that that is a rather low estimate and will rise, particularly given what my noble friend Lord Benyon said about retention being the default position. There will not be much controversy about that and the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, could decide to do that by secondary legislation.
We then come to EU law that is completely irrelevant to this country. Isolated cases have been brought up, such as reindeer between Denmark and Sweden, and fishing in waters nowhere near the United Kingdom, as my noble friend Lord Benyon mentioned. We have also got the export of lemons. I do not think we are going to be doing a lot of that in the future—though with global warming, you never know, do you? Then we have got olive oil; I do not quite see us growing that number of olive trees in the near future, but it is obviously very important to the southern countries of the EU. All of that can certainly be binned, and I would not have thought that there would be any controversy about that whatever.
I suspect that the other amount of law that the Government are thinking of getting rid of, which is more difficult, is the area where there is already legislation in the United Kingdom which does this job better than the EU legislation. That is something which will have to be argued out, which is why I think the role of this cross-party committee could be critical.
We then come to other regulations which need very minor amendments. As we know, one person’s minor amendment is somebody else’s major amendment, so I would be more than happy that the committee viewed that legislation as well. If it was happy that the amendments were very minor—just changing dates and things of that sort—they could allow that through statutory instruments and secondary legislation. What is much more concerning is the ability that the Government seem to be giving themselves to scrap an EU law and introduce a completely new one. This is not what we voted for when we voted to leave the EU and is an extraordinary transfer of power. That is where I hoped that this committee would come in and say, “No, this must be dealt with by primary legislation.”
To sum up, I would be more than happy to back an amendment similar, if not identical, to that of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I will campaign among all the people I know to actually support it as well—and I think that I possibly represent one or two of the people who left the EU. If we do that, we might get an overwhelming majority which might make this Government change their mind.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am very glad that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I hope that the Government will reflect on such criticism coming from such a quarter. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and I disagreed violently over Brexit, but the criticisms that he is making now, much more clearly than I could, are the criticisms that I want to make now. So the opposition to the Bill does not come under the remainer/leaver axis—it comes under the “good Government” axis.
There are just two points that I want to raise. I support the amendments in this group, particularly the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, Amendments 39, 42 and 43. The first point I want to make is about unannounced repeal—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith—although it is unannounced and undiscussed repeal that really bothers me. The other is about default.
On unannounced and undiscussed repeal, when we were last in Committee, on Tuesday, I asked what Parliamentary procedure would be available when a Minister decides that a piece of our law should be abolished. What procedure will enable Parliament to debate that decision? The Minister replying to the debate said that she would reflect on the point that I had made. I have not yet heard an answer, but it seems to me rather a significant point. Here we have a situation which I believe is improper in constitutional terms—and it is certainly absurd in practical terms that laws should disappear by administrative fiat, privately. I do not know how courts will be expected to apply that, and I do not know how citizens are expected to behave in relation to the law, if changes in the law have been made by administrative fiat, privately. I think it is constitutionally improper that that should happen without the opportunity for some discussion in this this place and the other place. I think it is important to address the question that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and I hope we are about to hear an answer.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord’s speech is quite intriguing. I have a question for him, although I do not know whether he will be able to answer it here and now. Is he suggesting that, if a piece of law were to be revoked because it was not included on the dashboard and had not been discovered through the search process, and that piece of law is later identified by a citizen and relied on in order to take a case to a court, that court would then have to determine whether that piece of law was retained EU law? What effect would that have on the deliberations of that court at that point?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
That is exactly the point I was going to address under my second heading, “default”. As I read the Bill, those laws that are not identified in time automatically vanish. As I read the Bill, when the clock strikes midnight at the end of the year, anything that has been omitted but is still the law of the land on 31 December is not the law of the land on 1 January. That is bizarre. I think the Government have to accept something to deal with that problem. It is dealt with in Amendments 39 and 42. It is not quite dealt with in Amendment 43, but that amendment could easily be expanded to deal with it. It seems to me that, when they respond to this debate, the Government need to tell us what the answer to that question is as well as, I hope, telling us the answer to the question I asked on Tuesday.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for having not spoken at Second Reading, but I am keen to support the principle behind this group of amendments, and I am pleased to have put my name to Amendment 141A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. At an earlier stage of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, described it as a beta-gamma piece of legislation. I think he was being a bit kind. Omega strikes me as being more suitable. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said at an earlier stage as well, although I obviously say that from a different political view. He wanted to understand how a Conservative Government could produce this Bill. I cannot understand how any Government could produce this Bill, Conservative or otherwise.
However, the Bill is with us and at the very least it needs amending severely. All the amendments are in different ways saying very much the same thing: give Parliament its proper role in deciding what legislation should be repealed or replaced. I do not understand how a Government who only this week have, perhaps rightly, boasted of their democratic credentials in terms of an important announcement can produce a piece of legislation like this that just gives power to the Executive and, frankly, bypasses Parliament. If it was not so serious, you would think this was a toytown Bill and a toytown piece of legislation. It is really not worthy of any British Government, which is why I very much support the principle behind these amendments and hope even more that the Government will see the good sense in them.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I rise not least to celebrate the fact that I agree so strongly with my noble friend Lord Hamilton. We are as one, and it does not matter what we thought when it came to the referendum. Everybody knows that I am a passionate remainer, but I am one of those who draws a line under that because I want to get on, with Britain, which I believe we have to. I want to do that in the British way and, surprisingly enough, in the Conservative way. That means three very simple things, and these amendments enable us to do them.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, as the former Permanent Secretary to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I would like to tell your Lordships that that is how he was as Secretary of State. I am so proud of the speech that he made, because I agree with it all. I also agree very much with the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, should begin to be a little concerned that former civil servants and diplomats are beginning to mobilise behind him, because I agree with virtually everything that he said, which should be unnerving—except for one point. I want to focus on the idea of “incentivising” the Civil Service. The view that I have expressed already is that the work should have been done in government before the legislation was introduced, and that is still my view. We are discussing an administrative task, not a legislative one. I know that the noble Lord knows how to incentivise the Civil Service, because in the 1980s, when I worked for Mrs Thatcher, he used to sit in the Cabinet Room behind her listening to her “incentivising” her Ministers and civil servants. Although I cannot see him right now, he jolly well knows how it is done.
What we should have is the Bill being paused or withdrawn. The Prime Minister should assemble all the Permanent Secretaries, together with the heads of the Civil Service, and the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, who is sitting on the Front Bench. Then he should say to them, “I want this sorted out by the end of, say, June”—the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, described this accurately. After they report back, the Government should then introduce in Parliament whatever legislation is needed to implement it. We would then have something to discuss, rather than operating in a policy void as now.
By all means, let us accept one of these amendments—I would go for that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—but let us recognise that this is an administrative task. It should have been handled properly, in an administrative way, before Parliament had to spend time on it.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, with whom I have university connections, and even more of a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, with whom I used to joust in the Cambridge Union more years ago than I can remember. He was persuasive then and he is persuasive now.
Before I speak to the two proposals I have put my name to, I will just refer to what my noble friend Lord Whitty said about the devolution of laws when the Empire, or the Commonwealth, was broken up. He was entirely accurate in what he said to your Lordships. I raise this point because I remember particularly that, several years ago, I was defending an accused who had been convicted in the courts of Jamaica. He was attempting to appeal to the Privy Council in London and I was his counsel. We had to refer back to the relevant laws in Jamaica and, in doing so, to go back to a homicide Act of 1926 and to a Court of Appeal presided over by Lord Reading. That was disastrous to my client’s case. I am very happy to tell your Lordships two things: first, that my client was relieved of the death penalty which hung over his head when I took on his defence and, secondly, that in Jamaica they paid swift attention to those out-of-date laws, so that Lord Reading’s pronouncement is no longer binding in Jamaica. That is the process which one would expect to happen if we adopted EU law, as I say we should; then if something uncomfortable comes to our attention, it is dealt with in a fair and swift way.
The two proposals that I have put my name to are Amendment 42 and the opposition to Clause 1 standing part of the Bill. I will also speak to my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 44A. I would like to address the parliamentary consequences of any of those amendments being voted in on Report. Given the large opposition that has been put to a number of provisions in the Bill, which is exactly what these three proposals are doing, the high chances are that they will succeed in Divisions on Report. The consequence of that, which we should take strongly in mind, is that it would kill the Bill because all three start from the premise that Clause 1 should be left out. I think the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has a different introduction, so let us just refer to those three and their consequences.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 32 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, and Amendments 42, 43, 44 and 141A.
I will make two very short points because so many of the points have been made more eloquently by previous speakers. First, the amendments we are discussing are not substitutes for removing the cut-off at the end of 2023. They are complementary to it for two reasons. The processes quite rightly being proposed could not all be got through in the time available before the end of this year; you also solve the cart and horses problem by removing the 2023 date. I hope we will not forget that when we come back to all this on Report, and we will see these two things as complementary.
Secondly, the arguments about the EU-based legislation that is completely immaterial to us—on reindeers, lemon exports and so on—are completely irrelevant. If you go back through the last 500 years of statutes past, the statute book is full of things that are completely irrelevant to the way we live now, and which are not enforced or implemented in any way. We do not seem to lose any sleep over it. Let us not lose any sleep over the reindeers or they will not bring the Christmas stocking with them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have not signed any amendments in this group—I was not asked, and I was not quick enough to get my name down. All of the issues have been covered absolutely amazingly by other noble Lords, so I will restrict myself to talking about the politics. The politics of this particular Bill are extremely interesting. I support all the amendments in the first group, simply because they are sensible and practical, and I like practical outcomes. But, at the same time, we ought to throw the whole clause out, and I do not see any option to do that. We want a democracy when we have finished voting on the Bill and, if it goes through as it is, we will not have one.
I will ask two political questions. First, why do we have the Bill at all? Quite honestly, it is terrible piece of legislation that is absolutely outrageous. In the 10 years I have been here, I have almost never had a glimmer of sympathy for the Government. But, having seen the Bill, I do: it is like the last gasp of a dying creature, and that dying creature is the popular Tory party of 2019, when it actually had some credibility and popularity, as I said. That has seeped and ebbed away, to the point that it is now in the most extraordinary position and putting forward legislation like this. It is an ideological monstrosity that caters to the worst parts of the right wing of the Tory party, and it will not have support.
I think the Conservative Party expects to run out into the streets and say, “We did it—we got rid of all EU law. Brexit has finally happened”. But, of course, that is simply not true: a lot of this is not EU law but British law. I am sure that the Minister himself had a hand in producing some of it, as a Member of the European Parliament. For anyone who has been in the European Parliament to say that this is pure EU law is complete nonsense. I do not want to accuse the Minister of telling lies, but it is nonsense. So why is it here? Is it here because the Conservative Party wants to get some sort of popularity or something? Why is it here? It is not a worthwhile Bill; it is a ludicrous Bill to bring here. There has been so much learned opposition, but still the Government insist on pushing it through.
My second political question is: what happens afterwards? Of course, it is all very well to put this through, but what happens when Labour is in government? Will the Conservative Party really be happy that Labour has these powers and can just whip out a piece of legislation and give Ministers all these powers? It is not a democracy when you give so much power to Ministers. That is not what Brexit was about—and I say that as somebody who voted for Brexit. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that he is perhaps a rejoiner now, not a remoaner—sorry, I mean remainer. It is perhaps time we understood that the damage has been done and this just creates more damage. It is time to drop the Bill. We will not have a democracy if it goes through.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased that everybody who has spoken in this debate is pulling in the same direction, which is an effort to rescue the Government from themselves. It is not only former diplomats and civil servants, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who applaud the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom; I am afraid to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that it is also Liberal Democrats as well, which might be even more upsetting to him. But we are all, at least partially, on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and I do hope that we will be able to rally round a single powerful amendment for Report, based on elements of all of the laudable amendments in this group.
What has been brought out in the debate are the contradictions and hypocrisy of criticising the EU legislative process—which I happen to believe was democratic, but I will leave that there. But, even if you do not, introducing rule by executive diktat does not seem a very intelligent response to your criticism of EU lawmaking.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who cited the report of the Constitution Committee; I think we are all grateful not only to that committee but to the Delegated Powers and secondary legislation committees—we have with us the former chair of the SLSC, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who supervised the work for that committee’s report on this Bill before he stepped down. The DPRRC not only described the Bill, as we have frequently said, as “hyper-skeletal” but noted that approach taken by the Government
“contradicts pledges by the Government since 2018 that Parliament would be the agent of substantive policy change in these areas”.
Instead, they have made the Bill
“a blank cheque placed in the hands of Ministers”.
That is our objection. The Government would be wise to go back and think about what they are doing in this Bill. We are trying to put some order and reasonableness into the way it is being done. We are having to do a lot of the work that should have been done before the Bill was introduced. All the amendments, whether the one led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and supported by my noble friend Lord Beith, or those led by my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in one way or another seek to avoid the deletion of unidentified law unintentionally and to allow Parliament rather than Ministers control in a considered, explained, transparent and accountable way. Seriously, what is not to like about those two objectives?
We heard some nice phrases in the debate. It was said that we wanted to avoid the “unannounced repeal” of legislation, which was translated perhaps in a rather more blunt, northern way, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Beith, as “washing stuff down the plughole”. We heard about a “circular economy” of the law from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I might recycle that—oh, dear—at some point. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, described the processes in the Bill as “bizarre” and “constitutionally improper”. Several amendments, including Amendment 42, led by my noble friend Lord Fox, seek to avoid the default loss of laws that our citizens will not even know they have lost—various speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned the effect of that.
So we are trying to establish default retention and to build in specification of objectives for any revocation. A lot of the amendments are sister amendments to those debated on Tuesday in an earlier group—we had Amendment 48 on consultation and reporting. All of them aim to introduce a reasonable, considered, parliamentary way of doing things which will not surprise all the businesses, unions, consumers, employees and so on, who will not know what on earth is going on.
I realise that Amendment 50, which proposes a super-affirmative process for revocation, may offend the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and my noble friend Lord Beith about amendable SIs, but I am sure that, with the skill of both those very experienced parliamentarians, we will be able to think of a better way of drafting everything. But I think that all the aims that we have debated in this group are worth pursuing.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I interject to make a point that perhaps I did not get over clearly enough earlier. In moving Amendment 42, we would be doing nothing but trying to help the Government and help good governance.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, I support this group of important amendments. In particular, I support Amendment 43 in the names of my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Through it, only legislation identified and approved by Parliament could be revoked, and that is the responsible, democratic and considered way to proceed.
Amendment 43 would put responsibility for a timetable of revocation back with Parliament, so that the Government cannot claim that it is an open-ended approach. It also begins to answer the very important questions around the complete lack of executive accountability raised by our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. So many sectors and people are affected by the Bill and do not want Parliament to be taken for granted, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, put it.
I will concentrate for half a minute on consumer protection. As the vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, I will reflect some of the fears raised with me over the past weeks and months.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
The Minister is heckling me from a sedentary position.
Lord Callanan (Con)
We discussed consumer protections in an earlier group. The noble Baroness may have made the same points then. I do not see the point of repeating the same arguments yet again. If she has some points to make on the amendments we are discussing today, perhaps she would like to make them.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
The Minister has not heard what points I make; I do not know how he can say I am making the same points. The Bill affects sectors right across the UK—people, businesses, trade unions and consumers—and that is why I am raising this. I think the Minister should not have intervened. It is Committee and I have every right to make a minute’s worth of comment.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very educational debate. On Monday this week, two groups of sixth-formers came to visit me here and we discussed things upstairs in Committee Room 1, chosen specifically because of its judicial resonance. They are studying for their A-level exams and the question they put to me was about Parliament’s role in scrutinising the Executive: how effective is it? They were very sharp and on the ball, and they wanted to know and to have examples. But when it comes to the Bill we are discussing today, I could not possibly say that this is a good example of Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the Executive. This Government, we know, claim that their major policy success was to take back control—but in my view it was never to take back control to the Executive but to Parliament. I am heartened by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Hodgson, because I see reflected in both of them a wish to see Parliament as the centre of decision-making in Britain—the Executive are a part of it but Parliament is the heart of it.
We have a number of amendments before us, Amendments 32, 141A, 43, 44, 62A and so on, and each in its own way has a contribution to make. I would be minded to support them all because, whatever happens as a result of the debates we have on the Bill, everybody knows we need proper parliamentary scrutiny of what is about to happen—we do not even know what is going to happen to the vast range of legislation to be covered by the Bill.
History will not regard this Government well if future students of politics, of the kind I talked to on Monday, reach the conclusion that Parliament has lost its ability to scrutinise the Executive. In finishing, I quote one Member’s explanatory statement for one of the amendments we are discussing today: it seeks to give
“Parliament the ability to scrutinise these decisions. It would also allow Parliament to overrule the Executive”.
That is exactly what parliamentary democracy is supposed to be about.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I shall be very brief, because I can see we are testing the Minister’s patience. He perhaps needs to indulge in some breathing exercises or something—maybe yoga, I do not know. We are not deliberately detaining Ministers here; we are trying to do our jobs thoroughly.
I quite rudely interrupted the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, earlier, in my enthusiasm to understand the point he was trying to make. He needed no help from me in making his case, but I do not want the point to get lost when the Minister responds. The noble Lord asked a really important question about what is going to happen if a piece of law is lost because the search process did not identify it. How will a court know that it should not be adjudicating based on that piece of law? How will a citizen know that a piece of law is no longer applicable because it was lost as a result of this process? This is such an important point that has not come up before this group of amendments. It will be very difficult for us to engage positively with subsequent groups without having a full, comprehensive answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I do not want that to get lost in what I am sure is going to be a comprehensive and enlightening response from the Minister.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her suggestion of doing some breathing exercises. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, if I was maybe a bit short, but I was seeking to make the point that we had a debate on consumer protection policies on an earlier day in Committee, and I thought she was about to repeat the points that had been made. I am trying to get the House to focus on the amendments we are discussing, because we are making very slow progress. Be that as it may, I realise that noble Lords want to make their general points as well.
Yet again, we have had a lively debate. I and other Ministers have listened closely to the points that noble Lords have made; I hope I will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in that I will not be dismissive of them. It is my job to set out the Government’s position on the amendments we are discussing. I am not dismissing noble Lords’ concerns at all, but I suspect that we will have a difference of opinion. Nevertheless, let me give it a go.
I start with Amendment 32 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, relating to the operation of the sunset clause and additional layers of scrutiny. It is similar to Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would in effect ensure that retained EU law remains on the statute book unless specified by regulations which have gone through a super-affirmative procedure. In essence, this amendment would block—I think he knows this—the UK from conducting the economic reforms we want to see to drive much-needed growth. Our position is that making it harder to remove regulations—I understand why noble Lords want to do that—would hamper the UK’s growth, be detrimental to the UK and fundamentally undermine the aims of the Bill. I understand that many noble Lords want fundamentally to undermine the aims of the Bill, but this is not something that the Government can accept.
I agree with noble Lords; it is of course right that we ensure that any reforms to retained EU law receive proper scrutiny. That is why we have already ensured that the Bill contains robust mechanisms that will enable the appropriate level of scrutiny of any amendments to retained EU law made by the powers included in the Bill. This includes a sifting procedure that will apply to regulations under Clauses 12, 13 and 15 to ensure that Parliament can assess the suitability of the procedures being used for statutory instruments.
Once the Bill—I hope—receives Royal Assent, work on reform will continue in individual departments. They will prioritise some of the work they are already doing in areas of retained EU law reform and lay all the appropriate statutory instruments. The process will include, as appropriate, designing policy and services, conducting all the necessary stakeholder consultations, drafting the necessary impact assessments and supporting any individuals who may be impacted by any such reform.
Amendments 42 and 43 propose to remove the sunset entirely and replace it with systems individually to revoke each piece of retained EU law, with specifications for unnecessary parliamentary approval or limitations that mean that legislation can be revoked only in line with a fairly cumbersome and, in my view, needlessly complex list of criteria. Again, I do not expect noble Lords to agree with me on this, but the Government’s position is that the sunset is an integral part of the Bill’s policy. It ensures that we are proactively choosing to preserve EU laws only when they are in the best interests of the United Kingdom. However, I appreciate that the public should know how much legislation is derived from the EU and the progress the Government are making to reform it. For that reason, we have published the dashboard containing this list of government retained EU law, about which there has been much discussion.
This dashboard will also document the Government’s progress on reforming retained EU law and will be updated regularly to reflect plans and actions taken. We intend to be clear and transparent throughout the process and when exercising the powers in the Bill, if they are approved by Parliament. In our view, introducing another burdensome process that does not efficiently allow us to remove inoperable and outdated legislation is not good practice.
Amendment 44, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would entirely undermine the ambition of the Bill by replacing the sunset with a full-time commission that would consider retained EU law over—I think it is fair to say—a much longer period. Considering that work to review and take action on retained EU law before the sunset date is already well under way across all departments and is being done by those who already have the expertise in these policy areas, I submit to the noble Lord that this alternative is entirely unnecessary. It would be little more than a talking shop at a time when the UK should be focused on this sensible reform which will help the economy to grow.
Lord Krebs (CB)
Can the Minister provide us with the documentary evidence that this Bill will support growth?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is a long-established principle that removing and reforming unnecessary and outdated regulation will help the economy to grow. I certainly believe that; the noble Lord might disagree with me but that is my position.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My question was whether he could bring evidence before the House—not an assertion but evidence.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Ultimately, this is a political point. The most successful economies in the world are those which have relatively low levels of regulation. The noble Lord and I may have a political difference, but I am sure that we can all propose lots of different examples from think tanks and studies for our different political positions.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
Can the Minister explain exactly what will be retained and what will not? He said that work was under way in departments and implied that stakeholder consultation would be a critical part of that. Can he confirm whether there has been any consultation with trade unions on, for example, the working time directive? Although there has been discussion about active removal of legislation, there is real concern that vital protections will be actively allowed to fall off that cliff edge, such as the working time directive. Has there been any consultation with key stakeholders so far? Which particular pieces of legislation will be allowed to fall off as opposed to just falling off by accident? Currently, employers and unions certainly do not know.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that the noble Baroness feels passionately about labour regulations. We had an extensive debate about this in the first grouping, on labour law. I am happy to go through the issues with her again if she wishes but she knows that the Government’s position is that UK workers’ rights on maternity provision, holiday pay, the minimum wage and so on substantially exceed the basic standards in EU law and those in many other EU countries. Our commitment to workers’ rights is substantial, as I said to the noble Baroness when we discussed this at great length the other day. The department is currently reviewing labour law in the context of maintaining high standards on workers’ rights. When that work is complete, if any new statutory instruments are brought forward, the normal process of consultation will apply. I am sure that that will result in consultations with the trade unions as well.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am not quite sure that the Minister has grasped the point of the noble Baroness. She is asking about legislation that will disappear. The problem with this is that it may involve legislation that requires people to spend money or conduct some other activity; they will not know that it has disappeared and will go on spending the money, and there is no way to get it back again. The noble Baroness raises quite a serious point about the lack of knowledge and the difficulty of things disappearing without their being identified before the disappearance happens.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that many noble Lords want to make the point that, somehow, major pieces of retained EU law will suddenly just accidentally disappear from the statute book. We have conducted a very authoritative process of assessing what is retained EU law and what is not, and we are very satisfied that departments know exactly the legislation for which they are responsible.
It is not entirely clear—this goes back to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, made the other day, with which I agree—because successive Governments over the years have used different processes to assimilate what was an EU obligation into UK law. Even if departments know what law they are responsible for, they do not necessarily know the process by which it was introduced, or whether that law was as a result of an EU obligation or not. The Government introduced earlier amendments to remove any legal risk of an SI being quashed if it contained a provision preserved as REUL that later turned out not to be one. Our advice to departments is that where they are not sure, it should be preserved.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Can I explain this point please, and then I will take the intervention from the noble Lord?
We are satisfied that departments know the law for which they are responsible. They do not yet know whether it is a retained EU law—in other words, whether it was done in respect of an EU obligation or not. The default position that we are suggesting is that it should be retained if they are not sure, but we have tabled an SI to put that position beyond doubt. I will take one more intervention on this.
Lord Fox (LD)
I apologise for my enthusiasm causing a truncation of the Minister’s response. Does he at least understand, if he does not accept, that as long as the Government resist suggestions such as come through in these amendments, whereby a list of the laws that are covered by the Bill is laid before Parliament and officially and definitively made available—not a catalogue, as we have been promised but a definitive and complete list, of the sort of laws that not only the noble Baroness but all of us feel passionately about—we are bound to be fuelled by distrust?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Before the Minister replies, I add that what the Minister is saying now directly contradicts the letter we had the other day from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, which we discussed. The distinction is made by the Government between an authoritative catalogue and a comprehensive list. The Government admit that the dashboard is not comprehensive, so how can each department possibly know all the EU law it is responsible for? As anyone can, I can give examples—and I am grateful to the organisation Justice, of which I should declare I am a vice-president, for giving two examples of direct effect treaty articles and directive clauses which are not on the dashboard, which cites only 28 in that category. That is Article 157 of the treaty and a clause of the habitats directive. They are not on the dashboard, so how are we meant to believe that departments know exactly what law they are dealing with?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I just explained that point in my earlier answer. The noble Baroness can look at Hansard and come back to me if she is not satisfied with that explanation.
To go back to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, let us accept for the purposes of making his point that, as he said, huge swathes of vital REUL will somehow accidentally disappear. The Government do not accept that; we think it is extremely unlikely. However, I understand the point he makes. I refer him to the answer that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe gave to a similar question yesterday. We understand the point that noble Lords are making, we will reflect on that issue and, if necessary, come back to it. Without making any promises, we will reflect on whether that is possible. Obviously, being a member of the Government, I trust them, but I accept that other noble Lords may not have the same faith in what we are doing. It is essentially intended to be a constructive process.
Moving on, Amendment 44A seeks to omit the sunset from the Bill and allow the repeal, revocation or amendment of retained EU law to be carried out only via primary legislation. Currently we are unable to keep retained direct EU legislation up to date with new advances, precisely because of that problem—because some of it is regarded as primary legislation. For those who still wish us to reflect EU law, we cannot even update it in line with any EU changes or new advances because, if we decided to do so, we would need to do it through primary legislation, and parliamentary time does not allow for that. This is creating more legal and business uncertainty, as regulations become more and more out of date and burdensome. The Bill is therefore designed to rectify this issue. This amendment, however, would instead maintain the status quo, which we do not believe is either helpful or beneficial to anyone. Again, I understand that, if people wanted to undermine the fundamental purpose of the Bill, they would support that amendment.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that that is an argument against democracy? Evidently, because it is difficult, we are going to change the law without asking Parliament. My noble friend has made an argument against democracy; that is what we are arguing about.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am afraid that the noble Lord is talking nonsense, as he often does, on this regulation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me explain the position. We are downgrading the status, if it needs to be changed through primary legislation—if it was introduced by the EU, through what I would submit was a relatively undemocratic process, in that Parliament had no say on it in the first place—so that if we wish to change the law, it will be changed through secondary legislation, which, as my noble friend very well knows, Parliament will of course get a say on. There are approximately 3,700 pieces of secondary retained EU law. Some of these are inoperable, outdated or not the best fit for our economy. Amending secondary retained EU legislation through sector-specific primary legislation, where it cannot be amended by existing delegated powers, would take decades and would not allow the UK to seize the opportunities of Brexit swiftly. Let me give the Committee an example to help noble Lords understand how long it would take to change all these pieces of law through primary legislation. The Procurement Bill was introduced in May 2022 and addresses only four pieces of retained EU law but contains more than 350 separate EU regulations.
Amendment 62A would replace the repeal of Section 4 with a committee providing advice to Parliament on actions over a five-year period. This would unnecessarily delay the actions being taken by this Bill to bring clarity to the complex legal effects that currently apply to business and citizens in this country. The amendment may be seeking to effect a broader replacement of the Bill’s sunset of retained EU law, although the amendment concerns Clause 3 only. The arguments on the sunset have already been addressed, although I highlight again that, in our view, a sunset is the quickest and most efficient way to achieve much-needed reform and planning for future regulatory changes. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will agree not to press his amendment.
Finally, I will move on to Amendment 141A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. The amendment would impose a set of criteria with which Ministers must comply to exercise the powers to revoke or replace. These criteria would result in legislation that is made under the powers being subject to the super-affirmative procedure. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that we have in place the right regulations that we think are the right fit for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is our view that it is only right that unduly burdensome and outdated regulations can be revoked or replaced with regulations that are proportionate. Requiring that the powers are subject to additional scrutiny is not appropriate, in our view, and requiring that legislation be subject to further scrutiny through the super-affirmative procedure would not be an effective use of parliamentary time and would result in delaying departmental delivery plans for REUL reform. This would place additional pressure on parliamentary time and could delay the Bill in delivering its objective of bringing about REUL reform. For that reason, the Government cannot accept this amendment.
In summary, Clause 1 is the backbone of this Bill. It sets the framework for an ambitious and efficient overhaul of all retained EU law that remains, in my view, a far too prominent feature of the UK’s statute book.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I think I understood from what the Minister said a few moments ago that I will not get an answer to the question I posed on Tuesday. This time I think he said that he understood the point and would reflect on it. I do not quite know what that means but it is certainly an advance on Tuesday’s position, when the Government were just going to reflect. If we have now reached understanding the point, then we are on the right track.
The point about default is whether we are risking a situation where the courts next year, and in the following years, will have to rule in cases on whether a newly discovered piece of law was retained EU law and therefore died at the end of this year or was not retained EU law and is therefore still in effect. Is it sensible that the default is that the Act is dead? Would not a more sensible default position be that the currently undiscovered but in due course discovered Act remains in force until it is repealed, amended or prolonged? I just do not understand why that uncertainty must be introduced.
Lord Callanan (Con)
For the purposes of clarification, I was merely repeating a similar point to the one made by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. We will reflect on whether it is possible to publish a comprehensive list of laws that might sunset.
I return to the point I made earlier: we are satisfied that the department has identified all the laws for which it is responsible. Lawyers are currently going through it all and our advice to them is that if they are not sure whether or not a law is retained EU law, they should default to preserving it if they think it is important. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s point.
As I was saying, Clause 1 is the backbone of the Bill. It sets the framework for an ambitious and efficient overhaul of all retained EU law. The amendments tabled by noble Lords would add unnecessary time and complex burdens to this process, which, of course, may be the purpose of many of them.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think the Minister referred to my Amendment 43. Can he do that before he sits down?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Can somebody remind me what Amendment 43 is, please? I thought it was in my notes.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Amendment 43 puts a safety net around measures that may be lost because they were not identified by the Government. The situation that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, identified sounds horrific. You would be in a situation where the Government have, through this Bill, decided that something is revoked but nobody has told anybody that it is revoked. The Government have not even told themselves that it is revoked, so is it revoked? My amendment would help deal with that. The Minister might be attracted to at least considering that.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think I referred to that in an earlier part of my speech. I addressed Amendments 42 and 43, but it all comes back to this central point of the so-called accidental sunsetting that noble Lords have raised. The noble Baroness’s amendments propose to remove the sunset entirely and replace it with systems to individually revoke each piece of EU law. I did refer to that earlier, but I will look back at what I said and if I did not refer to that directly, I will write to her. The Government think that the sunset is appropriate. I entirely accept that many Members of this House do not, but the elected House of Commons certainly did, by large majorities.
I think that I have covered most of the points now. Noble Lords might not like the answers very much but that is the Government’s position.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
One issue that I have not understood the Minister to have dealt with is the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on democracy.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I had a political difference on that point. He seems to think that secondary legislation is somehow undemocratic. If those making this complaint were to look back through Hansard to see whether they made the same complaint about the way that the law was introduced into UK law in the first place, I would have a little more sympathy with their argument. This is an essentially political disagreement about which is the most appropriate way to proceed. The Government have been elected with a big majority. One of the backbones of our programme was to get Brexit done.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think I have already taken two interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, but I will take one more.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister; I appreciate it. I thought he dealt with the democracy issue, to some extent, and cited that it was inconvenient to have to have primary law. The Minister used the Procurement Bill as his paradigm. Sitting next to him is the Lord Privy Seal, who, in a previous guise, brought forward the Procurement Bill—along with the 350-plus government amendments that accompanied it, because it was so badly drafted. If that Bill is a paradigm for anything, it is a paradigm for this Bill and the poor drafting of legislation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not think I ever used the word “inconvenient”, but reforming all this by primary legislation, whatever view you take of it, would take many years, if not decades.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have given the Government’s response to these amendments and, if noble Lords will forgive me, I will not take any more interventions. The points being made do not address individual amendments; they are general debating points, many of which were dealt with at Second Reading.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will take the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Beith.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, if it would help the Committee, I understand that this is an extremely controversial Bill for many Members of your Lordships’ House. A good deal of time is being taken over it, which is your Lordships’ pleasure. On the question of interruptions, this is Committee and Members are free to speak more than once, but we make good progress if we allow all noble Lords to develop and complete an argument.
While the Companion says:
“A member of the House who is speaking may be interrupted with a brief question for clarification”—
not a speech—it also says:
“Giving way accords with the traditions and customary courtesy of the House.”
I think that is absolutely correct. The Companion continues:
“It is, however, recognised that a member may justifiably refuse to give way”.
It gives various circumstances, including
“in the middle of an argument, or to repeated interruption”.
The Committee must allow the Minister latitude to complete his argument. If a noble Lord has a new concrete point to put forward to the Committee afterwards, that is reasonable. I also remind the Committee that the Companion says:
“Lengthy or frequent interventions should not be made, even with the consent of the member speaking.”
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I do not make lengthy or frequent interventions, but I welcome the Leader of the House giving your Lordships some guidance on this subject, which is helpful from time to time.
I raised a point that the Minister has not covered on the position of Defra, which clearly does not take the view that its corpus of material must be changed urgently. The noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said:
“Defra’s default approach will be to retain EU law unless there is a good reason either to repeal it or to reform it.”—[Official Report, 28/2/23; col. 205.]
Will the Minister comment on that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I listened to my noble friend Lord Benyon’s earlier statements and they are entirely in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. It is for Defra’s Secretary of State and Ministers to take a position on what they want to do with Defra’s large body of retained EU law. They are examining it closely. I think my noble friend said that the Defra Secretary of State said her position is that most of it is appropriate and she wants to retain it. If the Bill is passed, she can use the powers granted to her and other Ministers by the Bill to achieve that aim. I do not see any inconsistency at all.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I have one question before the Minister sits down. He said twice that Clause 1 is the backbone of the Bill. Can we take it that, if Clause 1 is removed, the Minister will withdraw the Bill altogether?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let us wait to see what happens, but the Government are committed to the Bill. As I said, it had a big majority in the elected House, so I hope noble Lords think carefully before they remove key elements of it. It is up to the House what it does with the amendments tabled.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am sad that the Government have chosen not to address the points made by this Committee concerning democracy and the proper role of this House in reviewing legislation, and are stepping away from the conversation that has been offered by the Opposition. I see this as a Bill which is headed for the Parliament Act—I cannot see any other option being offered by the Government. I hope that they will step away from that; I think that we can achieve a better result if all sides looked at how the role of this House can be properly fulfilled with this sort of legislation. I think that is really important for this House and for democracy, and therefore I personally very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will persist with his amendment—not today, obviously.
Lord Callanan (Con)
With that one final intervention, let me say to my noble friend that he knows I greatly respect his view. I think the Government’s record, certainly on all legislation that I have been responsible for taking through this House, shows that the Government always listen carefully. The Lord Privy Seal will agree that I am always very frank with the advice that I give to colleagues within Government about what is possible within the Government’s legislative sphere. We always listen very carefully to what the House has to say. The Government want to get their business through, obviously. We will reflect, as we have done, on amendments that are passed and proposed in this House, and will of course seek an alternative opinion from the House of Commons if amendments are passed. But I think that our record shows that, on some very controversial pieces of legislation, the Government listen to what the House has to say.
Lord Judge (CB)
I wonder if anybody else wants to make an intervention?
Well, tempers have got slightly frayed, have they not? But can I just feel inspired by the thought that it is either the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who has had a conversion on the road to Damascus? I would like to have a cup of tea to discuss which one of us it was, and also, more importantly, to examine the suggestion that he made at Second Reading about how we should examine this Bill which, if I may say so, I regard as a very serious suggestion which may help to implement the proposals in the amendments in this group.
I am disappointed that the Minister said, and obviously believes, that the purpose of this group of amendments is to undermine the aims of the Bill. That is not the aim of those of us who signed up to Amendment 32, nor I think is it the aim of anybody who has put his or her name down to any amendments in this group. We want the way in which we create laws to be better organised and given to Parliament for control. The Minister’s argument is that parliamentary control arrives through all the various methods that we have for looking at statutory instruments and controlling them. I am sorry to go back to something that noble Lords have all heard me go on about, but the last time that the Commons rejected a statutory instrument was in 1979. It may be a consequence of having gone into the Common Market in the first place, because the 1972 provision was that we had to accept whatever came from the Common Market and introduce it into our own legal system. We did so, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out, by putting it into a statutory instrument.
Maybe it is a human fact that, if you have a whole raft of statutory instruments which you cannot amend, because the law does not allow you to amend them, you get rather bored at the idea of trying to amend laws created by your own Parliament. But whatever the reason, the idea that we are suddenly going to wake up, after 50 years of somnolence, to the idea that Parliament is suddenly going to start having effective control over statutory instruments, is—I mean this with great respect, but I am still going to say it—a bit of a fairy tale. It is a fairy tale because it is like the story of Sleeping Beauty. There she is, fast asleep, year after year, and suddenly along comes a handsome prince who brings her back to life with a kiss. I do not see any ministerial princes in relation to this issue whose kisses would bring anyone to life, and I respectfully suggest that the proposal in the Bill would involve giving Sleeping Beauty another sleeping pill, to keep her asleep for another 50 years.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
Before my noble friend sits down, does he agree that those parts of the law that will lapse under the sunset clause will result in the law being changed without even a statutory instrument?
Lord Judge (CB)
Undoubtedly that is right, and that is why Amendment 32 specifically deals with that issue in paragraph (c). For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
See the statement relating to the Minister’s amendment at Clause 1, page 1, line 7.
Lord Callanan
“Exceptions to sunset under section 1(1) Section 1(1) does not apply (so far as it would otherwise apply) to—(a) relevant financial services law; (b) any specified instrument or provision of an instrument or anything having effect under the specified instrument or provision;(c) any specified description of minor instruments;(d) transitional, transitory or saving provision.(2) In this section—“minor instrument” means an instrument other than any Order in Council, order, rules, regulations, scheme, warrant or byelaw;“relevant financial services law” means—(a) anything referred to in Schedule 1 to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022, ignoring any regulations made under section 1(5) of that Act;(b) any rules made by the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Bank of England;(c) any generally applicable requirements (within the meaning of Part 5 of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013), or directions of general application, imposed by the Payment Systems Regulator;“specified” means specified in regulations made by a relevant national authority;“transitional, transitory or saving provision” includes any EU-derived subordinate legislation (within the meaning of section 1) or retained direct EU legislation so far as it continues to have effect or a particular effect, despite a revocation or amendment, by virtue of transitional, transitory or saving provision other than section 1B or 2 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.(3) Any reference in subsection (1) or in regulations under this section to a thing is, unless otherwise stated, to the thing as it subsists immediately before the time when the revocation under section 1(1) would otherwise apply in relation to it.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause contains new exceptions to the Clause 1 sunset (subsection (1)(c) and (d)). It also contains existing exceptions to that sunset, which are currently in subsection (2) of Clause 1 and subsection (5) of Clause 22. The exception which is currently in subsection (2) of Clause 1 is extended to include anything having effect under a specified instrument or provision.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that any relevant national authority (as defined in clause 21(1)) can extend the sunset referred to in Clause 1.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 51, I shall speak also to Amendments 53 and 56. I look forward to hearing from others who are speaking to their amendments in this group: the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, my noble friend Lady Lawlor, the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Fox, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with whose amendments in this group I have much sympathy.
Amendment 51 is a simple amendment which would leave out “Minister of the Crown” and insert “a relevant national authority”. The point of the amendment is to ensure that any relevant national authority, as defined in Clause 21(1), can extend the sunset referred to in Clause 1.
The reason I move this amendment is that the Bill currently proposes, in Clause 2, that only a Minister of the Crown can make regulations to extend the sunset period. In my view it is inappropriate that Ministers in the devolved Administrations cannot carry out the same function in respect of the retained European Union law that applies in their respective devolved competencies. Limiting this power to a Minister of the Crown appears to be at odds with paragraph 60 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill:
“The Government also remains committed to respecting the devolution settlements and the Sewel Convention, and has ensured that the Bill will not alter the devolution settlements and will not intrinsically create greater intra-UK divergence.”
The point of this amendment is to assist the Government in this regard. It provides devolved Ministers with the power to extend the sunset deadline. Amendment 53 is merely consequential on this amendment.
Amendment 56 intends to delete Clause 2(4) at line 18 of page 2. Clause 2(1) provides that:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations provide that … the reference in section 1(1) to the end of 2023”
should specify a later time. Clause 2(4) provides that the later time cannot be
“later than the end of 23 June 2026”,
which happens to be the 10th anniversary of the date on which the referendum on UK membership of the European Union was held.
In my view and that of the Law Society of Scotland, which helped me draft this amendment, government policy in relation to the applicability of retained EU law should not be made on the basis of symbolism. There is no need to set such a deadline, and I seek to understand why my noble friend the Minister is putting such an arbitrary deadline in the Bill. Were any deadline to be necessary, this should be made on the application of good legislative practice, including consideration and analysis of the legislation involved and consultation with those who will be affected by the variational revocation proposed by the regulations in question. In any event, in the opinion of the Law Society of Scotland, with which I agree, the sunset provision should operate from 31 December 2028 at the earliest. Clearly, the possibility of any extension of a sunset provision should run for a period after that date.
In an earlier debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others referred to the political dimensions of parts of the Bill. I ask my noble friend to confirm that it is not purely for political symbolism that the Government have fixed on this deadline.
I also request that the point I raised in the debate on the first group of amendments be now positively responded to. In summing up this group of amendments, can my noble friend tell me how the Government intend to respond to withdrawal of consent by the Scottish Parliament? How do the Government intend to respond to the amendments the Scottish Parliament has published and tabled in this regard? With those few remarks, and looking forward to the other contributions, I beg to move.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 54 in my name, Amendments 51 and 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 58 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, all of which I support. I thank the noble Baroness for explaining her amendment so clearly.
Amendment 51 would ensure that any national authority could extend the sunset and, usefully, points to the definition of “national authority” in Clause 21. Amendment 53 would extend the sunset until the end of 2028. The noble and learned Lord’s amendment would very helpfully give Scottish and Welsh Ministers a power to extend the sunset date for devolved retained EU law, equivalent to that conferred on a Minister of the Crown by Clause 2.
My Amendment 54 continues on from those three amendments by clarifying what provisions would be devolved and would therefore be under the competence of Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Ministers of the Northern Ireland Executive for decision, rather than a Secretary of State. I am grateful to both noble Lords for tabling their amendments, which highlight and address the anomaly that has stood out in this Bill: they give the Minister the opportunity to explain fully the reasoning behind the Government’s decision to allow an extension to the sunset beyond the end of this year for the Secretary of State while withholding the availability of such an extension for Ministers in the devolved Administrations.
I should add that the Minister has already dealt with that issue in her response to this morning’s debate but I am afraid that I missed the detail. I shall read Hansard and reserve the right to come back to this issue at a later stage if I need to, but perhaps if she or her noble friend have anything to add then they will do so. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his Amendment 58, which puts the powers of the Welsh Ministers over devolved retained EU law on a par with that of the Secretary of State.
Why do the devolved Administrations need these amendments? The arbitrary cut-off date of the end of 2023 has no logic other than a political one. The cynic in me believes that the UK Government want to clear the decks before the next election, probably next year, so that they can claim that EU law no longer exists in the UK, no matter the damage which that causes and the complexity of the task.
In an earlier debate I referred to the Welsh Government’s response to the Bill, and I shall use those points again in relation to the debate on these amendments. The Welsh Government feel that the Bill is unnecessary and that the EU laws have worked well for them. Their preference would be to continue with the present laws and amend them gradually over time as the need arises. An extension to the sunset until 2028 would allow them to deal with the process in a more timely and considered manner. The workload for Members of the devolved Administrations and their comparatively small teams of civil servants has already been referred to. They have dealt with a massive amount of UK legislation over the last few years. They have struggled with complex Bills that have provided increasing challenges to their devolved settlements and have led to increasing calls for the codification of the Sewel convention.
My Amendment 54 would clarify what is devolved and, if placed in the Bill, would bring certainty for Welsh Ministers to act on devolved matters without interference. This Bill has added further pressure on the Welsh Government, as Members have already said, and one feels the sense of their being overwhelmed. There are difficult decisions to be made, as they consider whether more civil servants will have to be employed or whether the redirecting of officers to work on the Bill will be sufficient. The latter, of course, has an impact on the legislative programme that the Senedd would wish to implement and the former has an impact on its budget.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, to whom I have listened with great interest. My Amendment 56ZA is to bring forward the extension date in Clause 2(4) to the end of 2024. There are political and practical reasons for doing so.
Politically, a general election must be held by 12 December 2024. It is important that the Government elected in 2019 not only honour their commitments to deal with inherited EU law but bring forward the extension date to coincide with, or be within striking distance of, the end of this Parliament. This is not a matter of ideology, as has been suggested by some noble Lords in respect of the sunsetting of legislation, but of working within the normal political timetable: a Government are elected, they set about implementing their programme and, when the time comes, they go to the country for the people to judge. That is how this democracy functions.
When people vote, they take a punt on the party they vote for and they vote for it to govern, for general or specific reasons. Political theorists may, and do, disagree about the extent to which voters’ knowledge of detailed programmes or their expectations are at play, but there is little argument among them that people vote for a party to become a Government, and to enact the programme or the cause with which they are identified. The current Government have, sadly, lost much time in restoring UK law; now they are finally moving to do so.
Far from being disparaged for following what is called ideology, the Government should be encouraged to honour the promise on which they were elected. They are doing so in this Bill, by providing for the sunset of EU-derived subordinate legislation and some retained direct EU law, and doing so within the current Parliament, despite the pandemic. However, they should also ensure that, even in those cases where an extension is envisaged, that extension falls within striking distance of the parliamentary timetable.
Practically, it is sensible to have the extension date as close as possible to the sunset date. Indeed, given the rapid and efficient work of civil servants, who have continued to prepare for and publish on the dashboard identified pieces of legislation, we now have sight of thousands of rules which formed part of the corpus of EU law—the acquis. Our officials are familiar with and understand these matters. I understand that some departments have been working on it for almost five years. They are well equipped to move to the next stage. It is better this happens by, or near, the end of this Parliament for the benefit of good government, for the certainty it brings to all concerned, and for the effective and efficient working of government, and that it happens without the interruption of a Dissolution, or the distraction for officials of having to prepare the program for an incoming Government. I have confidence that the UK will do a better job in protecting the many legitimate concerns which have been raised by your Lordships.
Moving swiftly will give certainty to all involved, irrespective of the vagaries of political life. In addition, there is the constitutional question, to which many noble Lords have continued to refer—probably most of the noble Lords who have spoken in Committee. This has also been raised in the two recent reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Constitution Committee, both of which illuminate a range of complex matters and considerations. I am most grateful to both committees for doing so.
None the less, I disagree with the implied role that Parliament—the legislature—should play in the matters addressed in this Bill. I urge the Government to capitalise on the work of departments for the dashboard and submit the list to Parliament, indicating which will be adopted into or adapted for UK law, and which will go. That would bring reassurance and make for greater transparency. It may also help noble Lords to engage in the sifting process, on which they will be paramount. However, there is a danger of seeing legislative scrutiny as an end in itself rather than as a means to holding the Executive to account. That has not changed. If the Government fail to command a majority in Parliament, their days are numbered.
For over a century, there has been debate about the relative significance of the relationship between the people of this country and their Government, on the one hand, and that with their Parliaments, on the other. Dicey alluded to this in 1910, as did Lord Hailsham and Tony Benn in 1978, and that debate has continued, having been given a tremendous boost by the referendum. My view is that, on the matter of retained EU law covered by this Bill, the Executive have direct authority to act. They were given it in December 2019 by the electorate, who made clear that they preferred to deal with the Executive, the Government, who appealed to them directly over the legislature, which had appeared to ignore the decision of the referendum more than three years earlier or to obstruct its execution.
On all three grounds therefore—political, practical and constitutional—not only do I support the Bill’s approach but, for the reasons given, I ask my noble friend the Minister to accept that there are also grounds for moving more rapidly to advance the extension date in Clause 2 to within striking distance of the lifetime of this Parliament.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend in her amendment. I take the view, as the Committee well knows, that if you give the bureaucracy longer to implement all of this, it will use the time. Therefore, the shorter the time we can make it, the better.
I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he considers the fact that the sunset clause is operating at the end of this year as almost the sole reason we now know roughly how many bit of retained EU legislation there are. If the sunset clause had not been in there, I do not believe that the bureaucracy of this country—pace the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—would have come up with the answer at all.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 56A in this group. Noble Lords have probably gathered by now that I profoundly hope that the Bill never reaches the statute book. However, if it does, we need to know what the heck we are talking about. My Amendment 56A requires the Government, within three months of the passage of the Bill into law, to ensure that all of us here and those whom they are going to consult out there—the businesses, consumers, workers and everyone else whom the Bill may affect—know what we are talking about; namely, by providing a definitive dashboard at that point, preferably with an indication of how the Government intend to deal with different bits of the dashboard. But, in any case, it requires that they provide a “definitive list”. If we do not have that, no one will know how we will behave, whatever the deadline.
I support the deadline proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which is reasonable, given that we are talking about 4,000 pieces of legislation, at the last count. I do not agree with the deadline in the Bill or with extending it by only one year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, suggested. The key point of my amendment is that the world needs to know what the Bill means, what it is about and, preferably, how the Government will deal with it. I do not think that the word “dashboard” has appeared in many pieces of legislation, but we need something based on the dashboard as it is currently. Noble Lords who have tried to use it will have found it rather difficult and certainly not yet definitive. So we are giving the civil servants—I can go along with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, on this to some extent—three months from the passage of the Bill to produce a definitive list of what we are talking about, and we need that.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise because neither the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, can be in their place to speak to Amendment 58. In one sense, it is neutral and designed to achieve what I hope would not be the subject of controversy: equality of treatment between the various Governments of the United Kingdom.
I have asked myself the question: why can Government Ministers have the power to extend the date—it does not matter what the date is—but that is denied to the Welsh and the Scots? There is one possible answer, and I have been so encouraged by what the Minister said today about his certainty in the infallibility of civil servants and lawyers and that nothing has been lost. But he obviously has—or might appear to have—even greater confidence in the Welsh Ministers and civil servants, because he believes that they can find everything out this year, and it is only the rather slower civil servants and lawyers in Whitehall who need longer. For reasons I tried to explain this morning, I do not believe that that can be the answer, but I may be wrong.
It is rather unpleasant to have to say this, but the second possible reason is that the Ministers in Wales and Scotland need to be incentivised by putting a gun to their head. You normally do not do that to people you want to work with to achieve a stronger union. Worse, is it that the Government do not trust them? Is that the way to build a union? Alternatively, is it that they want the Welsh and Scottish Ministers who run into difficulties because they have not been provided with the resources—I pointed out this morning that it is pretty clear that none of what the Welsh Ministers will have to deal with is on the dashboard—to come cap in hand to Whitehall to ask for dispensation? They might have overlooked the fact that where that leads to is disastrous for a union in terms of judicial review. You do not build strong unions by litigating, as one can see in other countries.
I am therefore at a complete loss to understand why the Government will not accord to the Scottish and Welsh Ministers the power they obviously think is necessary for themselves to have. I would hope that the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, would be uncontroversial, because it would be the clearest sign of the new attitude being taken by the present Government under the new Prime Minister, who has spoken warmly of the union. What better statement of the intent to treat them as equals and to treat them properly in this respect could there be than the Minister saying that this is an amendment that he readily accepts?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment led by and spoken to by my noble friend Lady Humphreys. I also support the amendment to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, just spoke. As I said on an earlier group, these Benches fully support respect for a union which is built on trust, which is what we feel is lacking here. I also want to speak to Amendment 136, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox, who had to be absent for the moment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Oh, has he come back? I am not doing too well. I am getting tired; I expect we all are.
Amendment 136 would give Parliament some power over the use of the delay to sunset powers in Clause 2(1), where powers are conferred to delay the sunsetting under Clause 1. Clause 2(1) allows Ministers by regulations to postpone the date when any retained EU law, unless expressly saved, is automatically revoked. However, as our Delegated Powers Committee has said:
“Use of this power is apt to be highly significant but is subject only to the negative procedure.”
As is well known, Parliament hardly ever overturns government proposals in a negative procedure—I believe that the last time it happened in the House of Commons was in 1979; I am subject to correction there, but it is not exactly every day. The power for Ministers in Clause 2(1) is not constrained by any requirement for consultation, any criteria to be met or any preconditions to be satisfied. We do not even know from the Bill, because no indication is given, whether the postponement would be exceptional or the general rule—we have no idea what the Government’s intentions are for delaying sunsetting. The DPRRC reminds us that the delegated powers memorandum states that
“the power is not intended for wide usage”,
but how do we know? How can we know? The memorandum also says
“Ministers have confirmed that they do not intend on allowing the usage of this power without collective agreement”.
We might think, “Oh, whose agreement does that mean? Does it mean consultation with businesses, unions, et cetera? Does it mean some kind of consensus?” No, says the DPRCC,
“this is merely a statement of the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility rather than an effective constraint on the power contained in clause 2(1)”.
We might get excited by that phrase, but “collective agreement” just means collective ministerial responsibility.
The power in Clause 2(1), combined with the scale of the task of determining which pieces of retained EU law are to be retained, revoked or amended, gives rise, in the words of the DPRRC, to
“significant uncertainty as to what the sunset date will be”.
It concludes:
“Given the importance of the power, we consider that its use merits affirmative procedure scrutiny.”
In the light of our debates today, the way that Parliament is just being cut out of this whole exercise is totally at odds with the claims made during the referendum that it would be put back in control and in the driving seat. Two years later, the EU withdrawal Act was accompanied by lots of promises about how Parliament would be the one to decide when to revoke, retain or amend retained EU law.
The point of Amendment 136 is its continuity with, in particular, the amendments we debated in the last group and on Tuesday, which set out that Parliament cannot be ignored in this process—which it will be, in effect, if there is only a negative procedure. I hope that the Government will agree that Parliament should be in the driving seat on the question of whether to delay the sunset.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, but I am afraid that I do not agree with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. I also support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and that in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Chapman.
I will make two points. First, I need to resume my adulatory exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. He is quite right that the Government are very bad at sifting the law and getting rid of old bits that are not needed any more. However, he is quite wrong to blame the Civil Service for that. The reason the Government spend very little time on thinning the statute book is that Ministers have innumerable ideas for increasing its size, and they do not wish civil servants to do anything other than carry out their wishes. It is rather like the Law Commission; it writes wonderful reports recommending simplification, but nothing happens with them. It is clear to civil servants which bits of the law, for which they are responsible, should be taken away, but they have to spend their time writing new laws, many of which are completely unnecessary and have the purpose of sending a message or setting a legally binding target in the distant future—as if a Government could bind their successor.
Secondly, there is something in the argument by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that setting an early sunset date concentrates the mind. This is the Dr Johnson argument that
“when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind”.
The problem is that we are dealing with the real world and real laws, and, by moving so fast, we will make terrible mistakes.
I believe that it is right to go for something such as the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, but we need to bear in mind that, while it is necessary, it is not sufficient—it does not put the Bill right. The discussion we had on the last group of amendments, for example, needs to be reflected in major changes to the Bill. That requirement would be in no way reduced by the Government accepting her amendment and extending the sunset clause. This is a necessary change, but not a sufficient one.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, in this Committee, as the Minister has constantly been reacting to, we seem to keep going over the same old ground. The good thing about Committee is that it is not about saying whether you support something or not; the most important part of this stage of our proceedings is to probe and better understand what the policy objectives are behind any particular legislative change. I want to focus on that.
I hear the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about the sunset clause—he has made it at every stage in Committee—being an incentive. However, I agree with my noble friend that, at the end of the day, as I think the noble Lord appreciates, we do not have a complete list. We do not know what we are talking about. Until we do, we should not be making changes to the law. That is the key to this: how does this country make its laws and how do we change our laws? It is Parliament that does that, not the Executive. The Executive might control the way we consider the proposals for changing it, but it is fundamentally a matter for Parliament.
I will pick up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. He is absolutely right: it is about how the policy objective will impact on people’s perception of how we build and maintain our union of the United Kingdom. That is really important. There has been a consistency among Governments in the settlement that we have had. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to the EU withdrawal Act. The question is, post referendum, how we deal with laws that we have had for the last 50 years. I think it is incumbent on the Government to be very clear about what that Act said. It did not just talk about Parliament. What it said is quoted in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report:
“Parliament (and, within devolved competence, the devolved legislatures) will be able to decide which elements of that law to keep, amend or repeal once the UK has left the EU.”
What is wrong with that principle? What is wrong with that legislation, which this Parliament agreed? Why are we considering something different? Why are we considering a truncated skeleton Bill that gives the power to the Secretary of State?
That is why the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, are so important. She is absolutely right to raise this—not as a question of whether we support the principle, but we should ask why there has been a policy change. Why do the Government no longer think that the principles established in the 2018 Act should apply? We need to know, because, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, it brings into question whether it is about trust, competency or resources. All these things need to be answered, and we have not had any answers so far. The Minister should give us some reassurance about that and not simply say that it is an exercise of trying to improve efficiency, because, for many people, the laws of the land protect them at work, at home and on the road. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady said, there are key provisions that we need to understand will continue to protect the people of our union.
Lord Callanan (Con)
If the noble Lord, Lord Collins, will forgive me, I do not propose to go back over previous discussions about the dashboard, sunsetting of laws, et cetera. He knows our position, and I am well aware of the Opposition’s, so if he will forgive me I will concentrate on the amendments in this group, which are all related to Clause 2, on the extension mechanism.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I appreciate that the noble Lord has been talking about the extension to 2026, but he has not explained why that is not available to the Welsh Government or the other devolved nations. Can he clarify that for me?
Lord Callanan (Con)
If the noble Baroness has some patience, I will come on to those amendments shortly.
Turning to Amendments 51, 54, 57 and 58, the power exercisable under Clause 2 will allow Ministers of the Crown to extend the sunset for specified legislation, both in reserved and devolved areas, up to 23 June 2026. This includes areas of devolved competence, and we could act on behalf of devolved Ministers if they wish to request that. Clause 2 allows for the extension of a “description of legislation”, and conferring the power on devolved Governments would, in our view, introduce additional legal complexity. Descriptions of retained EU law may cover a mix of both reserved and devolved policy areas, and this could result in retained EU law in similar areas expiring at different times in different jurisdictions in the UK, across both reserved and devolved areas. We feel that this could create additional legal uncertainty.
Devolved Ministers will of course still be able to legislate to preserve, restate or reform their retained EU law using all the other powers in the Bill. As I said, the UK Government are of course committed to working closely with the devolved Governments on all aspects of the retained EU law revoke and reform programme, including the exercising of this extension power where appropriate.
Regarding the question on the devolved Administrations, which a number of Members raised in considering earlier clauses, I met with the devolved Ministers on behalf of my previous BEIS department a few weeks ago and we discussed a number of legislative areas of concern to them, including—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, will be pleased to know—the MSL Bill, and they did not raise the REUL Bill. I am not saying that means they do not have any concerns—clearly, both the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament are concerned —but when they had the opportunity to raise it with me in a formal meeting designed to discuss legislation, they declined to do so.
Amendment 53 tabled by my noble friend would, I assume, be intended to operate in tandem with amendments to Clause 1 that propose a change in the sunset date. This will be debated in other amendment groupings and, as I have already said, proposing to change the sunset date through the extension power alone would not be appropriate.
Amendment 56A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would require the Government to publish a dashboard of all EU law which remains in force and which has not been superseded by domestic legislation within three months of the Bill being passed. I am sure the noble Lord knows what I am going to say to this: I draw his attention to the public dashboard of retained EU law that the Government published in June last year, and about which we have already had extensive discussions.
Without wishing to annoy the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, again, that dashboard is an authoritative assessment of the various types—I am worried she will reach for her thesaurus yet again and start quoting definitions at me—of retained EU law across all government departments. It is split over 400 policy areas and 21 sectors of the economy and is categorised accordingly. The dashboard was updated in January, as we have said, and we are committed to updating it regularly through 2023; the next update is planned for spring of this year. Departments are continuing their work on retained EU law, aided—again, I risk provoking the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—by the National Archives, and we anticipate an increase in the volume of retained EU law in the next publication.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
The Minister is very keen on timetables and dates. As we know, spring is movable. Can we have a firm date? If the Minister wants to hold people to timetables, he ought to have a timetable to produce a firm list. Could he please go back and ask the lawyers, in whom he has such great trust, when they can produce a list and a comprehensive explanation? I am sorry to press the Minister on this but he cannot expect everyone else to have a timetable and not adopt one himself.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not sure I want to go on the public record saying that I have great faith in lawyers, given some of the debates we have had in this House. I explained the position on the dashboard in the previous grouping. I know that many Members want to categorise this as a device by which huge swathes of essential legislation will be allowed to sunset. I have explained on three different groupings now—I will not go back there again—that we will update the dashboard as often as we can. Where possible, this will also reflect the ownership of retained EU law across the new departments created by the Prime Minister in the machinery of government changes earlier last month.
Finally, on Amendment 136, this power is subject to the negative procedure, which is the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for a power that only maintains the status quo and cannot enact any policy changes. The power is intended as a failsafe in case the reform of retained EU law is delayed by the parliamentary process or extenuating circumstances. I therefore do not believe that the listed amendments are necessary or appropriate for the Bill and hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I seek clarification about the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the power that Secretaries of State have on extension, and so on. The Minister said that it would be if the devolved Administrations request it. Does that mean that the request will be granted? This affects the settlement we have on devolution and our union. As he says, for everything for which they have responsibility they will change, amend or keep it, but if they want an extension on the sunset, they have to request it. Does that mean that, if they request it, it could be refused?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thought I had explained this in my earlier statements. I am saying that the power to extend rests with UK Ministers. Many of these areas of law cut across both UK-wide and devolved competence. We have said, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, acknowledged, that there is a power for them to just restate that law, to continue it, if they wish to do so. We would want any extension to be discussed between the Administrations. As I said, there are regular meetings between both officials and Ministers to discuss these areas, so it is certainly something we would consider. I am not giving the noble Lord an absolute assurance; I am saying it is something we would consider.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I think it is a fundamental question. If they have the power to maintain and amend, specifically something that is totally the competency of either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Senedd, and if they simply want the same power as the Secretary of State on a matter that is within their competency—I am not talking about those grey areas where you might say, “You’d best request”—is the Minister satisfied in saying that they must request it? That means there is the power to refuse, and I think that brings into question trust and confidence in our devolved institutions.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not agree with the noble Lord’s characterisation. If they wish, it is perfectly possible for them, before the sunset date, to renew that legislation. The extension mechanism is of course something that we will discuss with them as appropriate.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I have to say that that is a little disappointing as a summing-up. I take responsibility for not giving proper hearing to the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—I had not realised he had slipped away, and I had promised to speak to them, so I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for speaking to Amendment 58.
In summing up, my noble friend did not refer to the fact that the Scottish Parliament have removed their consent from the Bill—news which reached us only a week ago. My noble friend did not respond on what the Government’s approach will be to the amendments. That would help us in our deliberations.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for probing as eloquently as he has, because that is the purpose of Committee. It would be helpful to know at this stage how the Government intend to respond to the amendments from the Scottish Parliament, though they are not before us today but in a different procedure.
Obviously, I prefer my deadline to that of my noble friend, but I am very grateful to her for tabling the amendment for debate. Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, spoke very eloquently about the position in Wales.
I am slightly at a loss here. I have been a UK parliamentarian for a while now but I was born in Scotland, and it grieves me that the UK Government do not appear to be making proper commitments in what was the internal market Bill and other Acts that we have passed, not just the Bill before us today. I feel that the Government’s work is cut out for them on this group of amendments.
I am sure that we will wish to return to these issues at a later stage but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 51.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations under subsection (1) may specify an instrument or description of legislation in cases where it is not clear whether the sunset applies in relation to the instrument or description. The effect of doing so would be to extend the sunset date so far as the instrument or description of legislation is subject to the sunset.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a consequential amendment which provides clarity about the time the sunset provisions under clause 3 come into effect.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this is obviously a long group of amendments. In moving Amendment 59, I will speak briefly to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
In Amendment 59, we have a chance to look at Clause 3, on the sunset of retained EU rights, powers and liabilities. Again, the particular purpose of this amendment is to take the sunset clause in relation to the retained EU rights, powers and liabilities contained in the Bill and extend it to 31 December 2028; this reflects earlier debates that we have had.
The context of this group of amendments is to consider how EU law will be assimilated into UK law, and what the procedures and timescales for this will be. Amendments 60, 61, 64, 70 to 72, 74, 75 and 100 have a similar theme in this regard. I know my noble friend on the Front Bench thinks that he has heard these debates before, but take Amendment 60 as an example. The reason why this amendment is important is that it seeks to delete Clause 3(2), which declares that any retained EU law sunsetted by subsection (1)
“is not recognised or available in domestic law at or after that time (and, accordingly, is not to be enforced, allowed or followed).”
In the view of the Law Society of Scotland—I am grateful again to Michael Clancy for helping me prepare for today’s debate—this is
“an unnecessary provision and adds nothing to the interpretation of the clause. Accordingly it should be deleted.”
As noble Lords will realise, it is ultimately the role of lawyers to apply the law that we will, in time, pass in this Bill.
Amendment 61 provides the ability for the sunset of retained EU rights, powers and liabilities to be extended to a later time by a relevant national authority. As presently drafted, Clause 3 provides for a sunset of retained EU rights, powers and liabilities et cetera at the end of 2023. However, there is no provision to extend this sunset such as applies in relation to Clause 1. Amendment 61 makes provision for a relevant national authority to be able to make regulations to provide for such an extension.
Amendment 64 is a consequential amendment which provides clarity about the time when the sunset of the principle of the supremacy of EU law comes into effect. As we heard in debates, the principle of the supremacy of EU law was developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union and provides that, when there is a conflict between national and EU law, EU law will prevail. It is key to the EU legal order and ensures consistent application across the EU. In Retained EU Law: A Practical Guide, Duhs and Rao comment on the application of the principle. They note the comment by the House of Lords Constitution Committee that it is impossible to see in what sense the principle of supremacy of EU law could meaningfully apply in the UK once the UK has left the EU. They go on to explain that it is retained because one of the stated aims of the European Union withdrawal Act is to incorporate EU law into domestic law. To incorporate EU law into the domestic statute book while retaining the principle would imbalance the statute book. Therefore, it is logically consistent that, when retained EU law is being abolished, the principle should also be disapplied. However, the Law Society of Scotland, with which I agree, questions whether the abolition of this principle will not affect the interpretation of EU law when it becomes assimilated. Therefore, is this not a factor to be taken into account when considering how to assimilate that law? In earlier debates, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pursued this with some eloquence in relation to earlier clauses. Amendment 64 relates to Clause 4. Providing a later sunset date of 31 December 2028, as I seek to do in Amendment 64, will allow for a thorough analysis of the consequences of the removal of the principle in relation to the interpretation of assimilated law.
I also support the proposal that Clause 5 stand part of this Bill. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others, got there ahead of me, but I am delighted to lend my support. Clause 5 amends various sections of the EU withdrawal Act so that retained general principles of EU law are no longer part of UK law from the end of 2023. This clause will achieve the Government’s policy of removing retained principles of EU law. However, will not the abolition of these general principles affect the interpretation of EU law when it becomes assimilated? Should this not be taken into account when considering how to assimilate that law? The Government should therefore justify the necessity for Clause 5.
Amendment 70 looks again to extending to 31 December 2028 with regard to Clause 6. It is a consequential amendment providing clarity on precisely how and when retained EU law will be known as assimilated law. The reference to the end of 2023 in Clause 6(1) is vague, and therefore the greater precision set out in this amendment follows the precedent within the definition of IP completion day found in Section 39(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The additional time should be used for a more thoughtful approach to amending by renaming retained EU law. The choice of date should be made on the application of good legislative practice, including consideration and analysis of the legislation involved and to permit consultation with those who will be affected by the variation proposed by the regulations under Clause 19. This later date will allow for that process to be completed.
Amendment 71 is a consequential amendment, again extending the deadline for a different provision in Clause 6 to 31 December 2028, when it will become known as assimilated law. Equally, Amendment 72 has equal effect on a later provision in Clause 6. Amendment 75 again looks to extend a later part of Clause 6 to 31 December 2028. Amendment 100 is fairly self-explanatory. It is a consequential amendment to] the other amendments in this group to leave out Clause 8(4).
Before I move Amendment 59, I would like to speak to Amendment 76 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who has unfortunately had to leave and can no longer be with us. Amendment 76, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff,
“gives the Scottish and Welsh Ministers a power, equivalent to the power of Ministers of the Crown in Clause 6(6), to amend legislation in consequence of the change in terminology from ‘retained EU law’ to ‘assimilated law’ made by Clause 6.”
That goes to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in the previous group that it is important to have equality of governance across the UK between Ministers of the Crown and Ministers from devolved Governments.
With those few remarks, I hope that my noble friend will give a fair wind to the arguments that I have made to extend the sunset in those various clauses and looks favourably on the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, as well. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
Your Lordships should know that, if Amendment 59 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 61 or 67 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, Amendments 61A, 61B and 61C. I first apologise to the Committee: at the rate things are going, I may not be here by the end of the group. No discourtesy is intended. I hope to be here, but it depends on the length of your Lordships’ speeches.
These three amendments seek to exempt from the sunset in Clause 3 various categories of retained European law. These categories and why they are so important were extensively debated earlier in Committee, but they also need to be excluded from this part of the Bill. These areas relate to employment, environment, food and transport safety, and I pick them out for two reasons. First, these are the areas on which noble Lords have received most representations from organisations, businesses and others anxious about whether key areas of retained law will fall on 31 December.
Secondly, and maybe this has more appeal to the Government, each of those three areas has profound implications for international relations. They are either traded issues, such as food, issues which are clearly covered, for example by the trade agreement with the EU that we will not lessen standards, or else areas which are very complicated in their origins. I take for example transport safety, and aviation and shipping safety in particular. They are partially British laws, partially EU laws and partially international laws coming from the ICAO and various conventions. Unravelling that in any way which diminishes the effect of those laws will have very significant implications for international travel and transport, and organisations which operate in those fields.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 62, on which I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I will also mention Amendment 67, which is about Ministers being able to extend the sunset for the matters covered by Clauses 3 to 5, which at the moment is lacking. There are such powers for Clause 1, but there are not similar powers for the very important matters covered by Clauses 3 to 5. Amendment 137 is a consequential amendment and introduces our familiar theme of the affirmative procedure.
I want to concentrate on Amendment 62, because it is about removing
“the automatic deletion by the sunset clause of the rights, powers, liabilities etc currently recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 4 of the”
European Union (Withdrawal) Act. The amendment calls for no abolition until these rights, powers and liabilities et cetera have been identified, and subjected to consultation and to a report laid before the relevant legislature—Parliament or the devolved ones—detailing the consequences of abolition. We do not have a huge amount of time, so I will not laboriously go through the text of the amendment, which is before noble Lords, but they will recognise the structure of it. On these Benches, there is a pattern to the amendments that we have tabled—Amendments 48, 42 and others which escape my memory at the moment—which are all about this considered way of making decisions.
The point about Amendment 62 is that it reflects one of our consistent objections. When I say “our”, I think I can say that right across the House, at Second Reading and in three days of Committee, there is a concern that it would be almost impossible to know what domestic law would actually look like after the end of this year. This offends key principles of the rule of law, including the requirement of legal certainty, human rights protection and other matters. The risk that this amendment is designed to address is that retained EU law will be revoked unknowingly; it is particularly prevalent for Clause 3 as the dashboard is far from comprehensive on this non-legislative form of law.
These rights encompassed by Clause 3 were originally recognised domestically by Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act and were retained by Section 4 of the EUWA. However, the potential effect of Clause 3 is arguably more serious than that of Clause 1. This is because identifying retained EU law to be deleted by Clause 3 is even more difficult than for Clause 1. We have been extensively through the difficulties of identifying retained legislation. Clause 3 is not a cataloguing of legal instruments. It requires legal research, often into case law of UK courts and the ECJ, to identify which EU treaty or directive articles have been found to contain directly enforceable EU rights and obligations. There may be further rights which are so obviously directly effective that they have never been litigated, and that provides a further challenge to identifying them before the deadline.
The Government have hardly started. Of the 3,800 pieces of REUL identified so far on the dashboard, only 28 rights, powers et cetera caught by the Clause 3 sunset have been identified, and there is no power to extend the Clause 3 deadline if Ministers run out of time. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has amendments to that effect, as we do in Amendment 67. To delete all those which are not saved by Ministers by the end of this year is reckless and unnecessary, so I am sorry but I am going to take a little bit of time. Unfortunately this group comes at the end of the day, and we are all tired and we all want to get home, but these are really important matters.
I have two examples which have not yet been identified on the famous dashboard so have not been subject to any consultations with affected individuals, organisations or businesses and could have a very severe impact if they are deleted by Clause 3. The first example is Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the TFEU. This goes much further than the right to equal pay under the Equality Act 2010 because it is less restrictive with regard to comparators. For example, under Article 157, a woman teacher can compare herself to a man employed by a different education authority. They do not need to have the same employer. That type of comparison is not possible under the Equality Act. It requires comparison with a man employed by the same employer—it is usually a man; it could be the other way round but, let us face it, it is a normally a woman claiming equal pay with a man—so it has had a pretty revolutionary impact on the ability of women to get equal pay. However, Article 157 is not on the REUL dashboard as a directly effective right, so it would be repealed as a directly enforceable right by Clause 3 at the end of the year and women’s equal pay protections will be severely weakened as a result. Frankly, every woman in this country should be bombarding the Government with that fact. The Government have told us recently everything they say they are doing for women. I welcome anything that they are doing, but this drives a coach and horses through those claims.
The second example is Article 6 of the habitats directive. We have heard quite a bit about that directive, which is about the conservation of natural habitats and fauna and flora. One of the obligations in that directive has been found to be directly enforceable. It is the obligation of the competent authority, in our case the Environment Agency, in special areas of conservation and sites of international importance to habitats and species to
“take appropriate steps to avoid … the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species”
et cetera.
This is a proactive and preventive obligation. It is not enough to react to deterioration once it has happened; it requires anticipatory protections to prevent deterioration and disturbance of habitats and species. That obligation has not been fully transposed into our domestic legislation. There remains in domestic law only a weaker duty on the Environment Agency to have regard to the habitats directive, which has been found not to impose a direction obligation, as article 6 of the EU directive does. So neither the habitats directive nor the case law on it appear on the REUL dashboard.
I hope that in his reply the Minister can address those two specific examples, which are not airy-fairy but very practical and significant. As things stand, this obligation will fall off the radar at the end of the year and the requirements on competent authorities to protect special areas of conservation proactively will be weakened. I must confess that I would like to have the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, here and to hear what he thinks of that.
Lastly, I recall that among the matters that Amendment 62 would require consideration of is the effect on our obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement and the protocol on Northern Ireland. That is a consistent point that we need to make from these Benches.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I have signed Amendment 62 from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I take this opportunity to say a few words about Clauses 3 to 5 more generally.
I spoke at Second Reading and, although I have not so far burdened your Lordships by speaking in Committee, I have watched much of the first two days’ proceedings with what I can describe only as horrified fascination. Reference has been made today to the recklessness of the Bill. I hope to explain as briefly as I can that this recklessness is not confined to Clauses 1 and 2 but reflected just as strongly in Clause 3, as the noble Baroness just said, and indeed in Clauses 4 and 5.
The Prime Minister does not strike me as a reckless man. We do not know his view of the Bill but perhaps we can take something from the fact that when he was Chancellor, he was careful to ensure that the rules for which he was responsible were excluded from its ambit.
A constant theme of the committee debates on EU-derived legislation was what I think of as the warning lights on the dashboard: a catalogue of retained EU law that is not comprehensive, a hole of uncertain size where devolved legislation should be and, however much Ministers may wish to reverse the presumption of revocation, its application by default to any provisions that have fallen down what has been referred to as the back of the national sofa.
Clause 3 has attracted only a small fraction of the public attention devoted to Clauses 1 and 2 but is, if anything, even more productive of uncertainty. So far as I can work out, that uncertainty comes in three varieties.
The first uncertainty derives from the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, no definitive list exists of the rights, powers and liabilities referred to in Clause 3 or, in all probability, is even capable of being prepared. The rights, powers and liabilities referred to include all those provisions of EU treaties that are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to confer rights directly on individuals, together with directly effective rights from EU agreements with third countries and directly effective rights in EU directives, subject to qualifications. All those rights had been preserved by Section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act in the interests of legal continuity. All are now to be removed in a single big bang moment at the end of the year, with no provision equivalent to Clause 2 for extending that sunset to a later date, as highlighted in the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. These measures do not bear the brand “direct effect” on their foreheads; no one has ever made a full list of them. It is quite certain that the 28 directly effective rights listed in the dashboard, one of them repealed, can be only a tiny proportion of the total. No one has counted them, consulted on them or assessed the impact of their imminent removal.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate so far. I want to speak to Clause 3 standing part and Amendment 142, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. We are both of the firm view not only that the Bill should be withdrawn but, in particular, that it should be amended to remove Clause 3 or to retain Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal Act) 2018 to the extent that it preserves retained EU law which gives effect to human rights, equality and environmental protections in Northern Ireland, including all legislation that falls within the scope of protocol Article 2. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has already referred to that point.
Why is that the case? Undoubtedly, Clause 3 removes an additional layer of protection for human rights and equality provisions in domestic law. For example, in research undertaken for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, rights under the EU trafficking directive, which the commission has identified as falling within the scope of protocol Article 2, were identified as being safeguarded in UK law by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal Act) 2018. The repeal of Section 4 of that Act would have no bearing on enduring obligations under protocol Article 2 but it would create a risk of confusion in this regard. I do not think your Lordships can afford to tolerate that fact.
A complex, inaccessible and confusing statute book could lead to an inadvertent breach of these obligations, particularly for organisations that have statutory duties conferred on them by the UK Government to look into Article 2 provisions as they relate back to the Good Friday agreement. Moreover, where there are measures that protect equality and human rights which were retained EU law by virtue of Section 4 of the 2018 Act and which are outside the scope of protocol Article 2, these safeguards will fall unless otherwise preserved, resulting in a loss of rights.
In this regard, I have three questions for the Minister. I ask him for an assurance—perhaps in writing—that the provisions of the Bill are without prejudice to Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal Act) 2018, in the absence of this clarification being included in the Bill; and that the UK Government or the devolved authority will, before the Bill takes effect, establish a comprehensive notification process for the law that is to be sunsetted, extended or preserved. In the case of Northern Ireland, we do not have institutions at the moment. What consideration was given by the Government to compliance with Article 2 of the protocol in the development of the Bill? It seems clear to me that one hand does not know what the other hand is doing according to legislation.
Amendment 142 seeks conformity with Section 7A of the EU withdrawal Act which gives domestic effect to the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. The Minister, when responding, needs to demonstrate to your Lordships’ Committee how the Bill will be in compliance with Article 2 of the protocol. Unfortunately, the Explanatory Memorandum does not show how this will happen.
The Minister also needs to demonstrate how the Government can seek consent from Northern Ireland with the lack of an Executive and Assembly. How will the process of reviewing, revoking, replacing or restating retained EU law by 2023—some nine and a half months down the road—be carried out in Northern Ireland? Those special considerations must be taken into account. Therefore, Clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I would like briefly to refer to this group of amendments, particularly to the aspects which seek to give the Government some flexibility as they go along this road. I am not wishing to address the cut-off dates, because that has been liberally described and debated already in earlier amendments, but the points that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made.
I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is leaving the Chamber as I was about to address a question to him. I will address it to his colleague instead. I wanted to get on to the ground covered by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He talked about the possibility that some of the actions the Government wish to take will cut across our obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement or other international agreements and treaties, and will put the Government of the day in a very awkward and difficult position. Flexibility would give them a way of handling that.
I know that the author of this Bill wanted, like Ulysses, to stop his ears with wax and tie himself to the mast—the only difference being that he would not be on the boat when it hit the rocks. Other than that, that was what he was trying to do, and I do not think that is a sensible thing to do. Some flexibility, as suggested by some of these amendments, would be better. I say that because, until the events of Monday this week and the announcement of the Windsor Framework, one could imagine that the Government would have just said too bad, or words that are not repeatable in this Committee used by the former Prime Minister. However, I do not think that is the situation we are in now. We are in a situation where the Prime Minister and the Government have said that they wish to move in the direction of greater co-operation and flexibility, working with the EU. But here they are, stopping their ears with wax, tying themselves to the mast and making it very difficult to do that.
Here are my questions. It is no secret that the ambassadors of member states and of the Commission are deeply disturbed by this Bill. Anyone who has had any contact with them will know that. Could the Government say if they have received any representations about this Bill from any of the member states or the Commission? If so, what was the nature of those representations and what has their response been? I know the Minister does not much like being interrupted when he is winding up, so I hope he will answer that question because it will save me the trouble of interrupting him. His colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will no doubt tell him what the question was. I would be grateful to hear the answer.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 76, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, cannot be in her place. I made all the arguments in relation to Amendment 58, and I do not intend to repeat them. I await with great interest the ingenious answer that will come out this time for treating the nations with inequality.
I will take one minute to support Amendment 62 most strongly. So far, we have been dealing with known knowns: we know that there is legislation. There is a bit of the known that needs due diligence, but that falls within the same category, and we should get there on legislation. But I will not be satisfied about that until I see how it has been searched for. However, in this area, we move into the known unknowns. The Bill shows a profound misunderstanding of the genius of the common law and the huge benefit of it and our way of doing things in this country. We are like magpies: we take good things from places and adapt them.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments in my name. It is late, and I will try to keep this as short as possible, first addressing Amendment 67. Amendment 62, in the names of my noble friend Lady Ludford and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, focuses on much of the same ground as Amendment 67, and there has been a lot of wise discussion in that area. I support their points but do not need to echo them. However, I add that Clause 3 has the effect of sunsetting retained EU rights, powers, liabilities, et cetera. Unlike Clause 1, the Bill does not allow the Clause 3 deadline to be extended, which increases the likelihood of accidental deletions. Why is that extension not advanced for Clause 3?
I will focus on the proposal that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill. This is intended to probe the effect of abolishing the general principles of EU law—we briefly heard from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on that process, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also alluded to this. I remind your Lordships that we have established that much EU law is, as the Minister described it, a “mishmash” of interwoven UK and EU-derived law. I think that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, called, rather more alarmingly, the “interpenetration” of law. Until now, the general principles of EU law have been used by lawyers, court and tribunals in the UK to interpret the EU part of that mishmash. These general principles include legal certainty, equal treatment, proportionality, non-retroactivity, effectiveness, equivalence and respect for fundamental rights, among others—like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I was unable to find a definitive list.
A further example of a general principle of EU law is the Marleasing principle. Looking at experienced lawyers opposite, I feel I am probably entering terrible territory by even mentioning this. But my understanding is that the application of this principle means that, if no national law at all has been passed to comply with a directive, it was held that having national legislation passed specifically in the name of the directive was not necessary. In any case, the Bill does away with this, so there may be some lasting effect. So this amendment probes the practical effect of abolishing direct-effect supremacy, and the general principles of EU law, taken together.
As we know, the UK regulations set out the letter of a law, the bare bones. However, in spite of the excellent work done in this Chamber to achieve clarity in those laws, there is often uncertainty—noble Lords will find that hard to believe—as to what the words actually mean.
Where the regulations give effect to a directive, such as the working time directive, the courts use the directive to help them understand the meaning of the regulations. Directives, unlike UK law, set out their purpose and their aims. Those aims help a court or tribunal to interpret the regulation. My understanding is that during the process of assimilation, new assimilated law loses contact with the EU directive and the EU-derived part of the law in that mishmash. It loses the basis for ongoing interpretation.
I can understand, post Brexit, why on the face of it the Government wish to sweep away all mention of EU law and EU directives—I get that. However, the meaning and understanding of the regulations, as we now have them—the Minister’s mishmash—has taken years and many different appeal cases, and much individual expense, to give the level of understanding of the law and the regulation that we now enjoy.
For example, litigation began in 2001 over whether workers were able to carry over their annual leave when they were too sick to take it. This was finally settled many cases later by Plumb in 2015—14 years later—with a carryover right. This is not unusual. Common law incrementally decides issues before a settled understanding emerges. The default of the Bill is to sweep away all this accrued understanding or at least put it in question and not provide any clear statement of what the law will be going forward.
If the Government do not want to change the settled meaning of UK law as it is interpreted today, my understanding is that they would need to audit all the conforming interpretations that have affected regulations from court decisions and translate those court decisions into the body of the new or replacement regulations. Is that what the Minister intends? If so, that intention should be inserted in the Bill. However, I suspect this is not the plan. In that case, even if all the regulations were preserved in assimilated law, the abolition of direct application, supremacy and general principles will result in the UK waking up on 1 January 2024 to a new year with large swathes of law that no lawyer will be able accurately to predict or advise on, causing great uncertainty—the sort of uncertainty that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, alluded to.
A colleague said to me as I was trying to explain this, “Surely no judge would want to throw out all that case law.” That is where we come to the interrelation of Clause 7. However, we will not know what the judges decide until a case has been brought. Let us not forget that there are thousands of laws here, which could mean thousands of potential tests. We will not know how the test will end until a judge rules on it—probably more than once, as experience shows.
Can the Minister explain why there is no plan to port the interpretation and case of the laws that we have within the mishmash into the assimilated law as we go forward? If there are plans, could he explain what they are?
Lord Hacking (Lab)
It is quite clear from what the noble Lord said to the Committee that he is in favour of Amendment 62. It seems to me that, as a result of what he has said, he must be opposed to Clause 3 standing part of the Bill. I wonder whether he could confirm that.
Lord Fox (LD)
Yes, absolutely. I made the point about Clause 3 missing out on the sunset laws. That is clearly part of my dissatisfaction. I also said that I supported, but did not echo, the wise words on Amendment 62. In the interests of brevity, I was trying not to cover everything.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, also in the interests of brevity, I will just say that there is real fear and concern that we will end up with a massive mishmash of legal confusion in this area. That concern is very real in the world of work, in particular in areas such as equality—not least in equal pay for work of equal value and protection for insecure workers, where so many advances have depended on EU-derived legislation and case law. Previous judgments will no longer be binding, and issues will have to go through the judicial system again. As Michael Ford KC wrote in the Financial Times:
“Workers and employers will be back at square one. The whole lengthy and expensive process of appeals will have to be repeated. Even the most enthusiastic lawyer views such a … task with dismay.”
Having to argue those key points again will be costly and cause delays. Frankly, that usually benefits those with the biggest wallets.
The Bill hands huge powers to, and puts enormous pressure on, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, which have been instructed to depart from case law informed by EU law if they consider it right to do so. Of course, the chances are that there will be an avalanche of requests from lower courts or tribunals making references to higher courts about departing from retained EU case law. The result will be workers and employers spending more time in court—in a system that already has huge delays—in a desperate attempt to find out what the law now means.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I will make a short point about Amendment 61A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Whitty. In the amendment, he seeks to exclude from the effect of Clause 3 employment rights and health and safety at work. At the end of Tuesday, I sought to demonstrate that health and safety at work was a protected area which could not be repealed or amended under the Bill because of the protection given by the trade and co-operation agreement, which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned this evening. I will explain why it covers some but not all employment rights.
There are two ways in which it operates. The first is via Article 387, which requires that a party, including the UK,
“shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, its labour and social levels of protection below the levels in place at the end of the transition period, including by failing to effectively enforce its law and standards.”
Indeed, Article 387.4 requires that:
“The Parties shall continue to strive to increase their respective labour and social levels of protection”.
On Tuesday, I pointed out that labour and social levels of protection are defined by Article 386, which includes not only
“occupational health and safety standards”
but
“fundamental rights at work … fair working conditions and employment standards … information and consultation rights at company level; or … restructuring of undertakings.”
It is quite apparent that many of the EU laws on employment are protected by that definition.
The other way in which some employment rights are protected is by Article 399.5:
“Each Party commits to implementing all the ILO Conventions that the United Kingdom and the Member States have respectively ratified and the different provisions of the European Social Charter that, as members of the Council of Europe, the Member States and the United Kingdom have respectively accepted.”
I will not reiterate the many ILO conventions which protect employment rights at work, but Members of the Committee may not be so familiar with the European Social Charter. I will not read the text of the relevant provisions, but I will just mention that Article 2 protects the right to just conditions of work; Article 3 protects the right to safe and healthy working conditions; Article 4 protects the right to a fair remuneration; Article 7 concerns the right of children and young persons to protection; and Article 8 concerns the right of employed women to protection. There are other provisions as well.
For these reasons, it appears to me that my noble friend Lord Whitty is right to seek protection for employment rights, or at least some employment rights, that are covered within those two ambits, as well as health and safety at work.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thought the Bill was bad, but this debate has been quite shocking. I really do not think the Government know what they are doing with these clauses. I do not think that, when the Bill was initially proposed while the Government were having their moment of madness last autumn, we thought that something like Clause 3 would be before Parliament in March the following year. Reckless does not quite cover it; it is as if the Government got completely drunk and now we have a hell of a hangover to deal with.
It is clear from the debate we had earlier in the week, and from the letter, that the Government have not appreciated what the impact of this clause will be. It would be very helpful if we could have a statement or a letter from the Government explaining exactly what they intend to happen as a consequence of this clause, because, listening to the debate, I think that things will emerge that Ministers have not fully taken into account. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, most sincerely for her Amendment 62; it is at least an attempt to put some safeguards around what could be about to happen. I am particularly concerned by the high-handed and nonchalant way in which Ministers are dealing with the issue of Northern Ireland. I have seen no evidence at all that the Government have appreciated the impact that what they are about to do could have on the agreement that they have only just entered into with the EU.
I have not read the full text of the agreement—I do not pretend to have done—but I have read the political declaration. It seems very clear that, underpinning the political declaration of the Windsor Framework, limited divergence will be permitted between the EU and the UK, to maintain the soft border arrangements on the island of Ireland. That is clearly what is intended by the political declaration; I expect that is why the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is so upset about it and does not seem to want to support it. That limited divergence is put at risk by the measures in the Bill.
The Minister earlier today did not want to engage with that. She said she was absolutely certain that I was wrong. I think that I am right and she is wrong. I would like a letter from the Minister for the Library explaining why the Government are so sure of themselves on that issue, because these are incredibly important questions; we cannot just be expected to skirt over them and take flippant assurances from the Benches opposite. Clearly, the consequences of Clause 3 and the following clauses may have dramatic impacts. They create great uncertainty. I just do not understand how Ministers can be so sure or even expect us to engage sensibly in this discussion, given what we have just heard.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie’s comments and her amendment are incredibly important. I hope the Government will reflect seriously on this debate. How can the Government think that the rights, liabilities and powers in Clause 3 will ever be reflected properly in the dashboard process? How is that supposed to work? Unless it works, how on earth are judges or citizens expected to make decisions, or employers expected to know what their responsibilities and duties are, if we go ahead with this clause?
Ministers will no doubt say that we are worrying unnecessarily and are taking too much time—that it is 7.05 pm. I do not care that it is 7.05 pm; these issues are just so important. I ask the Minister, please, not to treat this House in the high-handed way that Ministers do on occasion. It is not just him; I am sure others do too. These are critical questions that we are asking. If he cannot answer adequately today, please can he commit to going away and coming back with something more substantial? I can tell him now: this clause does not leave this House and go back to the other end given the debate that we have just heard. The mood of the Committee seems to be one of not wanting this to go forward. We are going to face this on Report.
I will be asked by my Chief Whip to prioritise votes and make sure that we do not have too many. I think that is going to be quite a challenge given what we have heard today, so the more the Government can themselves reflect and consider what has been said—particularly on the issues around Northern Ireland—the better. They must show us that they have done some proper thinking about that and appreciate the consequences of the Bill in relation to the agreement that was made only on Monday. That is the only way in which we can move forward.
I apologise for taking up a little more of the Minister’s time, but I am very patient, and I will sit here until he has given us the assurances we need. He can expect some interventions—irritating though he finds them—if he attempts not to answer the questions raised by noble Lords as part of this discussion.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am very happy to stay as long and late as the House requires. I was very happy to stay later the other night as well, but I believe it is the noble Baroness’s party that said it wanted to go home early and that we therefore needed to finish.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
There is no need for these sorts of insults; we have agreed times.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Hang on a second—I made that point because the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said that I was being dismissive of her points and that it was 7.05 pm and that I wanted to go. I have relayed that I am very happy to stay as long as the House requires, but I believe it was the Labour Party that said it wanted to finish early the other night, and at 7 pm tonight.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Anyway, let us move on to the issues.
Let me first introduce government Amendments 65 and 66, which work together to remove a cross-reference in this Bill to Section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018. This new Section 183A is due to be inserted into the Data Protection Act by the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Since the DPDI Bill is not anticipated to receive Royal Assent in this parliamentary Session, new Section 183A will not exist when this Bill receives Royal Assent. As such, noble Lords will understand that, for practical reasons, it is necessary to remove the cross-reference. Let me reassure the House that the Government are committed to maintaining high data protection standards and a functioning data protection regime. At this stage, we are minded to use the DPDI Bill to insert the reference to Section 183A of the Data Protection Act into Section 5(A3) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Amendments 73, 77, 78, 79 and 80 are to Clause 6 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill. These amendments are consequential to the Bill policy in Clause 6 which establishes “assimilated law” as a new body of law from the end of 2023. These changes are required to end the special status of retained EU law. Amendments 73 and 77 rename two further terms related to retained EU law, so that from the end of 2023 they will be renamed as terms related to “assimilated law”. The consequential Amendments 78, 79 and 80 make textual amendments to individual references in priority pieces of primary legislation which support the interpretation of retained EU law on the statute book, so that from the end of 2023 the identified references to retained EU law and related terms will be changed to references to “assimilated law” and related terms. These amendments are being tabled now purely for purposes of legal clarity and legal accessibility.
Turning to the non-government amendments, I start with Clause 3, which, as noble Lords have observed, repeals Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Amendments to this clause seek to delay that repeal and thus a core part of the Government’s ambitious programme of retained EU law reform.
The matters saved by Section 4 consist largely of rights, obligations and remedies which overlap with rights already well established by domestic law. In our view, these overlaps can cause confusion, so we should no longer perpetuate this situation. Work is already well under way across departments to identify the implications of the repeal of Section 4 of the 2018 Act, and the Bill provides adequate powers to codify and safeguard relevant rights in domestic statute as needed.
Indeed, as Sir Stephen Laws, ex-First Parliamentary Counsel, said:
“The ideal for the law is that all law can be found from easily accessible sources and relied on to mean what it says without being qualified by complex, obscure or general glosses, or involving complex historical research to find out whether it is valid. The Bill, by removing everything that is subject to those disadvantages—because the ideal is not the situation at the moment for retained EU law—is an important step towards securing that the ideal is achieved, by forcing the decisions to be made about how this law can be properly integrated into UK law quickly. Things will only get worse if that does not happen.”
That will not mean the blanket removal of rights. Rather, combined with other measures in our Bill, it will result in the codification of rights in specific policy areas. This clarification will provide certainty for businesses and citizens in this country.
On Amendment 59 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh, although I appreciate the concerns about the ambitious timetable we have set, I can assure her that the retained EU law reform programme is well under way and will ensure that the necessary legislation is in place by the sunset deadline.
Turning to Amendment 60, removing just Clause 3(2), as the amendment aims to do, would reduce legal certainty. We consider that this amendment is intended to operate in conjunction with Amendment 61, which seeks to delay the repeal of Section 4, so let me turn to that amendment.
We do not believe it is necessary to delay the repeal of Section 4. Where required, the Government will use the powers in the Bill to codify specific rights clearly and accessibly in domestic statute, and work is indeed under way to do so. These powers are also conferred on the devolved Governments, with whom we will of course continue to work closely to ensure that the most efficient and appropriate approach to exercising powers is taken in a way that provides certainty for all parts of our United Kingdom.
Amendments 61A, 61B and 61C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—I know he is no longer in his place but he apologised for having to leave, so I will address his points—relate to policy-specific carve-outs from the measures in Clause 3 and from the sunset clauses more broadly. We have already discussed carve-outs extensively in previous groupings, and I do wish to rehash the same arguments. However, I reiterate that the Government do not see the need for carve-outs in individual departments, policy areas or sectors.
The intention of the proposed new clause under Amendment 62, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is to leave matters saved by Section 4 of the 2018 Act on our statute book for longer—perhaps in some cases indefinitely. The noble Baroness mentioned in particular Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which is on equal work for equal pay. Equal pay already exists in UK statute. However, we recognise that here, the expression of the EU-based right can be slightly wider than its expression in UK legislation. That is why we have put powers in the Bill to codify the policy intent of these interpretive effects, such as Section 4 rights, where we need to. It would be for the Government Equalities Office and other government departments to decide whether to use the restatement powers in Clauses 12 and 13 to codify those principles.
The noble Baroness also mentioned Article 6—
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. Of course, if you are going to use those codification powers, you have to know what you are codifying. I think he said a moment ago that work is under way to identify the rights, powers, liabilities, et cetera which are saved by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Only 28 of those rights, powers and liabilities have so far found their way into the dashboard. How many have now been identified now, and when does the Minister anticipate that the work will be complete?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said, the work is under way at the moment across all the rights codified in those sections. As the noble Lord said in his speech, this is a complicated area of law. I do not want to get into a complicated legal argument, so it is perhaps best if I seek advice from the lawyers and write to him, as he suggested, on the legal technicalities of that area.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I think I must have failed to get across, when I addressed the Committee earlier, that we are not here dealing with legal technicalities but with massive uncertainties at the very heart of the Bill, uncertainties that relate not to legislation but belong to legal principle. I tried to help by saying how I thought Clauses 3 to 5 related to Clause 7. If I was right about that, the task of applying any European authority under Clause 7 becomes astonishingly difficult, because a court has to read every one and see whether it contains general principles, direct effects or supremacy before it can even decide whether it is going to apply it or not. I hope I did not leave the Minister with the impression that these are legal technicalities, and I hope that, if he writes to the Committee about this, we will have a full explanation of how Clauses 3 to 5 and Clause 7 are intended to relate to each other.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will talk to the lawyers and attempt to get the noble Lord an answer to his concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned the habitats directive. I am slightly loath to go back there, after the long discussion with my noble friend Lord Benyon on Tuesday, but let me restate again for the benefit of the record that the Government have been clear about the importance of environmental protection across the UK, not least through the Environment Act, which includes a legally binding target to halt the decline of nature by 2030. As I emphasised earlier in the debate, we are committed to meeting this target and we will of course not undermine our obligations to the environment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I apologise to the Minister, but that is not the point I was asking about. I am no expert on the habitats directive, but a specific clause has been interpreted in case law as imposing a preventive, proactive duty—in our case, on the Environment Agency. Will that be retained?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Case law is being retained. Case law is not being abolished, it will still exist, and courts will still be able to take account of it. Removing the complex and opaque legal gloss associated with Section 4 of the 2018 Act will improve the clarity of our domestic law. It would be, in our view, inappropriate, to leave these provisions on our statute book, and we wish to end them as soon as reasonably practicable. We consequently also oppose Amendment 137, which specifies that any regulation made under the power conferred by Amendment 62 would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.
Lord Fox (LD)
I think the Minister is departing from Clause 3. This sounds like small beer compared to some of the issues that colleagues have raised, but I asked a specific question about the difference in approach to the extension of sunsetting between Clauses 1 and 3, and I hoped the Minister would address that—if he was intending to.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I have some more remarks on Clause 3. Let me come to the end of them and, if the noble Lord does not feel that he has got an answer, we can talk about that further then.
I was going to move on to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who tabled notice of her intention to oppose Clause 3 stand part of the Bill. For the reasons set out, the repeal of Section 4 of the 2018 Act is, in our view, a crucial part of the Government’s agenda to take back control of our statute book and improve legal clarity. I completely agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, about the Windsor Framework. We do not think this Bill has any effect on the agreements made. Of course, we will examine the text of that very closely, but it goes without saying that the Government are completely committed to the agreement and we would not wish to do anything in either this or future legislation to impinge on what I view as a fantastic agreement.
Moving on, Clause 4 abolishes the principle of the supremacy of EU law. I do not think that I have any notes to address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, so let me say that we will include that in the general write-around about—well, I will not refer to them as legal technicalities because the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will tell me that they are extremely important legal principles. I will seek legal advice and get a proper answer for the Committee.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
The Committee heard from a former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that these principles go to the heart of how common law is applied in this country. I do not think that that is a legal technicality.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s point but I will get him a proper answer from the lawyers.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
When the Minister gets us that proper answer, I would be grateful if he could explain—I do not understand this, but I do not know whether others do; perhaps some noble and learned Lords understand it—the difference between the “interpretive effects” that were mentioned in the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and case law. What is the impact of that difference? The noble Baroness’s letter clearly states that the Bill will
“repeal retained EU interpretive effects.”
I am not clear what that means; I wonder whether the Minister could include that in his letter.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I would be happy to include it in the letter. I hesitate to give what I think is a legal definition in front of so many noble and learned Lords but I am told that interpretive effects are not case law. As I understand them, the interpretive effects are the general principles of EU law that have been used to apply to the interpretation of retained EU law because it was EU-originated. We wish to abolish interpretive effects, but that does not impinge on the case law, which of course remains.
Moving on, Clause 4 abolishes the principle of the supremacy of EU law for the end of 2023 in so far as it still applies to pre-2021 legislation. Amendment 64 would delay the abolition of the retained principle of EU supremacy until the end of 2028. There is cross-party support for the end of supremacy. In the House of Commons, Justin Madders MP—he is a spokesman for the Labour Party, I believe—said:
“Overall, we agree that there has to be an end to EU supremacy in UK law”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 24/11/22; col. 186.]
If left unreformed, supremacy would remain a constitutional anachronism on our statute book. We believe that it is simply incompatible with our status as an independent, sovereign nation, and we therefore wish to end it as soon as we can.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Can I just explain Justin’s comments? The Minister has provoked me. Clearly, the shadow Minister was talking about a sane, considered process by which this matter is dealt with, not the lunacy that the Minister is trying to promote today.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not think he said that; he said that there has to be an end to EU supremacy in UK law. While we are all swapping letters, perhaps the Labour Party might want to write us a letter to clarify what he meant. I am not being serious, of course; it is not the Labour Party’s job to do that.
Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, seeks to clarify that this Bill does not disturb Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That section makes the rights and obligations in the withdrawal agreement available in domestic law. It also provides that domestic legislation must be read and given effect subject to those rights and obligations. I can reassure the noble Baroness that this Bill will not disturb Section 7A of the 2018 Act. I can also assure her that the Bill provides powers to restate rights and obligations required for Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol as needed. The Government will ensure that all necessary legislation is in place by the Bill’s sunset date to uphold all the commitments made under Article 2.
Amendment 100, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, would remove the sunset date for the compatibility power in Clause 8. It is not necessary to have a power to specify legislative hierarchies beyond 23 June 2026, by which time the Government will have exercised the power as needed.
I move on to Clause 5. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has given notice of his intention to oppose the question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. General principles of EU law were developed in CJEU case law, with which EU institutions and member states must comply. I submit that it is clearly no longer suitable for our status as an independent nation outside the EU—however much the Liberal Democrats wish that not to be the case—for these specific principles to continue forming part of UK law. The powers in the Bill allow the Government to codify clearly any necessary effects to bring clarity to our domestic statute book.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but that remark was gratuitous. The point is about legal certainty. It is not about whether we as a party, or anybody else, would have wanted to remain in the EU—it is clear that we would. It is about whether the law will be clear, and whether the judges will be able to operate it, and whether businesses, unions and whoever will know what they are supposed to be doing. That is the point that we have been trying to make over four days on this Bill. Brexit is irrelevant to this discussion, and I do not believe I have used the word once in these proceedings. What is important is whether the law will be able to be operated with certainty, clarity and predictability.
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is fair enough; it was a slightly gratuitous point. I actually agree with the noble Baroness—we want the law to be as clear and accessible as possible. That is why we do not believe that the general principles of EU law, which of course were developed by the CJEU for use primarily by EU institutions and member states, should be relevant to the UK now that we are an independent nation, whatever our differences of opinion might have been on that.
Lord Fox (LD)
I think I failed to explain why I think that they are relevant. They are relevant because of the EU retained law part of the Minister’s mishmash, which gets assimilated into UK law. The interpretation of that EU part, which is now UK law, somehow loses the basis upon which the interpretation was made. I explained that I understood why the Government wanted to do this, but the fact that they become separated is an issue. I suggested a way for those interpretations to be ported across, specifically and explicitly for each one. If that is not the way it will be done and the Minister says that somehow this is going to happen, then at some point in this debate we need to understand. If it is not in the letter, then it needs to be later in this debate.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I made the point earlier that, when departments are reviewing their legislation and any modifications they might need to make to statutory instruments, they will of course want to take account of the fact that the general principles of EU law will no longer apply in the UK and make any modifications that would be required.
I move on to the somewhat related point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. Let me be clear that retained case law—this comes back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—is not and cannot be directly sunsetted, as it consists of judges’ judgments, which are essentially statements of historical fact. Where general principles and other interpretive effects are removed by the Bill in Clauses 3 to 5, it would be expected that courts would continue to consider relevant case law where it is clear from the restatement that that is the intention.
Amendment 67 would introduce an extension power for the removal of general principles of EU law, as well as the abolition of supremacy and the repeal of Section 4 of the 2018 Act, as I have already set out. Removing these complex legal glosses will, in my view, satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and improve the clarity of our domestic law. It is imperative that we end them as soon as is reasonably practicable.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Minister has made a number of commitments about providing letters and further information to the Committee, for which we are grateful. We are due to sit for an additional day on Monday. I do not think it is reasonable to ask the Committee to conclude its deliberations on the Bill without sight of the further information that the Minister has promised, so will he commit that we will receive it in good time before we start consideration on Monday—not two minutes before the Committee starts, but in adequate time for us to consider it before we begin? It would not be right for us to be asked to conclude Committee without it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am not going to give an absolute commitment, but I will talk to the lawyers. On the famous letter from my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, I actually pushed officials to try to assimilate the contents of the letter and get it out to the Committee as quickly as possible, because I thought noble Lords would want to see it before we considered the Bill on a further day. They worked very late into the evening to get the letter out, after going through all the necessary approvals that the Government need to go through. Given some of the criticisms, I wish I had not bothered. Nevertheless, I still think it was helpful to noble Lords and will do my best to get them the letter to which the noble Baroness referred.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. It reflects not least the concerns of the legal practitioners, who will be left to interpret the status of the laws. But what concerns me is that the Minister and the department are perhaps in denial about the level of concern that has been expressed not just in the Committee this afternoon but in those examples from various sectors that we have heard today. This has been a beneficial session in probing where we can reach agreement before Report to help the Government get the Bill through. I know that my noble friend cares very deeply and passionately about that.
The Committee accepts that the supremacy of EU law will go but my noble friend needs to consider whether the abolition of this principle will affect the interpretation of EU law when it comes to being assimilated. Is that not a factor to take into account in how we assimilate that law? I leave my noble friend and the Committee with that thought.
However, I believe that we have established some ground rules during this debate, so that we can regroup before Report. I, among others, look forward to receiving the letter from my noble friend and, at this stage, beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out a reference to section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018 (inserted by clause 43 of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill) from section 5(A3) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (inserted by Clause 4 of the Bill).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to Clause 4, page 3, line 2.