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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
My Department has carried out a comprehensive campaign of communication since April 2022 to promote pension credit. I am pleased to inform the House that the average number of pension credit applications is up 73% compared with this time last year.
Simon Baynes
I strongly backed my right hon. Friend’s campaign in December last year, particularly in my Clwyd South constituency. Will he give us a further assessment of how effective that campaign has been in Wales and across the rest of the UK?
Mel Stride
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has been doing in his constituency on this matter. I can inform him that for the week commencing 12 December, for example, there were 7,200 claims, which is a 177% increase compared with this time last year.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
This is not party political; we all want to make sure that pensioners in need get the help and support that they can get. The Secretary of State will understand, though, that in communities such as mine there are still too many pensioners eligible for pension credit who are not yet accessing it. Given the success of his campaign so far, what further will he do to ensure that the really hard-to-reach pensioners get the support that they deserve and need?
Mel Stride
I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question and the non-partisan way in which he presented it. He is absolutely right; there must be no let-up in this matter. Two thirds of those we believe are eligible for pension credit receive it, but that means that one third do not. We cannot identify them precisely in advance, which is why communication is so important. We will write to 11,000 pensioners soon to tell them about the uprating and to stress the point about pension credit. From today, we are launching television advertisements to further that message.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The Government seem to be trying to pat themselves on the back after years of failure on pension credit. As we just heard, hundreds of thousands of pensioners are still missing out on a vital top-up benefit that is needed to get them through the cost of living crisis. Why has the Government’s response been so ineffective, and what on earth will the Government do about their dismal failure to help pensioners during their hour of need?
Mel Stride
I am very surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman pose that question, first, because of his party’s record on this matter when they were in government; and secondly, because of the clear progress that I have outlined to the House today and on previous occasions about the increase in take-up that the Government are securing.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
My review of the state pension age is under way. The review will consider a wide range of evidence, including two independent reports, to assess whether the rules on pensionable age remain appropriate.
Patrick Grady
I hope that the evidence that the Secretary of State examines includes analysis by Age UK that 1.5 million pre-state pension age households have no savings at all. Age UK warns that accelerating the rise of the state pension age
“will condemn millions to a miserable and impoverished run up to retirement”.
Instead of risking that increase in pensioner poverty, should he not establish an independent pensions and savings commission to ensure that pension policies are fit for purpose and reflect the demographic needs of different parts of the United Kingdom?
Mel Stride
The two reports to which I have just referred are independent—from the Government Actuary’s Department, on matters such as life expectancy; and from Baroness Neville-Rolfe, on the metrics that should be taken into account in determining when the next increase in the state pension age should occur. We certainly take into account issues such as pensioner poverty, on which we have an excellent record. In fact, relative pensioner poverty before housing has halved since 1999, and there are 400,000 fewer pensioners in absolute poverty—that is before or after housing—compared with 2009-10.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Is it realistic to continue to expect people to spend a third of their lives on a pension?
Mel Stride
I have great respect for my right hon. Friend, but I am afraid that although he tempts me to answer that question, I cannot prejudge the decisions that I will take in the review.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Prime Minister has asked me to review the matter of economic inactivity, and the results of that review will be shared with the House shortly.
Rob Butler
One of the keys to getting working-age people to return to work is obviously providing the right incentives, such as the training programmes and advice provided by my right hon. Friend’s Department—the likes of Jobcentre Plus—but it is also important to remove disincentives. What discussions is he having with Treasury colleagues about ensuring that tax policy, especially on pensions, does not stand in the way of people who have skills and experience staying in, or returning to, the workplace?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter, which of course is well known to the Chancellor and Treasury colleagues. We have a variety of discussions with the Treasury on those kinds of matters and others. Of course, tax policy is a matter for the Treasury.
Stephen Hammond
I commend my right hon. Friend for the work that the Department is doing to try to reduce economic inactivity. He will know that many of the over-50s moving out of employment and into economic inactivity are concentrated in the self-employed and part-time workforces. Can he confirm that his review will look at measures to bring those people back into the workforce?
Mel Stride
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are most certainly looking carefully at that particular cohort of people who have prematurely retired—if I may use that term—and are over the age of 50. It is one of the biggest cohorts that we are trying to encourage back into the workforce, and I will have more to say on that matter in due course.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The pandemic made a revolutionary change to the way we work. I know the Secretary of State has heard me mention Work Hull: Work Happy before, but research published today by the Phoenix Group on economic inactivity in the over-50s states that
“flexible work…support with new technologies…and the opportunity to work from home”
are favoured support strands for people returning to work. Will the Secretary of State therefore back Labour’s plan to make flexible working a force for good for all workers?
Mel Stride
I very much welcome the hon. Lady’s question—I certainly enjoyed my time working with her on the Treasury Committee, where she raised these matters with great passion. She is absolutely right that flexible working is the way forward, and not just for the over-50s but often for those who have disabilities. This is a big opportunity that we need to seize.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I understand that the latest figures reveal that there are 788,000 young people not in employment, education or training. Does the Secretary of State regard that as an acceptable figure, and if not, how and when is he going to tackle it?
Mel Stride
Even one person in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman refers to is one too many. We are going to come forward very shortly with further measures on how we address those particular people, and at the time of the Budget on 15 March—which is very close now—the hon. Gentleman will probably learn more.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I understand that Ministers are struggling to convince the Office for Budget Responsibility that their inactivity plan will get half a million people back to work. One way in which the Secretary of State could hit his target is by encouraging more parents to move into work. Of course, many women, in particular, are blocked from returning to work because of childcare costs. Given that we should be doing more to help parents move into work, why has he now frozen the childcare cost cap in universal credit for the seventh year in a row?
Mel Stride
As to whether the OBR is or is not scoring the various measures that are being presented to it by the Treasury, I am intrigued as to how the right hon. Gentleman seems to know that it is having problems. The OBR operates under conditions of utter confidentiality in these matters, and I would not doubt that that is the way it has proceeded this time around. As for childcare, he is absolutely right. He will have to be a little patient—I know that he sometimes struggles to be patient—and we will then come forward with measures, and no doubt we will have something to say about the matter he has raised.
Jonathan Ashworth
I know that because the Secretary of State’s Government sources briefed The Sunday Times yesterday on that particular point, but I will wait and see. I will wait for the OBR report next week, and we will see what target for inactivity the Government publish and what the OBR endorses. He will know that many working parents would return to work if they could afford childcare, but many are expected to find hundreds of pounds—sometimes £1,000—to pay for childcare up front. Who has £1,000 down the back of a sofa? Will he make universal credit work by introducing more flexibility in how it operates, or is he prepared to punish hard-working parents by pushing them into more debt?
Mel Stride
I am afraid that I am just going to have to repeat what I have said, which is that the right hon. Gentleman will have to be patient. I am confident that we will have some things to say about the matters he has raised, but he will just have to wait another couple of weeks before he learns what we are doing.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Post pandemic, and under this uncaring Conservative Government, we have seen sanctions skyrocket, pushing many people into destitution. Can the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Box and outline how plunging people into poverty helps deal with economic inactivity? Is it not the case that the only activity it stimulates is at local food banks?
Mel Stride
I am surprised, in a way, that the hon. Gentleman raises the issue of poverty, because what we have seen, certainly since 2010 and under this Government, has been absolute levels of poverty declining and fewer children growing up in workless homes, for example, in distinct contrast to Governments prior to my party coming into office.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Office for National Statistics regularly publishes statistics relating to estimates of local inactivity. I have been leading work across Government with a further piece on participation, and the Chancellor and I will shortly be setting out more details of our plans.
Mick Whitley
Some 2.5 million people are economically inactive as a result of long-term illness, and half a million have left the labour market due to ill health since 2019. Does the Secretary of State accept that tackling health inequalities and improving health outcomes in deprived communities such as Birkenhead is essential to achieving equitable economic growth? Can he inform the House what conversations he has had with colleagues across the Cabinet about the need for a holistic economic strategy that recognises that health and wealth are inextricably linked?
Mel Stride
It is important that we take into account the issues of poverty and regional variations to which the hon. Gentleman refers. They lie right at the heart of all the decisions we have taken. We have come forward in recent times with significant cost of living support measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) will be taking through the remaining stages of the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill this very afternoon to address the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend saw my article in The Times a few weeks ago, but it discussed opportunities for towns, such as Mansfield, that have specific local requirements when it comes to tackling economic inactivity, the opportunities of building bespoke local schemes with local employers and training providers, and the opportunities from those relationships on a local level as part of a wider strategy within the region. What is his stance on devolving decision-making powers in this space down to local areas?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend raises a significant and important point. There are areas, particularly around the Work and Health programme, where we have done exactly that. We are engaged in discussions, contingent upon or subsequent to the White Paper that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities published on levelling up, and in particular with areas such as the west midlands and Greater Manchester, to make sure that we leverage the knowledge, know-how, expertise and all the resources they have at the local level to continue to bring people back into work.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
It is always a joy at Question Time to hear Labour MPs supporting Labour policy, but even more so to hear Conservative MPs supporting Labour’s policy of localising our efforts to get people back to work. On that, may I ask the Secretary of State something? I have been listening to what he has said, and I know that he will not pre-empt the details of the inactivity review, but can he just confirm that one of its objectives will be to rebalance our economy, particularly in this connection between health and labour supply?
Mel Stride
That is at the heart of our manifesto, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Speaker! Where did I get that from? It is a sign of the times. Right at the heart of our manifesto, and of the Government’s raison d’être, is the need to make sure that we level up communities across the United Kingdom. Of course, our action will take many forms, but one of them is most certainly the support that we will provide to make sure that, up and down the country, there is equality among those seeking work, and those who are economically inactive, and that they have the same opportunities.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
The Government are already providing £20 million for an enhanced offer to help older workers remain in, or return to, work. That includes provision for 37 full-time 50-plus champions, who deliver the midlife MOT, and for older workers jobs fairs. That includes the three 50-plus fairs held in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) in the last few months.
James Sunderland
The over-50s are a massive resource for our workforce, so could the Minister please outline how we might incentivise back into work those who retired during the pandemic, and those aged over 50 who have left the uniformed services and are seeking a second career?
Guy Opperman
My hon. and gallant Friend served with dedication in the armed forces before becoming Bracknell’s champion. He will be aware that our armed forces champions go to great lengths to assist ex-servicemen and women in finding second careers after their service keeping us safe. He will also be aware that the Chancellor may have more to say on the issue next week, on the 15th.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The Minister speaks about the ambitions for encouraging the over-50s to remain in the workforce. Will the Minister tear up his prepared answer, and tell the employees at the Department for Work and Pensions Clydebank office—mostly working-class women over the age of 50—how he squares that with his Government’s rank hypocrisy, which has left them struggling for work during a cost of living crisis?
Guy Opperman
There are now 10.7 million 50-plus workers—a figure that has gone up by 2 million in the last 10 years. Local DWP jobcentres are constantly engaging with employers to showcase the benefits of hiring older workers. I urge the hon. Gentleman to go to Halfords in St James retail park in Dumbarton in his constituency, because Halfords is one of the employers employing over 100 new over-50s apprentices on an ongoing basis. The hon. Gentleman should visit and learn something.
Michael Fabricant
As you know, Mr Speaker, because of my youth, I do not have to declare an interest. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, on the whole, older people tend to be more punctual, dedicated and reliable, and able to spell? What is he doing to tell employers that those factors are the reason why they need to employ older people?
Guy Opperman
Of course my hon. Friend, who I am sure is under the age of 50, does not need to declare an interest in the Government’s desire to ensure that we have more over-50s in employment. He will be aware, however, that in the past few months there have been four jobs fairs across Staffordshire and Derbyshire open to those from Lichfield who are 50-plus, and planning is under way for another event that will take place shortly.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I add my voice to the calls for us to use the talents of people who are over 50? I am approaching that stage myself. Some of the best years of my life were after 50, in terms of the number of jobs that I was able to do, and the new schemes and social enterprises that I was involved with. I know many people who are waiting for that second chance to contribute to our economy, and to social enterprises, if the Minister will give them the right incentive.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman is right. I agree with him; there is life in the old dog yet, as they say. It is important that we continue to make the case that employment for the over-50s should be supported by all employers.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We are committed to helping parents to increase their income through work. We have cut the earnings taper on universal credit and increased work allowances, meaning that families are, on average, better off by £1,000 a year. Additionally, eligible parents can claim up to 85% of their childcare costs through UC, and further assistance is available through the flexible support fund, Jobcentre Plus and work coaches.
Cat Smith
On Friday, I visited my local citizens advice bureau at its new offices on George Street in Lancaster, where I heard at first hand of the challenges that single parents are having with the amount of the childcare element of universal credit being capped at the level set in 2005 and with its being paid in arrears. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that benefits go up in line with the cost of childcare and to look at paying this element up front?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. The UC childcare element can be used to top up a claimant’s eligible free childcare hours if more hours are worked and more childcare is required. We also use the flexible support fund to support those up-front costs, as we heard earlier. However, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about employers; this is not solely about what the Government can do on our own to help lone parents. Job design, the opportunity to progress and flexible work are really important too, as is the opportunity to return and progress. We cannot do this on our own.
Mr Dhesi
It is alarming that last year the employment rate for single parents had the biggest annual fall on record, and it is all the more worrying because the single parent employment rate has been on an upward long-term trend since the mid-1990s. Surely the Minister would agree that the eligible cost limit on childcare in universal credit needs to be uprated to reflect the ground reality of today’s soaring childcare costs.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Under this Government since 2010, we have seen a significant increase in lone parents in work, with the rate going up from 56.1% in 2010 to 65.5% in 2022. However, the reality—and I think he describes it—is that there are too many challenges for lone parents, and it is absolutely right that we look at this. As we have heard from the Secretary of State, we are hoping to hear more: the Chancellor is ever present in our minds. As a lone parent, I again make the plea to employers to help people come back to work, because we know it is more than just a pay packet; it is really important to see the whole of society represented in the labour market.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Figures published today by the Centre for Progressive Policy show that the lack of affordable childcare prevented a quarter of parents of children under 10 from working more hours, with all the implications that has for family finances, but also for economic productivity. In fact, parental underemployment is estimated to cost this country over £20 billion. With expectations having been raised again this afternoon that next week’s Budget will do something about the cost of childcare, can the Minister tell us how long it will be before she expects the level of lone parent employment to rise again to where it was three years ago?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think we have some amazing childcare out there and some brilliant opportunities for lone parents, as I have described. It is important to let people know that, on universal credit, they can claim back 85%. It is better than legacy benefits, and they should please look at the benefits calculator on gov.uk and use the flexible support fund. We should also recognise that it is not right for everybody to go straight back to work—this needs to be individualised—and that we should support the lone parent and make sure they can get the skills and the opportunity to always be better off in work.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
The Government are committed to helping pensioners with the increased costs of living. From April, pensioners will receive the largest ever cash increase in the state pension, and pension credit will also be uprated by 10.1%.
Mr French
I strongly welcome the additional support His Majesty’s Government are providing to all households across the country, especially pensioners, with the costs of living. In contrast, many pensioners in Bexley are facing additional concerns because of Labour’s outrageous ultra low emission zone tax raid on drivers in Greater London. Will my hon. Friend outline what further support is available to pensioners through the likes of pension credit and join me in Bexley to promote it so that more people sign up for this support?
Laura Trott
The ULEZ is an outrageous attack on pensioners who can least afford it, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the amazing work he is doing to fight it and to help all pensioners in his constituency. I would be delighted to visit him and see that work for myself.
Aaron Bell
I thank the Minister for her answer. With 26,500 pensioners in the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, the 10.1% increase in the state pension and pension credit will be very welcome, but what other schemes are the Government putting in place to help people with the cost of living at this time?
Laura Trott
Pensioners will receive a further £300 cost of living payment this winter and all on pension credit will receive a further £900.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The pensions dashboard will provide important support. It was due to be rolled out from August, but last week the Minister, very disappointingly, announced a delay and we do not now know when it will be implemented. Is it a delay of weeks or months, or even longer? Will the Minister give us a full, urgent update before the Easter recess?
Laura Trott
Work is ongoing and I will come back to the House at the earliest available opportunity.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Since 2015, more than 219,000 1950s-born WASPI women—Women Against State Pension Inequality—have passed away. What more are Ministers doing to ensure that WASPI women get the pensions they deserve?
Laura Trott
The hon. Gentleman will know that the new state pension is very beneficial for women. We know that under automatic enrolment, more women than ever have got a private pension. On the specific matter he asked about, he will know that there is ongoing work by the ombudsman, and I cannot comment until that is completed.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
We take all fraud very seriously and have a range of measures in place, supported by two tranches of additional investment totalling around £900 million, which will prevent a further £2.4 billion of loss by 2024-25. In May last year, we published “Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System”, which details our proposals for reducing fraud and error, including legislative change and closer working across Government.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I have had numerous reports from constituents of alleged incidents of benefit fraud and what they perceive as a lack of action when they report them to the Department, so will the Minister inform the House by how many his Department plans to increase staff in the counter-fraud teams?
Tom Pursglove
I am very appreciative of my hon. Friend raising this point. It is fair to say that we are coming after those who commit benefit fraud: it is unfair on the taxpayer, it is wrong, and that message must go out in the strongest terms. That is being backed up by action, as we set out in the plan. For example, over the next five years, we will see 2,000 specialists dedicated to getting across 2 million universal credit cases. That is an important contribution to make sure that we bring this money back into the Department where it rightly belongs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
No, but you did stand at the beginning. In that case, I call somebody who is always going to stand: Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very important that all benefit fraud is taken on board, but many times in my constituency over the past few years, people have inadvertently filled in forms incorrectly and have found themselves having to pay money back. May I ask that compassion be shown to those who have inadvertently done wrong but realised they have to pay back, to ensure that they can pay back at a level they can afford?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this point, and it is important to note that we work on a case-by-case basis. Of course, where there are instances of error of that kind, we work on an individual basis to work out a repayment plan that is appropriate for those individuals, taking into account any financial vulnerabilities or challenges they might face.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Government recognise the pressures people are facing and have acted, providing cost of living support worth over £37 billion in 2022-23. In April, we are going further by uprating benefits, state pensions and the benefit cap by 10.1%. We are also providing £1 billion for the extension of the household support fund in England, with Barnett consequentials for the devolved Administrations. That includes £12.4 million for Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council residents from October 2021 to March next year.
Alexander Stafford
Will my hon. Friend confirm that her Department has changed the way it makes cost of living payments, so that those in the most need continue to benefit, while ensuring that we do not overburden the hard-working majority of my constituents in Rother Valley with ever higher taxes?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. We are legislating this afternoon for the three further cost of living payments for the next financial year, ensuring that more people are eligible for support and that we are reaching the most vulnerable. The payments will be worth up to £900, with a further £300 for pensioners and £150 for those with a disability. In Rother Valley, we estimate that 10,600 households will be eligible for means-tested cost of living payments, and that 11,800 households will be eligible for disability cost of living support.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It has been nearly 12 months since the Equality and Human Rights Commission issued a section 23 notice against the Department for Work and Pensions, following concerns about the deaths of and discrimination against disabled claimants. Has an agreement yet been reached, and, if not, when will it be?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her point. I am assured by the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work that constructive conversations are ongoing and that this matter is being taken seriously. I am sure that he will have the hon. Lady’s question.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
Six million people receiving an eligible disability benefit received a £150 disability cost of living payment last year, and they will receive a further £150 payment this year. Those on a qualifying means-tested benefit will also receive up to £900 in cost of living payments.
Dr Luke Evans
People in Bosworth will be grateful for the disability support they have, but a key challenge that I saw as a GP was getting people who are disabled back into work. We know that work is good for their welfare and their wallet, so what more can we do to create a conducive environment, from diagnosis all the way through, for those suffering from a disability to get back into the workplace?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. We are committed to supporting people into work and, importantly, to retain roles once they have them. We recognise, working across Government, that for many disabled people work is a determinant of better health outcomes. No doubt we will continue to take on board feedback about what more we might do in that space, and I would be delighted to have a conversation with my hon. Friend, based on his experiences, about the support we already provide and where we might go from here.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
On benefits, I am delighted to hear that some things are being done, but, from a Scottish perspective, I really do not think that it is enough. 38 Degrees has done polling across all our constituencies, and 70% of respondents in Stirling agreed that this UK Government
“do not understand the impact the cost of living crisis is having on people”.
Do Ministers accept that vote of no confidence?
Tom Pursglove
Certainly not, and I am delighted that I actually have a far more constructive working relationship with the Scottish Minister responsible for these issues than the question from the hon. Member suggests.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Many families with disabled children are struggling with energy costs right now. The £150 for those receiving personal independence payment is clearly welcome, but if someone is dependent on a machine, such as a powered wheelchair, a ventilator, an oxygen concentrator or a ceiling hoist, the cost is more like £150 a month, not £150 a year. What more can the Department, and the Government more widely, do to ensure that those families do not turn their machines off and put their children’s health at risk?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that none of us would want to see people putting their health, or their relatives’ health, at risk. We of course have a comprehensive package of support in place, as my hon. Friend is aware. There is also discretionary support provided through the household support fund and administered by local authorities, as well as the energy support that Ministers elsewhere in Government are leading on. However, I am very mindful of the need to future-proof people against those costs, and that is work that I am currently looking at.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
This might help the Minister, who is very aware that disabled people are more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people and are particularly vulnerable to the cost of living, as has been demonstrated by colleagues. Legacy benefit claimants, many of whom are long-term sick or disabled, have been unjustly denied the additional uplift that universal credit claimants got during the pandemic. Will the Minister commit to remedying that injustice by reintroducing the universal uplift, increasing it to £25 a week and giving it to all legacy benefit claimants?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Lady for her suggestion of new policy. As a Government Minister, I am not in a position to create new policy on the hoof. What I would say, however, is that there are significant cost of living support measures in place, and individuals will be able to access the support that is appropriate for them.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and I have asked numerous written questions about the shocking 461% increase in the number of personal independence payment claims disallowed for the non-return of the AR1 review form between 2017 and 2021. The Minister, sadly, has no idea why the increase has happened, or by extension whether vulnerable people are being left struggling to manage, as the Department does not collect information on the reasons for the non-return of the AR1 form. So I ask the Minister again today: when will he take action to investigate this issue?
Tom Pursglove
There may be many and varied reasons why individuals choose not to return the forms. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will allow me to answer the question, that would really benefit the House. The bottom line here is that there may be many and varied reasons why people do not return the forms, including their circumstances changing materially, but I am very happy to take the point away and look at it further.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
In 2021-22, almost 18,000 pensioners in Kettering, over 60,000 pensioners in north Northamptonshire and more than 9 million pensioners in England received a winter fuel payment. We estimate that similar numbers will have received the £300 pensioner cost of living payment in 2022-23.
Mr Hollobone
Will those 18,000 pensioners in receipt of the pensioner cost of living payment also receive additional support, such as the £400 energy bill discount, the £150 council tax rebate, the £150 disability cost of living payment and the £150 warm home discount? Will they also benefit from the energy price guarantee, saving a typical household £900 a year?
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend is right in this, as in so many things.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
The January Office for National Statistics labour market statistics publication shows that payroll employment reached a new record high of 30 million in January 2023. That is, of course, higher than at any stage under the last, or any, Labour Government.
Kate Hollern
We hear of a record number of vacancies, yet so many who are looking to get into work are out of work. In Blackburn, the claimant count among 18 to 24-year-olds is at 7.9%, against a national rate of 4.6%. What is the Minister doing to bring down barriers to work such as unaffordable childcare, transport, a failed apprenticeship scheme and a levelling-up agenda that is just not meeting the skills agenda?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady should be aware that last Tuesday there was a jobs fair in her constituency. There were 59 exhibitors, and 900 customers attended the event. They provided fantastic feedback on the support and interventions given. If she did not attend that particular jobs fair, she might want to go to “March into manufacturing” on 21 March, an upcoming jobs fair in her patch.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
We started the sitting with a non-party political point, so may I continue in that mode? I absolutely agree that those on the Opposition Benches want to reduce the level of unemployment. Unfortunately, their policies do not follow. Does the Minister agree that every single Labour Government have left unemployment higher than when they came to office?
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
Constructive discussions take place with the Public and Commercial Services Union, FDA and Prospect unions on a range of topics, as is set out in our employee relations handbook. The PCS and Prospect unions are in dispute with the Department for Work and Pensions, along with a number of other Departments, about various issues. As ever, we will remain positively engaged.
Beth Winter
Is the Secretary of State aware that more than a quarter of DWP staff are paid so little that the national living wage floor increase this April will lift their salaries? Is he aware that thousands of civil servants forced to take strike action are going without food and having to use foodbanks? Will he commit to constructive talks with the PCS union to resolve the dispute, to put a real pay rise on the table and to make ending the scourge of low pay in his Department a priority?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady raises an important point. We will continue to have constructive and positive discussions with the PCS and other unions. She raised the national living wage; she will know that it is to rise by 9.7% this April, to its highest level on record.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
The Department’s major focus is looking after the vulnerable and those most in need. I am therefore delighted that next month, the basic state pension will increase by 10.1%, as will most benefits. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), will be taking legislation through the House this afternoon to ensure that we continue substantial cost of living payments for the year ahead.
Bob Blackman
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcements. The extra £842 million for the household support fund, of which Harrow will receive £3 million, is extremely welcome. Could he update the House on what monitoring is taking place so that best practice is followed across the country and that the money that the Government are allocating reaches the most vulnerable?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He is right that almost £3 million from the household support fund will go to his constituency, on top of the £7.4 million that his local authority will receive in total. We monitor very closely how the money is administered to ensure that it has the maximum effect, by liaising closely with the local authorities concerned.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State understand and agree that expediting the rise in the state pension age is less about life expectancy, which, according to the Office for National Statistics is very much arrested, and more about a cost-cutting measure for the Treasury? Can he tell the House what representations he has made to the Chancellor about that in advance of next week’s Budget? Or is it just the UK Government’s policy that people should work until they drop?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is prejudging an awful lot of potential outcomes. He should wait until the Chancellor and I have taken those particular decisions. I am focused on a variety of metrics. Life expectancy is one of them, as is regional impact. The fiscal impact certainly cannot be ignored, and I would be surprised if he suggested otherwise. Fairness between generations and the period of life in which one is expected to be healthy in later years are also important considerations.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
I am delighted that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) passed Second Reading on Friday, and I look forward to its Committee next week. This excellent piece of legislation will bring 18 to 22-year-olds into automatic enrolment in full for the first time, and will ensure that people are saving from the first pound earned—two vital steps to ensure that people get the retirement that they want.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue in such constructive terms. I expect teams to be responsive to needs for reasonable adjustments. Perhaps she could share the details of the specific experience so that I can look into it. It is fair to say that staff go through ongoing learning, and we refresh the guidance at regular intervals.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Tom Pursglove
Regardless of the form that PIP assessments take, the structure is the same. Evidence suggests that both forms are equally effective, but I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that if individuals want to have a face-to-face assessment, they absolutely can.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The Government are projected to spend £30 billion—about 1.3% of GDP—on support for renters. Approximately £100 million has been allocated for the discretionary housing payment in 2023-24 to help local authorities, if necessary, which can top up from their own funding to help the hon. Lady’s constituents.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Tom Pursglove
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend and send my best wishes to his constituent for their surgery. The Department offers support through disability employment advisers who work alongside all work coaches, specialising in finding the right support to help customers who have a disability or health condition into work. I know that the dedicated team in Nottinghamshire would certainly be delighted to engage with my hon. Friend or his constituent and try to help with this issue.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Tom Pursglove
I would argue that the Public Accounts Committee report does not reflect the steps that we took and that we set out in the plan that was published last May. As I set out to the House earlier, we are taking a tough approach to the issue, and rightly so—this is taxpayers’ money. For example, the work of the 2,000 extra officials on targeted case reviews, 2 million of which are in universal credit, is a really important part of getting that money back.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)
My hon. Friend will be aware of the 50-plus champions, the midlife MOT, the sector-based work academies and the skills bootcamps specifically for over-50s. The mighty Port Vale football club held a fantastic recent jobs fair attended by 1,400 customers, including many over-50s; 600 job offers resulted and there were 100 employers present. That is the sort of thing that the Department is doing.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
As the recent Britishvolt investment shows, the north-east has real strengths in growing sectors such as battery technology, green energy and life sciences. Does the Minister agree that it is not possible for nationally controlled training programmes to really support people into employment in these emerging sectors? Will he therefore devolve responsibility to those in local areas who know local skills and local opportunities?
Guy Opperman
Local DWP jobcentres work hand in glove with local employers. It is very different in Banff and in Brixton—it is very different up and down the country. That is what we do with sector-based work academies, skills bootcamps and innovation pilots on a local basis in each individual jobcentre.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Mims Davies
We are focused, across Government, on helping young people to become involved in science, technology, engineering and maths projects and careers. A new science and technology framework was announced today, and will be vital for long-term economic success. DWP Train and Progress helps claimants take advantage of the bootcamps run by the Department for Education, and our partnership with Google is helping to boost digital skills. These activities are flexible in that people of any age and at any stage in their careers can engage in them.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I have a constituent who is facing the consequences of an overpayment in employment and support allowance. She has been able to show that she gave the Department the correct information time and again, but according to the Department, that is not relevant to whether she should pay the full sum. If the Department is not subject to any comeback after making mistakes, how will it ever improve?
Tom Pursglove
It is important to note that official error loss fell from 1.3% in 2019-20 to 0.9% in 2020-21 and to 0.7% in 2021-22. It is of course right for us to work constructively with individuals to identify appropriate repayment plans, ensuring that we live up to our legal obligations to get the money back into the Department, but I expect officials to work constructively with people, taking account of their specific financial circumstances. I should be delighted if the hon. Gentleman shared the details of this case with me so that I can look into it.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Mims Davies
I know that my hon. Friend takes great interest in supporting women in work, and working with employers is crucial to ensuring that they can both retain and recruit women and that there is no stigma in the workplace for those experiencing the impact of the menopause. I am delighted to announce the appointment of Helen Tomlinson as the DWP menopause employment champion. She will have a key role in driving awareness and promoting the benefits of a fully inclusive workplace to both business and the economy, and I will be sharing further details of her appointment later today.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)
Research conducted by the Bevan Foundation has established that local housing allowance is not a solution to the cost of living and housing crises for families on low incomes and for the most vulnerable because it is too low, and has been frozen since 2020 while private rental costs have soared. Will the UK Government help those in need and uprate the allowance?
Mims Davies
We recognise that rents are increasing, and that a challenging fiscal environment means we need to support people effectively. We have therefore announced a support package for the most vulnerable households, which includes help through the household support fund. Those who are entitled to housing benefit or the housing element of universal credit and who have a shortfall can reach out for discretionary housing payments from local authorities.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
There are some notable and fantastic businesses in my constituency, including Argus Fire and Pegasus, which do a brilliant job in recruiting young adults and providing career opportunities. What more can the Department do to bridge the gap between employers and young adults and create that one-stop opportunity for 16-year-olds to find employment?
Mims Davies
As you know, Mr Speaker, I am very supportive of getting young people into work. The Dudley youth hub is a classic example of the Department’s working in partnership locally, providing a single location for employers to engage with the under-25s from Stourbridge and the wider area. Claimants can attend recruitment events and take advantage of a range of on-site services, and I know that they greatly welcome the opportunity to work with Argus Fire and Pegasus.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Public and Commercial Services Union members in Scotland get a raw deal from this Government on pay, with many civil servants themselves using food banks. When will the Government give them a proper pay rise?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Lady will know and as I explained earlier, we are engaged in positive discussions with the PCS. It has been pointed out that many people working in the DWP are on the national living wage, and that will increase by 9.7% in April.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Working with Disability Action Yorkshire in my constituency, I have observed the important and growing role in the jobs market played by people with disabilities. I have spoken before about the Access to Work programme. Will the Minister update the House on what is being done to promote that excellent scheme among employers?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for Harrogate generally, but on this issue he is a passionate advocate for Access to Work and Disability Confident. We work to promote those schemes through our social media, through working with stakeholders, through working with local employer partnership teams and employer associations and through the Disability Confident scheme generally. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to look at ways in which we can spread the word further, including on a localised basis. I am about to do that as a constituency MP in Corby, and perhaps my hon. Friend could do the same in Harrogate.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
On Friday night I was given the terrible news that a popular business in my constituency, Mortons Rolls, had ceased trading, putting at risk 250 jobs. Will the Secretary of State take the time to meet me to discuss what can be done to support that business and the 250 staff who are now threatened with redundancy?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady raises an important matter, and she is right to raise it on the Floor of the House. We have a number of measures that we would typically stand up in the circumstances that she describes, including a surge of local support to get jobs going and vacancies matched up with those who are sadly going to lose their jobs. I will certainly ask the Employment Minister to meet her to discuss this as a matter of urgency.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I echo the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) about Access to Work. Can I ask what progress is being made on the disability action plan and how the Minister will ensure effective work across Government?
Tom Pursglove
The disability action plan is a really valuable opportunity to drive forward meaningful progress in a number of areas to help to improve the lives of disabled people. We are in the process of assembling the ministerial disability champions, and I want to see ideas from across Government brought together. We will then hear from disabled people, get out there and consult on the plan, then make sure that we deliver it over the next 18 months to two years. This is about quick wins and getting those off the stocks and delivering for disabled people.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I want to place on record my thanks to the Pensions Minister for her incredible hard work on automatic pension enrolment to get the age and the earnings lowered. Does she agree that it is a major concern for the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke that 25% of people leave work without a workplace pension in place? That is why the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill is so important and I am grateful to have had support for it from colleagues across the House.
Laura Trott
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I congratulate him on his brilliant Bill, which will help women, the lowest paid and part-time workers in Stoke-on- Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke, and beyond.
Mr Speaker
Before proceedings on the urgent question begin, I want to make it clear that the question is about the proposed appointment of the second permanent secretary to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities as chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition. It is not about the Committee of Privileges inquiry; let me stress that now. The House has charged the Committee with undertaking that inquiry and it must be allowed to complete it without interference. The Committee has been clear that the report issued on Friday does not contain its final conclusions, and that its work continues. It is for the Committee to decide how to weigh up the evidence before it, and any attempt to use this urgent question to prejudice proceedings will be out of order and will not be tolerated. Can I also say that although I was not surprised by the number of requests for this urgent question, I was surprised that they nearly all had the same wording and length of sentences? Whichever side of the House it comes from, I will not be moved by mass lobbying. I was more impressed by the individual ones that took the time to express why this was important than by those that were just a one-line sentence and signed by numerous Members of the House, so please do not try mass lobbying again.
Civil Service Impartiality
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on the impartiality of the civil service in the light of the proposed appointment of the second permanent secretary to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities as chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
I can confirm that, following a media report the previous day, Sue Gray, formerly second permanent secretary to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and to the Cabinet Office, resigned from the civil service on Thursday 2 March. This resignation was accepted with immediate effect. On Friday 3 March, a statement from the Opposition announced that the Labour party had offered Sue Gray the role of chief of staff to the Leader of the Opposition.
The House will recognise that this is an exceptional situation. It is unprecedented for a serving permanent secretary to resign to seek to take up a senior position working for the Leader of the Opposition. As hon. Members will expect, the Cabinet Office is looking into the circumstances leading up to Sue Gray’s resignation in order to update the relevant civil service leadership and Ministers of the facts. Subsequent to that, I will update the House appropriately.
By way of background, to inform hon. Members, there are four pertinent sets of rules and guidance for civil servants relating to this issue. First, under the civil service code, every civil servant is expected to uphold the civil service’s core values, which include impartiality. The code states that civil servants must
“act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers”.
Secondly, rules apply when very senior civil servants wish to leave the service. Permanent secretaries are subject to the business appointments process that, for most senior leavers, is administered by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. ACOBA provides advice to the Prime Minister, who is the ultimate decision maker in cases involving the most senior civil servants. Once the Prime Minister agrees the conditions and the appointment is taken up, ACOBA publishes its letter to the applicant on its website.
The business appointment rules form part of a civil servant’s contract of employment. The rules state that approval must be obtained prior to a job offer being announced. The Cabinet Office has not, as yet, been informed that the relevant notification to ACOBA has been made.
Thirdly, civil servants must follow guidance on the declaration and management of outside interests. They are required, on an ongoing basis, to declare and manage any outside interests that may give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Finally, the directory of civil service guidance states:
“Contacts between senior civil servants and leading members of the Opposition parties…should…be cleared with…Ministers.”
Having set out the relevant rules, I finish by saying that, regardless of the details of this specific situation, I understand why Members of this House and eminent outside commentators have raised concerns. The impartiality and perceived impartiality of the civil service is constitutionally vital to the conduct of government. I am certain that all senior civil servants are acutely aware of the importance of maintaining impartiality. Ministers must be able to speak to their officials from a position of absolute trust, so it is the responsibility of everyone in this House to preserve and support the impartiality of the civil service.
Sir Robert Buckland
To echo my right hon. Friend’s comments, many of us are surprised and, frankly, deeply disappointed about the particular circumstances that have emerged. This is not about the character or quality of Sue Gray. Having had the pleasure of working with her over a number of years, I can testify, along with many others, to those qualities.
This is, as my right hon. Friend said, about the fundamental trust that has to exist between impartial civil servants up to the highest level—and here we are dealing with a permanent secretary—and the Ministers they serve. That has been the position since at least the Northcote-Trevelyan report of the mid-19th century, and it must be the position in future, particularly if the Labour party is serious about wishing to achieve power. This Government are prepared to defend that impartiality, but the activities of the Leader of the Opposition might suggest that he is not prepared to defend that impartiality.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying the position on the application to ACOBA. Will he confirm that this appointment, if it is to be taken up, cannot be taken up before it is formally approved, following advice from that committee? Secondly, is it correct that the prevailing ACOBA advice for civil servants has a potential waiting period of between three months and two years? Thirdly, will a lobbying prohibition be imposed in this case? Finally, will a restriction on the passage of official information to the Labour party be imposed in this instance?
I say again that trust and impartiality are vital if this system of government is to work. I would hope that in this case those issues will be defended.
Jeremy Quin
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that. I share his disappointment; whatever the merits of the individual, I stress that it is critical that we all, on both sides of the House, do all we can to support the impartiality of the civil service. He asks about three points in particular. He asks whether there is a three-month to two-year period, and he is right. ACOBA also has the ability to recommend that no such appointment would be appropriate—it can go further—but there is a standard three-month waiting period in the contracts of employment for permanent secretaries. ACOBA generally goes up to two years but it can go further.
There is a lifetime requirement on all civil servants, which I know they take hugely seriously, to respect the confidentiality of the work they do. It is right that that is in place. Lastly, ACOBA is in an advisory position. I have not been impressed by the Labour party over this saga. I trust that the Labour party would indeed follow recommendations from ACOBA—unless Labour is going to cast even more doubt on its credibility.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I would like to thank Conservative Members for asking why a senior civil servant famed for their integrity and dedication to public service decided to join the party with a real plan for Britain rather than a tired-out, washed-up, sleaze-addicted Tory Government. This is the exceptional circumstance that the Minister spoke about. We are talking about a party so self-obsessed that it is using parliamentary time to indulge in the conspiracy theories of the former Prime Minister and his gang. What will Conservative Members ask for next? Will it be a Westminster Hall debate on the moon landings, a Bill on dredging Loch Ness or a public inquiry into whether the Earth is flat?
The biggest threat to the impartiality of the civil service is the Conservative party and its decade of debasing and demeaning standards in public life. Conservative Members talk about trust. This debate says more about the delusions of the modern Conservative party than it does about anything else. After this question, I will go back to my office to help people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis, getting an NHS dentist or—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think it was a wise idea to carry on while I am standing up.
Mr Speaker
Thank you. May I just say that I expect everybody to be heard quietly, because I want to hear what is being said? This is too important for me not to be able to hear. When Members keep chuntering on, I cannot hear. I want the same respect to be shown to everybody who wishes to speak.
Angela Rayner
Thank you. Mr Speaker. As I was saying, after this question I will go back to my office to help people who are struggling with the cost of living, with getting an NHS dentist and with paying their energy bills. All of those things are the result of 13 years of this failed Conservative Administration. While they play games, we are getting on with tackling the real issues facing the country. When will they do the same?
Jeremy Quin
Having heard from the right hon. Lady, I see that she has clearly been advised that attack is the best form of defence. I quite understand why the Opposition feel in need of some more advisers and some new advisers, given her tone today.
I understand the dilemma faced by the Leader of the Opposition. Having looked inside his tent, I understand why he is reaching so far outside of it. After so many rebrands, I appreciate why the right hon. Lady and the Leader of the Opposition require someone who can do joined up. However, the Labour party talks about rules, transparency and standards in public life, and given all that constant talk it is time that it walked the walk. I ask the right hon. Lady to go away and think: why are the Opposition refusing to publish when they met with Sue Gray; why are they being evasive; and why can they not tell us what they discussed, where they met, and how often they met? Their refusal to do so prompts the question: exactly what is Labour trying to hide?
Many across the House have noticed that the Leader of the Opposition has a tendency to claim a self-righteous monopoly on morals, but there are now serious questions as to whether Labour, by acting fast and loose, undermined the rules and the impartiality of the civil service. Labour Members must ask themselves why the Leader of the Opposition covertly met a senior civil servant and why those meetings were not declared. They believe that ACOBA rules should be tightened, but why were the current ones not followed? It is incumbent on everyone across the House to uphold and preserve the integrity and the perceived impartiality of the civil service.
This is about trust, Mr Speaker, and it is the Labour party that risks damaging that trust with an offer of appointment. However, the Opposition can help restore that trust. They can do the right thing: they can publish the list of meetings between themselves and Sue Gray; they can publish who attended those meetings; and they can publish when they started speaking to Sue Gray. There is nothing in the ACOBA rules that stops them doing so today.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
May I say how heartened I am to see the Chamber so well-attended for a Cabinet Office urgent question on matters of constitutional propriety? It has not always been like that in here.
On a personal note, may I say that I consider this appointment to be somewhat ill-judged? I think that those who are of reasonable mind on all sides of this argument would accept that. Does my right hon. Friend share my confidence in our noble Friend Lord Pickles and his Committee, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, to discharge their functions correctly? I wonder also whether he has any more thoughts about making ACOBA rulings underpinned in statute. Finally, given the individual at the heart of this, it is important to ask whether he shares my concern that it is wrong to impugn an entire civil service for political bias, and that it is important that he asserts that from the Dispatch Box?
Jeremy Quin
On my hon. Friend’s most important point, I absolutely back him up on the standards of the civil service. We are lucky and fortunate to have good people working throughout the civil service. I know that a large number of them will be very concerned by these events, because they know the critical importance of the bond of trust between a Minister and their most senior advisors. I totally respect the work of ACOBA and all members of the committee. I know that they will consider their processes, that they will go through this thoroughly, and that, in due course, the Prime Minister will receive their advice.
On my hon. Friend’s wider point, clearly, the Government have received recommendations from his own Committee, PACAC, from Sir Nigel Boardman, and from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The process of coming up with a Government response is well advanced, and I expect to share that with the House in due course.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am glad to hear the Minister talking about the hard work that the civil service does and being clear, in agreeing with his colleague the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), that Ministers and Secretaries of State would be nowhere were it not for the constant hard work of impartial civil servants. It is very important that the Minister talks to his Back-Bench colleagues and ensures that, in making statements about individuals, they are not tarring the entire civil service with some of the allegations that they are bringing forward.
I have asked repeatedly about anti-corruption champions, and while we are standing here talking about issues relating to breaches or potential breaches of the ministerial code, it is important that the Government get their house in order and ensure that we have an anti-corruption champion in place. Will the Minister therefore both talk to his Back-Bench colleagues to ensure that their language is moderated when talking about civil servants, and ensure that the ministerial code is adhered to so that we can be viewed in a better light internationally?
Jeremy Quin
The anti-corruption strategy is run by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security; I know he works actively on that, and an anti-corruption champion will be appointed in due course. With deference to the hon. Lady’s position, I think that is a very different scenario from what we are talking about today. For a start, we are talking about the civil service code, not the ministerial code. However, I agree that we always need to support and not undermine the impartiality and the perceived impartiality of the civil service. That applies to all of us, including the Leader of the Opposition.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware whether a contract, written or unwritten, has been entered into between the parties concerned? This important question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) raises questions not only of constitutional propriety and impartiality, but of confidentiality between the persons concerned. Furthermore, I would like to know whether there is any question of any involvement of taxpayers’ money in these arrangements, as part of the Short money that will be involved in the office of the Leader of the Opposition.
Jeremy Quin
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I am in no position to know whether there is a contract, either oral or written, between Sue Gray and the Labour party. Nor am I in any position to judge how her putative post, if it were to go through, would be funded. Those are both questions that can only be answered by those on the Opposition side of the House, and it would be in the interest of transparency and clarity if they were to be cleared up, along with a timeline of events on when the meetings started, who took part and where they took place.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
On the question of impartiality, Sue Gray has resigned, and I can assure the Minister that she was just as resolute in seeking to protect standards in public life and the ministerial code when I was a Minister as she has tried to be under this Conservative Government. Are not her professionalism and integrity just what Britain needs after the debasement of our standards in public life over the past 13 years?
Jeremy Quin
I am deliberately not getting drawn into matters related to individuals, nor should I. I am happy to be drawn on whether there is a right way of making this kind of appointment. This is a totally unprecedented offer of appointment; at a permanent secretary level this has not, as far as I am aware, ever been undertaken before. It is important in those circumstances that the rules are followed appropriately. We are checking to make certain what exactly was the run-up to her resignation.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Many people may say that Ms Gray is a splendid woman —I understand she even fed the cats in the Cabinet Office—but does it not smash to pieces the idea of an independent civil service when we know that one of the most senior civil servants in the country was conniving in secret meetings with the party of Opposition? Does that not devalue years of advice and reports that she has given, her views on devolution, which were known constantly to be soft, and her report into my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), which we now know was done by a friend of the socialists? Does this not undermine all her previous work and the idea of an independent civil service?
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as I said, I do not want anybody creeping into the report—[Interruption.] I know you were careful, but this is just a marker. I do not want this to be a creeping feast.
Jeremy Quin
I have two points to make to my right hon. Friend. First, we need to make certain that this does not damage the impartiality—or the perception of impartiality—of the civil service as a whole. I am sure he would agree that that is incredibly important, and we need to ensure that it is retained. I am deeply worried that the approach made by the Labour party may serve to threaten that and put it at risk. We must not tarnish the whole civil service due to one appointment, but the Opposition are playing fast and loose with a set of rules designed to protect the impartiality of the civil service, which we all know is so constitutionally important for our country.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Here today we have Conservatives demanding that Labour observes the recommendations of ACOBA, when previous Conservative Chancellors and Foreign Secretaries bypassed the process before taking up appointments, and we have Labour stretching the process to breaking point by operating in the shadows. Is it time that we gave ACOBA some teeth?
Jeremy Quin
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is considering proposals made by PACAC, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and Sir Nigel Boardman about how we could improve the business appointments process. There is a lot of sympathy with the idea that we should look at those rules, and we will report to the House about how they could be amended or improved. It is an irony, though, that the Opposition have consistently called for those rules to be tightened when they do not seem to be quite aware—or may not be fully aware—of what the rules are today.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The civil service’s response to this issue amplifies and underscores, to the comfort of all of us, the importance that it attaches to its impartiality in serving Ministers of the Crown, irrespective of the colour under which they stand for election.
I will echo the growing theme, led ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). For ACOBA to put the recommendation to the Prime Minister always puts the Prime Minister in an invidious position, but particularly in this case. If he says no, he looks churlish. If he says yes, he makes the civil service, which is already anxious about the attack on its impartiality, still more anxious. I urge the Minister to speed up the process of response to the suggestions that have been made about formalising the committee’s recommendations.
Jeremy Quin
I have said what I said about the Government considering how the procedures for business appointments could be improved. I have a lot of faith in the ACOBA process, and in Lord Pickles and his committee. We look forward to him looking through this process. Sue Gray will put through her application—if that is a confidential process, I presume that it is happening—and the committee will need to take a decision on that basis and then provide advice.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The faux outrage and wild conspiracies from the Conservative party are kidding nobody. I remind the Minister of the words of a predecessor of his as Cabinet Office Minister, the noble Lord Maude, who said that he had worked with Sue Gray for five years and never had the
“slightest reason to question either her integrity or her political impartiality”.
He added that the Leader of the Opposition is
“fortunate to have secured her services”.
He is right, isn’t he?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman obviously knows faux outrage when he sees it; he has a long experience of seeing it, in the mirror. I am grateful to him for reminding me of the words of my predecessor as Minister for the Cabinet Office and, indeed, as the Member of Parliament for Horsham. I, too, have worked with Sue Gray. I have admired her advice and have had no reason to question her integrity. That does not mean, however, that this is the way we should conduct things in these circumstances. I am very disappointed in the actions of the Labour party. I am very disappointed in how this has come through, and there are real concerns about the impact that it may have on the perception of impartiality more broadly.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that on my appointment as a Minister, I, like many Members, was advised by Sue Gray on the steps that I needed to take in order to avoid any perception of a potential conflict of interest? Does he therefore understand why her appointment has caused such anger right across the civil service, as it undermines that very principle of the perception of conflict?
Jeremy Quin
I do. My right hon. Friend is right to draw on the fact that many senior civil servants are troubled by this. They know the vital importance of the bond of trust between Ministers and civil servants, and anything that might serve to undermine that is not healthy and is not good for the way we do business.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, we are experienced Members of this House, and I understand that very early on in your remarks, you rumbled what was going on in terms of the number of requests for this to be debated this afternoon. Is it not a fact that this is a shabby little manoeuvre from the shabbiest Government that I have seen in 40 years—[Interruption.] Rather than this being spontaneous, let me just say that I was walking over here with a respected Back Bencher from the Government side who said, “I’m not going over. They’ve been trying to get everyone here this morning. The Whips have set a five-line Whip.” [Interruption.] They don’t like it, Mr Speaker. The suggestion that the civil service is up in arms is nonsense. This comes from the Prime Minister and this shabby Government—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure there was a question, in which case we will move on.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The whole situation surrounding this appointment is quite extraordinary, and many will say that it is outrageous. Does my right hon. Friend agree that appointing such a senior and high-profile civil servant to this post under such circumstances is questionable, and does he agree that what is of deep concern is the timing of this appointment and when she was approached? Where meetings were held, the details must be published.
Jeremy Quin
I believe that transparency would help. It is important that processes are followed, because this is an unprecedented appointment, and in those circumstances, it is not too much to ask for the details of the meetings to be published: who met whom, when, where, and what was discussed. To return to the points that have been raised, it is absolutely right that this is gone through, and that the Labour party publishes exactly what took place.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The impartiality of senior civil servants was called into question a long time ago during the Brexit debate and the events subsequent to that, but these negotiations obviously did not take place the morning after Sue Gray resigned—they have been going on for some time. I suppose the question for the House is this: what sensitive political issues was she involved in during those negotiations, and does the Minister agree that no amount of bluster from Opposition Front Benchers will ever hide the double standard of lecturing about accountability and transparency, while at the same time not being prepared to answer a straightforward question as to when they started talking to Sue Gray?
Jeremy Quin
The right hon. Gentleman puts it rather well. It would be very simple to help put minds at rest by publishing the data, setting out when the meetings took place—who met whom, when and where. That will help reassure the House; it will not reassure the House completely, but at least there will be proper transparency and some more clarity.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
This is about impartiality and trust, and it saddens me to see the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who is in such a senior position, defending this in the way that she did. If the rules have not been followed and a lengthy period of time—that is, two years—has not elapsed, Sue Gray has had access to highly confidential and very personal information that she is in a very powerful position to use, not just with anyone but with the Opposition party, and with a general election looming.
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is correct. Clearly, Sue Gray has access to a lot of information, but that does not mean she would put that information to ill use. The ACOBA guidelines talk about sensitive information and how someone can avoid the perception that they have been put into a difficult position in those circumstances. ACOBA obviously has a job to do.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Which bond of trust or aspect of impartiality was broken when Sue Gray was a senior civil servant—the same Sue Gray who was praised by the Government as being almost the best thing since sliced bread? What is the problem or issue now?
Jeremy Quin
We are conducting analysis to find out the facts that led up to the resignation of Sue Gray and to ensure they can be set out. It would help dispel concerns, worries and problems if the Labour party could simply set out the facts itself. There is no reason why it could not do that today.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The permanent secretary at the Department for Education recently highlighted the detail of the civil service code to all her staff. She said that
“if anybody receives contact from the Leader of the Opposition or a member of the Shadow Cabinet you should tell your Permanent Secretary right away”.
Is the Minister aware of when Sue Gray informed her permanent secretary of the initial discussion she held with the Labour party before announcing her resignation?
Jeremy Quin
As I have said, there is work in progress to ensure that all the facts are identified, but I am not aware that there were any such discussions prior to Thursday last week.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Not that long ago, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments found that the former Member of Parliament for Aberconwy, a former Defence Minister, committed a clear breach of the ministerial code by not asking for ACOBA advice when taking up a position. Can the Minister remind us what actions were taken against the former Member for a breach that was described at the time as totally unacceptable? What was done?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman refers to a former Member of this House, a former Minister and a former member of the Conservative party—I think he had had the Whip withdrawn at that stage. I do not know what actions ACOBA took and I am not sure what actions it has available, because it is an advisory body. However, I think it behoves all of us who wish to respect the values of impartiality within the civil service and to respect the rules, to ensure that we follow them to the letter.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I think this is an important urgent question. Something about this desired appointment does not feel right to me. To echo the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who is no longer in his place, I do not think it passes the reasonable test, but we are where we are for now, although I expect there is a lot more to come on this. The Minister confirmed that the Cabinet Office is looking at the circumstances of the job offer. Can my hon. Friend say when we might expect that to be complete? Will he be asking Sue Gray herself, who has every interest in transparency, the “Who met whom, when and where” question?
Jeremy Quin
We will be trying to wrap this up as soon as we can. I do not know how long it will take—hopefully it will be done shortly. It would ease that process if the Labour party would just come clean as to exactly what meetings took place. There is no reason why that should not be made public and why we should be not fully transparent—at least, no reason of which I am aware.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I do not know Sue Gray; I know her only by virtue of her reputation. I do weigh on the words of Lord Maude, which we heard just a moment ago, that she is a person of the utmost decency. I am aware of various civil servants who have joined this place as Members of Parliament on all sides. Therefore I am surprised really at the concern from Government Members, because this is a person of the utmost integrity. Given the high esteem in which she is held, why does the Minister think that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) never considered appointing her?
Jeremy Quin
As I said earlier, I am not trying to engage in a discussion about a particular individual. I have noted what my predecessor Lord Maude said. As I say, I have personal, direct experience of working with Sue Gray, and have no reason to question her integrity in any way, but this urgent question is about the process; we need to understand it. This is an unprecedented appointment of a permanent secretary to this position. When very senior civil servants choose to leave the service, it is incredibly important that everything is done appropriately. Analysis of that is being undertaken. We need to establish the facts, and it would help if the Labour party assisted us with that.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that if the shoe was on the other foot, the Labour party would be asking exactly the same questions? All that we have seen today from those on the Opposition Benches is rank hypocrisy. Does he also agree that the line put out by the Labour party that somehow the Leader of the Opposition’s most senior adviser and chief of staff would not have a role in a general election campaign is utterly ridiculous?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have attended a number of urgent questions in this House, and I have rarely seen the Opposition Benches as empty as they are today.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Why are this Government happy to attack civil servants through this urgent question, yet unwilling to pay them properly?
Jeremy Quin
To be clear, we on the Government Benches have no desire or intention whatsoever to attack civil servants. We want to protect the impartiality of the civil service, and protect it from any shift in perception of its impartiality; and we want to hold the Opposition to account, and ask them to be a bit more transparent about their dealings.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition was best friends with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but dumped him as soon as the latter lost the election. The Leader of the Opposition was pro a second referendum, but when Labour lost the election, he dumped that. He made 10 pledges in order to become Leader of the Opposition, and dumped them. There has been rebrand after rebrand. The Labour party clearly has a grubby deal going on behind the scenes. The Leader of the Opposition talked about integrity, openness and honesty. Why cannot he evaluate those three things, and tell us: who, where, when and why?
Jeremy Quin
I very much agree that those questions need to be answered by Opposition Members.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I do not know how familiar the Minister is with Matthew 7:3-5:
“How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?”.
Contrary to what the Minister says, this move is not without precedent. Lord Sassoon was a senior civil servant on the same grade as Sue Gray. He resigned in the same month that Lehman Brothers collapsed, only to join George Osborne as his economic adviser three weeks later. In time, he became a Tory Government Minister. Will the Minister confirm that, and correct the record?
Jeremy Quin
I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot recall that appointment. There are other appointments that I can think of, but none where the individual concerned had such a prominent role in Government, and was at the centre of affairs in the Cabinet Office and, in this case, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I understand why people inside this House and outside want to ensure that processes have been followed correctly.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The damage has already been done. The Minister keeps telling us about the impact this will have on the civil service, but it has already had an impact. It might also be noted that Sue Gray was chairing the infected blood inquiry; many of us in this House have written to various Minister about that inquiry, to see if we can get answers. What is the status of that very necessary inquiry?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. Sue Gray was actually the sponsor of that inquiry inside the Cabinet Office, and I am looking forward to meeting members of the infected and affected community tomorrow. Sue Gray had an incredibly important role in corralling that across Government, and we will need to fill that post. I have not been able to do so to date, but that is a huge priority for me. It requires a lot of work and there are very serious stakes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. Does he accept that impartiality is not just a desirable quality, but an essential quality for any investigation? Does he believe that the test for impartiality was met in this case before any news of later jobs had emerged?
Jeremy Quin
I do not want to prejudge the analysis of the facts. Clearly, ACOBA has to do its work and come to a conclusion. I am sorry to repeat myself to the hon. Gentleman, but more clarity as to what happened when would really help speed up that process.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I confess to feeling a little sorry for the deputy leader of the Labour party, because she has been sent here today to defend the indefensible. We have rules for a reason, and as has been rightly observed across the House, Sue Gray had knowledge not only of some of the most sensitive policy making, but of the legitimate personal interests of Ministers. It is for those very good reasons that we should abhor this decision. Can I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of establishing the dates on which these meetings, which undoubtedly would have taken place over weeks if not months, took place? Can I also ask whether he will consider amending senior civil service contracts as well as the civil service code to prevent future such occurrences, because this strikes at the core of the integrity of the civil service?
Jeremy Quin
I thank my right hon. Friend. Work is being undertaken at the moment to look at the conclusions we will draw from the work by Sir Nigel Boardman, PACAC and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and I would not wish to pre-empt any of those discussions. I do not know—I say this in all candour to my right hon. Friend—whether that has been considered, but there will be a further opportunity in this House, when we come forward with our proposed reforms in due course, for such matters to be raised.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Is it not ironic that Sue Gray was the head of the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team, and it is she who has put the civil service under a dark shadow—a shadow that need not have existed? Is it not also the case that this was therefore bad judgment by her, but also bad judgment by the Leader of the Opposition, who, when asked 10 times this morning to give more information about when the discussions began, evaded it 10 times?
Jeremy Quin
I thank my hon. Friend. I think it may well have been a miscalculation by the Leader of the Opposition. He can do his best to rescue that by being fully open about the facts.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I start by saying that I have worked with many fantastic civil servants in my time as a Minister, and those relationships are built on trust. I have also had a very good working relationship with Sue Gray in the Cabinet Office. Does the Minister agree that this appointment by the Leader of the Opposition is politically naive? It is hard enough for Ministers not knowing which of their WhatsApp messages are going to be leaked to journalists by Members on their own side, but surely this appointment now places all civil servants working with Ministers in a very difficult position in terms of trust and impartiality.
Jeremy Quin
I thank my right hon. Friend. When he says he had a good working relationship with Sue Gray, I know he speaks for many Ministers, me included, and I see other right hon. Friends nodding their heads in agreement with that phrase. However, that makes it all the more shocking that fast-and-loose approaches could be taken to the rules, it appears to me, and that that could therefore bring into doubt the really important relationships of trust that exist between Ministers and civil servants. As my right hon. Friend knows, this is so important for the way we do business, and I think people should think very carefully before they risk doing anything that might call that into question or jeopardise that incredibly important relationship.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I care very deeply about this place, and we have been plunged into a constitutional crisis. Members of this House, whether they are Ministers or not, need to be able to talk to senior civil servants without fear that that information is going to be used for party political purposes. This has done immense damage to the civil service and I do not know whether it will be able to recover, but it is not about Sue Gray; it is about the Leader of the Opposition. We would not be here today if he had not asked her to become his chief of staff. Does the excellent Minister agree that the person to be criticised here today is the Leader of the Opposition?
Jeremy Quin
I concur. I fear that the Leader of the Opposition, in making this appointment, perhaps blundered in his approach and did not really realise or think through the consequences of someone right at the heart of Government being invited to take up a position in the heart of the Labour party, shifting from incredibly important ongoing work to then working in a more party political guise, which obviously has implications.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
This latest grubby scandal from the Labour party has cast a dark stain on democracy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the Opposition should come out of hiding, come clean and publish the details of the meetings?
Jeremy Quin
That would help. I have been pondering the earlier question about the efficacy of people moving from the civil service into party political roles. Clearly that cannot be deemed an impossibility, and many of us have benefited from time in the civil service before taking on political roles. But there are ways of doing this; that is what is so important, and it would be very helpful if the Labour party could transparently set out exactly what took place.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
The House and the country should know that on 7 September 2019 I witnessed Sue Gray, then permanent secretary at the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland, discuss with a special adviser to the UK Cabinet Office how to exclude solutions other than high alignment with EU law and regulation from consideration by the Government in respect of Northern Ireland and the withdrawal agreement. A month later, the Government proposed the Northern Ireland protocol, which subjected Northern Ireland to EU law and regulation. Since then, Sue Gray has been the civil servant specifically responsible for advising on Union considerations in Government. It was reported this week that Sue Gray was present at the briefing of Cabinet Ministers on the Prime Minister’s Windsor framework, which, among other things, appears to confirm and embed the application of EU law and regulation in Northern Ireland—
Mr Speaker
Do you want to go out? No, right. I pulled up a Member on the other side about this, because once you go on and on there must be a question. I hope there is a question now.
Mr Speaker
Sorry, sit down. You don’t judge me. You just lost it completely.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The only saving grace for colleagues in any honest, fair and unbiased investigation is the senior civil service. In the light of the appointment by the Labour leader of a senior civil servant who has been involved in many investigations of colleagues, does my right hon. Friend agree that if the process looks like a rotting, stinking fish, smells like a rotting, stinking fish and tastes like a rotting, stinking fish, chances are it is a rotten, stinking fish?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend has expressed his view in his own style. He knows me and will know that my style is to say I am going to await the conclusions that come out of the factual inquiry we are going through now—but he has made his point, as ever.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
When I was a Minister at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities I will have had several conversations with Sue Gray on the basis of confidentiality and impartiality, so I am slightly unnerved to feel she may have simultaneously been having discussions with the Leader of the Opposition. Is the Minister able to tell us when the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), became aware of the negotiations between Sue Gray and the Leader of the Opposition?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend refers to conversations he had with Sue Gray, and says that he does not know whether Sue Gray was having conversations with others at the same time. I am not aware of anybody in Government being informed of those discussions before last Thursday, but that could easily be cleared up if the Labour party were just to publish the timeline this afternoon.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I believe in the integrity, diligence and value of our most unique civil service. All civil servants, as with everybody else, have a right to a political view, and they can exercise that privately at the ballot box. I want to put on record that I rigorously defended Sue Gray as she did her work on partygate last year. But in this case what is important is the job that has been left, the time in between, and the job that has subsequently been taken up. I do not need to make the House aware that the events of last year are not just dust that has settled; they are still hanging thick in the air. I am asking, on behalf—
Mr Speaker
No, you don’t finish; you’re finished now. When I stand up, that means you sit down. I hate to say it, but we have both been here a long time, and we should know the rules of the House. Now can we just have the question without going into the areas that I asked people not to venture into?
Craig Mackinlay
Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker—my apologies. I am asking a question of the Minister, from the men and women on the normal Clapham omnibus: does this smell right?
Jeremy Quin
I thank my hon. Friend, who is very succinct. We do need to get the facts out and to know exactly what took place. We are doing that work, and it would help if the Labour party were to assist us in that process.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The civil service code states that officials must retain the confidence of Ministers as to their political impartiality. Now that Sue Gray, with knowledge of the most sensitive details of Ministers, has agreed to work in a political capacity for the leader of the Labour party, how can the Government ensure that other Ministers are protected from political stitch-ups?
Jeremy Quin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are rules in place. As I have already said, there is a means by which civil servants who choose to leave the world of the civil service—and even take on political roles—can do so. It is just really important that we know, and that Ministers know, that the rules will be followed in those circumstances, and that we know that they have in this case. That is why we are looking at what took place, and the Labour party could help us with that.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“The Labour Party has offered Sue Gray the role of chief of staff to the leader of the opposition.”
That statement was issued by the Labour party on Thursday 2 March 2023. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any reasonable person would call into question the impartiality of that person, as of 1 March and any day before?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend raises a fair question, but it is one that we need to explore, given the questions that we are now asking about the timeline towards the resignation of Sue Gray. As I have said repeatedly in this place, why can the Labour party not just tell us when the first meeting took place, and how long the meetings have been happening? It might have been a very short period of time, or it might have been much longer, but I think we would all be reassured to know. They can tell us this afternoon.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Regarding the timing of the approach, the Leader of the Opposition failed around 10 times this morning, on LBC, to answer the actual question. Listeners will be questioning whether “Mr Rules” missed the rules. I also note that today’s Daily Telegraph contains a piece from the constitutional expert Sir Vernon Bogdanor, who says:
“The issue is important, since, if the approach was made before publication, the hope of future employment might—even if only subconsciously—have influenced its content. So it would not be possible any longer to regard Sue Gray as an impartial investigator.”
Does the Minister agree that perceptions matter?
Jeremy Quin
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I, too, read the article by Sir Vernon Bogdanor. He raised interesting questions. It is why we are taking this issue so seriously. It is why we are exploring and want to get to the facts.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Not only is impartiality important; honesty is important. The Leader of the Opposition seemed a little foggy about dates today. It seems as if perhaps the dates are being scribbled on the back of a fag packet as we speak. If any dates are declared to the Minister, can we trust that they are accurate?
Jeremy Quin
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition may be short of a chief of staff at the moment, but I am sure he has someone who keeps an eye on his diary. I am sure there is someone who could inform this House what the dates were, when the meetings took place, where they took place, and what was discussed and with whom. It is not too much to ask and it would help to clear this up. It would save the Leader of the Opposition the embarrassment of being asked about these things on repeated occasions and not being able to be clear.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Maintaining complete political impartiality is absolutely key to maintaining credibility within the civil service, so does my right hon. Friend agree that if even one meeting or one conversation took place between Sue Gray and the Labour party and the Leader of the Opposition in advance of her resignation about the job offer for such a hugely political job, surely Sue Gray’s political impartiality in her role in the civil service has to be brought into question?
Jeremy Quin
I set out the rules in response to the urgent question. They are there in Hansard and people can read through them. There are protections in the rules to try to ensure that impartiality, and perceived impartiality, is not jeopardised. We will explore exactly what happened in these circumstances.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
In the debate on standards in public life in June last year, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) complained to the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), that Sue Gray had been asked to come before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, but that the request had been refused several times. The deputy leader of the Labour party replied that she agreed with the complaint and that it showed the then Prime Minister had “no regard for transparency”. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the deputy leader of the Labour party should live up to the standards she was extolling then and be transparent with all the facts?
Jeremy Quin
The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne says we should follow the process, and I agree with her. It is always important to follow the correct processes. I am sure that when the Labour party reveals all the data, as I am sure it will, we will be able to see whether the processes were followed.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
In his response to the Sue Gray report on 25 May last year, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“I have been clear what leadership looks like... I have not broken any rules”.—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 298.]
If he did not consult ACOBA before announcing this appointment, has he still not broken any rules?
Jeremy Quin
I will conduct the analysis first and then I will be better informed as to exactly what took place, but as I say, this could be cleared up by the Labour party quite swiftly.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
A woman of integrity and a self-proclaimed Mr Rules. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in refusing to publish the timeline of the meetings, they have trashed both of those reputations?
Jeremy Quin
I think that is the case, sadly. I think it is, but it could easily be changed by simple publication.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I have already been contacted by the hard-working civil servants who work in my Jobcentre Plus in Maltby and Dinnington who were horrified to hear on LBC Radio this morning the Leader of the Opposition refuse to say 10 times when he was contacted first by Sue Gray in connection with a political job. Does the Minister agree that if any contact took place between her and the Leader of the Opposition or any member of the Labour party, it calls into question not only her current work and previous work, but, unfortunately, the impartiality of the whole civil service? We need to have the dates of the meetings now.
Jeremy Quin
I respect the work of those hard-working civil servants in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Right across the civil service, there is an absolute desire to retain their reputation for impartiality, which they all live in their daily work. That is how they work and they are determined to work for Ministers with a relationship of trust. That is incredibly important. We are not asking much of the Labour party—just to produce that timeline of dates so that we can start to put this matter behind us, with greater transparency.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concern that the appointment severely weakens trust in our senior civil servants? The media have now shone a light on Sue Gray and her decisions, such as her appointment of an adviser who told all his Twitter followers to join the Labour party. To the public, this looks farcical. Does he agree that, as a result, only a full disclosure of meetings and conversations will suffice in this grubby affair?
Jeremy Quin
The tragedy is that a public servant’s hard work over a long period of time is called into question, given the nature of the process that appears to have taken place. That is incredibly unfortunate, but the Labour party could help to fix that by being a bit transparent, very open and saying, “This is what actually took place; these are the dates; this is who met and this is where they were.”
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
This is nothing to do with Sue Gray—the lady could be our first living saint, for all I care—but it is about the roles that she had in government. I could not think of a more sensitive position than head of propriety and ethics, where Ministers need trust. It is not about my party, either—seven Labour MPs have been sentenced to jail over the past 10 years. If they had been in government, I think she would have been quite busy with them, too. It is about those on both sides of the House being able to trust Ministers. I have to agree with colleagues that the trust is already broken. We cannot now have a discussion with someone in that position and be sure that they will not cross over to the other side. Is it time to look at introducing regulations to ensure that this kind of thing cannot happen in such sensitive roles?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend closes this urgent question by noting that it is not necessarily about Sue Gray and her actions. She is a public servant who has, for many decades, worked hard at the heart of government. It shows a miscalculation and a misstep by the Leader of the Opposition. I can only assume that it was inadvertent—I have to hope that. This matter has caused more problems, because in some people’s minds it has called into question the perceived impartiality of the civil service. That was a misstep and a mistake; the Leader of the Opposition should accept that and set out transparently what happened and when, so that we can have absolute clarity on what took place.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
You may make a point of order if it is relevant to what has just taken place.
Wayne David
It is relevant—it is a point of clarification that I ask for. In response to my question, the Minister strongly implied that the reason that the former Conservative Member for Aberconwy lost the Conservative Whip was that he did not consult ACOBA. That is not the case. He lost the Conservative Whip because he voted against the Government on a Brexit vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I assume that the hon. Gentleman would like me to rule on something. Would he like the Minister to clarify his point of order?
Jeremy Quin
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy to clarify. If that was the impression that I gave the hon. Gentleman, it was not my intention. The Conservative party took no disciplinary action in respect of that matter. It was a Brexit vote, as the hon. Gentleman will recall. I thank him for the opportunity to put that on the record.
Manchester Arena Inquiry: Volume 3 Report
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the inquiry into the horrendous attack on Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017.
I work closely with MI5. While its activity is necessarily discreet, the whole country should be profoundly grateful for the patriotism and courage of its staff. They work indefatigably every day to keep the British people safe. Since the start of 2017, MI5 and the police have disrupted 37 late-stage attack plots.
An Islamist suicide bomber murdered 22 people and injured more than 1,000, as well as inflicting incalculable psychological damage and misery. I know that the whole House will join me in expressing our profound sorrow and extending our heartfelt condolences to everyone affected by this barbaric act. They were supposed to have a brilliant time and come home safely. What should have been a simple pleasure turned into a hellish nightmare. It is vital that we understand what happened and what lessons we need to learn, because we must do everything possible to prevent a repeat of this outrage.
Volume 3 of the inquiry was published last Thursday. I would like to thank Sir John Saunders and his team, who have spent more than three years on it. Sir John finds that there was a failure by the Security Service to act swiftly enough, and that there were
“problems with the sharing of information between the Security Service and Counter Terrorism Policing”.
Following the publication of the report, the director general of MI5 and the head of counter-terrorism policing offered their profound apologies for not preventing the attack.
Sir John does not blame any of the educational establishments that the bomber attended for failing to identify that he was a risk, but he does find:
“More needs to be done to ensure that education providers share relevant information about students”.
Sir John concludes that the bomber
“should have been subject to a Prevent referral at some point in 2015 or 2016. However, it is very hard to say what would have happened if”
the bomber
“had been approached under Prevent or the Channel programme.”
The police investigation into the attack, Operation Manteline, is praised.
Although Sir John cannot conclude whether the attack would have been prevented, he finds that there was a significant missed opportunity to take further investigative action that he judges might have led to information that could have prevented it. While this is welcome, and the Home Office will work at pace with both organisations to act on the chairman’s recommendations, we must not lose sight of the fact that responsibility for the attack lies with the bomber and his brother. These conclusions require careful consideration.
Since 2017, the Government have made a number of changes to how we deal with and seek to prevent terrorist attacks. We have given law enforcement and intelligence agencies improved powers. We have strengthened the controls around access to explosives precursors. We have strengthened the management of terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders in prison and on licence. We have ended the automatic early release of terrorist offenders in England, Wales and Scotland, and we have ensured that the sentences served by terrorists reflect the severity of their offending. We have strengthened the tools for monitoring dangerous people in the community.
We have invested heavily in counter-terrorism. We unveiled a new counter-terrorism operations centre in 2021 that brings together partners from counter-terrorism policing, the intelligence agencies, the criminal justice system and other Government agencies. This will allow minute-by-minute collaboration between teams in the police and MI5. Last year’s integration of special branch into the national CT policing network will improve our response to the full range of national security threats, boost skills and ensure better communication between agencies and a more consistent and effective national response.
Work is under way to develop a new faith security training scheme to raise security awareness among faith communities and help them to mitigate threats. We continue to engage with faith organisations and security experts to develop the scheme. In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) announced the continuation of the Jewish community protective security grant for 2022. In May, new funding was allocated to provide protective security at mosques and Muslim faith schools.
In response to any terrorist attack affecting British nationals, in the UK or overseas, the Home Office’s victims of terrorism unit works to ensure that the right support is available to them. The unit is conducting an internal review to strengthen its work. I am overseeing a comprehensive review of the CONTEST strategy to combat terrorism. It follows on from the independent review of Prevent, led by William Shawcross, which assessed the programme’s effectiveness in preventing people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. As the review made clear, Prevent requires major reform, and I have accepted all its recommendations.
Prevent has underestimated the threat of Islamist extremism, which remains far the biggest threat that we face, and too often it has minimised the role of ideology in terrorism. It will focus on security, not on political correctness, and its first objective will be to tackle the ideological causes of terrorism. The Government have also developed a comprehensive system of support for the owners and operators of public places across the UK. It includes access to research-driven expertise through products delivered by the National Counter Terrorism Security Office and the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.
However, we must go further. Martyn’s law, formerly known as the Protect Duty, will introduce proportionate new security requirements for certain public premises throughout the UK. They will be better prepared and ready to respond, and their staff will know what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. Martyn’s law will clarify who is responsible for security activity at the premises in scope, increasing accountability. We are also considering how an inspection function will oversee compliance, to provide appropriate advice, and, where necessary, to sanction.
Martyn Hett was one of those killed in Manchester. I am enormously grateful to his mother, Figen Murray, and the Martyn’s Law Campaign Team, as well as to Survivors Against Terror and all the security partners, businesses, charities, local authorities and victims’ groups that have informed our work. I have always been humbled when I have met them and heard about their experiences.
The doctrines that underpin the way in which the emergency services respond to incidents have improved since the attack. Let me end by once again recognising the anguish, and the courage, of the loved ones of those who were killed or hurt on that dreadful night. It united the country in sorrow and in disgust. We will continue to work non-stop to prevent further such tragedies from being visited on others, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On 22 May 2017, thousands of people, including children and their parents, went to watch a pop concert. Instead, they were faced with the most unimaginable horror, and 22 people lost their lives, including children, the youngest being just eight years old. Hundreds more were injured. Those families have endured the unimaginable. All our thoughts are with them today, and with the people of Manchester, who have stood and supported each other through the most difficult of times. I join the Home Secretary in thanking Sir John Saunders for his far-reaching inquiry, and for his vital work in seeking answers for the victims and their families.
The responsibility for this vile attack lies with the bomber and his brother, and with those who may have radicalised and enabled them, and we—all of us—condemn their actions in the strongest possible terms. It is right that the brother has been brought to justice. Rightly too, however, this report has looked at why it happened and at what might have prevented it, to seek the truth for families and their loved ones and to identify changes needed for the future. These are important and serious conclusions which are hard to hear: that there was, in Sir John’s words, a
“significant missed opportunity to take action that might have prevented the attack”;
that there was a failure to act swiftly enough on information; that there were failures in the sharing of information; and that the bomber should have been referred to the Prevent programme in 2015 or 2016, although Sir John says it is unclear whether that would have led to action. These are hard conclusions to hear, especially for those who have lost loved ones.
The Home Secretary has rightly said that agencies and counter-terror police work immensely hard to keep us safe every day. Sir John also says in his report that they have disrupted 27 major Islamist extremist terror plots in recent years, in addition to five right-wing and left-wing terror plots. That is a result of their immense efforts night and day. It is because they are dedicated to keeping us safe that they also recognise the importance of facing up to things going wrong, and they too have expressed their profound sorrow and apologies.
Sir John has rightly made recommendations, and everyone is rightly seeking to take them forward. We should support them in doing so, but I want to press the Home Secretary on some of the details of those measures. First, all of us support the work of Figen Murray and many of the Manchester survivors to introduce Martyn’s law, but can the right hon. Lady tell me the timetable? Will the Bill have its Second Reading before the summer recess? On the closed recommendations, which are clearly important, will the entire report be shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee so that it can oversee the changes that need to be made?
On the issues around prisons and the Prevent programme, the bomber repeatedly visited someone who was in prison for terrorist offences, but that did not trigger a further assessment despite some of the wider things that were known about the bomber and his family. That raises serious concerns. Will the Home Secretary look again at the process for monitoring prison visits, and will she accept Sir John’s recommendations about the changes in approach to visits to terrorist and extremist prisoners that need to be taken and also his recommendations on changes to the law?
Sir John also concludes that it is highly likely that the bombers used a video online to help them to make the device in 2016. It is appalling that that video was not taken down. It is also troubling that, seven years on, we do not have the Online Safety Bill on the statute. This also raises concerns about the lack of a proper strategy on online radicalisation. Can I urge the Home Secretary to urgently revise the countering extremism strategy, which is now eight years out of date despite her predecessors having received recommendations from the countering extremism commissioner in 2018 that it was already out of date then? Will she urgently revise it to address online radicalisation?
Sir John also warns about a potential indicator of extremism being violent misogyny in this case. There are patterns here affecting different kinds of extremism—Islamist extremism, far right extremism and incel extremism —so will the Home Secretary commission a review to look at what role violent misogyny may be playing and how far it should be understood as a potential indicator of extremism and radicalisation? Sir John also raises workforce pressures, particularly in the north-west. Given the new threats from hostile states, can the Home Secretary comment on what her assessment is of resources?
Finally, concerns were raised that the security services did not understand the threats from Libya sufficiently, and that that was a wake-up call. Does the Home Secretary recognise that that shows the importance for them to continually reassess different threats and not to have a hierarchy of threats or extremism but to pursue the evidence wherever it takes them? The Home Secretary mentioned the survivors, and we think of them. However, many of them still feel that they lack the support and help they need, even many years after the truly terrible things that happened. Will she meet Survivors Against Terror and look again at what further support can be provided for those who lost loved ones and those who were hurt in that terrible event?
Suella Braverman
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions, which I will address in due course. I agree entirely with her assessment that we must now all come together—the Government, the security services and the emergency services—to learn the lessons of this awful tragedy and work to reduce the likelihood of future attacks. It was a truly sad and terrible incident, but I want to reassure the public that our priority is to keep them safe. We must root out extremism wherever we find it, and we must give no quarter to political correctness as we do so. We must respond quickly to all criticisms, but we must also recognise the serious work that has taken place since the attack.
On Martyn’s law, the Government will publish draft legislation for scrutiny in the spring. After that, we will introduce a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. Its progress will depend on Parliament passing it and agreeing a date for commencement. There will be a lead-in time to allow for those captured by the Bill to prepare.
Martyn’s law is one part of our extensive efforts across Government, including by the police and security services, to combat the threat of terrorism. There remains an intensive programme of guidance, developed by security experts, counter-terrorism policing and other partners, to provide high-quality advice to stakeholders and others with responsibility for public places. I look forward to moving forward with the solution and to presenting the Bill on Martyn’s law.
We have published a new policy framework allowing for greater scrutiny of the contact between terrorist prisoners and the public. Our new approved contacts scheme, to be implemented this year, will allow greater checks on the visitors and phone contacts of those convicted of terrorism and terrorism-connected offences, regardless of the category of prison in which they are held.
A large amount of work has been done since 2017 to support and improve the consistency of local authority Prevent delivery, and to manage the risk posed by subjects of interest. This includes additional funding and support for the highest-priority areas, the publication of the Prevent duty toolkit and the development of the multi-agency centre programme. We are working across Government to mitigate the risk posed by those about whom we have concerns.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asked about support for families who are going through this unimaginable process, which is why I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement last week on the Government’s commitment to legislating, as soon as possible, to establish an independent public advocate to support victims following a major incident. The IPA will help victims to navigate the systems and processes that may follow a major incident, such as the police investigation, the inquests and inquiries. I hope it does not have to be used, but in the event of a tragedy, we will have the resources, expertise and structures in place to support families in this unimaginable situation.
I know the whole House will agree that we must now move forward with a solution to ensure our frameworks and processes are as robust as possible so that we never again see anything like this.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On behalf of the ISC, I extend our deepest sympathy to the families and individuals so dreadfully affected by this terrorist act.
I welcome the publication of the third volume of the Manchester Arena inquiry report, and I express my strong appreciation for the work of the inquiry team. Of course, the Committee will carefully consider the report and Sir John Saunders’s request that we should monitor the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations. In the meantime, do the Government acknowledge and accept that the ISC is the only Committee of Parliament equipped with both the facilities and the clearances fully to undertake this type of classified scrutiny?
Suella Braverman
Sir John Saunders has made it clear that he is determined that the recommendations are monitored, and he has made arrangements with the ISC to that effect. The open part of volume 3 has only just been published, and the closed recommendations have not yet been shared with the Government. We will carefully consider the report’s findings and recommendations in full. We will also consider any recommendations that Sir John makes about the role the ISC can play in the light of the memorandum of understanding that exists between the Committee and the Government. That MOU is available on the Committee’s website.
Yes, the ISC is a very effective and secure forum in which, as has happened in the past, the delivery on the back of such inquiries can be properly scrutinised.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
The awful events on 22 May 2017 led to the deaths of 22 innocent people and to hundreds more being injured and affected for the rest of their lives. Of course, the ultimate responsibility lies with the bomber who detonated his homemade device in the foyer of Manchester Arena as the crowds left an Ariana Grande concert. I welcome the fact that MI5 has reflected and apologised for its role in failing to prevent this heinous attack. For example, the report finds that intelligence could have led to the bomber being followed to a car where he stored his explosives. The inquiry also found that two pieces of information about the bomber were assessed by the Security Service as not being terrorism-related. An officer also admitted that they considered a possible national security concern on one of those pieces of information, but did not immediately discuss it with colleagues and did not write up a report on the same day.
May I first ask the Home Secretary what steps she is taking to ensure that the security services improve in their communications and information sharing, guaranteeing that professional standards do not fall short, as they have done in this case? Secondly, the inquiry has found that the bomber was probably assisted by someone in Libya, but because of gaps in available evidence, that line of inquiry has not been addressed sufficiently. Can the Home Secretary provide further information on whether the investigation will continue to search for those who assisted the bomber? Given how much frustration the victims’ families are experiencing, understandably, as a result of information being withheld due to national security implications, will the Home Secretary at least provide reassurance to those families that the UK Government will leave no stone unturned in finding justice for their relatives?
Suella Braverman
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Following the attacks in 2017, MI5 and counter-terrorism policing together carried out a series of reviews. Their 126 recommendations included: better data exploitation; the wider sharing of intelligence; and changes to how terrorist threats were assessed and investigated. An independent review by David Anderson concluded in December 2017 that
“the recommendations taken as a whole will strengthen MI5 and the police in their ability to stop most terrorist attacks.”
So a wide range of measures and actions have been taken since 2017 to improve data sharing, data exploitation and the assessment of intelligence. Let me give her and the British people the assurance that no stone will be left unturned by this Government to keep the British people safe. That is why have announced an investment of £370 million in a new counter-terrorism operations centre—CTOC. The new headquarters for London-based counter-terrorism policing, the intelligence community and Government partners will increase the strength, resilience and collaboration of our wholesale UK counter-terrorism effort.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for this statement. With 22 people murdered and more than 1,000 people injured, the impact of this attack on families will go on for a lifetime. We must not only learn lessons, but ensure it never happens again. I welcome the Government backing for Martyn’s law. That is really important, because people want to know that when they go into a venue they are safe. While we are waiting for that to come forward—I hope it can be brought forward quickly—what conversations is she having and what instructions is she giving to venues to make sure that they start to act now and do not wait until the legislation is put in place?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to the steps we are taking. We are going to introduce Martyn’s law to impose legal duties on public venues and those responsible for public spaces to secure them against potential terrorist threats. We are already taking considerable action to ensure that there is high-quality advice, best practice and support for those responsible for public places. Many businesses and organisations already do excellent work to improve their security and preparedness, but legislative requirements will go just that step further in ensuring that there is a robust approach and that everyone knows what their duties are.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I wish to thank Mr Speaker for allowing me to speak as a constituency MP from the Back Benches today.
The Manchester Arena attack led to the devastating loss of 22 innocent lives, including those of Alison Howe and Lisa Lees, who were killed as they waited for their 15-year-old daughters to come out of the concert. I wish to place on record my heartfelt sorrow for the family and to reflect on their courage and dignity over the past nearly six years during the course of this investigation and report. I say to the Home Secretary that, given how long the victims have been waiting to see this report and the outcomes, the cruel findings of that report have to be acknowledged. Although she has done some of that, can she go further and put on record what will be done for the victims finally to put right the wrongs that have been identified in the report?
Suella Braverman
May I associate myself with the comments that the hon. Gentleman has so powerfully made about his constituents? The report does not pull its punches. Sir John is unequivocal in his assessment of what happened, what should have happened, what could have happened, and what may have resulted as a consequence. That is why the director-General of MI5 and the lead at Counter Terrorism Policing did not shy away from the words that they expressed last week. It is absolutely right that we support the families going forward. I want them to know that I have full confidence in the process that Sir John has just run. It has been extensive and it has taken a long time. Some of the hearings had to be carried out during covid, with additional burden. The process was exhaustive and robust at all times. We have here an authoritative conclusion and assessment of what happened and, importantly, lessons that we can all learn and take forward, so that such an incident does not happen again.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Home Secretary is to be commended for her statement today and for her refocusing of Prevent on Islamist fundamentalism. That tyranny is the greatest threat to us. Will she take account of the recommendations of this inquiry in two particular respects? The first is the relationship between counter-terrorism police and the intelligence services—she spoke about collaboration a moment ago. Secondly, as the shadow Home Secretary said, the continuing observation of those who were formerly subjects of interest but then moved to less stringent surveillance seems to be a critical element in this inquiry.
Suella Braverman
As Sir John said in his report, no one should underestimate the very difficult job that the Security Service and Counter Terrorism Policing do, and that job has become more difficult with the emergence of lone-actor terrorists whose activities are more difficult to track. That is why the Government, including MI5, are committed to doing everything in their power to strengthen our defences against terrorism. That is also why Prevent remains a vital tool for early intervention. Without a Prevent referral being made, it is impossible for authorities to intervene to support those susceptible to radicalisation. It is an essential tool in minimising and eliminating the threat posed by terrorism, and it is vital that we now carry out the reforms of William Shawcross to improve it so that we stamp out this insidious behaviour.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I am also grateful for special dispensation to speak from the Back Benches on this matter.
The arena bomb was one of the most distressing and difficult episodes in the history of Greater Manchester—I think because so many children were affected by life-changing injuries from having been at a music venue. One of my constituents has been left without her hearing, possibly for the rest of her life. My constituents have never wanted this inquiry to be about blame; they wanted it to be about being able to say that we will learn lessons from the response that the country makes and that in future we will be better and stronger as a result.
I will raise just two specific matters. First, the report highlights the lack of an update to the counter-extremism strategy; the Home Secretary mentioned many things that I think form the strands of that, but I want to know that, if somebody who has links to a country such as Libya is visiting a known terror offender in prison, that will be closely monitored in future. Secondly, from the point of view of the survivors and the victims’ families, who have shown great courage throughout this very difficult process—I pay specific tribute to groups such as the Manchester Survivors Choir, which has been a huge source of support for some of my constituents—can the Home Secretary confirm how they will be supported now the that inquiry has finished?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Gentleman asks about changes to the counter-terrorism system and in particular the refresh of our world-leading counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, which is being updated to protect the public from new and emerging threats to our way of life. As I say, we expect to publish the updated version of CONTEST later this year. We want to ensure that it achieves its aim of reducing the terrorism risk to the UK, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. It is based on prevent, pursue, protect and prepare, and we must ensure that it is fit for purpose so that the public are kept safe from terrorism.
In terms of support for the families, they have been frankly heroic in the ordeal that they have been through in voicing their concerns, giving evidence and dealing with the tragedy of this horrendous incident. They have been very powerful. Their evidence has informed the recommendations and the conclusions, which will inform the practice of MI5 and all our security agencies, and for that I am grateful.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Olivia Campbell-Hardy, from Bury, was 15 years of age when she went out that evening and did not come back. She was a beautiful, wonderful person. Today we have the third volume of the report, which says there was
“a significant missed opportunity to take action”
on the part of MI5. We have also had previously highlighted the shocking failures of the venue’s owners, the security contractors and the emergency services. Some of those who died—not all of them—could still be alive today, and I would like to know about accountability. Too often in this place, an apology from an organisation seems to be enough. Well, it is not. People died as a result not only of the actions of this bomber, but because of the gross negligence of some of the bodies I mentioned. Who is being held accountable, who will be responsible, and will that information be passed on to the families?
Suella Braverman
As the inquiry’s report makes clear, the responsibility for the events of 22 May 2017 lie with the bomber and his brother. Responsibility rests with them. When it comes to whether lives could have been saved, the Government are of course incredibly sorry—I understand that sorry is a weak word for the people directly affected, and our thoughts remain with them—but Sir John Saunders is also clear in his conclusion:
“It remains quite impossible to say whether any different or additional action taken by the authorities could have prevented the Attack. It might have done; it might not have done.”
He also says that it is
“very hard to say what would have happened”
if the bomber
“had been approached under Prevent or the Channel programme.”
It is difficult to make those clear, direct causal connections. However, as I have said before, he does not shy away from saying that there was a significant oversight and there were failings in the process. There are no words that will provide solace to the families affected, but I hope that they can gain confidence from knowing that huge seriousness is attached to this report and we are doing everything in our power to make sure that the lessons learned will be applied in the real world.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Our thoughts are with the families of the victims, and I thank Sir John for his report. The Home Secretary will be aware that in 2018, the ISC, which I sit on, did a report on the Manchester bombing and the other terrorist attacks that took place in 2017. Many of the conclusions are mirrored in Sir John’s report, including on the purchase of precursor chemicals. Five years on, nothing has been done about that.
The Home Secretary said to the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that she respects the Committee’s work. As we are the only Committee that can look at the closed report and closed evidence, it is important that if we make recommendations, they are acted on. To date, the Government’s response to ISC’s work is not good. Last July, we produced our right-wing terrorism report. The memorandum of understanding says that the Government have 60 days to reply but we are still waiting. I also say to her that the actions of her Department in our scrutiny of the National Security Bill were far from helpful.
Suella Braverman
On chemical precursors, we have enhanced our capabilities to detect terrorist activity involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive materials and their precursors, and to control and safeguard those materials. Since 2017, among other things, we have strengthened the controls on access to explosive precursors. We regulated sulphuric acid, for example, in 2018. In 2023, we have laid secondary legislation that will improve how suspicious activity reports are made. We have done a lot of work on that issue, but we can always go further.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The UK has some of the best intelligence agencies in the world. They have many successes every day, many of which, as the Home Secretary will know, cannot be made public. However, they also make mistakes, and they admit that, as in this case and others.
More widely—but not linked to this specific inquiry at this point—is it not time for the Justice and Security Act 2013, and the memorandum of understanding that allows the Intelligence and Security Committee to do its work, to be updated so that there can be full, comprehensive, up-to-date scrutiny of our intelligence agencies, which have huge budgets, huge powers and a huge number of personnel?
Suella Braverman
We have a very high level of scrutiny of our agencies, whether that is through the Intelligence and Security Committee or the independent reviewer. In relation to the Manchester Arena attack, there have been several reports and hundreds of recommendations, many of which have been implemented by the agencies. There is a high level of scrutiny, but we need to balance that with the need not to tie the hands of our agents, because they do vital work and we do not want to start chilling the effect of that work.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Manchester Arena bombing was an utterly despicable attack on innocent children and adults, and our sympathies go to all the families who were affected.
Sir John Saunders’ report recognised failings in information sharing. The fact that Salman Abedi was a person of interest would not have been known to many of those who were perhaps best placed to spot his radicalisation, and they were unaware of the risk that he presented, including at the mosque where he worshipped. The Home Secretary mentioned the new faith security training scheme. Will she expand on how that scheme might appropriately equip religious institutions and community groups to assist the authorities in identifying potentially radicalised individuals, so that they can help to thwart future attacks?
Suella Braverman
There are lots of measures that we have implemented and are continuing to roll out to ensure that those who may pose a risk receive some kind of intervention. The “ACT Early” campaign, for example, seeks to raise awareness of the signs of radicalisation and where to go if a person needs support about someone they know. The Shawcross report looked into educational establishments and how they can more effectively support counter-terrorism work. There is a multi-agency job of work to do and everyone needs to be clear about their responsibilities to ensure that we prevent and minimise the risk.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and of course all our thoughts are with the victims, their families and the survivors.
Prevent’s original principles were about rooting out extremism and stopping people from turning into terrorists. As the Shawcross review found, a number of its projects drifted away from that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has happened only underlines the need for a successful and effective Prevent programme that deals with the people most at risk of becoming terrorists, whatever their motivation?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: whether we are talking about Islamist extremism or far-right extremism, the Shawcross review is clear that we need a more transparent, efficient and sustainable programme. We need more independent oversight; we need to build an extensive programme of communications and community engagement; we need new risk assessment tools; and we need to ensure that a consistent approach is applied to all risks, so that we can be effective in minimising the threat.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Elaine McIver was a serving police officer with Cheshire police who went along to a concert and was killed, like 22 other people—the youngest victim being eight. A very close family member worked in the immediate aftermath of that terrorist atrocity. What I am seeking from the Home Secretary today, like all other Members from across the House, is reassurance that the recommendations of Sir John’s report will be implemented in full, no ifs and no buts.
Suella Braverman
We want to ensure that all the recommendations of Sir John’s reports are fully reflected upon and make a difference. That is what I am focused on—that we learn the lessons from this tragic incident, and improve our operational responses and our manner of dealing with the risks. We also want to make sure that victims of terrorism receive the support that they deserve, which is why the victims of terrorism unit is conducting an internal review to see how we can improve the package of support available to victims in that terrible situation.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Liam Curry and Chloe Rutherford from South Shields were murdered in the Manchester Arena attack. The Home Secretary will have seen their brave parents in reports outside court last week. She will also know that archaic law in relation to terror attacks is denying them the chance to register their precious children’s deaths. After being told repeatedly that there was a willingness from Government to try to change that law, they recently attended another meeting with Ministers. This time, they were treated with contempt, patronised and insulted. It then became clear that they have been misled by the Government for nearly a year, because despite it being entirely possible to change that law, the Government and, in particular, the Home Secretary’s Department simply do not want to. This is adding to the parents’ anguish and pain. Will the Home Secretary please reconsider and meet with them?
Suella Braverman
Of course, I deeply feel for and sympathise with the families who have been so tragically bereaved by the Manchester Arena attack. Any family bereaved in unexpected and tragic circumstances deserve our full support and condolences.
There is no legal flexibility on that requirement, as the death would not otherwise be registered in accordance with the legislation. I know that this is a disappointing situation. This is not an issue that the Ministry of Justice alone can resolve, and the Home Office Minister, Lord Murray of Blidworth, explained to the Manchester Arena families that long-term change would interfere with the coherence of the General Register Office’s registration process. I know that that is disappointing, but I am always willing to consider new approaches.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
This report details opportunities tragically missed by MI5, but also reminds us of the need for us all to be vigilant. We know that a member of the public who saw the perpetrator and thought he looked suspicious raised his concerns with a member of the Showsec security staff, but no effective action was taken. While welcoming the Government’s approach to Martyn’s law, can I ask the Secretary of State what more the Government are proposing to do to ensure that security staff in both the public and the private sector have proper training and well-rehearsed procedures for how to respond in similar circumstances, to help prevent future such tragedies?
Suella Braverman
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the proposed Martyn’s law. The details in general have been set out: premises that will be within the scope will be those that are a building or event within a defined boundary. There will need to be a qualifying activity at the location, and the maximum occupancy of the premises will need to meet a specific threshold—either 100-plus or 800-plus. That will potentially cover a lot of public spaces and be a real step change in how we ensure more protection for users of public spaces.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
After the horrific, tragic, cowardly Manchester Arena bombing, survivors and victims’ families have shown immense strength and courage throughout the whole inquiry process. However, the victims and survivors of previous disasters, including the Hillsborough tragedy, have had to wait years and years for Governments to act on the recommendations of reports and issue a full response. Can the Home Secretary commit today to ensuring that the Manchester families do not have to suffer a similar delay?
Suella Braverman
We are working on that, and as I have said, there has already been a huge amount of change, reform and improvement within the agencies as a response to the event in 2017. This report marks another step forward. We will consider everything and we will move forward accordingly, but we will also be responding both to Bishop James Jones’s report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families and to the report of the Daniel Morgan independent panel, following which we will consider fully the recommendation on the full duty of candour.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, may I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the compassion and tone of her response? I think we all deeply appreciate it and thank the Secretary of State for that. On behalf of my party, the Democratic Unionist party, I wish also to record that our thoughts and prayers are with all those who lost loved ones and who today grieve greatly.
Will the Secretary of State accept that the parents of the children slaughtered and maimed are not looking for apologies? Instead, they are looking for improvements to ensure that no parent goes through the devastation that they have felt and still feel. For those parents and those families, what further changes will stem from the finalisation of this report?
Suella Braverman
The hon. Gentleman puts it very well. Just to give a sample, even before this report was published, since 2017 MI5 and other partners have conducted a series of reviews, subject to robust external oversight, and the Intelligence and Security Committee has published a report. There were hundreds of recommendations, and many of them have been implemented already to improve counter-terrorism operations, to improve intelligence sharing, to build a better response that goes traditional security agencies, and to connect expertise and all kinds of public sector authorities. A lot of work has been delivered, and we want to build on that.
SEND and Alternative Provision
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before we come to the statement, I would like to point out that British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
With permission, I will make a statement on our progress to improve outcomes for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities or in alternative provision in England. For those with special educational needs and disabilities, many schools and councils are doing a brilliant job. I have met many wonderful teachers who are unbelievably passionate about supporting children to be happier, more confident and better prepared for adulthood. However, too often our children and young people do not get the support they need and their parents have lost trust in the system. Our special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision Green Paper set out proposals to deliver a more inclusive system, and I give credit to my predecessors, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for the work they have put into this area.
I would like to put on record my thanks to the thousands of people who responded to the Green Paper consultation, and to the parents, children and young people who shared their experiences with us. Most people agreed that the experiences and outcomes of children and young people vary significantly around the country. We heard too many stories of families who were frustrated by the system, and who were battling to access specialist education, health or care services, including mental health services. I assure the House that we have taken those contributions and comments on board.
On Thursday, we published the “Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan” jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The plan sets out the next steps that we will take to deliver a more positive experience for children and families. Our mission is threefold. First, we want every child and young person to enjoy their childhood, and feel well prepared for their next step, whether that is into employment, higher education or adult services. Secondly, we know that the system has lost the confidence of parents and carers. We need to regain their trust by improving the support that is ordinarily available. Finally, we have increased the high-needs budget by over 50% in the past four years; we now need to make sure that the funding is being well spent.
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. To do that, we will develop new national special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision standards, which will cover early years, school, and post-16 provision. The standards will set out what types of support should be available, and who, according to the best possible evidence, should be responsible for making sure that it is. That will include clarifying the types of support that should ordinarily be available in mainstream settings, so that families can have confidence and clarity about how their children’s needs will be met. We will develop new practice guides to support frontline professionals in implementing evidence-based best practice. We will start by building on best practice, including on early language support, autism and mental health and wellbeing.
To deliver for children and their families locally, we will establish local SEND and AP partnerships. They will support local authorities in producing, together with families, local inclusion plans that are in line with the national standards. Those plans will set out how good-quality alternative provision will be made available. In our new approach to AP, instead of it being a permanent destination, it will be used as an intervention, in order to support those who may feel anxious, or struggle with their behaviour, in mainstream school. This system will mean that more children and young people have their needs met effectively in mainstream settings. That will reduce the reliance on education, health and care plans for accessing support.
Early intervention is crucial. That is why we are training thousands more early years special educational needs co-ordinators and 400 more educational psychologists, who will be able to identify children who need support, and to provide expert advice. We will ensure that children and young people who require an education, health and care plan or specialist provision will get prompt access to the support that they need, within a less adversarial system. We will introduce new standardised EHCPs, and will support local authorities in increasing their use of digital technology, so that the process is easier and quicker for families. By providing a tailored list of settings that are able to meet the needs set out in an EHCP, we will ensure that families can express an informed preference for a placement, so that children and young people can get the right support in the right setting. We will continue to work closely with families and local authorities as we test this proposal.
It is crucial to have the right school places in an area. We will invest £2.6 billion by 2025 in new special and alternative provision places, and in improving provision, including by opening 33 new special free schools; a further 49 are already in the pipeline. We will shortly launch competitions to run these schools.
I am determined to ensure that all children and young people progress to the next stage of life with confidence and optimism, so we will publish guidance on ensuring effective transitions between all stages of education, and an effective transition into employment and adult services. To improve transitions into employment, we are investing in supported internships; we aim to double the capacity of the programme between 2022 and 2025. We will also 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.
I know that the whole House will wish to join me in thanking everyone who works so hard to deliver for children and young people with SEND or in alternative provision. Honestly, some of the most inspirational visits that I go on involve meeting them. For our reforms to succeed, we need a strong, confident workforce with robust leadership, and access to specialists where needed. We will deliver a new leadership-level national professional qualification for special educational needs co-ordinators, so that this key part of the workforce receives high-quality, evidence-based training. We are also extending the alternative provision specialist taskforce pilot programme, which co-locates a diverse specialist workforce in alternative provision schools.
Informed by a stronger evidence base, we will take a joint approach to workforce planning with the Department of Health and Social Care, and we will establish a steering group this year to drive this work forward. We will also partner with NHS England to trial new ways of working to better identify and support children with speech, language and communication needs in early years and primary schools. Meeting children’s social, emotional and mental health needs is also a crucial aspect of strong special educational needs provision. Our school and college mental health support teams will be expanded to around 400 operational teams later this year, covering around 35% of pupils in England, and it will reach around 500 operational teams by 2024.
I began by saying that we had to regain parents’ trust, and I know that part of this means strengthening accountability across the board so that everyone is held to account for supporting children and young people. The new Ofsted and Care Quality Commission area SEND inspection framework now focuses on the experience of children and young people with SEND or in AP. Going forward, Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission and the Department for Education will provide oversight and ongoing monitoring of reforms, including delivery in line with the local inclusion plans. From this autumn, parents will be able to monitor the performance of their local systems through the establishment of local and national inclusion dashboards. Where there are disagreements about an individual’s special educational needs provision or support, we will make it clearer how concerns and complaints should be dealt with by local areas. We will also strengthen the quality of mediation and test different approaches for resolving disputes earlier.
So that all children and young people can access the support they need to fulfil their potential, we must put the system on a stable and sustainable financial footing. We secured £2 billion a year in additional schools funding in the autumn statement from this April, of which £400 million has been earmarked for SEND and AP. We are working with local authorities to address deficits through our delivering better value and safety valve programmes. Parents told us that some reforms would need careful consideration, so I am pleased to announce that a £70 million change programme will fund up to nine regional expert partnerships to design and test our reform proposals in collaboration with parents. To get this under way, we are today launching the tender for the programme’s delivery partner.
Oversight of reform will be provided through a new national special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision implementation board, jointly chaired by myself 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. Delivering for children and young people is of the utmost importance. My priority is to make sure that every single child and young person can access the support they need to make the most of their lives. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement.
“Every family in the country with anyone with special educational needs will have felt at times like they’re battling the system…you’re fighting for it, fighting for support.”
This is how the Education Secretary spoke about the SEND system last week, and I know that her words will chime with many parents and families across the country. So my question to the Minister today is this: does she really believe this plan is good enough? Does she truly believe it will shift the dial and end the fight for support, end the battle for places at special schools and end the scandal that sees so many children with special educational needs held back?
I know there is support right across this House for action to improve the lives of children and young people, yet in the words of the Children’s Commissioner, the plan the Government have set out risks seeing
“more years of children being fed”
into a “vicious cycle” of poor outcomes. Much of the substance in this plan will not even come into effect until 2025 or even 2026, at best six years after the review was announced. New national standards, new special school places, new standardised digital education, health and care plans—none of this will be coming online until a further 300,000 children with SEND have left secondary school. So can the Minister say what the Government are doing right now for the children in the system today? How can parents, carers, and families be better supported now for the children whose needs are currently going unmet?
I welcome the fact that the Minister has listened to Labour’s call for a focus on the early years. Identifying children’s needs early is vital and the evidence could not be clearer, yet over 5,000 early years childcare providers have closed since August 2021. I am proud of Labour’s record in Government: the network of life-changing children’s centres we delivered across the country. The Minister’s Government closed over 1,300 children’s centres, and now, 13 years on, why on earth do Ministers expect parents to be grateful for the promise of the much more limited family hubs?
The plan sets the aim of reducing the number of children with education, health and care plans. Reducing EHCPs through improving support in mainstream schools and getting better support in place early would be welcome, but it must not simply be seen as a means of reducing costs within the system. Which of the proposals discussed will reduce the need for EHCPs, and how will they be delivered? Will the Minister provide reassurance to parents, already facing an adversarial system, that an EHCP will not become more difficult to obtain for children who do need that level of support?
I want to thank the thousands of staff working every day to support young people with special educational needs and disabilities. School support staff are frequently working with children with the most complex needs, yet all too often they are not given the training or recognition they need and deserve. Meanwhile, less than half of teachers feel that they receive sufficient training to support pupils with SEND. I am sure the Minister will point to the promised new practice guides, again, sadly, not due until 2025, but can she today go further and tell us when all school staff working with children with additional needs will receive greater support?
The plan talks about accountability within the system. After 13 years of Conservative Governments, we hear time and again about the same problems: “significant weaknesses” in local services for pupils with SEND; health services disengaged; families bounced from pillar to post, unable to access the support they need. This is a national pattern of failure that requires a national response. When do the Government intend to get their own House in order?
Parents, providers and all people working in the system to support children and young people are already asking whether Labour will stand by the direction of travel set out in this plan, because while it is right to test policies to ensure they work, this plan is symptomatic of a Government who have simply given up, and who are governing through a mixture of distraction and delay, pushing the tough decisions to the other side of the election. So, I say to all parents, carers and children with additional needs, “Labour wants to work with you to get this right and deliver the system that you have rightly been calling for over so many years, and to enable every child and every young person to achieve and thrive.”
Claire Coutinho
I would like to come back on some of those points.
First, on the ambition of the reforms, these are systemic reforms: we are looking at every single part of the system and addressing a lot of the challenges that providers and parents talk about. Communications with councils comes up a lot with parents, for example, and we are setting out a new standard on that. On timeliness of EHCPs, we are working on joint-partnership working with health providers and local councils so that they can deliver on that. On teachers, we are talking about training as well. So, yes, I do think this is an ambitious set of reforms and that it will improve people’s lives.
On the timeline, we have not waited for the publication of the improvement plan. Not only have we increased the amount of funding for the high needs block by over 50% in the last four years, but we have also taken schools funding to historic record real-time highs, so anyone who is in mainstream funding can also get additional support.
We have also set out £2.6 billion on a capital programme to increase the number of specialist places. We set out 33 new pre-schools last week, but we have already built 92 and there are 49 in the pipeline with seven due to open in September. We have also set out funding on educational psychologists. So there is much that we have already started to do, and we have not waited for the improvement plan. When setting out steps like national standards, however, it is important that we consult and take time to get it right.
The hon. Lady mentioned teacher training. We are going to review both initial teacher training and the early careers framework, which will work in tandem with our best practice guides to make sure that all teachers have the best possible evidence base to work from.
Lastly, accountability is something that we have been baking into the system for a while. We have put forward a new area inspection framework. Again, that brings in all the partners, because we know that education is as important as health. We will have a new social care inspector on those area inspections for the first time. In 2019, we changed the standards for schools so that a school cannot be considered good or outstanding unless it gets good outcomes for its special educational needs children. We are looking at all those points of accountability to ensure that the system works as well as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), and the Minister for Health and Secondary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), for all the detailed work they have done in this area. There is much to be welcomed in the improvement plan. The aspiration in the foreword to
“deliver a more dignified experience for children and young people with SEND and to restore families’ confidence in the system”
must be one that colleagues from all parts of the House can agree with.
Important strides are being taken to invest in new capacity where it is needed. In that vein, I warmly welcome the announcement of a new all-through autism school in south Worcestershire. I have long supported and campaigned for that, as has my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin).
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, to maximise opportunities for children with SEND, we must get the right support for inclusion in mainstream schools, early identification of need and the right specialist provision where it is needed? With that in mind, I urge her to continue to work with Worcestershire Children First to ensure that we can meet the increasing level of need in early years and primary in my neck of the woods.
I would also say that implementation is crucial. We have a strong plan, but getting the implementation right will be very important. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend agree to give evidence to the Select Committee when we look further into these issues in the near future?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right that getting the right provision in mainstream is the key to success, particularly in respect of early identification, so that needs do not escalate, as we know they so often do if people do not get the help that they need at the right time. I welcome the new specialist provision that my hon. Friend will have in Worcestershire. I know that he has campaigned long and hard on that. I would also be delighted to give evidence to the Education Committee.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The goal must be to ensure that every child with a special educational need or disability gets the support that they need now—not in a year or in two or three years’ time—in order for them to achieve their potential. The curriculum framework for children and young people with vision impairment provides a framework of support to those children to access the curriculum and develop the broad range of skills that are necessary to learn alongside their peers and live independently. The curriculum also involves developing life skills for visually impaired children and young people. Will the Government agree to include that new curriculum framework for children living with sight loss in their new standards, or the soon-to-come code of conduct, and draw on the vast knowledge from within the sight-loss sector?
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As we set out national standards and best practice guides, we will be trying to work with the best possible evidence from all providers to ensure that we have those included. We have also set out a new apprenticeship, with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, for teachers of children with sensory impairment. That may be an area that we can collaborate further on.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
I congratulate the Minister, her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), and the Secretary of State for Education on an excellent paper. I would press her further on the initial teacher training review. When will that conclude? That is obviously crucial. Early identification is at the centre of this review. Early identification of neurodiverse conditions—including, for example, dyslexia —is critical, so what tangible action will we see for better screening and better early identification so that every neurodiverse child can reach their potential, and we can support all children to succeed?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. Obviously, he has been a doughty campaigner on the issue of dyslexia, and he has had many constructive conversations with me about the issue. On initial teacher training, we will be working at pace to get that right. On early identification, one thing that will really help is that we are setting out a best practice guide on early speech and language support. Coupled with the phonics test, I think that will be effective in working out which children are struggling with their reading, so that we can get the best support in place as quickly as possible.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
This is quite a confession from the Minister after 13 years of Tory Government. In my constituency, children have waited months, if not years, for an education, health and care plan. Children are waiting three years for an autism diagnosis. There is parental anxiety over schools that do not have the right provision for their children, and anger that special needs children are excluded for misbehaving and left at home with no support. In one case, a teenager with a maturity age many years younger was left to cope in mainstream—they don’t! Does the Minister really think that parents trust her and her failing Government to get it right this time?
Claire Coutinho
I am not sure I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for that particular question, but I understand the frustration parents feel. It is something I have talked to lots of parents about since I became an MP, as I am in an area that has seen a huge rise in need. That is something the system is facing. The Conservative Government enhanced parents’ rights through the Children and Families Act 2014. We are seeing a huge rise in needs and we are setting out plans to deal with that. One thing that I think will help in particular—he mentions cases of children who are struggling in the system to find a place—are the local inclusion plans and partnership working. We will look at every single part of the system to ensure that we can assess needs and that there is suitable provision for all children and young people.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I refer Members to my registered interests. I thank my hon. Friend for what is both a detailed and serious piece of work that identifies the issues that remain in the special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision system. She will know that I took the original reforms through in 2014 in the Children and Families Act. The legislative framework still holds together well, but as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, this is a lot to do with the implementation and the experience on the ground, not least when it comes to the role of health in bringing EHCPs together, especially in mainstream schools. To that end, can she say a little more about how she will make health bodies comply with their statutory duties, and about any greater powers that the Health Secretary may have to take robust action where children’s needs are not being met, both within the current legislative framework and in any future national standards? It is so important that this is done with parents and children, not to them.
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for everything he has done on children’s policy in his time in government. He is absolutely right that we must make sure the health sector is also held accountable. One thing we have done is to change the area inspection framework, as I mentioned, which means that for the first time we will have a social care inspector looking at the health element. The Health and Care Act 2022 requires every integrated care board to have a named person accountable for SEND, which will take on the statutory responsibilities from clinical commissioning groups.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The implementation plan will not work if the workforce is not in place. As we know, to be able to achieve an EHCP, the workforce needs to be in place and it takes many years to train. Those professionals are not there currently, so how will the Minister ensure that the workforce is in place not just in the health pathway but in the school? The experience I am seeing in a particular multi-academy trust in York is that it is laying off the staff who would take responsibility for those children, as opposed to providing the therapeutic environment that children so need.
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that specialist support is really important. We are working with the Department of Health and Social Care on specialist health support, whether that is occupational therapists or speech and language therapists, but we are also training educational psychologists and changing the special educational needs co-ordinator training. More importantly, we want all teachers to be trained in SEN. That is why we are looking at initial teacher training and the early careers framework. A huge proportion of the school population now has an SEN and we need everybody to be trained in it.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s new improvement plan on special educational needs and disabilities. I recently held an autism roundtable in Stafford to discuss the pressures parents are facing with gaps in support locally. What new support will now be available for parents of children with special educational needs?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for meeting me when she pressed me on this issue. We will be putting lots of things in place for parents, but in particular we will be ensuring that a specialist workforce is in place, that increased funding is going into schools and that there is better communication from councils, which is one of the new standards we will be bringing in. Hopefully, all that will help give parents confidence in the system. On the particular challenge with EHCPs, we will be streamlining and digitising them, which will hopefully help parents with the bureaucracy of trying to get their children the support they need.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), I recently held a meeting with parents of children with special educational needs. They raised a number of issues, including having to wait years for support, a lack of psychologists available and a lack of specialist school places. Barnsley has one of the highest numbers of EHCP plans in the country. I therefore welcome a number of the proposals in the statement, but how many young people with SEND will have left formal education before the plans come into effect? May I press the Minister again on what resources are available to help people now?
Claire Coutinho
As I mentioned, we have been increasing the budget, the high needs block, for the last four years. We have also set up further funding for schools, which will be going into the system. On specialist provision, as I said we have 92 new free special schools, with 49 in the pipeline and seven opening in September. We have also announced a further 33.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome more resource and better service in this crucial area. Where new schools are being considered, will the Minister ensure that local MPs are properly consulted, because there will be a lot of local public interest in the location, the style of development and the impact on existing provision?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. Yes, I am happy to discuss with him the school—I think there might be two—coming forward in his area.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
This plan comes three years after the SEND review was launched. Given that most of the national standards will not be published until late 2025, the new EHCP template will not be rolled out until 2025, the cross-departmental steering group will not complete its work until 2025 and no new primary legislation will be proposed until at least 2025, what message would the Minister like to give to the parents and children in my constituency and right across the country who have already been waiting too long and fighting far too hard to access the support they need and are entitled to?
Claire Coutinho
We have not waited for the improvement plan to take action. Not only have we increased the overall budget for the high needs block by 50% in the last four years; we have increased school funding to record highs, we are bringing online more educational psychologists and we are building more specialist school places. All that work is under way. We are improving speech and language in primary school, and we are now looking at what we can do in the early years. All that stuff is under way. We are trying to make sure we can take forward standards in a way that works. We will consult heavily with parents and carers. It is really important to get that right, but there is much action we have been taking already.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have met and got to know families who have children with special educational needs and disabilities. The difficulties those families face in finding the right educational support in the right location can be frustrating and tortuous, as the Minister will know. For too long, the most vulnerable children in Selby have had to travel long distances to find the education they need. As she will know, there has been discussion for some time about a new SEND facility in Selby. I welcome her plan and I know she is passionate about this area. Can she inform me, and the families and children in the Selby district and North Yorkshire, when such a facility will be delivered?
Claire Coutinho
My right hon. Friend has long campaigned for this kind of facility in Selby. I would be happy to meet him to talk further about the details. We are setting out a lot more special free schools in different areas. For those who have not got one in the recent tranche, we will, I am sure, set out more in due course, but we will also be setting out local inclusion plans, which will mean that every area has to assess and meet the needs of its children.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on special educational needs and disabilities. I also have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyspraxia and dyslexia, so I speak with some experience of difficulties in school. I am concerned about the national standards, which I welcome, but we need to ensure that personalisation is not lost in the process and that there is not a levelling down of standards where they are currently good. I am also concerned that mental health support needs to be accessible for every single child with SEND. Can the Minister reassure me?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that national standards should not be levelled down but there should be a minimum. Across the country, there is huge variability. Some schools, colleges and early years settings do things incredibly well, and we want to ensure that we use the best evidence and make things as transparent as possible. On mental health, we are rolling out support in schools, and we are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on child and adolescent mental health services.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome the measures to help children with special educational needs and their families, particularly the focus on speech and language therapy, which I have discussed with the Minister. Will she consider Norfolk and Waveney as one of the early language support pathfinder areas, and may I encourage her to accelerate these reforms and good ideas?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend has had constructive conversations with me about speech and language therapy. I am delighted that we are rolling out pathfinders, and I would be happy to discuss his options in Norfolk further.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Disabled Children’s Partnership will tomorrow publish its new research report, which shows that just one in five parents reports that they receive the support needed to enable their disabled child to fulfil their potential. That is no surprise considering that it can take up to a year for a case to be heard at tribunal, which delays access to the crucial support that those families desperately need. What are the Government doing to speed up the process, to ensure that every child receives the support to which they are entitled in a timely manner?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Lady is right that too many families are waiting too long. There has been a huge rise in need. We have put elements in place to help: the workforce strategies will ensure specialist provision; the local inclusion plans will ensure that each area is assessing and can meet needs; and the inspection framework will look at health partners, their roles and what they are delivering, so that all children and families can feel confident that the local area will meet their needs.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Too many desperate parents have been seduced by glossy brochures and slick salesmanship to engage in the adversarial process that the Minister mentioned, and to send their children to settings that are often far from home and where the profit motive of their venture capital owners sometimes takes precedence over education delivery. Does she agree that today’s announcement means that more children will receive education that meets their needs closer to home, which will be more cost-effective for the taxpayer?
Claire Coutinho
I have seen a range of provision, including some private provision that is absolutely excellent, but I agree that too many children have to go outside of county to get the specialist provision that they need. Our plan will ensure that each area must assess its local needs and put the specialist provision in place if there is demand for it, so that people can get help on their doorstep, which is good for them and their families.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s undertaking that, “we now need to make sure that the funding is being well spent.” I do not think that that has always been the case in Devon. I have a constituent whose son’s placement in a special school has become unviable, but the child is still on the school roll and the funding connected to his placement is being held in limbo. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that SEND assessments happen in a reasonable timeframe and that the funding follows the child?
Claire Coutinho
In the new area SEND inspection framework, timeliness will be assessed, which it was not previously. The educational psychologists that we are bringing on stream will help to speed up the assessments, as will our other specialist workforce plans.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Stroud district families of children with special educational needs are exhausted from battling. Schools raise SEND all the time, so more power to the Minister’s elbow for the welcome systemic changes she is trying to work through. I would like to hear more about the Department’s work with local authorities, because it is the day-to-day experiences that are exhausting many parents, in councils all over the country of all different colours. Getting back to people, managing expectations and giving advice about delays all need to work better, because they are causing additional stress for families who absolutely do not need it.
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend is passionate about this area. She is absolutely right, and I have heard from parents in my area and across the country that it is the daily grind of poor communication that can wear them down. We will set out more guidance and training for SEN caseworkers in councils, and better communication standards, to stop that happening to parents.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Children and Families Act 2014 set out national standards in legislation, but families, parents and guardians of children with special educational needs and disabilities in Slough regularly lament that they feel completely let down because even those legislative safeguards have failed to provide support for children and young people. After so many years of failures, why does the Minister think that announcing new standards and a plan with no legislative underpinning will deliver better outcomes?
Claire Coutinho
A combination of plans within the strategy will support that. We have seen an increase in need and better awareness of different conditions, so the national standards will bring together the best evidence so that people’s needs are met consistently and at a high quality across the country. On accountability, we have improved the area inspection framework by recognising that we need to bring in not just education and councils but health partners.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that one of the greatest causes of strain and stress in the system is the assessment process. I welcome much that is in this plan, including funding for additional educational psychologists, but they will not be present in the system for some time. More urgently, what can we do to accelerate the assessment process so that children in need can take advantage of all the good things that she has described?
Claire Coutinho
There are two things: increasing the number of educational psychologists, which will improve the ability to get a diagnosis quickly; and ensuring that identification happens in schools or early years. If we can catch things early, we can treat them and make sure that people get the right support so that they do not escalate. Too often, people do not have their needs met and they escalate into a crisis. That will help children and young people to get the exact support that they need earlier on.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I want to give a voice to Oliver, who has high-functioning autism and an EHCP plan in place. The fundamental issue is that the resources have not followed—there has been a lack of specialist provision in the area, and the local authority talks about a lack of resources. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that particular case?
Claire Coutinho
If the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has an EHCP plan and resources have been set out, they should be delivered. In the case of autism, we need to ensure that people are properly supported; it is one of the areas that has risen greatly over the last few years, and I am passionate about ensuring that we have everything in place. I will be happy to look at meeting him.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I welcome the focus on ensuring that general, non-specialist teachers have a better understanding of new neurodiverse conditions. Many young people with learning disabilities are in the mainstream setting and have teachers who understand that neurodiverse people think differently. When it comes to diagnosis, can we please push harder, because so many of my constituents still cannot get an assessment for their kids and are having to go privately?
More generally, could we do a national campaign to encourage employers to do more to hire neurodiverse individuals? This is not about virtue signalling; neurodiverse people are among the great minds—the unconventional, creative thinkers—so the more we can do on that, the better. Neurodiversity week is coming up; I am not usually a fan of such weeks, but on this occasion I think we should put rocket boosters up it.
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend has been a brilliant campaigner and has shown me around some brilliant special schools in his patch, such as the Sir Bobby Robson School. He is absolutely right to recognise neurodiverse people’s opportunities and the benefits that they bring. When I was Minister for disabled people, I saw lots of employers champing at the bit to hire neurodiverse people because of the brilliant skillsets that they draw on. I would be happy to look at what we can do further on the matter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her detailed and helpful statement on special educational needs, which builds on a previous statement about the Stable Homes, Built on Love programme. It is important that that is a key foundation.
With more children struggling to integrate into multi-ability groups, and with funding pressures affecting the ability to provide classroom assistance, does the Minister agree that it is time for an overhaul of the system and that a pupil-focused approach is required? In the meantime, what can be done to stop capable children falling through the gaps? Will the Minister consult the Northern Ireland Department of Education on taking these ideas forward?
Claire Coutinho
I would be happy to discuss any matters in this area that the hon. Gentleman would like to talk about. He is absolutely right that we must get the support right, with a focus on pupils. It is about early identification, flexibility and ensuring that each child and young person gets the support that they need to thrive in an educational environment.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
SEND provision is one of the most critical issues in education in Oxfordshire. Exasperation is frequently expressed by parents who are frustrated by Oxfordshire County Council’s processes. I welcome the extra 50% in funding since 2019, but what is the Minister doing to work with local authorities to ensure that we cut through the bureaucracy, get people assessed and give help where it is needed?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have heard from a lot of parents about their frustrations. We will streamline and standardise the EHCP process to make it much simpler for parents to deal with. To improve access to diagnosis, we are increasing the number of educational psychologists. We are also trying to raise standards in schools so that early identification can happen even in mainstream settings.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I was thrilled last week to receive notification from the Minister that the Department will fund a new SEND school in Bracknell for pupils with autistic spectrum disorder at key stages 1 to 5. That will be massive locally, so I thank her very much.
Having fought for improved SEND provision since becoming an MP, I know the importance of today’s announcement. Again, I am thrilled and I thank the Minister, but may I politely point out that diagnosis is really important? We have to fix CAMHS as well.
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend has long campaigned for extra specialist provision in Bracknell, so I am delighted that that is happening. He is absolutely right that diagnosis is important, which is why we are increasing the number of educational psychologists. We will work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on CAMHS and will ensure that we are rolling out mental health support in schools.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Carers and parents of those who need SEND and alternative provision are often battling against the system. Their children are their heart and soul, so it is heartbreaking to find that they cannot get provision and support when they need it or that they face reams of forms: it makes their life, which is already difficult, even harder. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we will put those who are helping children who need support at the heart of our approach, and that we will not create more bureaucracy? We must not just cut the red tape, but get rid of it forever.
Claire Coutinho
I hold very near my heart the plight of parents who are struggling with the system. They know that their child gets only one shot at education; it is very stressful for them, and it can be heartbreaking when they feel that specialist support is not there. We will streamline the EHCP process and try to make it easier—we want them to spend more time with their children rather than doing paperwork. We are also trying to ensure that everything in the system is available so that they can get the specialist support they need.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
How closely is the Department for Education working with the Department of Health and Social Care? In Westminster Hall on 6 February, as my hon. Friend may be aware, there was a very constructive debate about ADHD at which it emerged that a bottleneck is being caused by a lack of psychiatrists to make the initial diagnosis. Will she say a little more about the resources that may be made available on the health side for her educational project?
Claire Coutinho
We are working so closely with the health Department that it has jointly published the report with us. We will also be working with it on a joint steering group. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about diagnosis, which is why we are increasing the number of educational psychologists in the system. I know that the health Department takes the matter seriously, including by looking at what can be done to improve autism diagnostic pathways.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I commend the Minister for her statement: it is really refreshing to know that she has such a passion for understanding the situation, especially the fact that alternative provision is an intervention and not a destination. I thank her for meeting me to discuss issues in local children’s services and for the important announcement of a special free school in North East Lincolnshire, of which Grimsby forms part. Does she agree that this is part of levelling up for children, parents and young people with jobs and opportunities? Will she work with me on how we can advertise and promote the jobs and careers available in special educational needs?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend has huge personal experience in improving the skills and life chances of children and young people. She is absolutely right that this is about levelling up, which means helping people to live the best lives they can, get the best employment opportunities they can, and enjoy their adulthood. I would be absolutely delighted to meet her to discuss the matter further.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement, which I am sure will provide some reassurance to many of my constituents who have voiced their frustration with the whole SEND system. Dorset Council does its best, but problems have been identified in diagnosis prior to SEND support, particularly for those with autism.
On a related matter, we were delighted to hear that a special school for 14 to 19-year-olds was due to open on Portland in September this year, but now there is to be no sign of it until September next year. We are all nervous that somehow it may disappear. May I meet the Minister to discuss it and, hopefully, to confirm that it will come next September?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about diagnosis. Autism is one of the areas in which need has most risen. We will work with the NHS on new autism diagnostic pathways, as well as increasing the overall number of educational psychologists in the system so that people can get a diagnosis as early as possible. I would be delighted to meet him about his local specialist school.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
As another dyspraxic MP in this House, and one whose handwriting closely resembles Guy Fawkes’s confession note, I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. In Bassetlaw we have some outstanding specialist provision at St Giles School in Retford, as well as many excellent examples of mainstream provision and some very dedicated and hard-working staff, but SEND support for pupils varies across the country. Does the Minister agree that working to equalise that support and ending the postcode lottery is vital to levelling up SEND provision and increasing parental choice?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have seen some areas and schools doing unbelievably brilliant work, and some areas that are not doing so well. We want to reduce that variation and ensure that we use the best possible evidence all the way through the system so that there is much more consistency and choice for parents.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I welcome the alternative provision implementation plan that the Minister has outlined, particularly the focus on early intervention. As she knows, many of the children who end up in alternative provision are those most at risk of being involved in the criminal justice system in future. A particular concern that has been raised with me as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on school exclusions and alternative provision is the short-term nature of funding in the system. AP places are often called on at the very last minute when a child is excluded from school. Could the Minister say a little more about what her announcement today will mean for the commissioning contracts that are in place?
Claire Coutinho
I am passionate about alternative provision: it is where some of our most vulnerable at-risk young people go, so we want to ensure that it is of really high quality. We will bring out new standards for it, which will be included in the Ofsted area framework for the first time, and we will look at how it is funded. Importantly, the local inclusion plans that we will set out will look at all parts of the system so that whether someone is in AP or struggling in mainstream, we can ensure a place for them and ensure that they are properly supported.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the measures that she has announced. They include provision for a new and much-needed school in Darlington, which is warmly welcomed. May I put on record my thanks to Councillors Jonathan Dulston and Jon Clarke for the work that they have done in this regard, along with parents and carers in my community? May I also ask my hon. Friend what assessment she has made of whether this additional provision in Darlington will meet all unmet need, and what more can be done to speed up the woefully inadequate waiting times for CAMHS assessments by Tees, Esk and Wear Valley NHS Trust?
Claire Coutinho
I am delighted that my hon. Friend is to have that specialist school. He has raised the subject with me on many occasions. We will work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on the entirety of the plan, but we are looking at mental health support in schools as well.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I welcome the announcement of the SEND improvement plan. I was also delighted when, in August 2020, the Government announced £17 million of funding for a new SEND school in my constituency. Six months ago it was given the green light for planning, but there now appears to be a delay owing to a change of contractors. These things really matter, and we need to speed them up. Will my hon. Friend agree to look into the situation and find out what is going on, so that we can avoid any further delays and get on with completing this new and brilliant provision?
Claire Coutinho
I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about SEN support in Cheadle, a subject that she has raised with me numerous times. I should be delighted to meet her and discuss it further, and I will certainly raise it in the Department.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
As a number of us know from our mailboxes and surgeries, many parents face an uphill battle against the bureaucracy and, often, the postcode lottery of SEND provision. That is why I was so happy to receive an email from my hon. Friend last week with the news that we were to have a brand-new free school with SEND provision in south Birmingham. Will she join me in calling on anyone who is passionate and ambitious about young people in Birmingham to step forward and consider submitting a bid to be the sponsor body for the new school?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me many times, and I am pleased that we will be able to end the postcode lottery by reducing that variation while also improving the specialist education provision in south Birmingham.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I welcome the statement. I should probably declare an interest, as the husband of a senior learning support teaching assistant.
Sinkholes are making playgrounds unusable in one pupil referral unit, windows are being locked owing to fumes from a petrol station built next door to another, and there is widespread use of unregistered alternative provision. My Labour council has long ignored the needs of children who are unable to attend mainstream schools and who, like all children, need to be given opportunities. Its recent alternative provision building programme ignored west Cumbria entirely. I have supported a bid as part of the recent programme—the results will be announced later in the year—for an AP free school to be built in my constituency. May I ask the Minister to help me to give these kids a chance by enabling AP schools to be built outside the control of the council, which sees them only as a problem to be managed rather than as youngsters who need to be nurtured?
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. Friend for everything he has done in his area for alternative provision, which he clearly cares about. AP schools are important because they are where some of our most vulnerable young people go, and we need to ensure that they are of the highest possible standard. I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend’s bid.
Point of Order
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Starting early in 2020, the Government spent more than £1.5 million on opinion polls on public attitudes to covid. I feared at the time that opinion polling as much as science was driving the creation of policy, and recent reportage about wanting to “frighten the pants off everyone” leads me to conclude that I was correct in that belief.
On 28 July 2020, I submitted a freedom of information request to the Cabinet Office seeking the results of the polling. It was refused on the ground that it was policy advice. That failed, so it was then refused on grounds of cost. I pressed the matter for 18 months, but was unable to get the Government to publish the taxpayer-funded data. In September 2021, I tried to obtain the information through written parliamentary questions, but on each occasion the Government refused to release the data. I kept pressing, and eventually, in April last year, I was told that a timetable for releasing the information would be available in the spring. That deadline came and went, so I tried again in September, when I was told that the data would be published by the end of the year. Now, three months into 2023, I have still not seen it. About an hour ago, a journalist was told by the Cabinet Office that it had been made available to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, whose Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), is present; but I have not seen it.
Public money was used to obtain polling information relating to some of the biggest policy decisions in a generation. It must be made easily accessible and comprehensible to the public. May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how the House can make the Government give it the data on the basis of which it appears to have created policy throughout the pandemic?
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As my right hon. Friend prayed me in aid during his point of order, let me simply say that this is news to me, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I can certainly inform the House that the Committee has never received the data in any simple form, such as the questions that were asked and the answers that were received.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for giving me notice of his point of order. Although the Chair is not responsible for decisions by the Government about the publication of information, if a Member has been told that information will be made available by a particular date, I would expect that commitment to be met. Knowing him as I do, I am sure that the right hon. Member will be assiduous in pursuing this matter, for example through parliamentary questions, and I hope he will receive helpful responses.
As for the point from the Chair of the Committee, I suspect that he may go back and request further information, but that is entirely up to him and his Committee.
Social Security (Additional Payments) (No. 2) Bill
Monday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 View all Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 6 March 2023 - (6 Mar 2023)
20:14 - divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 281 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:30 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 154 / Noes: 283 - Question accordingly negatived.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 4, page 2, line 10, leave out “30 April” and insert “1 April”.
The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Amendment 5, page 2, line 14, leave out “31 October” and insert “1 April”.
The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 16, leave out “29 February 2024” and insert “1 April 2023”.
The intention of this amendment is that all payments under this Bill should be made no later than 1 April 2023.
Clause 1 stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out “one month” and insert “two months”.
This amendment would extend the assessment period for recipients of universal credit, allowing them to receive the additional payments under this Bill if they had been entitled to a universal credit payment of at least 1p in the two months prior to the qualifying day for each additional payment.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 27, at end insert
“or—
(ii) the person would have been entitled to a payment of at least 1p in respect of that period if the person had not been subject to a benefit sanction.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that, in respect of universal credit, payments under this Bill are not denied to a person who is subject to a benefit sanction.
Clauses 2 to 12 stand part
New clause 1—Assessment of bringing forward the second qualifying day—
“The Treasury must publish, no later than six weeks after the day in which this Act is passed, an illustrative analysis of the impact of this Act on household incomes if —
(a) the second qualifying date was no later than 15 August 2023, and
(b) the third qualifying date was no later than 3 January 2024.”
The intention of this new clause is to explore the impact of bringing qualifying dates forward to the beginning of the school year in Scotland and the beginning of the New Year.
New clause 2—Assessment of cost of living support package—
“(1) The Treasury must publish, no later than the next fiscal event after the day on which this Act is passed, a full and detailed analysis of the impact of this Act on households.
(2) The Treasury may include in the analysis the effect of support for households announced in October 2022 in response to energy price rises.
(3) The analysis must include an estimate, based on the latest available reliable data, of the impact on household incomes of —
(a) payments made under this Act to households on mean-tested benefits,
(b) payments made under this Act to recipients of disability benefits.
(4) The analysis must show impacts across all deciles of household income distribution—
(a) in cash terms, and
(b) as proportion of net household income.
(5) The analysis must take into account where relevant differing policy contexts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
(6) The analysis must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on households of different types, including single parent families, larger families, and pensioner households.”
New clause 3—Review of distributional effects—
“The Secretary of State and the Treasury must make a joint assessment of the distributional effects of this Act on—
(a) rural communities;
(b) families eligible for free school meals;
(c) unpaid carers; and
(d) households in each income decile
no later than six weeks after this Act is passed and must lay a copy of the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 7—Review of public health and poverty effects of the Act—
(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) The review must consider —
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty across the UK including devolved nations and regions,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socio-economic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010 across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions,
(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across the UK, including by devolved nations and regions, and
(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of the Act.
New clause 8—Review of distributional effects—
“The Secretary of State and the Treasury must make a joint assessment of the distributional effects of this Act on—
(a) rural communities;
(b) families eligible for free school meals;
(c) unpaid carers;
(d) households including at least one disabled person; and
(e) households in each income decile,
no later than six weeks after this Act is passed and must lay a copy of the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Government to report on the effects of the Bill on different socioeconomic groups.
New clause 13—Payment date—
“The Secretary of State and HMRC must seek to make all payments due under this Act no later than 1 April 2023.”
This new clause is intended to require the Government to make all payments listed in this Bill by 1 April 2023.
New clause 14—Review of coverage of self-employed workers—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament within three months of the date on which this Act is passed an assessment of how many recipients of payments under this Act live in households where at least one earner is a self-employed worker.”
This new clause is intended to highlight that the variable income of self-employed workers may leave them excluded from receiving the Government’s cost of living payments.
Wendy Chamberlain
It is a pleasure to move amendment 4 on behalf of my party.
Additional support for struggling families is much welcomed, and I am pretty sure that no one in the Committee would oppose the provision of more help through the Bill. What my amendment seeks to do is ensure that those struggling families receive that support now, rather than having to wait. It has been a long cold winter, and we are expecting another cold snap this week, so it certainly is not over yet.
While the energy price guarantee has protected families from the worst increases, some households have seen their bills increase two, three or possibly even four times in the past year. We know from the scandal of the forced instalment of prepayment meters that many people have been unable to keep up with those bills, and that for many of them the debts continue to mount up. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others are walking a tightrope—just managing payments, sometimes late, by making other cutbacks: being cold, eating less, or reducing travel. If we are not just to get those families back on an even keel but to help them to stay there, it is vital for the full cost of living payment that the Government wish to make to be made immediately—especially, I would argue, in the face of the impending increase in the energy price guarantee. We have all seen reports in the media over the last few days that the Government may well choose to extend that guarantee. I am sure you might have some thoughts, Dame Rosie, on whether that announcement ought to be made here before being briefed to the press. We cannot fully assess the impact of this Bill, given that we do not know for definite what is happening with the energy price guarantee, so we are left to make assumptions accordingly.
In any case, whether the guarantee lasts for another month or as, my party wants, for more months than that along with a reduction in the energy price guarantee to the Ofgem cap of £1,971 last April, cost of living support payments must be made now to have any impact. We are seeing a reduction in wholesale gas costs, which is why we argue that the Government can do more than they are outlining because they have the headroom to do so. What is the point in people paying some or even all of their bills, only to start struggling all over again? For people to get all the other benefits of affording the basics—being warm enough and fed enough to work, go to school and stay healthy—support needs to be geared to preventing them from falling below that line in the first place.
Moving on from my amendment 4 to the remainder of the Bill, I am left wondering if this really is it. You do not need to be a politician to know that this country is in crisis, although if you are a politician and have a modicum of responsibility or power, it is critical that you realise the severity of the situation. Just turning on the TV, opening a newspaper, speaking to parents at the school gate or spending any time out and about in our communities makes it very clear what is happening.
The difficulties felt by different communities vary, and that is what the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 8, and to some extent new clause 3, seek to address. For a lot of my constituents living in relatively rural North East Fife, the crisis is exacerbated by their countryside location, without easy access to local services and battling against unrelenting fuel costs. What I hear from them time and again is that they feel they are being let down. Farmers, for example, work long days seven days a week, without let-up and never taking a holiday, to provide the rest of us with the food that goes on our plates, but they are being left with next to no support for their fuel costs, no protection against foreign imports and no ability to plan for the future under the Government’s funding streams.
As has been mentioned many times in this House, many rural households rely on heating oil. I have discussed the price guarantee already, but heating oil is not even covered by that. Costs have almost doubled, yet those households have received just one £200 payment—that is if they have managed to receive it at all. We know that the system has been beset by practical difficulties. We have also seen the continued delays in the roll-out of the alternative fuel payment scheme. Applications are now open, but despite reassurances there has been no support for many until now. And when the shop—or too often now, the food bank—is not just around the corner for those in rural communities, they need to travel just for the basics. They cannot avoid getting into the car and paying for petrol, and although petrol and diesel prices have gone up everywhere this year, we always see much faster increases in rural areas.
Those in rural households are not the only group to suffer because of rising energy costs and fuel poverty. As has been discussed in this place before, disabled people have much higher living costs. I recently met representatives of Disability Rights UK, one of the organisations leading the Disability Poverty Campaign Group, as well as representatives from the Liberal Democrat Disability Association, and their message was clear: the additional £150 payment for people on disability benefits is so lacklustre as to be grotesquely offensive. It shows that the Government are taking no interest in, and making no effort to understand, the reality of the lives and expenses of disabled people.
Disabled people are not all the same: they have a wide variety of unique needs, which I cannot cover here, but I shall give just a few examples. Imagine someone needing a hoist to safely manoeuvre between their bed and their wheelchair, but being unable to charge that hoist and having to watch their family risk their own health by lifting them unsafely. Or perhaps think about someone being unable to charge their electric wheelchair and becoming unable to mobilise even around their home to get to the toilet or to fetch a cup of tea.
Perhaps someone’s partner has a spinal injury and is incontinent, but they cannot afford to run their washing machine every day or to properly heat their water, so they find themselves washing dirty clothes by hand in lukewarm water. Perhaps someone’s child has cystic fibrosis and needs a nutritious high-calorie diet, but with 10% inflation—we know it is worse for food inflation —and shortages, they themselves are having to skip meals to let their child eat instead. It should not take a donation from an international celebrity to reassure families of the disabled that they can keep their homes warm and essential equipment functioning. There are many ways in which disabled people incur additional costs, all of which are incredibly important and all of which demand support additional to what the Government are offering in this Bill.
Unpaid carers, on the other hand, are not even explicitly considered in this package of support. I will not labour the point, as I have said all this before, but not all unpaid carers receive means-tested benefits, and given that the vast majority of them live on or close to the poverty line, they are also badly in need of cost of living support. I would like to say that they are unsung heroes, but I have been singing their praises and calling for more support since the start of the crisis and I am starting to think that the Government do not want to hear it.
Dame Eleanor, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, and I am sure that everybody in the Chamber will welcome you back.
Overall, my concern about the Bill, as we consider it clause by clause, is that it is just a sticking plaster that will not truly keep our communities afloat during this crisis. Fuel poverty is widening and deepening; meanwhile, energy companies continue to rake in record profits. The Government must make suppliers act responsibly towards consumers. I acknowledge that it is not just the political response that is causing trouble for my constituents, as an astounding number of them have come to me with problems including being charged incorrectly, often more than they should be, and sometimes by companies that they are not even with. Electricity is a vital service, so surely this type of predatory behaviour cannot be allowed.
Food poverty continues to soar. As early as last April to September, before the worst of this crisis and before winter took hold, the Trussell Trust reported its busiest ever spring and summer, with a 45% increase in the number of families needing its support. The figures will only have gone up since then, and I am not convinced that this package will help, especially with the payments spread out so far. We know that when the £20 universal credit uplift was in place during covid, food bank use went down. How we stop families going hungry or relying on food packages is a vital conversation, and one that needs more time for discussion, so I encourage all Members present to come to the report launch of the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks on 22 March to hear more on the outcome of our “Cash or Food?” inquiry.
In the long term, to end the need for additional cost of living payments we need economic growth, we need more people able to work and we need a healthier society. Poverty is the enemy of all those things. Poverty breeds worse health outcomes, it makes people cold and hungry and it drives away hope and drive. That is nobody’s fault except those who choose to look away and do nothing, and that is why we need the Government to review reinstating the uplift to universal credit and extending it to legacy benefits. It is why carer’s allowance needs reforming, and it is why we need all the cost of living payments at once, now, as a circuit breaker.
I want to end by reflecting on the words of one of my constituents who got in touch with me over the winter. He is a 79-year-old gentleman who struggles to heat his home and who has a mixture of health difficulties. He said:
“Maybe it would be better if I wasn’t alive, for everyone else’s benefit.”
He cannot wait for April to October and then again for months for additional support, so with him in mind, I urge Members to support amendment 4.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
It is a pleasure to see you chairing the Committee this afternoon, Dame Eleanor.
I thank hon. Members for the useful debate on Second Reading and I welcome this opportunity for a more detailed examination of the Bill in Committee. Clause 1 enables the Government to make three separate cost of living payments of £301, £300 and £299 to individuals or couples with a qualifying entitlement to an income-related social security benefit or tax credit. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). We have looked in the round at what we have done before, and I want to set out strongly to the Committee that we have worked very hard, whether on the household support fund or on this Bill, to support the most vulnerable through the really tough times that she described. I hope to give the Committee answers that will show that.
To be clear, the clause sets out that the qualifying days for each of the cost of living payments will be specified in secondary regulations, which will help to minimise work disincentives and fraud risks. In response to amendments 4, 5 and 6, it might be helpful if I clarify for the hon. Lady that the dates set out in clause 1 are backstop dates, meaning the latest possible qualification dates that could be set out in regulations. Bringing those dates forward could not achieve the amendment’s desired effect, although I understand the sentiment.
In any event, making all cost of living payments by 1 April 2023 would not support our ambition to spread the support through 2023 and into 2024. In fact, we have increased the number of payments from those made in 2022, having listened and engaged with the feedback from MPs across the land. This ensures that as many people as possible will qualify for a payment at some point, including those who become entitled to a qualifying benefit later in the year and those whose earnings fluctuate from month to month. Making all the payments in one lump sum would mean that more people miss out.
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I must be robust in saying that we simply cannot do what she suggests, as it runs contrary to what we should be doing in spreading out support for the most vulnerable. It is also the total opposite of the Select Committee’s request for more payments. I hope she understands that and will withdraw her amendment.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the shadow Minister.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I, too, welcome you back to the Chair, Dame Eleanor.
We continue to support the additional payments covered by this Bill because they will deliver much-needed support to households facing the greatest cost of living crisis we have seen for decades, but we also continue to recognise the limitations inherent in any policy of one-off, flat-rate payments and the extra limitations of the approach taken here.
One of the problems that the additional payments are intended to address is the six-month lag between the value of social security benefits and real-world prices, which can lead to long-term impacts on the real value of benefits when inflation is high. That problem became critical in the winter of 2021, when it became obvious that annual inflation would reach over 10% by the time benefits were uprated by only 3.2% in the following April, using inflation data running up to the previous September.
We are still dealing with the consequences of the 2021 uprating decision. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies explains,
“in April 2023, the annual uprating of benefits will merely take them back to around the level they were at a year earlier—the shortfall that opened up between September 2021 and April 2022 will still remain unplugged.”
This means that the real value of benefits will be 6.2% lower in April 2023 than before the pandemic, and astonishingly, based on current forecast inflation, benefits will not return to their pre-pandemic level until 2025.
This problem was completely predictable well over a year ago—a year in which the Government could surely have applied themselves to coming up with a better solution than the one before us today. The approach of one-off, flat-rate payments could just about be justified last year by the international situation and the suddenness of the energy price surge, but that does not apply this year.
We know that one-off payments are a crude substitute for ensuring that social security benefits retain their real value. But even accepting the one-off approach, this Bill, while undoubtedly necessary, will lead to rough justice and, in some cases, poor value for money. It does not even attempt to relate payments to need; it sets qualifying conditions and arbitrary reasons; and it creates an arbitrary cliff edge in support based on whether people are receiving a penny of qualifying benefits.
Some households will be shielded from the impact of inflation—indeed, some will be more than protected—but, as these flat-rate payments take no account of household size and composition, which is one of our most fundamental concerns, there is huge variation in the protection that families in different circumstances will receive.
As the IFS has shown, in general it is those without children who are best protected, and larger families and households with disabled members who lose out most. Forty per cent. of families with three or more children, but only about 3% of those without children, would have been better off with a timely uprating of benefits. Seventeen per cent. of households receiving a disability benefit would have been better off had benefits been uprated in real time.
It is obvious that the flat-rate approach is inherently inequitable and poorly targeted, and it is hard to see how it can be justified given the time the Government have had to devise a better solution. That is further compounded by the qualification conditions, which insist that households must have received a positive award of a qualifying benefit within the month leading up to the qualifying dates. One of the issues that universal credit is supposed to address is fluctuating incomes, but fluctuations in income from month to month, the norm for many lower-income families, are simply ignored by this Bill.
The cliff edge in entitlement is well illustrated by the large number of households, an estimated 850,000, that would be better off by reducing their earnings to qualify for universal credit so that they can benefit from the additional payments. Families on earnings low enough to qualify for universal credit face losing up to £900 if they have a marginal increase in earnings just enough to take them out of receiving UC. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for colleagues to demand a full Government analysis of the distributional and public health impacts of this Bill.
This Bill falls short of what might reasonably have been expected from a Government who had plenty of time to come up with a better solution, but we want this money to go into people’s pockets as quickly as possible in what is, for millions, a deepening personal and family financial crisis, which is why we are not seeking to oppose or delay today’s proceedings.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am delighted, as I am sure everyone is, to see you back in the Chair, Dame Eleanor.
I also do not seek to delay the Bill’s progress. New clause 14 is a probing amendment that raises an issue to which the shadow Minister alluded: the failure of the system, however good its intentions, to deal adequately with people who have fluctuating incomes, particularly those who are self-employed.
The way in which the system interacts with self-employed people has always led me to believe that, with all due respect, the vast majority of people advising Ministers, and the government machine as a whole, do not understand the self-employed or how they work. All too often, I am afraid, those who work for the Government in full-time, regular jobs seem to think that self-employment is something to be wary of, and that it can lead to a risk of fraud or a lack of seriousness. There is a fundamental culture gap in the system of government.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Of course, this leads to a differential effect in communities, such as mine, that have a high incidence of self-employment. The disadvantage to my community is quite clear.
Sir Robert Neill
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right. This can apply to particular communities and to particular sectors. I suspect it is not deliberate, as I do not believe Ministers are looking to treat people unfairly, but I genuinely think there is a lack of understanding in how the system works for the self-employed and the degree to which fluctuating incomes are not captured by the scheme, as currently devised. That is why I urge the Government to review the position.
I particularly ask the Government to review how the minimum income floor interacts with self-employed people on varying incomes. I will explain it as briefly and as swiftly as possible. Eligibility for each of the three cost of living payments depends on receiving a universal credit payment of at least 1p during the corresponding qualifying month, as set out in the Bill. The position was the same for the original cost of living payments set out in the Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022.
Equity, which represents self-employed people working in the creative industries and the theatre, challenged the 2022 Act as unfair and detrimental to the entertainment industry, and it seems to me that it presented good evidence. I refer to my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on opera and as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on theatre. I regret to say that Ministers did not make any changes, and I ask them to look into this in more detail and to think again as more evidence emerges.
When the minimum income floor is applied to self-employed universal credit claimants, their universal credit payments are, of course, reduced. For some claimants, the MIF reduces their payments to zero. The MIF is assumed earnings for UC claimants who are deemed gainfully self-employed, irrespective of whether those earnings are being received in a particular month. It is a calculation based on the national minimum wage and in a typical case the assumption is 35 times the hourly national minimum wage per week. On 2022-23 figures, that equates to £311.85 a week or £1,351.35 over a UC monthly assessment period.
The effects of that are unduly harsh for the self-employed with variable and unpredictable incomes, because it removes UC payments during periods of low earnings. The difficulty for people in the theatre is that, although they may well have periods when they are busy and above the threshold for any benefits, there may be weeks and months when they are not getting paid and the system does not pick that up. During those months when they are not qualifying they are likely to fall into debt, needing to borrow, and into arrears. That cannot be a fair way to deal with this. At a time when the entertainment industry and the theatre have been particularly hard hit during covid and the lockdowns and are still, in some respects recovering, the position seems to me and to many others to be unjust. It particularly hurts those who are starting out in their careers in the industry. I have been self-employed in the past and I know that at least one of the Ministers on the Bench has, but there is a difference between being in an established set of barristers’ chambers with a significant workflow coming through and being a young actor, musician or creative starting out. The inability to draw such distinctions and to be more nuanced in approach needs to be looked at, and I ask Ministers to do that.
The figures that have been demonstrated by Equity in looking at the DCMS workforce estimates show, for example, that between 2019 and 2021 the number of young people aged 16 to 24 working in music and performing and visual arts fell by 19%, which compares with a 14% drop among people aged 55 to 64. That was probably largely due to people leaving because of the impacts of the lockdown on that sector, but it is happening more among the youngsters, for the reasons I have set out. The number of black, African, Caribbean, black British people—those with minority ethnic backgrounds —in music, and performing and visual arts has fallen by 39%, which compares with a fall of some 9% among people with white ethnic backgrounds. Again, the people who find it harder to access careers in the arts sector to start with are the ones being most hard hit, because their incomes are more precarious, as it often takes them longer, by the nature of the business, to establish themselves. I am sure that is not an outcome Ministers wish to see, but that is the way the system, without any reform, is currently operating.
That situation is likely to get worse. In the first round of cost of living payments some 80,600 UC claimants were subject to the MIF, of whom 4,860 earned below their MIF and received a nil payment—that is about 6% of them. We are likely to be talking about a lot more people in 2023-24, because more claimants are now subject to the MIF than they were in the previous regime. That is simply because some 219,000 claimants were in a 12-month start-up period and therefore exempt during the qualifying period for the first payment. That of course has now ended for that cohort, so they will be subject to the MIF. If we were looking at the same percentages, we would be talking about another 13,000 people. That leaves us with the figure that Equity suggests of about 17,000 being affected.
This issue has been raised before, including by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions. He raised it with Ministers back in November 2022, and I am grateful to him for doing so. He asked the Secretary of State to consider a way to rectify the position of claimants who had had a nil payment during that period, but I regret to say that the Secretary of State rejected that request. He said that, among other things, simplicity of processing in the timeframe required and an inability to readily identify people affected were the reasons. I am not sure that simplicity of processing is, of itself, a good justification for causing unfairness to people. I thought that the Government were about fairness, more importantly, than they were about administrative simplicity. The suggestion that having the three qualifying periods reduces the risk of someone missing out completely does not work for every sector. It may work in some industries, but it does not work for the theatre and other sectors. The lack of flexibility and the rigidity need to be addressed.
Against that background, I hope that the Government will reflect on this matter. We want to encourage people into our creative industries, which is a thriving sector that does a great deal for this country. They work well for us economically, in social matters and for our cultural heritage, but it is hard for young people, in particular, to start out and this is a precarious life. We ought to have a system that more readily recognises that. It is not, as has been suggested, that the MIF is dealing with cases of fraud here; these are not fraudulent people, and we can sometimes worry so much about fraud that we exclude the honest from the system. We ought to get a balance on that. It has also been suggested that this was to weed out hobbyists who cannot sustain themselves in self-employment. I know lots of people in the creative industries who are not hobbyists. They work immensely hard to sustain themselves in self-employment but their incomes fluctuate to such a degree that they lose out on supplements and benefits that others who happen to be in slightly different forms of work with a slightly different pay structure get. That does not seem to be fair, which is why I tabled my new clause. I hope that the Government will reflect on it and undertake at the very least to review the matter again, look again at the evidence and meet people in the sector. I am not sure how often Ministers have face-to-face meetings. They should meet the people affected. Let us try to find a fairer way of making the Government’s objectives work for those people.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is not often that I find myself pleased in this place, but may I say how genuinely pleased I am to see you back in your place, Dame Eleanor? It is just right to see you in that place, so it is great to see you back.
I rise to speak to the amendments and new clauses that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I am also happy to offer support for the amendments tabled by members of the Select committee, namely the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), as well as for new clause 7, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). I also support new clause 12, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) but not selected.
The House will recall that when I spoke on Second Reading, I stated my party’s support of the broad thrust of what the Bill seeks to achieve but was clear that it fails to address some of the wider issues impacting our social security system, which have only been highlighted further by the cost of living crisis. It is important to remind ourselves that these amendments, and in fact this entire Bill, are the product of the continuing cost of living crisis, which remains the single biggest priority for my east end constituents. We cannot forget that all of this comes against a backdrop of households continuing to face extremely challenging economic conditions. As such, there should be no doubt that my party welcomes the support laid out in this Bill, but we think that it does not go far enough to meet the needs of the poorest households struggling with the cost of living crisis. We have therefore tabled these amendments, in good faith, to try to make the Bill better.
The one-off cost of living payments in this Bill, as set out in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, are only a temporary fix, when it is clear that more permanent solutions are needed. Rather than offering one-off payments to shore up the incomes of struggling families, the British Government should reverse the damaging policies that are impacting the most vulnerable in our communities. They should be ending benefit sanctions, ending the benefit cap, ending unfair assessments, ending the rape clause, ending the five-week wait, ending no recourse to public funds. That list sometimes feels endless, but it is not, and the social security system is fixable if we have the political will. The amendments we have tabled today show that and highlight just some of the ways in which the British Government can point the social security system towards the people who actually use it and ensure they have adequate support, perhaps taking a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book.
My amendment 2 ensures that universal credit claimants who have been sanctioned are not denied the vital cost of living payments. As the Bill currently stands, to qualify for the cost of living payment, claimants must be entitled to at least 1p in the month preceding the date specified by the Secretary of State in clause 2. However, if a claimant is sanctioned, their full entitlement could be taken away for a period of time. Many of those who have a sanction imposed will receive a nil award, which means that they do not receive the payment despite having an underlying entitlement to universal credit for that period. I have heard of cases where claimants have missed the bus or had to drop their children off at school, which has resulted, I am afraid, in their being late or missing an appointment at the jobcentre. That in turn has led to their being sanctioned and losing their universal credit for a number of weeks.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes a telling point about the universal credit uplift. Does he not think that, when it was made, it was a welcome admission that universal credit was not enough to live on, whereas the removal of the uplift has re-established that deficit for people and their families?
David Linden
I agree with my hon. Friend. I tend to take the view that if the British Government concluded in March and April 2020 that social security was inadequate for the then economic climate, social security is indeed inadequate in the current economic climate. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee is looking at benefit provision. The all-party group on poverty, which I co-chair with Baroness Lister, is taking evidence on this separately tomorrow.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has outlined, it was a huge disappointment when the British Government decided against retaining the uplift. Since its removal, I have heard anecdotally that many people have struggled with the sudden loss of income—the largest drop in support in the modern welfare state. Any of us who interact with our constituents can outline how challenging that has been.
Similarly, new clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to produce an assessment of the impact on household incomes— as well as on fuel and food poverty—of the Government’s failure to extend the equivalent uplift to legacy benefits. As with the previous iteration of the Bill relating to cost of living payments, it is welcome that the British Government have included Scottish payments for disability in the eligibility criteria. Although I wish sincerely that the London Government would look towards Holyrood as a guide for more of their social security policies, I appreciate that Ministers have been working with my colleagues in Edinburgh and have ensured that people in receipt of Scottish disability payments will also get the additional payment.
It is widely acknowledged that disabled people are far more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people and are particularly vulnerable to the rising cost of living. For instance, I have heard testimony in my constituency, in the Lilybank area, of vital medical equipment—not something that can be turned off or turned down a wee bit to take cognisance of energy prices—leading to extortionate electricity bills. Despite that knowledge, legacy benefit claimants, many of whom are long-term sick or disabled, were unjustly denied that uplift during the pandemic. That was a monumental injustice, and it certainly adversely financially impacted many people throughout the pandemic, which was already causing heightened health anxiety. It is only right that an assessment be made of the failure to extend the uplift to legacy benefit claimants.
We must also consider where inflation will be at the time that payments are made. In January this year, the consumer prices index was still in double digits and near the highest levels in about 40 years, at 10.1%. However, we know that the poorest often experience a high rate of inflation; according to the Resolution Foundation, the poorest tenth of households experienced an inflation rate of 11.7%. What is more, recent Office for National Statistics stats show that food and drink inflation remained close to the highest rates since the 1970s, with the soaring price of milk, bread and other basic essentials pushing prices up by almost 17% in a year.
Recently, the British Government rightly increased social security benefits and the state pension in line with the CPI, so it seems only logical that that should apply to the cost of living payments that the Bill makes provision for. Therefore, our new clause 6 would ensure that
“all payments due under this Act are increased by the rate of inflation as measured by the latest Consumer Prices Index at the time of payment, if that is higher than the original amount.”
We do not know what the economic landscape will be later this year, so the new clause was tabled as an insurance policy in the event that inflation does not fall as has been forecast. It is unfortunate that some of the amendments are not in scope; the money resolution was so restrictive that it prevents our bringing forward amendments that would assist our constituents in a more meaningful way.
However, I have highlighted some of the inadequacies in the UK’s social security system, mainly the punitive sanctions regime. Instead of providing a robust safety net for millions of households, the surge in sanctions demonstrates the uncaring approach of a Westminster Government who Scotland did not vote for and who are pushing people further into poverty during a cost of living crisis. People across Scotland are paying a very steep price indeed for poor economic decisions made in this Palace of Westminster.
It does not have to be like this. We can make better policy if the Government accept that they do not have a monopoly on wisdom. I have tabled the amendments in good faith and I believe they would vastly improve the Bill. I hope the Minister can come to the Dispatch Box later and confirm the Government’s support for amendment 2, which I believe can make this legislation much better for not only the people that I represent, but the people that we all represent in this House.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you back in your position, Dame Eleanor. I rise to speak to amendment 3, which stands in my name and the name of the Chair of the Select Committee. It is an attempt to ensure that what the Government are legislating for is consistent with what they are generally trying to do with universal credit and with these payments: to ensure that we do not create a cliff edge and a lumpy system in which people miss out through no fault of their own.
Under the amendment, rather than looking back and seeing whether someone has received 1p of universal credit in the previous month, we could simply check the two previous months and, if they received a payment in either or both those months, they would still get each of the individual £300 payments. It is designed to prevent a situation where somebody misses out on the individual payments because they have had some kind of strange anomaly in their UC record.
That anomaly might be that they are paid four-weekly and happened to get two payments in one assessment period, that they got a bonus or a few extra hours that tipped them out for that period, or that the employer has made a mistake, has not processed their payroll in time and has then managed to process two payments in the same month, as occasionally happens. Those are not really the intended position. I think we all expect that, for most people in a job, their monthly income is relatively stable—subject perhaps to a bit of overtime or the odd bonus here or there—and so their UC claim over a year is not affected; they get a bit more one month, a bit less the next and it all averages out over the year.
With the impact of these payments—not quite one-off payments, but three-off payments—that will not quite be the situation. If someone happens to have a month where they earn a bit too much, they could miss out on £300, which could be a material part of their annual income. That might drive people to be careful about whether they take extra hours and thus enforce the wrong behaviour. Having to plan for whether they will be £300 worse off if they get another £50 of wages or similar is not the behaviour that universal credit was designed to drive. It was designed to make clear that work would always pay, and we are in danger of doing something that goes against that.
I welcome the Government’s bringing forward these payments and the fact that we are debating them in March. That means that we have a plan for the year and people know what they are going to get, unlike last year when—perhaps for some good reasons—it was all a bit haphazard and we kept announcing new things all over the place. As some other hon. Members have said, I would have preferred this year to have an increase in UC; this £900 works out at just under £18 a week, and with the tapering effect we could have given a higher starting point to achieve the same costs, so those less well-off households got a bit more than the £900 and those who earn a bit more got a bit less. That would have been a better use of funds and a better way of doing it.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I add my very warm welcome back to you, Dame Eleanor; like everyone, I am delighted to see you back in the Chair.
I will make a few brief remarks. Initially, I will follow up the speech from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) in favour of amendment 3, which I have signed alongside him. The amendment relates to an intervention that I made on Second Reading, when I highlighted—the hon. Member just mentioned this—that people who are paid every four weeks instead of monthly, of whom there are quite a large number, receive 13 payments a year rather than 12. That means that in one month of the year, they receive two salary payments instead of one. Very often, that means that even though they will normally receive universal credit, they will not in that particular month, because their income is deemed to be too high for them to be eligible for universal credit. If that month happens to be one of the months when eligibility for the cost of living payment is assessed, they will lose their payment. No one is going to argue that they should not receive a payment, because their annual income is exactly the same as it is in every other month of the year. However, because of universal credit’s rigid approach to assessing people on a monthly basis, they will miss out. By arguing that eligibility should be based on looking at two months, not one, the hon. Member’s amendment entirely overcomes the problem for people in that situation.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) made some telling points about the situation for self-employed people. He was right to query how the minimum income floor works. There did not used to be a minimum income floor in tax credits. The Department for Work and Pensions introduced that innovation into universal credit and the case for it is, at best, debatable. But again, I do not think anyone would argue that the operation of the minimum income floor should deprive people of a cost of living payment when they would otherwise be entitled to receive it.
The hon. Member made a telling case for musicians and actors. Self-employed people may well have a good month and receive a significant amount of income, so they would perhaps not receive universal credit in that month. However, if they did not receive anything like as much in the month before or the month after, they would receive universal credit in that month. Most would agree that people in that situation—self-employed people with very fluctuating incomes, as he described—should receive a cost of living payment if their income across the year made them eligible. Therefore, looking at two months instead of one would help in that situation as well.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) made some telling points about people who have been sanctioned. It is very hard to argue that someone who happens to have had a sanction in a particular month, and therefore does not receive a penny of universal credit in that month, should not be entitled to a cost of living payment. A lot of sanctions last for a month. If we looked at two months, that would help to overcome that problem. I note from the briefing that 7,000 people lost out on the previous cost of living payments because they were subject to a sanction when their eligibility was assessed.
The Minister may say in response that people who are in this difficult situation can apply to their local authority for a payment from the household support fund. However, as we all know, the reality is that the household support fund is very little known by our constituents. It is extremely unlikely that anyone in the situation that I described would know that they should apply to the local council for a payment from the household support fund. It would be much better and simpler to extend the assessment of eligibility from one month to two months. It would mean adding an extra line of code in the computer system, which is a very easy thing to do to deal with a significant part of this clear unfairness in how the system works.
I want to make a point to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who tabled the amendments on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. My worry about saying that all the payments should be in one would be that the whole assessment for eligibility for that therefore annual payment would be based on receiving universal credit in one month. There is a benefit in dividing this across three months, as the Government have: if someone misses out on the payment in one month, at least they will still get the other two, whereas if it was all done at one time, there would be a danger of losing the whole year’s payment.
I will say a few words in support of new clause 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) tabled. I commend her contribution to the work of the Work and Pensions Committee. Indeed, all the amendments that I have spoken in favour of are tabled by members of the Committee. My hon. Friend correctly highlights the public health impacts, for better or for worse, of our social security arrangements, and it is absolutely right to take account of them.
At present, the headline rate of social security benefits—the typical universal credit standard allowance—is the lowest in real terms that it has been for four decades. As a percentage of average earnings, it is probably the lowest that it has ever been. It is certainly much lower than it was when Lloyd George introduced unemployment benefit in 1911. He did so at a significantly higher proportion of then average earnings than the standard allowance of universal credit today. There are significant public health impacts of this low level of social security support, making a contribution, for example, to the mental health crisis, which has hit so many people of working age in the UK since the pandemic. The hon. Member for Glasgow East referred to the fact that the Work and Pensions Committee will conduct an inquiry on the adequacy of benefits and the question of what the level of benefits should be. Public health impacts are a very important part of that debate.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Let me add how wonderful it is to see you back in your place, Dame Eleanor.
I rise to speak to amendment 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I will also comment on one or two other amendments and clauses that have been mentioned, because this has been a very worthwhile debate.
Before I do so, I want to qualify the reason why I am here speaking to the Bill. I am doing so because in my city of Peterborough the Bill will impact and benefit so many of my constituents. It will benefit 21,900 people in my constituency, and that is a significant number of people. The difference that these payments and this legislation will make to their lives is considerable. On top of that, we are looking at 13,100 individuals who will be eligible for the disability payment.
This Government are committed to supporting families, and this legislation will be a good thing. It will get many, many of our constituents through, let us be honest, a difficult time, and that should be applauded. The people of Peterborough will benefit from this. It is a sign that the Government are doing exactly what they said they would do, supporting families across the UK during a global cost of living crisis.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I add my voice to those welcoming you back, Dame Eleanor. It is so lovely to see you back in your rightful place.
I rise to speak to new clause 7, which stands in my name. As the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), has already said, new clause 7 is about reviewing the public health and poverty effects of the Bill. It requests that the Secretary of State
“review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report…before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
The reason why we need to do so is that we know our health, how long we live and how long we live in good health are driven by the social, economic and environmental policies that we in this place enact. Given that we now have a declining life expectancy in our country, addressing this issue cannot be delayed any further.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on health in all policies, I authored in 2021 a report that looked specifically at the health effects of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016. That report pulled together the evidence on the reduction in support since 2012 by successive Administrations—some £34 billion in support to working-age people has been cut since 2010—and the impact that that reduction has had on social security-driven poverty and, in turn, on health. If I may, Dame Eleanor, I will read out a section of that report:
“Each 1% increase in child poverty was significantly associated with an extra 5.8 infant deaths per 100 000 live births”
and
“about a third of the increases in infant mortality between 2014 and 2017 can be attributed to rising child poverty”.
Earlier in that report, it set out how significant those changes in social security were, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham mentioned. That reduction in value has not only been the worst in the UK but, I think, the worst in the OECD and the worst in the EU. As for its impacts, I have just mentioned the relationship with infant mortality. When Michael Marmot published his 10-year review of the impact on inequalities, he mentioned the contribution of the declining value of social security support, and the lack of protection that it provided to the most financially vulnerable. In turn, he related that to the contribution of the UK’s flatlining life expectancy—it was flatlining in 2017, although in my part of the world, in Oldham, it was actually declining. Now we are seeing declining life expectancy across England, and the reduction in the value of social security support is a major contributor to that.
I hope that the Minister will take a look at my new clause 7, which is about developing good policy that will benefit the constituents we serve. I also add my support for amendment 3, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), and for amendment 2, on sanctions, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden).
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is great to see you back in the Chair, Dame Eleanor.
We are all broadly united in this Chamber today, in that we recognise that our constituents need additional financial support, but the reality is that we are here today because of 12 years of Tory austerity. The cost of living crisis has occurred because of Brexit and because of the policies of austerity, so it is welcome that we are having a debate on this Bill if even so we can go over broader DWP failings and mismanagement.
One example is that a very recent 38 Degrees poll found that 20% of my constituents fear that they may have to use a food bank. I am not convinced that these payments will help with that figure at all. This Government are giving our constituents the additional payments outlined in the Bill, yet they still impose the benefit cap, the bedroom tax, the rape clause and cuts to universal credit. Naturally, the British Government will sit here today hoping for a round of applause for these additional payments, but frankly, these pennies are nowhere near enough to make up for the grossly flawed benefit system that this Government preside over. This support is a start, and it needs to be just that. In the face of a Tory-made, Brexit-induced cost of living crisis, we need this Government to step up and step up more, again and again.
I have previously spoken in this House about my constituent Stacey, who I met in hospital while we recovered from our strokes together. Stacey and her family struggle to make ends meet. The Government will be aware of the significantly increased costs that disabled people face, so I would be keen to hear exactly what difference the Government think this £150 payment will make to them. I also echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) that an assessment should be made of the fact that legacy benefits were not uplifted during the pandemic in the way that universal credit was. It would be revealing to see the impact that has had, particularly on disabled people.
My constituents and people across Scotland are being failed by this Tory Government. Week by week, this Government try to steer conversation towards one topic or the next, but when I speak to my constituents, the issues caused by this Government’s failing, broken social security system are consistent. Dignity and the basic living conditions of our constituents are simply not a priority for this Government but an afterthought, hence them not bringing forward the uprating of benefits to before April. The House of Commons Library has published information showing that inflation is being felt worse than ever, and also that it is usual or the norm for this uprating to occur in April, but that no Government are bound by that; it is just common practice. These are not normal times we are living through, and support should be accelerated, instead of civil servants’ time being wasted applying the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. I would also appreciate some clarity on the timing of these additional payments—that should have been laid out before now.
Amendment 2 would fix a flaw in the Bill as it stands. It seems utterly unreasonable that any one of our constituents could miss out on this additional support because they have been sanctioned under this Government’s cruel sanctions regime.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
My hon. Friend speaks about sanctions. Does she share my concern that in probably one of the grimmest league tables around, my constituents are No. 4 in Scotland for the number of people being sanctioned? Some 10% of claimants are being sanctioned, and one reason is public transport. We have significant challenges with public transport, because we cannot get enough bus drivers, and we cannot get enough bus drivers because of Brexit. Those constituents are facing a triple whammy—from the cost of living crisis, from being sanctioned because they cannot get there, and from the increasing cost of living and energy costs—because of the policies this Government have pursued.
Amy Callaghan
Unfortunately, my constituency of East Dunbartonshire rivals my hon. Friend’s and has a similar statistic for sanctions. It is not a position we want to be in, especially when we know that many of our constituents are sanctioned due to legitimate reasons, such as transport issues or potentially having to take their children to school.
Any Member walking through the Lobby tonight to vote against amendment 2 is condoning the Government’s sanctions regime—in fact, they are breathing more life into it by denying the most vulnerable much-needed support. We on the SNP Benches always welcome additional support for our constituents, especially in these times, but will the Government consider whether they are offering enough? What about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign? Those women have been continuously let down by the failings of this British Government. They have run an incredibly powerful campaign so that politicians will listen. Are they supposed to be appeased by this additional payment? I know with certainty that they will not be.
What about UK pensioners living overseas? Will their pensions be uprated this time around? Will they receive this additional support? What about our pensioners who have remained in the UK? Additional support for them is of course welcome, but it highlights a glaring need for a concerted effort, or a more concerted effort, around the uptake of pension credit, of which £3 million goes unclaimed each year in my constituency of East Dunbartonshire alone. Hopefully that will be less this year, given the effort by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). When will we see a much more active campaign directly reaching out to pensioners, encouraging them to sign up for pension credit?
What about single-parent families, already discriminated against by the British Government’s child maintenance system, which charges them to access money they are entitled to and places vulnerable women at further risk of manipulation and abuse? Where is the relief from their deductions? What about young parents on universal credit? They face the young parent penalty, denying them the same level of social security as parents over 25. Where is the relief from their deductions?
These additional payments are welcome, particularly against the backdrop of this Tory cost of living crisis and a fundamentally broken social security system, but these payments need to be made with the highest degree of urgency, and a timescale would be much appreciated. If the Government wanted to make a real difference, they could reintroduce the uplift to universal credit and extend it this time to legacy benefits. I urge Members to vote for our amendment 2 tonight, to stop our constituents missing out on this much-needed support due to sanctions being imposed upon them.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Welcome back, Dame Eleanor. You can gauge from the warmth of the response how much you have been missed. Pass on my thanks also to that young whippersnapper they appointed to act on your behalf, the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). I say that, but then I realise that Hansard has no irony, does it?
Hywel Williams
May I state my delight at seeing you back in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I support new clause 14. My constituency has a very high level of self-employment, as I indicated in my intervention on the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but it also has a large and active television industry, surprisingly to some people, considering that it is at the far end of Welsh-speaking Wales. Most of the TV is in Welsh. The new clause is on an issue that has an impact on us.
I mainly want to speak in favour of new clause 2, which is in the name of my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party, and in favour of the amendments that they have proposed. I support the requirement for an assessment of the latest cost of living support package that the Government have announced. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said that the cost of living payments, although necessary, are a sticking-plaster, and I would repeat that. The payments are inferior to ensuring that benefits keep up with the real cost of living. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that almost half of all families with three or more children on means-tested benefits would have been better off if the Government had not introduced cost of living payments, but had instead just ensured that benefits kept pace with inflation.
Benefit-receiving households where people were in receipt of disability benefits, or were in paid work, were less likely to have been properly compensated for the failure to uprate flat-rate cost of living payments in good time. That is another matter that needs to be looked at. I understand that the cost of living payments will result in the Government spending around £2 billion more on recipients of means-tested or disability benefits in 2023-24 than would have been needed simply to raise ordinary benefits in line with inflation. We really do need a full, detailed analysis by the Government, showing why they think that these ad-hoc payments are an appropriate way to distribute support fairly.
When it comes to living standards and social security, it is important that we recognise the differential effect across the nations of the UK—a point I referred to earlier. The Bevan Foundation’s latest research shows that even before the pandemic, around one in eight people lived in deep poverty in Wales. Around one in 30 has such low income that they live in destitution. New clause 2, proposed by my hon. Friends in the SNP, would require an analysis of the cost of living payments that considered the differing policy contexts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
In Wales, we have the shameful record of having the highest proportion of children living in poverty of any nation in the UK. An analysis of how the cost of living payments will play out in Wales might reveal significant differences between the system in my country and the partially devolved benefits systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland. For instance, the Scottish child payment of £25 was a bold step towards tackling child poverty. It was one of the wider reforms that the IFS said was part of a trend in which the Scottish Government are using their devolved income tax and benefits powers to increase the progressivity of the tax and benefit system. That is something that we dearly need in Wales. Had we a similar payment in Wales, our tragically high levels of child poverty would surely be reduced. We also have a higher proportion of disabled people in Wales. An analysis by the disability equality charity Scope estimates that the extra costs faced by disabled people average £583 a month.
These are just a few examples showing why we need a Wales-specific analysis of the cost of living payments and how they interact with wider social security policy. Such an analysis would most certainly strengthen the argument for devolution of social security to Wales, I believe—understandably so, as that is my party’s policy. I am told that new clause 2 will not be pushed to a vote tonight, but I hope that the Government accept its logic, and provide for a proper analysis of changes to social security—an analysis that specifically takes into account the impact in Wales.
Mims Davies
It is a pleasure to respond to points made this evening. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and discussions. I take this opportunity to fully, strongly assure all Members that policy officials in my team at DWP and I have looked roundly at the cliff edges and the challenges in getting these payments out swiftly. This will very much link to the household support fund, and the learnings from that. I can reassure the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), that there will be strong communications and engagement with local authorities for anybody who may be missing out. I hope that reassures my hon. Friends and colleagues.
Clause 2 sets out in more detail the eligibility criteria and the means test for the cost of living payments. I have covered much of clause 1, but I will come back to that briefly, if I may. The eligibility criteria, as we have heard, are similar to those in the Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022. We know from making those tens of millions of payments last year that keeping the policy simple is essential to delivering the payments successfully and to those most in need.
Mims Davies
I will just make a little progress, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to jump in again shortly.
Ultimately, this is about parity between taxpayers and those people who are seeking support. As I say, we have targeted communications in place to make it clear to customers that our work coaches are there to help, whatever their circumstances. Whether it is getting advice, boosting people’s skills, or identifying opportunities for progression, anybody looking for support should speak to their work coach to access all the help that the DWP can offer.
David Linden
On amendment 2, the fact of the matter is that people have already been punished once by being sanctioned. This is a cost of living payment in recognition of inflation and high energy bills. Why on earth does the Minister think it is appropriate for 6,600 households to have been sanctioned and punished twice last year, and why is she allowing legislation to go forward that allows people to be punished twice again? That is the simple question.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his points, and I simply do not agree with the point about punishment. Conditionality works on both sides, and I think it is important that people play their part. I will come on to further comments about that shortly.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I welcome the additional payments, but Conservative Members know that employment is the best way out of poverty, and part of getting people back into employment is the conditionality of universal credit. One key benefit of universal credit is that there is a clear incentive for claimants to get into work, preventing them from becoming trapped in welfare, which then creates a dependency. I know the Minister will explain this to the Committee, but I want to stress the importance of this in Hastings and Rye where, at the moment, one in five people—20%—are on out-of-work benefits by choice. I reiterate the importance of conditionality in gaining employment.
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend, and she makes the point extremely eloquently. This is much more about getting people into work and progressing; it is not about some punitive sanctions regime. This is about individuals being supported to best progress. On those people who engage with us during the qualifying period, as long as they attend, we will be supporting them if there is any particular reason that they cannot engage with us, if they have good cause.
Amendment 3 would extend the qualifying period for universal credit over two months rather than one. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. Keeping the eligibility dates as close as possible to payment reduces administrative challenges such as out-of-date contact or bank details, and including two assessment periods extends the amount of time between eligibility and payment. [Interruption.] Sorry, but the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) was speaking. In this time, individuals will have the opportunity to—
Mims Davies
I will let the hon. Lady intervene, because she is making a racket.
Amy Callaghan
On sanctions, I appreciate the Minister giving way, and I thought she might enjoy a second just to reflect on some of the guff that she has been spouting. [Interruption.] I would say “guff” is a suitable word. I am absolutely scunnered by what she is saying, and I know my constituents will be too, given the high rate of sanctions in my constituency.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady, and I think the point here is that this is not solely about sanctions. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), this is about getting cost of living payments to the people most in need at this challenging time. SNP Members are continually talking about sanctions, and never talking about getting people into work and progressing. It is a continual bleating, and I think it is right that the hon. Lady reassesses the word “guff” in relation to fairness between the taxpayer and those people who of course need to be engaging with work coaches. It is important that we know what is happening with our claimants. Leaving people to their own devices and not seeing what is going on is no way to support them, and I do hope that SNP Members will look at that.
I am going to talk a little more about sanction cases: 97.6% of sanctions in the quarter up to October 2022 were applied for failing to attend a mandatory appointment at a jobcentre. These cases can often be resolved quickly by engaging with claimants, so that they turn up to the next appointment. If someone with no universal credit award due to sanctions re-engages with us, they could get one of the later cost of living payments. That is why it was so important that we look at those hard edges, and as I have told the Committee, we did look at them.
Clause 3 sets out the eligibility criteria for each cost of living payment, based on the entitlement of child tax credit or working tax credit. This clause ensures that only individuals who have been paid tax credits by HMRC in respect of a day in the qualifying period will receive a cost of living payment. Clause 4 is applicable to those who are entitled to more than one social security benefit or tax credit, so that they do not get duplicate cost of living payments.
Clause 5, on the additional payment for disability, means that there is a cost of living payment of £150 for people who receive an eligible benefit, and this will enable us to make payments to up to 6 million people. I fully recognise that disabled people may be likely to face extra costs to deal with the impact of higher inflation, as we have heard in the Chamber this evening, so I am pleased that we can make this additional payment. I can also confirm that many will qualify for both the disability payment and means-tested benefits, to a maximum of £1,050 in total in what is covered by this Bill.
Let me make a little progress in trying to whip through the clauses. On the administration of the payments, clause 6 makes appropriate arrangements for the recovery of overpaid cost of living payments. This means that, where a cost of living payment is overpaid, including as a result of fraud, recovery rules that apply to its qualifying benefit will apply to the cost of living payment. Cost of living payments are paid automatically, without the need to claim, and there is no separate right of appeal against a decision on entitlement. Individuals can, of course, exercise their right of appeal against the decision on entitlement in relation to the relevant qualifying benefit.
Clause 7, on the co-operation between the Secretary of State and HMRC, allows for relevant data to be shared to ensure that cost of living payments reach the right people, and to avoid the duplication of payments. In the event that a payment is made by HMRC when it should have been made by the DWP, or the other way around, this clause allows us to treat the payment as if it was made by the correct Department, and it avoids the need for recovery of cost of living payments in these circumstances.
I am pleased to confirm to Members that clause 8—on payments to be disregarded for the purpose of tax and social security—ensures that any additional payments made are exempt from tax, will not affect a person’s entitlement to social security benefits or tax credits, and are not subject to the benefit cap. This means that every person who is entitled to a cost of living payment will receive every penny in their pockets.
Clause 9 amends the Social Security (Additional Payments) Act 2022 to ensure that provisions relating to overpayments and recovery of the qualifying disability benefit also apply to disability cost of living payments. This clause also amends regulations made by HMRC to simplify and clarify their position on the recovery of overpaid cost of living payments in the next financial year. These are essentially tidying-up provisions that modify existing legislation to clarify our policy intention.
Clause 10 sets out the definition and interpretation of certain terms used in the Bill. Clause 11 explains the procedure for the laying of regulations. Clause 12 defines the territorial extent of the Bill and specifies that its provisions extend to England, Wales, Scotland and now to Northern Ireland. These are standard clauses.
I will briefly respond to new clauses 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 14 laid respectively by the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
New clause 1 appears to require the Government to publish analysis of the impact on household incomes of an earlier backstop date for the second and third qualifying day. New clauses 2, 3, 7, 8 and 14 require the Government to publish analysis on the impacts of the Bill on various groups, and I would point to a number of existing analytical publications. The Treasury has already published a distributional analysis of the autumn statement decisions; this shows the impact of the cost of living payments on households across the income distribution. Alongside this Bill, we have published an impact analysis which uses administrative data to look at the characteristics of those receiving the cost of living payments. This includes consideration of different characteristics such as age, gender and geographical location, including England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. My Department’s annual “Household below average income” publication looks at numbers in both relative and absolute low income and covers a wide range of characteristics, as I have mentioned.
I am pleased to say that my Department is planning an evaluation of the cost of living payments. In addition, we will consider what further information we can release in future. I hope, given the amount of data we are making available, hon. Members will withdraw these amendments.
Mims Davies
Finally, I would like to mention the minimum income floor, which I think my hon. Friend wants to raise. He has spoken this evening to the Minister for Employment about fluctuating earnings; I entirely understand the challenges that he has set forward in Committee and I know that he will be meeting the Minister. I worked in media where there are fluctuating earnings and fully understand the points he and others have made; we do not think, however, that it is right for the state to provide indefinite support through the welfare system for those who persistently declare low earnings from self-employment.
Sir Robert Neill
I am glad that the Minister recognises that that was not the point made in relation to creative industries. I am grateful for the constructive approach by her colleague the Minister for Employment towards a meeting. I hope that we can have a meeting with the relevant all-party groups so that Ministers can directly hear the views of those who work in the sector and, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), find a constructive way forward which we can all sign up to.
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend and agree that it is right that we raise the situation of that sector. He has made his point and we have heard from other Members across the House about the same scenarios.
New clause 13 tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife requires us to make all payments under this Act by 1 April. As I previously stated, we have deliberately staggered payments over the course of the next year to ensure that as many people as possible will qualify for a payment at some point. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.
I think I have made all my points.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to the Minister for giving me a short time to reply. I accept that amendments 4, 5 and 6 are fairly blunt instruments, but during the debate I heard from both sides of the Committee, including the Government side, that we want to get money to people as soon as possible. The purpose of our amendments is to ensure we can do that. Giving people in need cash gives them dignity as well; it gives them choice, as I have heard in my role as co-chair of the all-party group on ending the need for food banks. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) raised inflation, too, and giving people money now would help them ameliorate that. Amendment 4 merely asks the Government to make a payment at the start, rather than the end, of April, so I will not withdraw it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mims Davies
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill legislates for two key elements of the substantial package of further support that the Chancellor announced in November. It builds on our £37 billion package to help with the cost of living last year, demonstrating our continued commitment to the most vulnerable during these challenging times. This hugely important legislation lays the foundations for cost of living payments to millions of households. It underpins the Government’s commitment to supporting people across the country who we know face increased financial pressures over the next year. We have legislated to uprate benefits and pensions by 10.1%, have extended the household support fund and are supporting people with energy costs.
I am delighted by the spirit in which the Bill has been received, for which I thank Members across the House. Frankly, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) about sanctions and conditionality, but I appreciate his arguments; I can promise him that we always look at individual circumstances and are fully focused on positive engagement with our claimants and on always being fair to the taxpayer. Despite the spirit in which the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) pressed her amendments in Committee, it simply was not possible to deliver what she asked, so I think we are absolutely right to have moved forward in a different way this evening.
I thank the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for raising issues around larger families. She feels that perhaps there could be a better solution. I can say honestly that we looked very strongly at whether there were any better solutions, but unfortunately we could not find them. I take her point, however, and fully appreciate the points about the flat rate with respect to larger families.
Let me reiterate that these payments are being made through the DWP’s ad hoc payments system, which does have some limitations. For instance, it can only make one type of payment of a single value at a time. However, for the families whom the hon. Lady describes who need additional help, we are extending the household support fund in England throughout 2023-24, while the devolved Administrations will receive Barnett consequentials to spend at their discretion, with the benefit of their local knowledge. I know that Opposition Members feel strongly about that. I ask all Members to look at the benefits calculator on gov.uk and at the Help for Households website, which can help all their constituents.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out the Government’s priority, which is to see inflation halved this year. It is, of course, good news that we have already seen small decreases, with greater decreases forecast for later this year. However, we have recognised the need to act to support people now, which is why, through this Bill alone, we are providing additional support of up to £1,050 for low-income and vulnerable households across the UK. Last year we delivered, successfully and at an unparalleled pace, tens of millions of payments to people throughout the country. We were able to achieve that because we deliberately kept the eligibility criteria for the payments as simple as possible, avoiding the complexity that could lead to delays and unacceptable levels of fraud or, indeed, error. These are the key principles that have guided our approach to the Bill.
I thank all Members for their contributions to, and engagement with, today’s debate and the Second Reading debate last month. I am grateful to Opposition Members who do not agree with the finer detail of the Bill for supporting the overall package that the Government have presented to Parliament. We have looked at all the feedback about how people can best be supported through difficult times. I am grateful, in particular, to the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), for his measured interventions and his scrutiny of the Bill. I pay tribute to my policy officials—the Bill team—for making all these key payments possible, and for all the other work that they have done.
Let me end by underlining the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), who is not currently in the Chamber. The Bill will enable the Government to start making additional payments soon to millions of families throughout the country to help them to become better off, and I commend it to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
On behalf of the Official Opposition, I thank the Clerks and the Bill team for their support. While it is always a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think I speak on behalf of the whole House in saying how delightful it was to see the Chairman of Ways and Means back in her rightful place. She chaired our deliberations with typical skill and good humour.
I was pleased that the Minister attempted to answer questions from Members on both sides of the House with courtesy, but I am afraid that some of her answers did not clarify the points put to her. The fault was not particularly in her or in the briefing that she was given; it was because of the way in which the Bill is structured. The Bill has problems because, as has been mentioned, it does not deal with the fluctuation of universal credit payments month by month. The Bill has problems for those who happen to be sanctioned when the payments are made. The Bill has problems for those who are self-employed. The Bill does not take into account larger families either, because this is a flat payment.
We will not be dividing the House, because we understand that our constituents are in desperate need of help and we recognise that the Government are spending about £11 billion on this cost of living payment, but of course we still do not know whether the Chancellor will maintain the energy price freeze at £2,500 or whether our constituents will be faced with average bills of £3,000 from April. Our constituents are losing the extra support that they have been receiving with their monthly bills as well.
The reason that the Government have had to spend £11 billion is that there is less resilience in our constituencies and our constituents are facing greater hardship than ever before. There is despair in the faces of many people that Ministers do not often meet and in communities they seldom visit, because for 13 years we have had Conservative Ministers telling us that they were going to balance the books by cutting more deeply and more brutally into social security. That is why, today, child poverty is up, pensioner poverty is up and in-work poverty is up. This Bill is welcome as far as it goes, but there are fundamental problems with the social security system. Our safety net is ever more threadbare and there is ever more desperate need and hardship in our communities. We will not divide the House this evening, but so much more needs to be done to give our constituents a better chance.
David Linden
In rising to conclude this Bill, I also want pay tribute to the Clerk of Legislation and to Linda Nagy and Nansi Morgan from my own team for their help with the amendments. My position on the Bill remains that it is welcome but could have gone further. I say to the Minister—whom I genuinely respect; we have robust debates in this place, but they are just that—that the reality is that last year 6,600 people who should have had a cost of living payment did not get one because they were sanctioned. All that the amendment was trying to do was to ensure that the law had a safety net, which is the very purpose of social security, and it is regrettable that the Government voted against that tonight. I hope that, when the Minister and I are jousting about this in a year’s time, we will not look back and see an even higher figure of households that have been sanctioned. As much as the Minister and I can have robust debates, we should never lose sight of the fact that the legislation that we pass in this place, imperfect though it is, impacts some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies, and I fear that the Government will come to regret rather hastily rejecting amendment 2 tonight, because those people will be at the Minister’s surgeries on a Friday morning, as I am sure they will be at mine. On that basis we will let the Bill go off, and look forward to the progress that it will make for those that it does include.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 15 June 2022 (Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Programme)) as varied by the Order of 31 October 2022 (Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Monday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 View all Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 Jan 2023)
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 17.
Mark Spencer
These amendments aim to provide clarity as to which genetic changes produced through modern biotechnology are acceptable in a precision-bred organism, particularly with regard to changes that are similar to those that could have resulted from natural transformation. To achieve this, these amendments remove references to “natural transformation” in the Bill. We included this term originally to acknowledge that exogenous DNA can be present in plants and animals as a result of natural transformation. In addition, there was a clause that would strictly limit which features of this type could be present in precision-bred organisms if they resulted from the application of modern biotechnology.
Our policy ambition has not changed. However, after further discussions with our scientific advisers and with experts in the other place, we have introduced these amendments to achieve this desired outcome more effectively. Rather than referring to “natural transformation” in the Bill, we have focused on the features that can be present in a precision-bred organism resulting from the use of modern biotechnology. These are features that arise from the application of traditional processes listed in clause 1(7), which has not been amended. It is also important that the definitions of “modern biotechnology” and “artificial modification technique” in the Bill align with corresponding terms in the genetically modified organisms legislation. These Government amendments ensure that these can remain aligned, if there are technical updates, in the GMO legislation.
Through these amendments, we are maintaining our intention that precision-bred organisms contain only changes that could also have arisen in the gene pool through natural variation or through the kinds of directed breeding programmes already in use today. I am confident that the changes we have introduced are more effective in delivering the scientific approach to which we have committed when defining a precision-bred organism.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this important Bill could release vital technological innovation and demonstrates that the United Kingdom can regulate more effectively when we make decisions in our own national interest than when we were a member of the European Union?
Mark Spencer
Of course. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was an excellent Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She had the same ambitions as this Bill is delivering.
Amendments 7 to 13 and 15 will increase the scrutiny of the secondary legislation set out by the Bill. In response to the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, amendments 7 to 9, 12 and 13 change the parliamentary procedure from negative to affirmative for clauses 4(3), 6(2) and 18(1). Amendments 7 and 13 ensure that clauses 4(1)(b) and 18(6) remain subject to the affirmative procedure. We considered these recommendations closely and accepted the Committee’s view that the clauses contain matters of significant public interest. Regulations under these clauses will therefore need to be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament via affirmative resolution before they come into effect.
Amendments 10, 11 and 15 increase parliamentary scrutiny of clauses 11(5) and 22(3) while retaining the flexibility for the Secretary of State to designate the most appropriate body for the role of the animal welfare advisory body. We recognise it is essential that the animal welfare protections under this Bill command strong public and stakeholder confidence, which is why we tabled these amendments.
Alongside these amendments, which provide an opportunity for both Houses to debate and agree the provisions before they come into effect, we commissioned Scotland’s Rural College to run an independent research project to help us develop criteria for the animal welfare assessment and the accompanying evidence that will be required.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
We have traditionally used other methods of crop breeding, such as induced mutation using gamma radiation or chemicals such as colchicine. Can the Minister reassure me that, although we are making changes for this keyhole surgery type of genetic modification, or gene editing, it will not affect traditional methods that have been used for many years to produce varieties such as Golden Promise winter barley?
Mark Spencer
This technology should accompany and enhance the possibilities of plant breeding and, later, animal breeding. I think it is an exciting opportunity, and who knows where the science will take us? It may well lead to world-changing developments that help to feed the growing world population.
The research by Scotland’s Rural College will involve experts from the Animal Welfare Committee and a wide range of organisations with expertise in animal welfare, genetics and industry practice. Following the Bill’s passage, we will continue to work with experts and other stakeholders to develop measures to safeguard animal welfare before we bring the measures on animals into force.
Finally, I will speak to the minor and technical amendments. Amendment 5 is a technical amendment that ensures clause 1(8) reflects the definition of “artificially modified” inserted into part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002, which is expressed in relation to genes or other genetic material rather than organisms. The amendment will make no substantive change to the Bill.
Amendment 14 replaces the reference to a “relevant obligation” in clause 21(3)(a) with a reference to a “part 2 obligation”, as defined in clause 21, for clarity.
Amendment 16 similarly replaces the reference to a “relevant obligation” in clause 29(4)(a) with a reference to a “part 3 obligation”, as defined in clause 29, for clarity.
Amendment 17 aims to make it clear in the clause on interpretation that references to the term “notifier”, which is defined in clause 6(1), may in certain circumstances be modified by regulations under clause 11(9).
I hope the House is confident in accepting these amendments.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister, who is, by my accounting, the fourth Minister at the Dispatch Box on this Bill. We had two in two days during the Committee stage, but I am still here, as is his colleague on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I thank her for the inclusive way in which she introduced the Bill at the beginning. It is a complicated Bill and she gave us access to officials, which was very helpful.
I take this opportunity, in case the Minister missed it, to remind him of the mantra that has guided the Opposition’s view on the Bill. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that to secure both public and investor confidence, a strong and robust regulatory framework is required. Disappointingly, that is the part the Government have failed to provide.
Sir Robert Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman represents a city that is full of science, particularly in its universities, so does he agree that we can bring forward this legislation only because we have left the European Union and that new wheat varieties that are 50% lower in acrylamide, a chemical that can induce cancer, is good news for both farmers and consumers of wheat?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that. We have had this discussion before and I have to disappoint him slightly, in the sense that of course the EU is moving as well on this. I suspect we will probably end up in a similar place at a similar time. However, he is absolutely right to point out the potential advantages.
The amendments before us are all Government amendments, because, despite the excellent learned and erudite arguments put by my colleagues in the other place—I pay tribute to Baroness Hayman, Baroness Jones and Lords Winston, Krebs, Trees and Cameron, among others—not much has changed, and that is genuinely disappointing. However, some improvements have been made. A number of the amendments move regulations to the affirmative procedure, as the Minister explained, and that allows some, if limited, further scrutiny, which is welcome. Amendment 1 to clause 1 is the Government’s further attempt to codify a particular knotty problem that we discussed at length in Committee. So the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not be opposing their amendments tonight. We will merely pointing be out how much more improved the Bill could have been had they had the confidence to embrace our positive suggestions.
I say that not least, Mr Deputy Speaker, because if you had the chance to peruse the Sunday newspapers, as I hope you had the time to do and enjoy, you would have seen comment on today’s gathering of international experts on human gene editing. Although the techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 may be similar, this is of course a different issue from those under consideration today. However, I would argue that many of the ethical issues around animals are not dissimilar. That is why the Government’s refusal to adopt our suggestion of an overseeing authority to look at these very complicated and challenging issues is so disappointing. We have a great chance to be genuinely world-leading in this area. We have brilliant people such as those at the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, yet the Government are, apparently, not interested. That is a wasted opportunity.
Let us look at these amendments in more detail. As I have said, on a number of issues the Government have bowed to informed argument in the other place and agreed that regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure: on the release or marketing of genetically edited organisms; on information that must be included in the register; on the animal welfare declaration that has to be made; and on the body to be designated as the animal welfare advisory body. That is all welcome. But one of the most powerful and consistent criticisms has been the vagueness of the Bill on many issues and the lack of detail, particularly relating to the proposals regarding animals and when regulations might take effect. I am afraid that these amendments do not seem to help us on this, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on it. The promise at the outset was that nothing would be done on animals until the science was further advanced; it has been described as a “step-by-step approach”. Will the Minister reconfirm that commitment today and tell us what timeframe is actually envisaged? As for companion animals or primates, can he give any reassurances on that today? Many people will be keen to hear what he has to say on it.
As I have already indicated, the most significant amendment is to clause 1, as the Government seek once again to explain what they consider to be a natural process. We had an interesting and extensive discussion in Committee on this point, both with those giving evidence and between members, and it was discussed at length in the other place. I fear that the Government have struggled with this, and I am not sure the new wording takes us much further forward. In general, the Government have sought to define a new category, “precision breeding” which many expert witnesses doubt has much meaning. The particular concern is whether the definitions accurately describe gene editing, without allowing gene modification in through the back door, with one of the key issues being whether exogenous material is included.
The amendment before us introduces yet another term—modern biotechnology. This is also ill-defined, and, as argued by Lord Krebs in the other place, may not stand the test of time, or, more importantly, as we heard in expert evidence, legal scrutiny and challenge. I appreciate that this is difficult territory and hard to define, and almost any sentence fails to capture the complexity, but we were promised at the outset that GM is excluded, and it would be helpful to have the Minister confirm that clearly again today.
l am conscious that you do not want lengthy speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, so let me conclude. The learned and lengthy discussions in the other place showed just how complicated this subject is. Sadly, the Government have made only limited changes in the light of those discussions. Those changes are welcome, so we will not oppose them, but we think that this is a missed opportunity to set out the strong regulatory framework that would have reassured the public, and given investors the confidence that the sector needs.
There is significant opportunity for good here, but there are also risks—risks we may not fully understand. It is also worth bearing in mind that one mistake could tarnish the entire technology. As so often, the Government have gone for the short-term quick fix—the sticking plaster. How much better it would have been to have set up the robust long-term framework that could have established the UK as the setter of the standard that others will follow. That is unfinished business, and it is for another day.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise
again in support of this important Bill. I declare a strong professional interest as a veterinary surgeon. I am passionate about animal health and welfare, and strongly believe that the Bill will help in that area.
The Bill has been strengthened and improved in the other place. Its definitions are also tighter. I am pleased that the Opposition amendment to remove animals from the Bill was withdrawn and has not been carried forward. It is so important that both animals and plants are included in the Bill. I was also pleased that the amendments that would have phased in animal provisions were not successful. That has strong benefits for animal health and welfare, and it is important that animals are included.
I very much welcome the Government’s allaying of concerns expressed by the Opposition about exogenous DNA, therefore preventing any exogenous DNA that was outside the range of an organism’s existing gene pool from remaining in the organism. Amendments 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 have been very helpful in that regard. It is important to reaffirm to the public and the world at large that this Bill is to do with gene editing, which is very, very different from genetic modification. That is where genetic material from exogenous or unrelated species can be introduced. That will not happen in this gene editing Bill.
I very much welcome the Government amendments that have removed reference to natural transformation. Some clarity was needed in that regard. I also welcome the fact that the Bill introduces more parliamentary scrutiny to help protect animal health and welfare, which strengthens the safeguards. This increased scrutiny will also allay some of the fears that people had put forward.
The Bill has huge benefits to animals, plants, the environment and people in, for example, helping to develop resistance to diseases such as avian influenza. A lot of work is being done to make birds resistant to this horrific disease. A huge outbreak has gripped this country and others across the world and that is firmly in our minds. This sort of technology will help us in that battle. It will also help us to develop resistance to other diseases, such as porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs. It will help reduce the need for medicines, help combat antimicrobial resistance and, indirectly and very directly, help public health. It will also help us as a country and as a world in our fight to preserve and strengthen food security by being able to develop more climate-resilient and disease-resistant crops, reducing the need for pesticides and reducing the need for fertiliser as well. That will also benefit the environment.
In summary, I strongly support the Bill. I welcome the Government amendments. I thank the other place for refining and improving the Bill and I wish it well as it completes its passage.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I will not detain the House longer than a moment or two, but I want to put on record that, although we in the SNP do not intend to oppose the Lords amendments, our opposition to the entire Bill has been well documented throughout its passage. The Bill, alongside the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, attacks the integrity of the powers of the Scottish Parliament in specifically devolved areas such as agriculture, aquaculture and animal welfare.
The intended scope of the Bill may be England only, but the Bill documentation is clear that it will have significant impacts on areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In particular, the impact assessment for the Bill recognises that,
“products entering the market in England would also be marketable in both Scotland and Wales.”
It is outrageous that this Government did not see fit to work more closely—or at all—with the Scottish Parliament, to give that institution the respect it is due through this process and to listen to the concerns expressed. As a result, this entire Bill does not have the support of my party.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I have spoken to the Minister before, so he knows my thoughts on the Bill, and I am very pleased to add my support to what we have before us tonight. It is also good to hear from the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who brings a wealth of personal knowledge to the debate—I thank him for sharing that with us.
I have been supportive of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill for some time now, having spoken with a number of farmers in my constituency who have expressed to me their willingness to engage with and support it when they learned how exactly it could help their work. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and also as a landowner.
To my reading, the Lords amendments simply provide clarity and clarification. The Minister was very good to share his response, which highlighted the use of the terminology “natural transformation”, and I thank him for that. Five of the amendments serve the purpose of removing references to natural transformation.
The amendments were made following concerns raised by MPs and peers regarding the potential for misinterpretation of the term as allowing the stable integration of the functional transgenic DNA, through the use of modern biotechnology, in an organism that is considered to be precision-bred for the purposes of the Bill. That is not in line with the Government’s policy intention, which is to allow only genetic features similar to those present in the gene pool or that might arise naturally through existing breeding processes.
As that clarity has been furnished, it is clear that our farming industry can benefit without dangerously interfering with genetic structure. I am encouraged by that, and I believe that the information from the National Farmers Union, which outlined gene-editing applications in 46 different crop species, with rice, tobacco, wheat and soybean among the most cited, is an indication of the clear benefits of the ability to use precision breeding.
A broad range of products with market-oriented traits are being developed, and not just those with agronomic traits such as yield and disease resistance, but foods with consumer-facing traits such as lower allergenicity, reduced contaminants, higher antioxidants, longer shelf life, vitamin enhancement and heart-healthiness—all things we would wish to see in foods. There are also those with climate-resilient traits such as drought and salt tolerance.
No one can ignore what is happening and what we have before us. It is not gene modification in livestock, but instead gene editing applications being developed and researched, including on resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. These technologies are exciting, innovative and challenging and I believe they give the United Kingdom a chance to lead the way. For example, if the problems of African swine flu in pigs or bovine tuberculosis in cattle could be sorted out, my goodness, we could all put our hands up and clap hard for that. Mastitis resistance, hornless cattle, chickens that cannot spread bird flu, elimination of milk allergens and increased lean muscle—how would that not be good news for our farming sector? It could only lead to more efficiency and higher standards and make our farming industry even stronger.
It is clear that this Bill solidifies what farmers and indeed many of our grandmothers have done for years with their roses and their peas. I well remember in Strabane back in the ’60s my grandmother being one of those people doing things with roses and peas, making changes even in those days. My grandmother called it splicing, but this is splicing made technical, and it is past time we legislated to protect it. I very much welcome what the Minister is bringing forward tonight.
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to hon. Members who have assisted not only in this place, but at the other end of the corridor, and particularly to my right hon. Friend Lord Benyon for steering the Bill so ably through the House of Lords.
It is worth putting on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—I see him in his place behind me—who was the originator of the Bill. He saw the benefit of this technology and brought in the Bill, ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) indicated, was one of the Ministers he jousted with over the Bill.
The shadow Minister was broadly supportive, but he had one little concern about animal welfare; I understand those concerns and I will try to reassure him. Animal welfare concerns were raised in both Houses and by non-governmental organisations. The Government are committed to maintaining our already high animal welfare standards and we want to improve and build on that record. That is why we are taking a step-by-step approach, with regulatory changes first for plants, followed then by animals. That is why we have also commissioned Scotland’s Rural College to carry out our research.
One reason why I was a little disappointed by the comments about Scotland from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) was that even she must be proud of the fantastic establishments in Scotland. Not least, the James Hutton Institute in Dundee and the University of Edinburgh are world-leading in some of this research. We need to embrace that research and bounce forward.
This is a fantastic Bill. I am glad to see it progress through the House and I look forward to its receiving Royal Assent.
Patricia Gibson
It is right and fitting that the Minister pays tribute to the hub of scientific excellence that we find in Scotland in a range of different areas, but surely he is not suggesting that that, in itself, and using that expertise in Scotland is a reason for his Government to legislate by the back door in devolved areas in Scotland.
Mark Spencer
Not at all. This is an England-only Bill; it is there in black and white. I was expressing my disappointment on behalf of Scottish farmers who will not be able to use this technology. That will leave them at a disadvantage commercially, and I hope that she will listen to those Scottish farmers.
Sir Robert Goodwill
Perhaps the Minister might be reassured by the fact that the Scottish National party seems to be against the Bill on political rather than scientific grounds. In fact, I think it is on the record as saying that if the European Union adopts the legislation—as the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), said—it would immediately adopt it. Surely the SNP is taking the lead from Europe, not from the people who elected them.
Mark Spencer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It was my intention to slowly glide the Bill through its process, but we seem to have stepped into a bit of a hot potato. The Bill is a fantastic opportunity for scientists around the UK, particularly in England, to embrace this new technology.
Jim Shannon
Other Members have spoken about Scotland and Wales. I know that the Minister has a very close working relationship with the Minister responsible for farming in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Edwin Poots. Has this Minister had any opportunity to discuss these matters with him, so that we in Northern Ireland can take advantage of what will happen here?
Mark Spencer
Of course, our door is always open for those conversations with the devolved Administrations. I look forward to speaking to Minister Poots at the earliest convenience, so that Northern Ireland can embrace this technology, as soon as we get Stormont up and running, of course. I know that the hon. Gentleman is as keen as I am to see that. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 17 agreed to.
Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill (Ways and Means)
Ordered,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mark Spencer.)
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Offshore Wind Farms: Health and Safety
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
A just transition was proclaimed when COP26 was held in Glasgow in 2021. While that global jamboree may have underwhelmed in so many respects, it was at the forefront in one aspect, for as we transition from fossil fuels to renewables, not just countries but businesses, communities and workers were to be supported. Entire industries require to be run down or forsaken and decent jobs given up, even lifelong careers; however, financial support was to be given to assist nations in that journey. As for workers, assurances were made that in the transition to net zero, they would be protected and long-held rights would be assured—justice for workers, as well as for our planet.
Those assurances were echoed outwith the global gathering, endorsed by the UK Government—they have since been championed by them in the green jobs taskforce—and chorused by the Scottish Government in their just transition commission. The rhetoric has been fairness and equity for those whose work would require to change. In Scotland and in the UK as a whole, the sector most affected is in the North sea. Though extraction of oil and gas is still required, we are on a journey to decarbonise and to transition to renewables; it is a transition, but it must be a just one. That sector has provided huge wealth and benefit to our society, and many who worked hard in those difficult and often dangerous conditions are now moving into renewables. Where once it was oil and gas, it is now becoming wind, wave and tidal—let us not forget that we recently had a Prime Minister who championed the UK as the Saudi Arabia of wind. It is a move that matters for our nations and will create wealth, as well as provide hope for our planet.
However, recent events in the North sea have revealed that while there is a transition in the economy, there is no just transition for those working in that new and growing sector—primarily in the maritime sector, where minimum wage law does not apply consistently and immigration law is used as a crude instrument to profit from seafarer exploitation. That, though, is a debate for another day. Tonight, I want to raise the issue of employment rights, especially the effectiveness of health and safety legislation that is too easily avoided. The lack of consistent and effective offshore safety legislation has been brought to light by a recent tragedy. We must hope that from that sorrow there will come some solace, with the existing legislative gap being remedied.
That legislative gap affects hundreds if not thousands of workers in the offshore energy supply chain, sailing out of not just existing offshore hubs such as Aberdeen or Dundee but Eyemouth, Montrose, Fraserburgh, Wick, Buckie, and other Scottish ports involved in delivering a successful offshore wind industry. It also affects those in England servicing energy installations in the North sea from Humberside, Tyneside, Teesside or East Anglia, along with those who will be embarking from Holyhead, Milford Haven, Mostyn and other ports in Wales. At present, the framework of statutory employment and seafarer rights on which that workforce will depend for their health and safety is not fit for purpose. A just transition was promised, and a just transition there must be for our maritime and offshore workers, as well as our planet.
Let me detail the tragedy which brought those failures to light. On Sunday 22 January, a man went missing from Valaris 121, a mobile offshore drilling unit being towed to Dundee and located some 98 miles from Aberdeen. Police Scotland investigated and while satisfied that no criminal investigation was required, had concerns regarding wider health and safety issues, which they referred to the Health and Safety Executive. This is something that the HSE would not normally investigate. That it did so here is perhaps indicative of the concerns that the police had raised, for it is not the same as an industrial accident on land. Neither is it similar to that on an oil or gas rig on the UK continental shelf, or even on a fixed or floating wind turbine in the UK exclusive economic zone.
HSE legislation has rightly been extended to cover workers’ rights, but it is incomplete and, as a result, workers are at greater risk. Mobile drilling units such as Valaris 121 are classified as a ship or a vessel when towed, meaning that they fall outwith HSE jurisdiction and within that of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Accordingly, while the HSE could and very likely would have carried out a full investigation had this incident been on land, a rig or even a turbine, it is restricted in what it can do in this instance. Likewise, a report that may have seen a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland or a coroner’s court hearing in England and Wales will not happen. Why is that? It is because it is not classified as a health and safety issue, giving the HSE authority. Instead, it is considered a maritime safety matter, and the MCA has authority and leads these investigations through the marine accident investigation branch.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward. When it comes to health and safety, we are all concerned. Given the fact that the offshore energy created comes on land in Scotland and England, is there some role for the Health and Safety Executive, even though, as he has clearly outlined, the MCA takes precedence? If the energy is coming here and the workers work out of Scotland and England, is there not a responsibility?
Kenny MacAskill
As I will come on to say, the HSE does a good job onshore, on oil and gas and on turbines, but we require that its powers be extended. It is the agency. The MCA and the MAIB do a wonderful job in preserving life and ensuring wider maritime safety, but they are not qualified in industrial accidents; neither are employment laws within their remit. Fundamentally, and worsening that handicap in expertise, the MCA does not even have responsibility for the investigation, or jurisdiction over this incident. That is because it occurred outwith UK territorial waters, which extend to 12 miles. Beyond that distance, even when within the UK exclusive economic zone of 200 miles and on the UK continental shelf, incidents are subject to international maritime regulations, which prescribe that the investigating agency is to be from the vessel’s flag state. That is the country where the ship is registered.
Valaris 121 is registered in Liberia, a flag state managed in Virginia, USA. Accordingly, we have the absurdity of responsibility for an investigation and jurisdiction in enforcement for an incident leading to the death of a UK worker resting not with police or Crown, HSE or MCA, or even with an organisation based in Edinburgh or London, but in the flag state of Liberia, a country located on another continent. That country is one of the world’s largest shipping registers and is categorised by the International Transport Workers Federation as a flag of convenience. That means that employment and safety standards are at the international minimum and ship owners pay no tax to the Liberian state. That alone is a concern, as questions are sometimes raised regarding registration, let alone supervision.
Despite my asking numerous questions, the Government are unable to tell me how many vessels operating in the UK sector are foreign flagged. That should be a concern, as anecdotally it would seem that the vast majority are not registered under the red ensign, despite the Government’s obsession with wrapping things in the Union Jack.
The Lord Advocate advised that a multi-agency meeting took place to discuss the incident; it involved representatives of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Republic of Liberia. They discussed who would have primacy in the various investigations. I do not know this, but I assume that it was a virtual meeting; likewise, I do not know who the representative from Liberia was, or what level of seniority they had. The Lord Advocate explained further that Police Scotland remains in charge of the missing person enquiry, though, sadly, the body may never be recovered.
The Lord Advocate confirmed that the HSE remained the lead agency for the investigation in Scotland and the UK—but doing what, and enforcing which laws? Is that because there is no one here from Liberia to do it, and because the only folk nearby are from the HSE? Will we simply see a report filed and no further action taken? More importantly, how does this address the failure to extend health and safety legislation for the oil and gas sector to the new world of offshore wind, other renewable energies and nascent green technologies such as hydrogen, carbon capture and storage and liquefied natural gas?
Leaving aside the good intentions of the Lord Advocate and the diligent work by the HSE, let us recall where jurisdiction and enforcement lie: with the flag state, Liberia. Let me again set out why that is—all this has been confirmed through repeated parliamentary answers from several Government Departments.
Health and safety legislation applies to workers on land and operating in UK territorial waters, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned; those territorial waters extend for 12 miles. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 2013 applies to oil and gas, and even turbines, but that is insufficient for the new sector, as I shall detail. Valaris 121 is classified as a vessel or ship, which means that it is not subject to that legislation. As the tragedy happened outwith UK territorial waters, it is classified as a maritime incident—hence the involvement of the flag state, and the absurdity of Liberian jurisdiction. The issue of the absence of health and safety rights goes far wider than this incident or this vessel. It goes to the very heart of how the new sector to which we are transitioning operates.
As disclosed in parliamentary answer 139284 from the Department for Work and Pensions, under the 2013 order, health and safety protection applies to those operating in the offshore wind sector when on a “structure or machine”; the provisions apply to
“structures for the production of energy from wind”,
and to
“the operation of a cable for transmitting electricity from an energy structure.”
All well, one might think, but no; the legislation goes on to specifically state:
“Ships are not defined as energy structures for the purposes of this legislation.”
Therein lies the injustice of this North sea tragedy. It also shows that current provisions are incapable of providing the protections required for workers in this new sector. There are two clear reasons for that. First, few people work on a turbine; it is accessing, maintaining and supporting turbines that matters. Workers do not live on them, as they do on oil and gas rigs—or at least not yet, and if that changed, living accommodation would likely be confined to flotels, special operation vessels and other entirely separate solutions. If protection is provided only when people are physically working on the turbine, that totally ignores the nature of both the job and the sector.
Secondly, Valaris is classified as a vessel or ship, but she is not what most imagine a vessel or ship to be, as she is designed as a working platform. Some workers will be drilling, and others will be working while attached to a turbine. If they are physically attached to the turbine, then they are covered, but when they are travelling to the turbine or back, or even if they are proximate to it but not physically attached to it—that will likely be the bulk of the work—they are not.
The current legislation fails to take account of the operation of and working practices in offshore wind. It is an expanding and developing sector, which means that people are being denied cover in aspects of the work that lack protections. The danger is that this tragedy might be replicated, and oft times more, given the expansion of the sector. Health and safety protections that apply for oil and gas must be available for offshore wind and other renewables.
I have had discussions with Offshore Energies UK, which takes safety extremely seriously, as the House would expect, and it has indicated an acceptance of the gap and a willingness to assist in resolving the situation. To address it, the definition of energy structures under the 2013 order needs to be extended, and legislation to protect seafarers operating in the offshore wind sector needs to be enacted, but so far the DWP has failed to show any interest. Will the Minister agree to meet me and worker representatives to discuss this? There must be a just transition for our planet, but there must also be a just transition for workers, and this most certainly is not a just transition in the offshore wind sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) for bringing this important debate to the House, and I appreciate and understand the passion and conviction he brings to this debate. The UK Government take very seriously health and safety on offshore wind farms in Great Britain’s territorial sea and the UK continental shelf, and I am keen to reassure the hon. Gentleman that my officials at the HSE confirm that we have a strong and appropriate existing regulatory regime, which applies the protection afforded by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to people working on offshore wind farms.
On the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, let me spell out that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (Application outside Great Britain) Order 2013 applies the provisions of the 1974 Act. This covers certain activities offshore, including work associated with offshore wind farms, as well as other offshore installations such as those for oil and gas. Therefore, the 1974 Act applies to offshore wind farms in the territorial sea and the UK continental shelf as well as to renewable energy zones, which are also defined in the 2013 order. The 2013 order also applies the provisions of the 1974 Act to offshore oil and gas installations in designated areas in the UK continental shelf—I really hope that pacifies the hon. Gentleman. I will say more about that and come on to some of his other points later.
Furthermore, the 1974 Act places a legal duty on employers to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of workers and others to ensure that they are kept safe, whether they are working on oil or gas or, as I said, wind farm installations. In addition, other legislation that applies to work on offshore wind farms includes the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. This helps employers to ensure that their work is planned and that risks are assessed and managed. Those regulations also ensure that employers consult and engage with workers and make sure that information is communicated to all those who need to know it.
The Health and Safety Executive enforces the 1974 Act and subsidiary health and safety legislation on offshore wind farms. The HSE does not have the legal basis to enforce activities that are not specifically covered by the 2013 order. In those situations, however, other regulators and organisations will enforce health and safety legislation or investigate accidents. For example, in a situation where a ship is in transit and the HSE’s regulations do not apply, such a ship will still need to comply with national and international maritime standards.
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is responsible for enforcing all merchant shipping regulations in respect of occupational health and safety, the safety of vessels, safe navigation and operation. This includes manning levels and crew competency. Merchant shipping health and safety regulations extend to all those working on the ship and any work activities undertaken on board. These powers of the MCA extend to UK ships anywhere in the world and to non-UK ships that are within UK territorial waters.
The marine accident investigation branch investigates marine accidents involving UK vessels worldwide and all vessels in UK territorial waters. Its role is to help prevent further avoidable accidents from occurring, not to establish blame or liability.
For foreign flagged ships in the UK continental shelf, the responsibility for investigating accidents lies with the flag state. A memorandum of understanding between the HSE, the MCA and the MAIB ensures effective collaborative working. Each organisation has differing responsibilities for health and safety enforcement and accident investigation. An operational working agreement provides clarity and consistency where the jurisdiction of the HSE, the MCA and MAIB overlap. It outlines the key and supporting principles to be adopted when selecting the lead organisation for health and safety enforcement and accident investigation.
The HSE’s energy division has a team of inspectors dedicated to the regulation of work activities at offshore wind farms. They are supported by various onshore and offshore specialists who provide technical advice on a range of relevant subjects during inspection, investigation and enforcement of high-risk activities. This addresses poor health and safety performance and provides reassurance that there is good health and safety management of such activities.
Kenny MacAskill
I spoke earlier with Offshore Energies UK and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and this is not a criticism of any existing or past Government. There is a legislative gap because technology has moved so fast and nobody anticipated it. We now, however, have a situation, which I think is accepted by employers and employee representatives, where those working in the sector are not getting the proper coverage that should apply. Does the Minister not accept that there is something wrong here in primacy resting with Liberia, and that we need to extend the 2013 order to the new operations as they exist now, and indeed as they may be in a few years?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will make some further points, and I hope we can then come to a mutual arrangement and I can reassure him on the issues he raises. The points he makes can come into the conversation.
I have spelled out that the HSE energy division has inspectors dedicated to the regulation of work activities at offshore wind farms, but I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that a lot is going on in this sector and there needs to be reassurance. I have spelled out some of the regulatory activity. The HSE works with industry bodies and UK regulators to ensure that sensible solutions are found to emerging risks.
On shipping standards, where the HSE regulations do not apply to work activities on ships because they fall outside the scope of the 1974 Act and the 2013 order, international shipping regulations provide a broadly equivalent level of safety to international shipping. International conventions on shipping, such as the international convention for the safety of life at sea, the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships and the maritime labour convention 2006 set a level playing field, as all ships are surveyed by their flag and can be inspected by port states against the internationally agreed standards. Under this regime Valaris was inspected by the MCA when it reached port in the UK, but I do appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s points on that.
On Valaris 121, the Health and Safety Executive has served an improvement notice on Ensco Offshore U.K. Ltd relating to incorrectly installed gratings on Valaris 121 when it was in port in Dundee.
On the flag state investigations of accidents occurring on the UK continental shelf, the flag state of the ship involved is responsible for ensuring that an investigation is conducted and completed in accordance with the casualty investigation code. The code mandates that certain incidents set out in chapter 1, part A, of the 1974 international convention for the safety of life at sea—or SOLAS—are investigated.
The hon. Member for East Lothian mentioned flags of convenience. Open registries can pose a challenge to maritime security and the enforcement of laws on the high seas. That is because some flag states do not, or cannot, exercise effective oversight of the ships on their registers, as I think the hon. Member pointed out.
While there is some evidence of poor practice taking place under open registries, there is no direct correlation between poor-performing ships and open registries. However, Liberia, the Bahamas and the Marshall Islands are all open registries and were at the top of the 15 countries for low detention rates under the 2021 Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control.
It is an important issue that some flag states do not have independent investigation bodies that may investigate accidents in UKCS. The marine administrations for the Isle of Man, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar do not have independent investigation bodies, and therefore have difficulty in ensuring that safety investigations are impartial and objective. A memorandum of understanding has therefore been reached, which the UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch has agreed to, to investigate incidents involving ships registered with those marine administrations. The procedure for those investigations set out in the legislation in force in the relevant marine administration’s territory will apply.
I will cover two other points, then hopefully start to conclude. The hon. Gentleman will be keen to know that the responsibility for regulating the health and safety of workers travelling to and from offshore workplaces—wind farms or oil and gas installations—rests with the MCA within the territorial sea and for UK-flagged vessels.
The responsibility for health and safety enforcement activities and accident investigation is described in the MOU between HSE, the MCA and the MAIB. That is supported by an operational working agreement that provides clarity and consistency where the jurisdiction of the respective agencies overlap.
In terms of those transiting to and from offshore workplaces, the responsibility for regulating those transits rests with the MCA within the territorial sea and for UK-flagged vessels. Again, the responsibility for health and safety enforcement activities and accident investigation is in the MOU between HSE, the MCA and the MAIB. Again, that is supported by an operational working agreement that provides clarity and consistency where the jurisdiction of the respective agencies overlap. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. Does he want to come in on that?
Kenny MacAskill
I hope the Minister would accept that the technology is changing and that most of the new turbines will be outwith UK territorial waters in many instances, which changes the nature of the jurisdiction. The organisations she referred to, the MAIB and so on, have skills, but they are not skills relating to health and safety at work. The fundamental difficulty is that the nature of the operation is not attached to the physical turbine. The nature of the activity is either accessing it or working in close proximity to it. This man went off a ship that had been doing that and yet we are faced with Liberia. It is on that basis, because of the new world we face, that I seek for the Government to extend the 2013 order. We are anticipating a new world and we do not know what the North sea will look like, but it will be a very busy workforce and a very busy workplace that is very different from what we have at the moment.
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about learning from what happened and ensuring it is fit for purpose, and, above all, ensuring that he and the workers involved feel reassured. I want to reassure him that the HSE works closely with G+ Offshore Wind Health and Safety Organisation and its members to promote an understanding of the offshore wind farm regime and the regulations I have spelled out tonight.
On EU retained law, which the hon. Gentleman covered, the HSE remains focused on ensuring that regulatory frameworks maintain the UK’s high standards on health and safety protection, while continuing to reduce burdens on business. The HSE’s approach closely aligns with the Government’s pledge to do more for businesses to promote growth by removing disproportionate burdens and simplifying the regulatory regime. Our standards of health and safety protections are among the highest in the world. The HSE will continue to review retained EU law to seek opportunities to reduce those burdens and promote growth, but not reduce health and safety standards.
In conclusion, I have, I hope, set out the regulatory framework in place to ensure the health and safety of people working at offshore wind farms, and have detailed that the HSE is one of a number of regulators and organisations that work together to ensure that employers maintain health and safety standards in this sector and protect their workers. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the UK Government continue to take health and safety on wind farms very seriously, and recognise the contribution made by this sector to energy security and the net zero programme. I hope that that goes some way to reassuring the hon. Gentleman that the current regulatory regime and framework in place is sufficiently robust to protect the health and safety of workers, but I appreciate —he has made some excellent points this evening—that it is a complex, growing and challenging picture. I offer to facilitate a meeting between him and HSE officials, along with other relevant Departments and officials, so that we can further reassure him, the sector, employers and those who work in it that his concerns are fully understood and addressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I am grateful to be here to debate these important regulations. The purpose of the provisions is to update the fees payable to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in relation to its regulation of medical devices and blood components for transfusion.
As is standard practice for Government bodies that charge fees, the MHRA’s fees have been updated several times in the past to ensure they remain appropriate. However, to provide certainty and stability to the sector throughout the EU exit transition period and, of course, the covid-19 pandemic, the MHRA has not updated its fees since the financial year 2017-18 for medical devices and the financial year 2010-11 for blood components for transfusion. It is not sustainable for the MHRA to continue charging fees at their current level, as they do not adequately recover the costs involved in delivering those crucial regulatory services.
This statutory instrument therefore introduces amendments that fall into three categories. First, there is a 10% indexation increase on all fees. The indexation is simply linked to MHRA staff costs, which, in line with the wider civil service pay award, have risen by 10% since the last substantial MHRA fee increases in 2016. Secondly, there is a further uplift for a specific number of activities identified as significantly under-recovering via their fees to ensure cost recovery. Thirdly, there is the introduction of new fees for services that require cost recovery since the last fee changes in 2018 for medical devices.
The SI also introduces two new optional services related to clinical investigations of medical devices that industry may take advantage of. These services relate to obtaining expert regulatory advice or statistical reviews from the MHRA in relation to clinical investigation of a medical device. The changes are necessary because the MHRA is obliged to recover the costs of its regulatory activities in accordance with the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidelines.
The SI amends a range of fees for the MHRA’s medical devices and blood components regulatory work to ensure that the MHRA recovers its costs associated with delivering those crucial services. This full cost recovery approach means that the regulated bear the cost of regulation and the MHRA does not profit from fees at the expense of industry—nor, importantly, does the MHRA make a loss that would fall on UK taxpayers and patients to subsidise.
The fees updates are important to ensure that the MHRA has the resources it needs to deliver a reliable service. The updates will in turn contribute to operating modernised systems and processes, to the recruitment and retention of skilled staff, and to keeping pace with technological advancements. They will support the delivery of a responsive and efficient regulatory service that protects and improves public health.
The MHRA is committed to regularly reviewing its fees, ensuring that they remain fair and reasonable and continue to reflect the true cost of providing regulatory services. By supporting the regulations, we help to ensure that the agency is financially sustainable and sufficiently resourced to provide its essential services more consistently, and so to provide patients, the public and industry with the level of service they expect. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George.
As has been said, the SI serves to allow the MHRA to increase the fees it charges for regulating medicines and related products. Of course, any steps the Government take to ensure that the MHRA can carry out its role more effectively are to be welcomed.
The SI will introduce a 10% increase in all the MHRA’s statutory fees, and an above 10% increase for 61 services that have seen costs grow significantly. Furthermore, it will introduce 22 new fees to ensure that the MHRA adequately recovers the costs of regulatory activity across all its services, in line with His Majesty’s Treasury principles on managing public money.
I understand and appreciate that the MHRA has not increased its fees to this extent since 2016-17, to provide the industry with certainty and stability through the EU exit period and the covid-19 challenges. I am pleased that the MHRA has gone through the consultation process to arrive at its judgment, thereby ensuring that the views of relevant stakeholders are reflected. The MHRA needs to be financially stable to be able to deliver regulatory services that protect and improve patient safety, with high-quality, safe, effective and innovative medical products, and any steps that the Government take to address that are of course to be welcomed.
We appreciate the greater clarity that the SI provides on the increased costs of providing quality care in our health services. However, I am concerned about where the increased costs of the fees will be absorbed. They simply cannot be absorbed by the NHS, which is already facing the worst crisis we have ever seen. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister could outline how the Government will ensure that the increase in costs is not absorbed by the NHS.
We are always looking to make further strides in patient safety, and we are confident that the SI takes that into account. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to some of the points I have made.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I want to say a few words, because, as the Minister is well aware, I am the MP for South Cambridgeshire, which is the life sciences capital of the UK, with 400 life sciences companies. Some of the feedback I have had about the MHRA suggests that it is under-resourced, so I very much welcome this increase in its resourcing. A lot of companies in my constituency are doing a lot of innovation, and they say that one of the constraints on them is getting their work through the MHRA and its ability to process it. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the regulations will help the MHRA keep up with innovation, hire new staff and so on.
How do we make sure that we do not get in this position again? Can the Minister indicate how we will make sure that the MHRA stays up to speed and is able to cope with new innovation in the future? I do not expect him to announce future fee increases now, but can he give us a sense of direction? In addition, what does the Department do to hold the MHRA to account? Does it scrutinise how quickly it works with industry and so on to deliver its services?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Member for Enfield North for her broad support and for her comments regarding the fees. The fee updates are important to ensure that the MHRA has the resources it needs to deliver a reliable service. The extra £1.9 million that we anticipate being raised will go directly to support the MHRA’s ability to operate modernised systems and processes, to recruit and retain skilled staff, and to keep pace with technological advancements. That £1.9 million is to support the MHRA in cost recovery; it is not to go to the broader NHS.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire rightly touched on whether this is a temporary measure. It is not; we intend now to get back to business as usual. There was a temporary measure in place because of EU exit and covid, and the pressures on the MHRA and industry. We removed that. This is catch-up, and the plan will be to get back to business as usual.
On scrutiny of the MHRA, I meet regularly with its chief executive—and others, because, as my hon. Friend knows, it is a holistic environment. We have to ensure that the MHRA is working closely with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, industry, charities and, of course, the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that we create a competitive environment in which businesses want to conduct clinical trials and to invest and bring forward innovation in medtech here in the United Kingdom.
To my hon. Friend’s direct point, beyond this measure, the MHRA has delivered an ambitious transformation programme and put in place a new organisational structure with a clear mission for oversight of healthcare products. That goes all the way from first discovery through to deployment. Work is under way on optimising the services offered and developing new services. That is very much supported by a substantial technology investment programme, which includes upgrading support systems—replacing things such as the legacy system that the MHRA had before—and investing in new technology.
I hope that answers the questions asked by the hon. Member for Enfield North—I will call her my hon. Friend—and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. The MHRA provides essential services and plays a crucial public health role. It is absolutely right that it is able to cover its costs to do that, and these fee increases are now necessary. By supporting the regulations, we will ensure that patients, the public and industry are provided with the service that they rightly expect and, in so doing, protect public health and encourage innovation.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. The regulations will raise the national living wage and the national minimum wage on 1 April 2023. We remain proud of the strength of the UK labour market. There are now 1 million more people on payrolls compared with pre-pandemic levels, and demand for workers remains close to record levels. However, we recognise the continued impact of the cost of living pressures, which is why the Government have taken, and will continue to take, robust action to protect the most vulnerable in society.
The national living wage and the national minimum wage act to put more money in the pockets of the lowest-paid workers. This year will be no different, with the largest cash increase in the 24-year history of the minimum wage. We are also increasing benefit payments by 10.1%, in line with September’s consumer prices index inflation rate. Almost 12 million pensioners will benefit from the triple lock, as the state pension will also increase by 10.1%.
Our package of measures includes the energy price guarantee, which has saved a typical UK household around £900 since its introduction in October, and a series of cost of living payments worth hundreds of pounds for millions of eligible households on a means-tested basis. Our commitment to a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy will further address the cost of living, as well as level up every part of the UK and hasten the transition to net zero.
The regulations will increase the national living wage and national minimum wage rates and will come into force on 1 April. Following a comprehensive impact assessment, we estimate that they will give a pay rise to 2.9 million workers across the United Kingdom. I am pleased to confirm that the Government have accepted all the rate recommendations made by the Low Pay Commission in October. I place on the record my gratitude to the commission; I also gave my thanks personally in a meeting last week. As ever, it has worked tirelessly to bring together the views of business and worker stakeholders and remaining informed by expert research and analysis.
The regulations will increase the national living wage for those aged 23 or over by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour, which is an increase of 92p. After this year’s rise, the national living wage will have increased more than twice as fast as inflation since its introduction. The regulations will also increase the national minimum wage rates for younger workers and apprentices, as well as the accommodation offset. Workers aged 21 and 22 will receive an increase of £1, or 10.9%, to a minimum hourly rate of £10.18. Workers aged between 18 and 20 will now be entitled to an extra 66p an hour, taking their rate to £7.49, while the rate for under 18s will reach £5.28, which is a rise of 47p an hour. Those changes represent an increase of 9.7%.
Apprentices aged under 19 or those in the first year of their apprenticeship will also receive an increase of 9.7%, as their rate rises from £4.81 to £5.28. Meanwhile, the accommodation offset, which is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes, will increase by 4.6%, from £8.70 to £9.10.
The Government have continued to take action to fulfil their manifesto commitment to enhance the rights of workers and support people to stay in work. We are backing six private Members’ Bills in this Session to deliver on our commitments. Once passed, those measures will ensure that all tips, gratuities and service charges are allocated to workers; create a statutory entitlement to neonatal care leave for workers with caring responsibilities; protect workers from redundancy during or after maternity; and grant workers the right to request flexible working from day one.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On the right to request flexible working, what happens when the employer says no?
Kevin Hollinrake
The employer can say no when they have considered the request properly, and they need to set out their reasons. It is important to note that there are eight different business reasons. We want to ensure that businesses can also cope with the six new key measures, as well as the £2.5 billion of extra cost for business organisations throughout the country, of the national living wage increases. We want to ensure that any burdens that we place on businesses are proportionate, and a right to request delivers that balance.
Andy McDonald
If the answer is no because the business is exempt through the various ways to get out of it, what is the cost?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman, but according to our research 83% of flexible working requests are granted. The right to request flexible working, which is not related to the regulations, creates the opportunity for a conversation between an employer and worker about flexible working. That is its purpose. I understand that the hon. Gentleman would want to put a burden on business—I suppose he is saying there should be a right to insist—but we think that would go too far.
We are also looking to grant workers, including agency workers, the right to request more predictable terms and conditions of work. The private Members’ Bills will further strengthen our flexible and dynamic labour market and ensure that businesses have the confidence to create jobs and invest in their workforce, which will allow them to generate long-term prosperity and growth.
The Government set the ambitious target for the national living wage to equal two thirds of median earnings by 2024, provided that economic conditions allow. We remain committed to that target, and this year’s increases keep us on course to reach it. We also aim to further reduce the age threshold for the national living wage so that it will apply to those aged 21 and over by 2024.
We recognise that this is a difficult time for many businesses, workers and consumers, and we know that sustainable rises in the minimum wage rates depend on the wider economy. In making its recommendations, the Low Pay Commission will continue to take the wider picture into account, alongside extensive stakeholder engagement. I thank the commission for making additional recommendations relating to the accommodation offset in its recent report. We are considering them carefully and will respond in due course.
The regulations aim to protect the lowest-paid workers across all sectors and regions and reward them for their contribution to our economy. I commend them to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening, Mr Hollobone.
I thank the Minister for setting out the regulations. Their purpose is to update the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015 for the various age groups and categories of worker that the Minister set out, as well as to make adjustments for apprentices and the daily living accommodation offset rates. To be clear, we will not oppose the regulations; any rise in the minimum wage is a welcome step, particularly in the context of the spiralling inflation of the past year. I am sure that many workers are anticipating—indeed, counting on—the rises that we have heard about today.
The Minister said that this is the most generous increase in cash terms that we have seen. Obviously, that has to be looked at in the context of an inflation rate at a 40-year high. Last year, I raised concerns that the increases then were not calibrated to the cost of living, which had sharply increased in the weeks before the relevant regulations were announced, so it is welcome that the Low Pay Commission was able to factor in the high inflation on this occasion.
However, I am concerned that only the rate for 21 and 22-year-olds has been increased at a level comparable to inflation, with the 10.9% increase. The other wage categories have increased by 9.7%, which is actually 0.4% below the 12-month inflation figures released by the Office for National Statistics in January. We know that the cost of living for many people is significantly higher than that. Food, fuel and housing costs have increased at steeper rates. Food inflation is at about 17.6% and, according to a House of Commons Library report published two weeks ago, domestic gas and electricity prices have risen by 129% and 67% respectively.
On top of all that, private rents have reached a record high, including through a 16.1% rise in London rents in the last 12 months. On average, monthly mortgage payments have increased by £500 because of the Budget last autumn. The cost for people of sustaining the basics of everyday life, be it food in their stomach, a roof over their head or keeping warm, has skyrocketed. We agree that the regulations will take some steps to address the situation, but there is still quite a gap.
The Minister referred to the intention to have the national living wage reach two thirds of median earnings by 2024; in the current economic climate, does he still consider that aim to be achievable? He said that the target is subject to the prevailing economic conditions; does he consider the outlook over the next 12 months to be conducive, or otherwise, to meeting that target?
It is disappointing that the Government have once again not addressed the inequities of the minimum wage age limits. People’s age should not determine the price of goods and services, and it certainly should not determine their income. The decision to retain the different age rates is even more unfair given the cost of the basics that I have outlined, particularly the cost of energy, food and fuel. It should be noted that the number of young people on zero-hours contracts has risen again, with the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds on zero hours contracts now at the highest level since 2013, and with a 4% increase in the last year of people in that age group looking for additional work. It seems that the younger generation is once again bearing the brunt of the current inequities in the workplace.
The Opposition value equally the contribution of people in work. It does not seem fair that two people who perform the same role should be paid differently because one is 24 and the other is 21. It is not fair that the year of someone’s birth will determine the rate of a wage increase or, as we have seen in respect of inflation, a real-terms cut in pay. Only 21 and 22-year-olds will see their pay rise at a rate equivalent to inflation; those on the national living wage aged between 18 and 20, and 16 and 17, as well as those on apprentice rates, will see a smaller increase. I understand that the purpose of giving 21 and 22-year-olds a higher rate of increase is to smooth their transition to the national living wage, but it means that is the only group to see a real-terms pay increase this year.
Andy McDonald
I wonder whether my hon. Friend can help me. Does he find it as inequitable as I do that there is prejudice against young people in the workplace? They do not go into supermarkets and find that goods are priced at a lower level because of their age, so how on earth can it possibly be justified that they should receive a lower rate of pay for the work that they do opposite somebody 10 years their senior?
Justin Madders
That is exactly the point: the expenses faced by people who live independently are the same regardless of their age. That is why the current differences are indefensible.
On the differences in the increase, will the Minister say a few words about why the accommodation offset is going up by only 4.6% this year? That is considerably below the other rates. I understand that there is a review going on in that respect.
The impact assessment states that the tight labour market has caused nominal wages to increase, particularly among the lowest paid. It says that many businesses consulted by the Low Pay Commission said that better wages are used to attract and retain their workforce. Alongside good working conditions, we believe that is central to good employment practice. However, I have heard from representatives of certain sectors that some do not treat the minimum wage with the importance that others do. When we met in Committee to discuss the relevant regulations last year, it was noted that non-compliance was greatest in the hospitality and care sectors. Will the Minister tell us what steps have been taken to deal with non-compliance in those sectors?
There is a particular concern that domiciliary care workers are not being paid for the time spent travelling between locations, thus causing their wages to fall below the minimum wage levels. I hear—a recent Unison survey confirmed this—that about 73% of care workers are not paid for their travel, and Unison estimates that that affects between 155,000 and 220,000 workers. The impact assessment is correct that some sectors use high wages to entice workers, but it is clear that some in the care sector are not doing that. The abuse of travel time means that the minimum wage is not being paid to hundreds of thousands of people.
I understand that, because of the fragmented work patterns, carers’ pay calculations are highly complex, and hundreds of time fragments per day are to be accounted for. That means it can be very difficult for people to ascertain whether they are being paid the minimum wage. Of course, it is possible under section 10 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to get the pay records and inspect them, but I am told that those requests are frequently ignored, and information is often provided in a form that is difficult to decipher. Even pay experts sometimes find it hard to understand what pay is being received.
Employers are obliged to keep sufficient records, but there is a grey area in respect of what the standard constitutes in reality and, of course, the guidance can be ignored. No employer in the care sector has been prosecuted for poor record keeping, despite the high number of compliance failures and the clear evidence produced in the survey. Will the Minister talk to his officials about what more can be done to address the widespread abuses in the care sector, which deserve closer examination?
We should not forget that the minimum wage does not cover everyone. It does not cover the self-employed, many of whom do not receive the minimum wage. What is being done to address that? What is done to address the issue of people who are in bogus self-employment who do not get the minimum wage but, because the people who hired them are gaming the system, have no ability to challenge their pay and do not appear in any statistics? What steps are being taken to help those who are exploited because they are engaged on an internship that stretches out for months without pay? What about those who have to do a trial shift and work for eight, 10 or 12 hours, only to be told at the end that they are not required and will not get paid? Those are all abuses of the minimum wage and I want to hear from the Minister what is being done to tackle them.
Enforcement is key. If we are to have confidence that the regulations will benefit all our constituents, we need to be confident that they will be properly enforced. This year is the 25th anniversary of the Labour party having established the principle that workers are entitled to a minimum wage in law. It is important that the Government ensure confidence in the system by bringing to task unscrupulous bosses who exploit their workers. The law is positive only if it is enforced. The past 25 years have made a lot more employers consider the law when they pay their workers, but they have not ended the existence of unscrupulous bosses altogether.
One of the most crucial elements of the legislation is the need to tackle businesses that flout minimum wage regulations. The Minister understands the importance of enforcement because on 23 February he told me in a written answer to one of my questions that the naming and shaming of employers who fail to pay the minimum wage is an “important part” of enforcement and compliance. He is right about that, because companies should expect to be found out and called out when they underpay their staff, but given it is such an important part of the Government’s strategy, why has not a list of shame been released since the previous time the relevant regulations were debated? Given that the lists are supposed to be published on a quarterly basis, a hiatus of a year and a quarter since the last one, with no explanation, is concerning, so I hope the Minister will address that point when he responds.
The delays in publication have serious implications. The December 2021 round of naming included only investigations that had concluded back in 2018, and some of those had looked into breaches that went back almost a decade. We now have no publicly accessible register of firms found to be underpaying staff since before the covid pandemic. We all know that the labour market has changed drastically in that time, so it really is important that we get on to round 19 as soon as possible.
Leadership and setting an example are important. Naming and shaming is one thing; modest fines are another. If transgressors are allowed to continue to procure lucrative contracts from Government Departments, it could be said that the consequences of their actions are light. When handing out work to the private sector, the Government have billions of pounds at their disposal to distribute. Whether such reliance on the private sector is a healthy or wise option for the Government is a matter for another debate, but at the very least I would hope that those found not to be paying the minimum wage are at the back of the queue when it comes to handing out Government contracts, if not removed from the queue altogether.
It seems the Department for Business and Trade does not even bother to ask itself the question when contracting with the private sector. In response to a recent written question on whether the Department has issued any contracts in the last three years to companies that had appeared on the list of shame, the Minister told me that he
“does not hold information about the number of named employers who have a contract with a Government Department.”
He cannot stand up today and categorically tell us whether his Department has or has not contracted work with a company found to be illegally underpaying its workforce. How can the Department responsible for ensuring that businesses in this country comply with minimum wage requirements be unable to confirm something so basic and so important? Is compliance not a question worth asking of those who receive taxpayers’ money to undertake Government contracts?
There are concerns about other Departments that have sought to engage with companies that have appeared on the list of shame. I will not go through them all now, but it is important that the Department responsible for enforcing the minimum wage should look closely at whether the people it engages are paying it.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes an important point that speaks to the lack of commitment from the Government, given their previously expressed view to create a single enforcement body that could have embraced the enforcement of the national minimum wage. Is he as disappointed as I am that we still do not have any clarity from the Government on whether that single enforcement body will be formed?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the questions in respect of the level of commitment. When I was preparing for today’s debate I looked back at previous discussions, and the Minister has always talked about the single enforcement body. We have not heard any of that from the Minister today. Perhaps he will confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to introduce a single enforcement body. They will have to table legislation to do that, so we might yet be disappointed. Will the Minister confirm, in the light of the answers we have received, that he will undertake a full investigation and ensure that in future those who do not pay the minimum wage face further scrutiny before they are given Government contracts?
As I hope to have demonstrated today, legal minimum levels of pay are not the whole solution to low pay, but they are an important part of it. Trade unions, as the collective voice of workers, also play a vital role in securing better working conditions. I hope that one day we have a Labour Government who will help all our constituents to receive the pay and conditions that they deserve.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I will not keep the Committee for long. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, not only on the work that he is doing in his Department but on his part—and the Government’s—in accepting the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation and allowing this change to the two minimum wages. I congratulate the Government on the fact that benefits have been linked with inflation and the triple lock has been maintained. A lot of us from across the House lobbied hard on those issues and I am pleased that the Government listened.
These regulations will ensure that 2.5 million of the poorest paid people will be helped; their pay will be kept in line with inflation, just at the moment when that is most needed because of the cost of living crisis. This will have a multiplier effect on the wider economy, because these people will more likely spend the money because they need to, which can only be a boost to the wider economy.
I will briefly make two further points, one of which the Minister raised—but it deserves emphasising. The regulations are another step towards the achievement of a high-wage, high-tech, high-employment and high-growth economy, which is what we need to achieve, particularly when one considers the low, or lowish, productivity figures in this country. For too long, businesses have relied on cheap labour from Europe as a substitute for investment, and that has impacted on our productivity figures. There is no substitute for investing in research and development, as that helps to drive the productivity figures over the medium to long term—there is no short-term fix—but these increases in the minimum wage will take us a step closer to achieving the high-wage, high-growth, high-tech economy that we all want.
There will of course be a cost to business, but inward investment and jobs are decided by what some economists call comparative advantage. It is about levels of corporation tax, labour market flexibility, R&D in our universities, and the reputation of those universities and high-research institutes. It is also about the English language, the rule of law and all those factors in combination; there is no one single factor that determines whether investment moves in and out of a country. That is one reason that, when one looks at the UK’s comparative advantage and those factors, we see that—despite all the predictions of doom about what would happen were we to leave the EU that were made at the time of the referendum—the litmus test is that inward investment has stayed up. In fact, there have been years when this country has attracted more inward investment than France and Germany together.
For me, one of the key litmus tests of how well an economy is doing is the unemployment rate. We can all make mad predictions about growth. Many international economic organisations, such as the International Monetary Fund, have always got their growth forecasts and so forth wrong. The litmus test of how well an economy is doing—or certainly one of the litmus tests—is the unemployment rate, and we should not forget that our unemployment rate is nearly half that of the EU.
Having said that, I make a final plea to my hon. Friend the Minister. Corporation tax is in the mix; it is not the only determinant of where a business invests and the extent to which it invests but it is an important determinant. At a point where corporation tax will be increased by this Government, I ask him to take this message back to his Department and to the Chancellor—we are all making our own representations independently of this Committee, but every little bit helps—and to ensure that he gets the message across that, with the public finances improving, the rise in corporation tax and the extent of that rise needs to be revisited, because it is an important determinant not just of the extent of inward investment to this country but of how many people are employed. The more profitable businesses are, the more we can pay for our public services and the more people get employed. That is the consideration that I ask the Minister to take from this Committee.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, nobody is going to object to any kind of rise in the minimum wage, especially in these difficult times and given the inflationary pressures being experienced across the economy, which I hope the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay will recognise are at least in part the result of the extreme hard Brexit forced on this country by the Conservative party, with the acquiescence of the Labour party. He might be right that unemployment is low, but I can show him businesses across the country and in my constituency that are crying out for labour—for staff—because of the labour shortages that have happened as a result of that hard Brexit.
Mr Baron
I say this in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman made his point: he needs to see the bigger picture. It is quite interesting that there is almost a balance between the number of job vacancies and the number of people who are unemployed. That actually suggests that the economy is doing quite well. There may be a mismatch for whatever reason, but those vacancies are there; we just need to ensure that we encourage people into work more.
Patrick Grady
Indeed. There are plenty of asylum seekers in my constituency who have a huge amount of skills and talent but are unable to deploy them, because this Government will not give them the right to work, earn a fair wage and pay tax back into the system. Perhaps that is a place where we could start or, if the Government want to make working more attractive, perhaps—getting to the heart of the debate—people should be paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work.
Andy McDonald
We have heard about litmus tests, one of which is the rate of unemployment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one litmus test is whether workers have enough money to live on and to pay their bills?
Patrick Grady
Yes, precisely. That is why the rises today are welcome, but they are not necessarily sufficient for a lot of people.
The way in which the Government have co-opted the use of the term “living wage” to describe their statutory minimum wage is unfortunate. It causes a lot of confusion, and is particularly unfair to people looking for a real living wage, which the Living Wage Foundation has calculated since long before this Government adopted that language and it consistently comes up with higher rates; its proposals for the coming financial year are £10.90 an hour for the UK as a whole and £11.95 in London. The £10.90 compared to the £10.42 might not, on paper, sound like a huge difference but in reality, in a seven-hour day, that is about £3.36 extra a day or, over a five-day week, £16.80 a week. That starts to make a significant impact on the pound in people’s pockets.
Of course, that is only the upper rate for workers aged over 23. We agree entirely with the arguments being made for the extension of a real living wage to everyone in employment without distinction for their age. As other Members have said, people do not pay differential prices when they go to the supermarket or use consumer goods or utilities and so on. People should be paid the same for the same kind of work.
The Government could be doing more, and they could learn from the Scottish Government in that regard. The Scottish business pledge, introduced by the Scottish Government, encourages employers to pay the real living wage, to end zero-hours contracts and to take action in their businesses to close the gender pay gap. The Scottish Government also offer a wider social contract to workers, including free prescriptions, tuition fees for their children going to university, the Scottish child payment—which is a real game-changer—the baby box and all the other actions that show just how much we have been able to do with the powers of devolution, and point to what we could achieve when Scotland becomes independent.
As welcome as the rise today might be, it does not go far enough. I do not think anyone in Scotland will look very much at what is on offer from the Conservatives or, indeed, the Labour party and think that this is as good as it gets.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions during today’s debate. As has been pointed out, these rises are more important than ever in the context of the continued high inflation and cost of living pressures. I am glad to see cross-party agreement—largely—on the issue.
A number of points were raised, principally by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. When the Low Pay Commission made the recommendation of 9.7%, which we fully accepted, inflation was at 8.9%, so the rise was greater in most cases than inflation at the time. As the hon Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston knows, this Government are committed to halving inflation by the end of the year, so lots of people who received those high pay increases, in percentage terms, will benefit even more as a result of reduced inflation and a growing economy. Creating more jobs is very important and eventually leads to high wages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay pointed out.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that the Low Pay Commission recommended an above-inflation pay rate. We often hear from Ministers that one reason that they cannot accede to pay demands from various public sector unions is that anything approaching the inflation rate would boost inflation even higher. Does that not apply in this situation?
Kevin Hollinrake
No, because this applies to a much smaller cohort. If the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we pay everyone across the public sector an inflation pay increase, which I guess he is from his comment, he has to explain to the taxpayer how we will raise that £28 billion a year, because that is what it would cost. Obviously, the Low Pay Commission works with employer groups, but it also works with business groups, other stakeholders and other employers to try to strike a balance between what is affordable for employers and what is an appropriate rise for those at the bottom of the income scales.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our ambition to get to two thirds of the median salary by 2024. That is certainly what we believe to be attainable, and it remains our target. With the growing economy that we expect to see by the end of the year, the economic context will be a lot brighter than it has been over the last few months.
On age limits, the hon. Gentleman is right; our ambition is to lower the age limit in terms of access to the national living wage, as we did from 25 to 23 in 2021, based on the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation. We are hoping to lower it to 21 by 2024. Part of the reason that it is lower—other Members asked the same question—is that there is no doubt that there is a greater vulnerability for young people. Unemployment levels tend to be higher in these lower age groups and it is important that we do not price people of low age out of the market. That is probably why Labour had different rates for 18 to 21-year-olds when it introduced some of these provisions when it was in government.
Let me turn to zero-hours contracts. Only 3% of the population is on a zero-hours contract. Sixty-four per cent. of those people do not want more hours, so the contracts kind of work for both sides, but we recognise that there is an issue with exploitation in some situations and we are trying to create the conditions for a conversation between employers and employees while not putting too great a burden on employers. That is why we are legislating for a right to request predictable hours. We have already legislated for things such as exclusivity clauses, which are not allowed for zero-hours contracts. For those below the lower-earnings limit, there cannot be an exclusivity clause in a zero-hours contract.
On compliance, the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right. It is very important to us, which is why we have doubled enforcement since 2015. I have met His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs team to discuss that. I welcome the fact that they have put £100 million back in the pockets of lower-income workers since 2015 through their excellent work. The care sector is one of the sectors they look at all the time, and there was no differential between it and any other sector. As far as employment law is concerned, travel time to appointments should be covered within employment law when it comes to calculating the national minimum wage or national living wage.
We believe that internships should be paid positions and should be subject to the national minimum wage or national living wage, and that trial shifts should be no more than a few hours.
Andy McDonald
I did not quite catch what the Minister said about travel time. Is he saying that care workers should be paid the same hourly rate when they are travelling between domiciliary appointments—paid at the full rate, effectively? Is that his position?
Kevin Hollinrake
Travel to appointments certainly should be calculated under national minimum wage levels. That is our position under employment regulations.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was right to point out that we have not named and shamed for some time. I am very keen—I have had conversations about it today—to do that as soon as possible. We hope to have some news very shortly about a list of people who have not adhered to our national living wage requirements.
We are still looking at the best way to create a single enforcement body and whether it is right to do so given parliamentary time. We also do not want to increase the costs of enforcement. I work closely with the director of labour market enforcement to ensure that she has all the measures at her disposal and that there are no gaps in enforcement between different areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay is right that research and development leads to higher productivity, higher wages and higher growth. I support that 100%. He was the only speaker other than me to point out the cost to business of these measures, and it is disappointing that the contributions of Opposition Members did not point out that business has to bear this cost, which is about £2.5 billion for employers annually. He also raised the very important point about corporation tax. Under the new rules, 70% of businesses will not pay additional corporation tax, because there is a small profits rate. Indeed, in my 30 years in business, when corporation tax was at similar levels, I cannot think of a time when our boardroom considered not investing. Given a higher level of corporation tax than we see today, we still felt that we could invest. I understand my hon. Friend’s points, and I am sure that he will make them to the relevant Department, which is of course the Treasury.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North talked about whether the rise is sufficient for low-paid workers, and I understand his point. I urge him, as I said before, also to consider employers in this conversation. We have to ensure that we do not raise the national living wage too quickly, which would cause problems for employers. That could be detrimental to the labour market generally and could have difficult consequences for some people who work in these kinds of jobs.
I am a big fan of the Living Wage Foundation, and it is absolutely right that we want the national living wage to increase. The gap between the Living Wage Foundation level and the national living wage is narrowing, and the Living Wage Foundation has always been keen to point out that its campaign for the national living wage is about trying to encourage employers to pay higher wages on a voluntary rather than a coercive basis.
From April, a full-time worker on the national living wage will earn over £6,700 more before tax than in 2015, when the policy was introduced, while younger workers and apprentices will also benefit from large rate increases across the board. This package of measures will have a huge, positive impact on the lives of millions of people. It should also serve as a reminder of the progress that can be made when Members across this House work together. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
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
Prescription Charges: People Aged 60 or Over
(1 year, 9 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
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 594390, relating to prescription charges for people aged 60 or over.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. The petition I am presenting touches on a number of incredibly important issues in healthcare from access to treatment to public health and preventative care, all within the context of how the NHS adapts to an ageing population. Although the petition focuses on prescription charges, it must be considered in the broader economic context of the cost of living crisis, with months of rising prices and inflation where even the most basic necessities are becoming luxury items for many.
The steady rise of pensioner poverty since 2015 shows no sign of stopping, continuing a trajectory that will see millions of us face a retirement dominated by debt and hardship. That context means we are duty-bound to look beyond figures on spreadsheets and examine what the proposed scrapping of free prescriptions for that age group would mean for those who would be impacted by it. It is those impacts that the petition creator Peter had in mind when he set it up.
When I spoke to Peter about why he started the petition, he shared his concern about the impact these changes would have not on him, but on his local community—the men and women who are already struggling with costs and are making difficult choices about what to prioritise. It is people like him who have spent a lifetime working in industry and those who, because of that work, now suffer from a variety of medical conditions, each needing different medications. It is those women, including his wife, who had their lives upended by the callous way the Government implemented the equalising of the state pension age. WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, who were born in the 1950s and live in England, have further issues to deal with compared with those in devolved countries.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Uprating the age when prescriptions become free in England to be in line with the state pension age, as the Government consulted on, would be harmful given the cost of living crisis, as the hon. Lady said, and the growing economic activity in those over 50 for various reasons, including their health. Does she share my concern about what this could mean for ease of access to medical treatment for the older generation?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. It is, indeed, a huge concern that people with multiple health problems are facing extra difficulties in accessing prescriptions and are having to make those difficult choices about how they spend their money.
For Peter, it seems that something has gone incredibly wrong to get us to this point—something broader than this planned introduction of charges, but something encapsulated by it. It is the breaking of a promise—the promise between citizen and state and the promise that a lifetime of contribution, whether financial through tax and national insurance or through the unpaid labour of care that enables our economy to function, means support in retirement. Peter kept his part of the bargain. It was great to have a conversation with him. He could not believe that his petition was being debated in this place, and it is so important that his voice and the voices of others are heard in this place. He kept his part of the bargain, first in the shipyards on the Tyne and then working on aircraft. He paid in and did what was expected, as did hundreds of thousands of others, but the Government have not held up their end of the bargain. They have changed the rules, and it looks like they will do so again. That unfairness is the reason why we are discussing the matter today.
The plan to introduce charges seems particularly unfair when Peter does not even have to look that far from home to see a better way. England is the only nation in the United Kingdom without free prescriptions and, as colleagues may have guessed from my accent, I am Welsh. I have the great pleasure of representing Gower, one of the three Swansea constituencies, which is beautiful. If anyone ever wants to visit, please do.
Swansea and Newcastle have a lot in common: both are port cities with a proud industrial heritage; both are famous for an excellent night out. It seems the height of unfairness to many in Newcastle and across England that they alone in the United Kingdom pay for prescriptions. I am sure that the Government will tell us that several conditions are exempt and that pre-payment certificates cut costs, but, as I said earlier, we must look beyond the briefings to the reality of the system actually. The exemptions list is not only woefully out of date but, apart from the addition of cancer in 2009, it has not been reviewed since 1968. It also does not cover several life-changing conditions, such as Parkinson’s, arthritis, asthma, Crohn’s disease, cystic fibrosis, lupus or motor neurone disease.
That is the tip of the iceberg. People with those conditions, and other complex, lifelong conditions, still pay for their prescriptions. For those with multiple, co-existing conditions, the cost is even higher. Evidence from the Prescription Charges Coalition, a group of 50 organisations calling on the Government to scrap prescription charges for people with long-term conditions in England, shows that people with long-term conditions struggle to pay for their medication. A third of respondents in England with long-term conditions reported that they had not collected a prescription item due to the cost. Nearly a third admitted that they are skipping or reducing medication doses, with cost concerns a key factor for more than four out of 10. As a direct result of reducing or skipping medications, nearly three in five—59%—became more ill, and 34% needed to visit their GP or hospital. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment on the introduction of charges highlighted that issue and noted the potential effect on people’s health.
In 2018, thousands of over-the-counter medicines were taken off the list of those that GPs are able to prescribe, leaving those with long-term conditions facing additional costs for their conditions and to stay well. Those worrying health outcomes come with a cost to the NHS. Several member organisations of the PCC conducted research last year. They found that, of those surveyed, one in six of those with asthma and lung disease had cut back on using their potentially life-saving inhalers, as they were worried about the cost; 29% of respondents with cystic fibrosis reported that they had skipped their medication due to prescription charges; and one in five people with multiple sclerosis say that they do not have enough money to pay for the medication or treatment they need.
One lady who lives with kidney disease was hospitalised twice because she had to wait until payday to collect a prescription. In hospital, she had to have a lumbar puncture and an MRI scan, which cost the NHS thousands of pounds more than the prescription would have. As colleagues can see, the impact is vast and, when meeting campaigners prior to this debate, I heard far too many stories like that one. The lived reality of those impacted by this proposed change and the issues caused by the current dysfunctional exemptions system are best understood through that lens.
I work closely with Parkinson’s UK, which is one of the many organisations deeply concerned by this proposal. Medication is the only way to control the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease; most have to take a cocktail of medications to stay well. Research shows that Parkinson’s cost households over £19,000 a year in 2021, due to loss of work; and additional health and social care costs. As Parkinson’s progresses, it becomes more complex. Among people eligible to pay for prescriptions who are aged 60, in any year 5.5% will die within five years and 23.8% will need support to live independently—that is within only five years of being diagnosed. However, they would still have to pay for their essential medications for Parkinson’s.
I want to tell the Chamber a little about Denise. She is 59 and was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in April 2019. She has had to reduce her working hours from 37.5 to only 12 per week, due to her symptoms. She uses a prepayment certificate for her prescriptions, because it is cheaper than purchasing them individually. If the exemption age rises to 66, however, she will have to continue paying for them.
Denise told Parkinson’s UK about the impact that that would have on her:
“I always thought I would work until I was 67, because I would be able to. However, as my Parkinson’s advances I worry about whether I physically will be able to. My employer is really understanding, allowing flexibility to start later in the mornings until my medication has kicked in, but I have already had to reduce my hours by 60% and I’m already noticing the impact of this reduced earning capacity on our household.
I have to pay for my prescriptions, and this is eating into the diminishing amount I can contribute towards the household bills. If they were to increase the age at which I become exempt, it would be really tough because we haven’t allowed for more years of these additional charges.
It feels like the Government is once again penalising those living with a long-term condition like Parkinson’s that anyone could get and for which currently there is no cure.”
Denise’s story is not an isolated one. Parkinson’s is not the only condition whose sufferers will be further disadvantaged by the change, but this is not a problem that will be solved by changing the exemption list. An exemption list has winners and losers baked into its design, and the complexities of managing chronic conditions mean that any approach that is not universal is not fit for purpose.
Furthermore, the Government need to answer why the change is being prioritised now. What evidence is there that it will have any kind of positive impact? We cannot see one. Even if the Government make savings in the short term, the long-term impacts could be catastrophic, leading to greater illness and to more GP and hospital visits.
A poll published in Pulse found that 40% of GPs linked prescription charges to adverse patient outcomes, also indicating that those could lead to far greater costs and more adverse outcomes down the line. Initial results of the 2023 survey by the Prescription Charges Coalition showed that nearly 10% of respondents had not collected medicine due to cost. Of that group—I have more data —30.74% said that they now have other physical health problems, in addition to their original health condition; 30.33% said that they had to go to their GP; 17.32% said that they had to go into hospital for treatment; and 8.32% said that they had to go to A&E.
Research published in 2018 by York Health Economics Consortium highlighted how ending prescription charges for long-term conditions could save money and reduce pressure on the NHS. That comes from preventing avoidable health complications that occur when people do not take their medication. The research identified net savings of more than £20 million per year if the NHS scrapped prescription charges for people with Parkinson’s and inflammatory bowel disease alone. Instead, the Government are discussing introducing additional charges. That flies in the face of common sense.
We know that the NHS is under pressure, but that is the case across the United Kingdom, and the devolved nations are not even discussing removing universal free prescriptions. I urge the Government to follow that lead, to look to the future and not to engage in short-termist, quick fixes that will not be a fix for all, and not for the petition creator.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing such an important debate.
As a cancer pharmacist, chair of the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group and somebody who still volunteers at a local hospital—I was there this morning—I have seen at first hand the difference that free access to medication makes to those over the age of 60. For years, I have treated patients whom the prescription proposals will make worse off. I know just how anxious they are at the prospect of having to fork out another monthly expense that they simply cannot afford. When the choice is between heating and eating, which is a day-to-day reality for thousands of people in my city, we cannot sit idly while health is incorporated into the mix. It should not have to be spelt out that, as people age, they will develop long-term healthcare needs, and those needs will need to be treated by prescription drugs.
Margaret Ferrier
Prescription charges have been described by pharmacies as attacks on the sick. As we have heard, pharmacies have reported a significant increase in the number of patients not collecting their prescriptions because they simply cannot afford them. Does the hon. Member agree that that is worrying for all age groups, but especially for over-60s, who are more prone to sickness and to requiring that medical aid?
Taiwo Owatemi
I agree. Sadly, we look at the pharmacy shelves and see that many patients are not picking up their prescriptions, or patients come to the pharmacy counter, realise how much a prescription costs and that they cannot afford it because they have not financially planned for it. I will speak about that later in my speech.
The Government’s impact assessment concluded that 52% of people between the ages of 60 and 64 will have at least one long-term health condition, so by aligning medical exemptions with the state pension age, the Government are hitting the people in my community who have the greatest need for medication but simply cannot afford it. What do the Government expect to happen when people in their 60s decide that they can no longer afford their prescriptions? If saving money is the Government’s aim, I question whether they have considered the reality—that the proposals will simply shift the costs from primary to urgent care. Health conditions will inevitably worsen, and patients will be forced into overcrowded A&E units—adding to the already overwhelmed health service.
I support some of the points highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower regarding long-term health conditions, especially unchanging health conditions such as asthma, motor neurone disease and sickle cell anaemia. As she highlighted, the York Health Economics Consortium estimated that £20 million would be saved each year if the NHS scrapped prescription charges for people with Parkinson’s and inflammatory bowel disease. That is because fewer people would be forced into A&E, which would mean fewer hospital admissions and fewer GP visits. If we want to save the NHS money and reduce the burden on the NHS, prevention is key, and medicines play an essential part in preventing patients’ healthcare conditions from worsening and preventing patients from developing other health conditions. It is concerning that the Government can consider the proposals as a way of reducing the burden on the healthcare system. That is a hugely irresponsible decision for the Government even to consider making. It is essential that the Government engage in some form of cumulative impact assessment. People over the age of 60 with long-term conditions will be disproportionately affected.
My older constituents in Coventry North West are anxious and stressed. They tell me that they simply do not know how they will make ends meet at the end of each month, especially when they have to deal with soaring energy bills and food costs. They ask why the Government continue to attack elderly residents during the most severe cost of living crisis for a generation. I hope that the Government will answer that. I especially worry that making our ageing population pay for medication will leave huge numbers of people unable to afford essentials and force them into further hardship. I add my support for the Prescription Charges Coalition, which is calling for a freeze in prescription charges for 2023 and has said that the Government must scrap the alignment plans. I recognise that the Government are planning to support the proposals.
Every year, especially on 1 April, I find myself helping patients to fill out prepayment card applications or to navigate the increase in NHS charges, because many do not even realise that those changes are coming. I therefore first ask the Government to notify patients of the increase way before 1 April so that they are able to financially plan; otherwise, the increase may mean that many do not have access to their medication when they need it. Secondly, will the Government review the long-term exemption list for patients with medical conditions that, due to their nature, we know will not change?
I want to make a final important point. Older people have contributed to our society their whole lives, and they have trusted that if they work hard and pay their taxes, they will be looked after. That is the deal we make with them, and it is what they expect from us when they get older. The Government’s proposal will break that trust. We cannot afford to abandon older people now simply because the Government have decided that this is the best way forward. Doing so will impact trust in the long term.
Lastly, will the Minister, who is responsible for primary care, come to the all-party parliamentary pharmacy group meeting from 1 pm until 3 pm on 29 March in Room S, Portcullis House, and speak to pharmacists? We would like to continue the debate and to talk about the current pressures facing pharmacy as a whole.
It has been a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I look forward to hearing from other colleagues.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank all the previous speakers; some of what I say will be a repetition, but in this case I do not think repetition is unwelcome.
Under the SNP Scottish Government, prescription charges were abolished in Scotland in 2011. Scotland gets free prescriptions because the Scottish Government believe that mitigating the costs of illness is in the best interests of the population of Scotland. The SNP has led the way in delivering progressive and forward-thinking public health measures, which people across Scotland continue to benefit from. I speak from experience, as I was honoured to be part of the call for the new generation of cystic fibrosis medications to be released in Scotland, which was first place to get them. I declare an interest, because my granddaughter Saoirse will continue to benefit from those new drugs for the rest of her life, and they will extend her life expectancy quite considerably.
All credit to the Scottish Government: inhalers, antibiotics, life-saving medicines such as insulin for diabetes and many other treatments are provided at no cost at all to the patient at any stage. Scotland receives no extra funding for this decision and does not take money from other areas of the United Kingdom to pay for it. England is out of step with the rest of the UK. For more than a decade, NHS prescriptions have been free in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Yet the Tories, who have been in power in England for 13 years, have not replicated this approach, instead penalising those wishing to collect medicines; and, as we have already heard, the cost of living crisis has increased the non-collection of prescriptions.
When the NHS was founded in 1948, there were no prescription charges, but fees were introduced in the early ’50s to help with funding. Labour’s position in 2019 was to roll back charges for England—that appears to have been dropped under the present leadership. Unequivocally, the SNP has used the powers we have to ensure that people in Scotland benefit from the most generous social contract in the UK. The cost of NHS prescriptions can be mitigated in England if people use a prescription season ticket—a prepayment card. However, many people in England are still unaware of the system. Is the Minister prepared to advertise it more than is currently the case?
I used the example of cystic fibrosis medication, but the hon. Member for Gower has done really good work in the area of hormone replacement therapy over the years. After the arguments she has forcefully put in this place, it is incredible that women going through the menopause still have to pay for their HRT. The most recent announcement committed the Government to reduce the cost from April this year so that women can receive a year’s supply of HRT for the cost of two single NHS prescriptions in England, but in the rest of the UK they get it free. Although cost reductions are welcome, charging menopausal women less seems inadequate—they should get it free because the amount of work they can then do will increase, and that is a benefit to the whole economy.
People who have asthma are sometimes afraid to collect their prescriptions, as we heard from the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). A small survey of pharmacists published by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society last month found that a rising number of patients in England are failing to collect their medicines, because they cannot afford them. Some 51% of the pharmacists surveyed reported an increase in patients not collecting their medication, and 67% saw a rise in patients asking whether there was a cheaper over-the-counter substitute for the medicine they had been prescribed. That is appalling in this day and age, and it leads to more hospital admissions and more expensive care being required in the longer term. It defies common sense to allow that to continue.
The three devolved Governments have taken a preventive approach to mitigate poorer health outcomes by providing free access to medicines for those who need them. In England, the tax on sickness reduces access to medicines and leads to poorer health, time off work and potential hospital admissions, offsetting any costs gained from prescription charges. The UK Government should scrap prescription charges. To introduce them for people who are working until 67 is absurd. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, we are more likely to need medication as we get older.
The Government’s public consultation document ominously states:
“Anyone aged 60 and older can get free prescriptions for medicine. We are thinking about changing this.”
The change would mean that prescriptions would be free only when people get to pension age. Today’s pensioners have no need to worry, but they will worry—people worry even more during a cost of living crisis.
Is the Minister prepared to heed what is happening in the devolved nations and to equalise access to medicine across the United Kingdom?
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I want to start by thanking the Petitions Committee for facilitating this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for the passionate way in which she put forward the arguments of Peter, Denise and many others who find themselves in the predicament of having to pay for prescriptions or who worry that they might have to pay for them as pensioners.
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the shadow Health and Social Care team, but also as the Member of Parliament for Denton and Reddish, and I know that many of my constituents are concerned about this potential policy change. As we have heard, we are in the middle of a cost of living crisis, when many people face unsustainable rises in their energy and household bills. It is little surprise that the Government’s decision to consult on scrapping free NHS prescriptions for the over-60s will be of profound concern to many people already struggling to make ends meet. That anxiety has been compounded by characteristic delay from the Department of Health and Social Care.
The Government first announced the consultation to scrap free NHS prescriptions for the over-60s in July 2021, meaning that there was little or no time for Members of this House to sufficiently scrutinise the proposals before that year’s summer recess. The consultation closed in September 2021 and, two and a half years on, we are still none the wiser about where the Government are on the issue.
A quick glance at written parliamentary questions shows that many Members from across the House have asked the Government for clarity, only to receive a boilerplate response that an announcement would be made “in due course”. In his response, will the Minister set out precisely when that announcement will be made and why there has been such a delay in the Government addressing their own consultation?
That is important, because the Government’s own impact assessment raises several potential problems with the proposals. Notably,
“some people towards the lower end of the income distribution may struggle to afford all their prescriptions”,
which can result in
“future health problems for the individual and a subsequent cost to the NHS.”
That is precisely the point made in their interventions by my hon. Friends the Members for Gower and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), who is not in her place. Therefore, if the Government do decide to opt for this policy, we need to know what steps they will take to support people—especially those over 60 and with long-term conditions—with their prescription fees.
Prescription charges have already increased by 30% since 2010 and, given the financial context we are in, there are really valid concerns about people being priced out of accessing vital medicines. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society recently conducted a survey of 269 pharmacies, with half of respondents saying that patients were asking them which medicines they could do without. Half of pharmacies surveyed also said that they have seen a rise in people not collecting their prescriptions at all. That is incredibly concerning.
Last year, Asthma & Lung UK found that 15% of surveyed people with respiratory conditions were rationing the use of their inhalers to make them last longer. Some 5% of people said they were being forced to borrow medicine from others, which really frightens me, because someone’s prescription is pertinent to them and them alone. I had hoped that we had moved away from a world where we lend medicines to others. Frankly, these statistics should be ringing alarm bells in the Department of Health and Social Care and, for that matter, in the Department for Work and Pensions, but unfortunately we have had radio silence.
I would like to impress on the Minister the simple fact that if people are not taking vital medication, they could be living in extreme pain, and in some cases they will be at risk of serious medical complications as well. Have the Minister and his officials made any assessment of the number of people in England who are currently unable to afford medicine, and of the knock-on impact on NHS services, which are already at breaking point thanks to this Government’s mismanagement of the NHS?
Last year, the Government froze prescription charges in a move that was welcome to many in England. The next review is due to take effect in April, and I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister that that will come at the same time as the implementation of Ofgem’s new energy price cap. Will the Minister provide an update on that review? Does he anticipate another rise in the cost of prescription charges, or will the Government do the right thing and freeze them again, for another year?
While he is at it, perhaps the Minister will also nudge his colleagues in the Treasury to do the decent thing and implement a proper windfall tax on energy and gas giants to extend energy support, so that those on the lowest incomes are protected against astronomical price rises. In the 21st century, here in the United Kingdom, no one should be forced to choose between accessing vital medication, heating their home or feeding their family.
The final point I wish to make is connected to this issue. The Government seem to have no vision or appetite to prioritise preventive public health. In the context of an ageing population, it is important that we build healthier communities. That is important not only morally, but practically, especially if we want to reduce reliance on prescriptions and primary care. What steps is the Minister taking to prioritise preventive health? On that note, will he set out why the public health grant allocation has still not been announced for local authorities in England? Many local authorities that have already set their budgets still do not know what their public health grant allocations will be in three and a half weeks’ time.
The next Labour Government will give the NHS the tools, staff and technology it needs to treat patients on time and to put prevention right at the heart of everything it does. Coming back to the issue before the Chamber, I really hope that the Government understand the concern, worry and anxiety of those over 60 in England, who are concerned that their free prescriptions may come to an end.
I want to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who was here at the start of proceedings. As a member of the shadow Cabinet, he cannot take part in these deliberations, but he wanted me to highlight some of the work he has done in his constituency. He and his local team collected signatures against the proposed scrapping of free prescriptions for the over-60s. His story can be told 650 times over to the Minister, because there are elderly people across England who are concerned about this issue and who want answers from Ministers. They want their concerns to be heeded, they want assurances that the Government get the reason why prescriptions are free for the over-60s and they want the Government to understand why it is important that that remains the case. They also want to know that the Government are on their side on this issue, that their free prescriptions are not at risk and that we will not face people who cannot afford their medication with the dilemma of whether to heat their homes, feed their families or get the medication they so desperately need. Britain is better than that, and I hope the Minister has some positive news for us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening the debate so effectively on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank all Members for their constructive contributions. I also thank the 46,000 members of the public who signed the petition.
The Government provided their initial response to the petition in January 2022, and I am pleased to be able to respond again today, having listened to hon. Members’ important and interesting contributions. The context, of course, is the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the high energy prices, inflation and cost of living pressures that it has unleashed. It is worth situating the debate in the context of some of the things we are doing to take action on that, some of which hon. Members have already referred to.
This winter, we are spending a total of £55 billion to help households and businesses with their energy bills—one of the largest support packages in Europe. A typical household will save about £900 this winter through the energy price guarantee, in addition to £400 through the energy bills support scheme. We are also spending £9.3 billion over the next five years on energy efficiency and clean heat, making homes cheaper to heat. Some of that is being paid for by the windfall tax; at 75%, it is one of the highest in any of the countries around the North sea, and it is enabling us to do more on the cost of living, such as the £900 cost of living payment for 8 million poorer households, and the largest ever increase to the national living wage, which will help 2 million workers. In total, we are spending £26 billion on cost of living support next year.
Turning specifically to prescription exemptions, I should start by trying to manage expectations about what I can say today, for reasons on which I will elaborate. It is clear that the outcome of the consultation on aligning the upper age exemption for prescription charges with the state pension age is very important to many Members’ constituents. However, I can only say at this point that no decision has been made yet to bring proposals forward.
We received over 170,000 responses to the consultation —a testament to the strength of feeling on the issue. We want to ensure that everyone across the country, especially those affected by the cost of living pressures caused by the Russian invasion, can afford their prescriptions. That is why we have thought long and hard about how best to balance the needs of those in the affected age group, many of whom will find that they have additional health needs compared with when they were younger, with the pressures facing the public finances. I can, however, assure Members that we will respond to the consultation in due course.
Hon. Members will be aware that the petition calls on the Government to protect free NHS prescriptions for all over-60s. We value our older members of society, and we recognise their social care and health needs. On the one hand, we recognise that families up and down the country are facing unprecedented pressures with the cost of living; on the other, we have to recognise that in the light of the covid pandemic, which has tested the NHS like never before, and the challenging economic landscape, we must ensure that public sector spending represents the best value for money for the taxpayer. As we look to the future in a post-pandemic world, there is no shortage of challenges ahead of us: an ageing population, an increasing number of people with multiple health conditions, and deep-rooted inequalities in health outcomes, which we are tackling. That is all in addition to the challenges of the pandemic and the elective backlog.
Charges have been around in the NHS for over 70 years, and prescription charges provide a valuable source of income for the NHS, contributing £652 million in 2021-22. That significant funding helps to maintain vital services for patients, and it is particularly important given the increasing demands on the NHS.
It is for those reasons that we consulted on aligning the upper age exemption for prescription charges with the state pension age. Historically, the initial exemption for prescriptions was for people aged 65 and over. The exemption was then extended to women aged 60 and over in 1974, and to men aged 60 or over in 1995, based on the state pension age for women at that time. The state pension age has subsequently increased to 66 for both men and women, with legislation already in place to increase it to 67, and then 68, in future years.
The Government have abolished the default retirement age, meaning that most people can continue to work for as long as they want and are able to. That means that many people in the 60 to 65 age range can remain in employment and be economically active, and therefore more able to meet the cost of their prescriptions. Indeed, more than half of people aged between 60 and 65 are economically active, with a further 20% receiving a private pension or some other income.
As increasing numbers of people live longer, work longer and so on, there are more people claiming free prescriptions on the basis of their age. It is projected that by 2066 there will be a further 8.6 million UK residents aged 65 and over, and that they will make up about a quarter of the total population.
It is important to know that over 1.1 billion prescription items are dispensed in the community each year, with nine out of 10 currently dispensed free of charge. The exemptions that allow that may be based on the patient’s age, certain medical conditions, or income. We estimate that if we were to make the proposed change, around 85% of 60 to 65-year-olds would be minimally affected by it. As I have just noted, more than half of them are in employment, with about another 20% retired with a private pension, so they have a higher income, while others would continue to qualify for free prescriptions on the basis of their particular conditions.
It is also worth noting that there are extensive arrangements in place to help those who are most in need of support with prescription charges. People who are on a low income but do not qualify on the basis of an automatic exemption, such as being on universal credit, can get help through the NHS low income scheme, which provides either full or partial help with health costs on an income-related basis. Anyone can apply for the scheme if they or their partner, or they jointly as a couple, do not have savings, investments or property totalling more than £16,000, not including the place where they live. A person will qualify for full help with their health costs, including free NHS prescriptions, if their income is less than or equal to their requirements.
To support those who do not qualify for an exemption due to one of the many other reasons, such as their age or their condition, or for the NHS low income scheme, prepayment prescription certificates, which were mentioned earlier in the debate, are available to help those who need frequent prescriptions to reduce the cost. The prescription charge is currently £9.35; a three-month PPC is £30.25; and a 12-month certificate is £180.10, which amounts to just over £2 a week. PPCs can offer significant savings, and an annual PPC can be paid for in 10 direct debit payments, to allow people to spread the cost over the year.
Andrew Gwynne
I am a little concerned about the tone of what the Minister is communicating. He seems to be accepting that there will be a change on prescriptions for pensioners, but does he acknowledge the challenge with pension credit, whereby a large number of pensioners who are eligible for it do not apply for it, because they are fearful of the means test? What will he do to ensure that that does not happen when it comes to prescriptions?
Neil O’Brien
Perhaps I can set the hon. Member’s mind at ease. I said earlier that no decision had been made, and I reiterate that now. I have talked about the different measures that cause people either to be exempt from charges or to have the cost of their prescriptions cut, and I talked about PPCs as a final step, which can reduce the cost of prescriptions for those who do pay them.
It has been mentioned several times that prescription charges have been abolished entirely in the devolved Administrations. Health is of course a devolved matter, but it is worth noting that spending is £1.25 in Scotland and £1.20 in Wales for every £1 in England, so there is that additional budget. Those devolved Administrations, with the record increases in their spending settlements, have full discretion about how they choose to spend those budgets.
Several hon. Members asked me quite specific questions about the outcome of the consultation. I can only reiterate that we continue to consider, long and hard, the many responses that we received, trying to balance the cost of living pressures with the need for increasing funding for the NHS, and we will respond to the petition in due course. I thank hon. Members for their contributions today.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank Members for participating in the debate and the Minister for his response. I am sure that the people I have met will not be reassured by that response, but it is difficult, with no decision having been made about the reduction in prescription charges. That needs to be done, and the Minister needs to confirm it.
I feel for the many unpaid carers—mostly women—who look after children or partners, given of the impact of this situation on them. People see that as unfair, and the system is not perfect, so we hope that change will come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 594390, relating to prescription charges for people aged 60 or over.
Written Statements
Alcohol Licensing
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government are today launching a consultation on alcohol licensing regulatory easements. Our objective is to support businesses as they deal with ongoing economic and financial challenges and the effects of the pandemic, cutting red tape while making sure that local authorities can recover their costs without an additional burden on central Government finances.
The Licensing Act 2003 allows premises licence holders to sell alcohol for consumption on site, off site or both. The holder of an on-sales licence can apply to their licensing authority for a variation if they wish to add off-sales to their licence. Provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 enabled on-sales premises licence holders to automatically also do off-sales, without any need to amend their licence.
The Licensing Act 2003 also allows licensable activities to be carried out on a one-off basis without the need for a premises licence or any other authorisation, by means of a temporary event notice. Provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 temporarily increased the annual number of temporary event notices that a licensed premise user can have in respect of a premises from 15 to 20.
We are consulting to understand whether there is support for making the regulatory easements permanent, in some form, or whether to return to the provisions in the Licensing Act. We will at the same time carry out a survey of local authorities so that we can better understand their actual costs for processing and enforcing licensing legislation.
The consultation will run for eight weeks and the Government will publish their response in early summer 2023. We intend to make any changes related to the consultation as soon as parliamentary time allows thereafter. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS601]
Coronation: Extended Licensing Hours
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government have consulted on, and will be proceeding with, the proposal to make a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 to relax licensing hours in England and Wales to mark His Majesty the King’s coronation. The order is intended to enable people in England and Wales properly to celebrate the constitutional, historic, and momentous significance of the coronation of the King and the beginning of his reign.
The order will apply to premises already licensed until 11 pm for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, for the provision of late-night refreshment—only where there is also the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and for the provision of regulated entertainment in England and Wales. The order will extend the licensing hours for such premises from 11 pm to 1 am the following day, on Friday 5 May, Saturday 6 May and Sunday 7 May.
An economic assessment is being prepared and will be published alongside the order on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS602]
Science and Technology Update
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Michelle Donelan)
February marked a watershed moment for science, innovation and technology in the United Kingdom. For the first time in our history, we created a Government Department that concentrates our best minds around a single mission: making Britain a science and technology superpower—one that uses discovery and innovation to solve the problems that are priorities for the British people.
Our vision for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology starts from an extraordinary position. This is a nation that last year joined only China and the United States by having a tech sector worth $1 trillion. We beat China, Japan, Korea, France and Germany in the global innovation index—and attracted more tech investment than the latter two combined. On average, our universities have produced a Nobel prize winner every year for the last two decades, and four of our universities make up the global top 10.
We have an incredibly unique and powerful platform from which to grow and innovate for the benefit of the British people, which is why I plan to take a ruthlessly outcome-focused approach to this new Department—ensuring that, in both the short term and the long term, our work is improving people’s daily lives in ways they can feel and see around them.
This Government’s vision for the future is an NHS that uses artificial intelligence to find, treat and reduce illnesses such as cancer and heart disease so that we have more time with our loved ones. We should have local transport services that allow us to travel faster, safer and cleaner than our parents did. The schools of the future should be powered by the kind of technology that unlocks hidden talents in every child no matter where they live. As the “Department for the future”, our focus will be on how we can use science, technology and innovation to ensure that the British people live longer, safer, healthier and happier lives.
Such an important goal requires immediate action, which is why my first few weeks as Tech Secretary have been focused relentlessly on action and delivery. I see this as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to send a clear signal around the world that Britain plans to lead the way in science, innovation and technology.
Today I have published “The UK Science and Technology Framework”, which sets out the Government’s goals and vision for science and technology in an enduring framework that will see us through to 2030. It has been developed in close collaboration with the UK science and technology sector, and represents a commitment to scaling our ambition and delivering the most critical actions needed to secure strategic advantage through science and technology.
The science and technology framework is the strategic anchor that Government policy will deliver against, and which the Government will hold ourselves accountable to. We will have a clear action plan for each strand of the framework in place by summer 2023 and delivery will be overseen by the National Science and Technology Council.
Immediate investments to get us started delivering against the framework will include:
£250 million for technology missions in AI, quantum and engineering biology. This is part of our commitment to the five key technologies found in the science and technology framework, which also includes semiconductors and telecoms.
A £50 million uplift for UK Research and Innovation’s world-class laboratories fund. This will help research institutes and universities get on with the cutting-edge scientific research that saves lives, supports our economy and society, and protects our planet.
The Government are investing in the most powerful form of computing, the formidable “exascale”, which has the ability to solve massive societal issues such as energy sustainability and support thousands of businesses. This is complemented by a new dedicated public compute programme for AI research of scientific importance.
We are providing £10 million in the UK innovation and science seed fund—UKI2S—an early-stage venture fund providing patient capital and support for businesses emerging from the UK’s publicly funded science and knowledge base.
Further still, we are investing in a research data cloud pilot, to enable us to help ensure that our researchers can access the information they need to develop the transformative technologies of the future. The pilot will test methods for improving data sharing for research, and harnessing its value for science and innovation.
This is also a Government that are looking for opportunities to test different models of funding science, to support a range of innovative institutional models, such as focused research organisations, known as FROs, working with industry and philanthropic partners to open up new funding for UK research. For example, we are working with a range of partners to increase investment in the world-leading UK Biobank, to support the continued revolution in genetic science.
On top of this, the Government are investing up to £50 million to spur co-investment in science from the private sector and philanthropy to drive the discoveries of the future, subject to business case approval. We are delighted to confirm that we are already talking to Schmidt Futures, a philanthropic initiative of Eric and Wendy Schmidt, about additional support of up to $20 million.
I am also delighted to announce the return of PsiQuantum to the UK. Supported by £9 million in Government funding, PsiQuantum’s decision to establish a quantum computing research centre in Daresbury in the north-west marks a vote of confidence in the global competitiveness of the UK’s quantum sector, built up over the years of Government investment, and a vital boost to the regional economy.
These are just some examples of what will be a constant drumbeat of delivery and action from my Department. However, this will also be a Department that understands the importance of forward, strategic planning for achieving enormous goals, such as gaining superpower status. That is why we have published, or are very shortly publishing, responses to key reviews that will help to inform our work. These include:
Publishing Sir Paul Nurse’s landscape review of research, development and innovation. This sets out how our R&D organisations can work together to drive discoveries and innovations that will improve the lives of the British people.
Publishing the “Independent Review of The Future of Compute”, led by world-leading AI expert Professor Zoubin Ghahramani. Our response will ensure that we harness the power of compute to boost economic growth and address society’s greatest challenges. We are announcing today that we will be implementing two of the most important recommendations with immediate effect and Government will respond to the remaining recommendations in due course.
And the Government have just published our consultation response on cyber-physical infrastructure—CPI. This response outlines our plan to put Britain right at the forefront of the increasing convergence of the physical and digital worlds, helping our researchers and entrepreneurs to solve real-world problems in everything from transforming our energy systems to enabling sectors from agriculture to manufacturing to be more efficient and innovative, securing sustainable growth in these sectors.
These will form the basis of clear, decisive and forward-thinking plans that will be coming out of my Department, underpinned by our science and technology framework, which sets out our clear strategic approach in a 10-point plan. These points can be summarised as: identifying critical technologies; signalling the UK’s strengths and ambitions; investing in research and development; creating a pipeline of talent and skills; financing innovative science and technology businesses; using procurement to drive innovation; seizing international opportunities; improving access to physical and digital infrastructure; pursuing innovative, regulation and influencing global standards; and making the public sector more innovative. The Chancellor recommitted in his autumn statement to the largest ever increase in public R&D funding over a spending review period, with annual spend rising to £20 billion by 2024-25. This significant underpinning investment will be geared towards delivering the framework.
Of course, forming a key part of that framework and sitting at the heart of my new Department will be people and skills. Britain is home to some of the best scientists in the world, but this is no reason to be complacent; if we want to carry on punching above our weight in an increasingly competitive world, we must do more to secure better jobs for British people and attract international talent. That means making Britain the best place in the world to carry out cutting-edge scientific research, or to start and grow a technology business.
Take artificial intelligence. We are focusing on training more specialists, proactively attracting them from around the world and ensuring that they have the resources and equipment to innovate. We are investing an additional £117 million distributed by UKRI for centres for doctoral training, which will double the number of AI researchers we are training and comes on top of the existing commitments we made in the AI sector deal and continued in the national AI strategy, including the initial £100 million in the AI centres for doctoral training, £46 million in Turing AI fellowships, and up to £30 million AI and data science conversion course scholarship programme, all of which will help us develop the best and brightest right here in the UK.
AI can speed up the discovery and development of life-saving drugs, and help us to monitor air pollution in our communities and find new ways to cut it. That is why the Government have today tasked our trade commissioners, ambassadors and the wider global talent network with finding the next generation of AI leaders from around the world, showcasing our fantastic offer, and matching them to specific opportunities. We will find and attracted talented people before they have won a Nobel Prize or created the next unicorn and help them to achieve those goals in the UK. We will also be delighted to welcome exceptional young people to the UK in July, as part of the global RISE programme, an initiative of Schmidt Futures and the Rhodes Trust.
I am also cognisant of the fact that Horizon and the UK’s position on it is an important issue to get right. Colleagues from across the House have raised it with me and I am grateful for the engagement so far. Our research community needs to see that the Government understand their need for stability, clarity and confidence. That is why I am announcing a further extension of the Horizon Europe guarantee to protect thousands of researchers from uncertainty.
This extension will support eligible, successful applicants, covering calls that will close on or before 30 June 2023. It will ensure that eligible, successful UK applicants will continue to be guaranteed funding and will receive the full value of their funding at their UK host institution for the lifetime of their grant, supporting them to continue their important work in research and innovation. Successful awardees do not need to leave the UK to receive this funding.
Our position has always been one of openness to discussions on research and innovation collaboration and that very much continues to be our position. We welcome the EU’s recent openness to discussions, following two years of delays. The EU has not yet made any proposals to address the financial terms of UK association, given that we are now over two years into a seven-year programme. We continue to be ready to work swiftly and constructively together on a range of issues including UK association.
Finally, I want to extend an invitation to Members across the House. With the agenda being set, immediate actions already being announced and a commitment to delivery, there is one final important element that will help ensure that these ambitious goals are achieved: your input and support.
My approach will be guided and shaped by an open-door policy, where I invite colleagues to raise issues, concerns and ideas with me at any time. Government achieve at their best when we collaborate and give everyone a voice in setting the priorities and plans for the future of our country. I look forward to working with you closely to deliver life-changing results for your constituents and for the future of the United Kingdom.
I will deposit a copy of “The UK Science and Technology Framework”, the “Independent Review of the UK’s Research, Development and Innovation Organisational Landscape”, the “Independent Review of the Future of Compute” and the “Cyber-Physical Infrastructure Consultation Response” in the Library of the House.
[HCWS603]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. I am pleased to introduce these statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 12 January 2023. These instruments will increase the value of lump sum awards payable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, and the diffuse mesothelioma scheme, which was established by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008.
As many noble Lords will be aware, these two schemes are not included in the main social security benefits uprating procedure and their uprating is not a statutory requirement. However, through these statutory instruments, we will increase the amounts payable by the September 2022 consumer prices index of 10.1%. These new amounts will be paid to those who satisfy all the conditions of entitlement for the first time on or after 1 April 2023.
Many noble Lords will be aware of friends and close colleagues from your Lordships’ House who have lost their lives as a result of these dreadful diseases. We must remember the great impact that these diseases have on people and their families. The Government recognise the tremendous suffering that diseases such as mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis cause to those who are diagnosed. The conditions covered by these schemes can be debilitating and life limiting and often involve very long latency periods, with symptoms starting to show many years, often many decades, after exposure. Mesothelioma, for example, is an aggressive type of cancer strongly associated with exposure to asbestos and is usually terminal. Life expectancy from diagnosis is poor.
I will now outline the purpose of the two schemes we are debating. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which, for simplicity, I shall refer to as the 1979 scheme, provides a single lump sum compensation payment to individuals who suffer from one of the prescribed diseases covered by the scheme, including mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. This scheme was designed to cover people who are unable to claim damages from employers because they have gone out of business and who have not brought any action against another party for damages. To be eligible, a claimant must be in receipt of industrial injuries disablement benefit for a disease covered by the 1979 scheme.
The 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme, which I will refer to as the 2008 scheme, was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but who are unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act. This may be because they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 scheme allows payments to be made quickly to people with diffuse mesothelioma at their time of greatest need. Under both schemes, a claim can be made by a dependant if the person with the disease has sadly died before being able to make a claim. These schemes aim to ensure that, where possible, the people who suffer from the diseases they cover receive compensation within their lifetime.
The rates payable under the 1979 Act scheme are based on the disease sufferer’s assessed level of disablement and their age at the date of entitlement. The highest awards are made to individuals with the highest assessed level of disablement and those who become entitled to a payment at an earlier age.
All payments for diffuse mesothelioma under the 1979 Act scheme are automatically made at the 100% disablement rate—the highest rate of payment—reflecting the serious nature of the disease. Similarly, all payments for this condition under the 2008 scheme are made at the 100% disablement rate. The highest payments from both schemes are made to the youngest sufferers of the disease. Between April 2021 and March 2022, the latest financial year for which data is available, 3,080 awards were made across both schemes, totalling £44.7 million. Between 2022-23 and 2027-28, expenditure on these schemes is forecast to fall by 8% in real terms.
I will now touch on the legacy of Covid-19. As the Committee will be aware, the Covid-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges. I am mindful of the impact it has had on sufferers of respiratory diseases in particular. As my predecessor set out in last year’s debate, the department made the decision to suspend all face-to-face assessments between March 2020 and April 2021 to protect the health of our claimants, and of course our staff. Some assessments were further suspended beyond April 2021 due to the additional risks of undertaking them face to face. Inevitably, this has led to delays in some customer journeys for claims to industrial injuries disablement benefit and the lump-sum schemes.
In response, the department and its assessment provider, the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments, introduced several innovations to ensure that claims for IIDB, the 1979 scheme and the 2008 scheme continued to be processed as quickly as possible. We increased the use of paper-based assessments and introduced video assessments where appropriate. I am pleased to say that we continue to assess some customers via these routes where possible.
I will now touch on one specific, important and sensitive theme linked to these regulations, which is asbestos removal and schools. Tremendous strides have been made to restrict the use of asbestos and introduce safe environments for its handling in this country. However, the legacy of its widespread use, including in schools, is still with us today.
The Health and Safety Executive has a mature and comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure that the legacy asbestos risks in Great Britain are managed, which aligns with the best evidence currently available. Correct implementation of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 not only ensures management of the risks of exposure but will eventually lead to the elimination of asbestos from the built environment. I understand that some noble Lords have previously raised the issue of asbestos in schools in these debates. I assure them, and this Committee, that the Government take the safety of children and those who work with them incredibly seriously.
The Department for Education is committed to working collaboratively with the regulator, the HSE, to support schools and duty holders. As part of this, the Department for Education published bespoke guidance on asbestos management for schools in 2020 and is working with the HSE and the sector to look at further ways to help them and to build on existing guidance and support. Well-maintained and safe school buildings are a priority for this Government. That is why over £13 billion has been allocated for improving school buildings since 2015, including £1.8 billion committed for the financial year 2022-23.
I will conclude on a positive and—I hope noble Lords will agree—hopeful note. While there is always a degree of uncertainty in predicting future disease incidence, current projections by the Health and Safety Executive suggest that total annual mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain are expected to decline in the coming decades. For males, a decline is projected over the course of this decade, and for females, deaths are projected to start falling shortly after. These figures offer some hope that, one day, no more families shall have to endure the suffering caused by these dreadful diseases.
Medical research into treatment options is ongoing, particularly in the field of immunotherapy. While these treatments are not currently curative, a recent trial has shown clear evidence of benefit to advanced mesothelioma patients, equivalent to an additional three to four months of life.
I am sure that all noble Lords here today will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation provided by the 1979 and 2008 schemes and the importance of maintaining the value of these payments at this time. I am pleased to say that these regulations were considered in the other place on 8 February 2023.
Finally, as part of my role today, I am required to confirm—which I am pleased to do—that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend to the Committee the increase of the payment scales for these schemes and ask approval to implement them. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he introduced these regulations. Just before we began, a group of us were recalling how we have discussed this year in, year out. We were also recalling some of his illustrious predecessors and others in all parts of the House who contributed to some of the changes that he has referred to.
I am thinking particularly of the late Lord Newton of Braintree, who was a Secretary of State. He was a great supporter when I moved amendments in your Lordships’ House seeking to change the Criminal Justice Bill and to bring about what then became a full-scale Act of Parliament, the Mesothelioma Act. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, was decisive in making that happen. He also once shared in this Committee how his father had died of mesothelioma. On this side of the Committee, I think of Lord McKenzie of Luton, who died at the end of 2021. It will seem a strange debate without his voice. His attention to granular detail was extraordinary and his knowledge of pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma admirable, demonstrating the very best of your Lordships’ House.
The noble Viscount referred to the removal of asbestos from schools, which I was very pleased to hear about. It has been a recurring theme that we have raised in these Committees over the years. On a hopeful note, he said that mesothelioma might be plateauing. I will come back to the data a bit later. He also talked about advances in medical treatments. He will know that the Mesothelioma Act was specifically about providing government funding toward the work of the British Lung Foundation and others on the causes and consequences of mesothelioma and on looking for cures. Can the noble Viscount tell us more about whether that funding is being sustained and what progress is being made in that area?
One of the things that has struck me is the number of noble Lords who have shared personal stories of loved ones, family or friends who have died of this disease, which, over the distance, has claimed more than 30,000 lives. That is the same number of deaths still estimated to be caused globally every year. As I have done on previous occasions, I pay tribute to John Flanagan and the Liverpool-based charity, the Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group, for keeping a candle lit for all those afflicted by mesothelioma. In 2020, I noted that people in Liverpool are more than 18% more likely to die of mesothelioma. I know that we will hear from my noble friend Lord Wigley and the noble Lord, Lord Jones, during our proceedings; we have heard from them previously about the situation in Wales. However, this disease is no respecter of geographical boundaries or class. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, and I were discussing this just before the Committee met. We were talking about some of those who have talked about the loss of loved ones.
My noble friend Lord Freyberg talked in the House about his sister, a journalist, who had died of mesothelioma. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, talked about his sister, who had simply been washing overalls and had died of mesothelioma. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, told us about his wife, who had died of mesothelioma. We also heard from the noble Lord, Admiral Lord West, the story of how young men training for the Navy played snowballs with asbestos. Indeed, Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, described how his father, Admiral Hunt, had also died of mesothelioma. So this is not something that is remote. It is something we know about, but sometimes it is regarded almost as having Cinderella status.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The figures he just quoted bring home the reality of this to us, and I pay tribute to the work that he has undertaken over so many years in this area. I am delighted to support both the uprating regulations and welcome the 10.1% increase. I am sure the nurses and the teachers would be delighted to have a similar increase if it was in the Government’s ability to do so, but it is good that the value of these payments should be maintained.
Noble Lords will be aware of the provenance of the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979. It was driven on to the statute book in the dying days of the Callaghan Labour Government, propelled at that time by the needs of slate quarrymen in north-west Wales. Coal miners suffering from pneumoconiosis had of course been compensated as a result of the tripartite agreement between the NUM, the NCB and the Government in 1975, but no provision was made at that time for workers from other industries suffering similar lung diseases. Slate quarrymen were one such case but there are many other industries where it was relevant.
It was in the few days after losing a vote of confidence by just one vote that Michael Foot, to his eternal credit, ensured that the promise given to Plaid Cymru MPs at that time was delivered in all stages. The legislation went through both Houses in just two days, which was remarkable and very much to his credit. I also pay tribute to the work done by the Transport and General Workers’ Union regional secretary, the late Idwal Edwards, who campaigned vigorously on these matters.
Several thousand ex-quarrymen, who had no remaining employer against whom to take legal action, and their widows have benefited from the legislation and still do. But by now, many more workers in other dust-generating industries are also able to benefit from it, so it would be very helpful if the Minister could indicate how many pneumoconiosis sufferers, by industrial group, receive compensation under the Act over whatever recent period is available. If those figures are not available to him but they are in the department, perhaps he can write as they would, I am sure, be of interest to Members on all sides of the Committee.
By now, the major group of sufferers from lung diseases is that of mesothelioma victims, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Their condition arises from asbestos dust, so it is right that we should debate both these instruments together. Mesothelioma was covered partially in a 1979 order but, rightly, sufferers have demanded specific legislation dealing with the particular nature of that disease. There have been several such steps over the years. It is a vicious condition, as has been described, which can be dormant for many years, without anybody realising it is there, then attack the victim with a ferocity that can kill within months. I have seen that for myself; it happened in the last few months of the life of a very good friend of mine, Peter Wolfe, whom I remember as a teenager playing snowballs with asbestos flakes when our school gym was taken down and rebuilt. That is similar to the story the noble Lord, Lord Alton, recalled being recounted to a previous Committee. Peter died six decades later but only five months after his condition became apparent. That shows the speed with which it can attack.
It is right that asbestos sufferers are covered by legislation specific to their condition, and it is right that it should be uprated and that new ways of helping the victims and families should be developed. Equally important are the steps that the Government are taking to avoid exposure to asbestos dust. The Minister mentioned this; it is so important that publicly owned buildings—schools, colleges and other buildings, even hospitals—are monitored for the dangers in this direction. Perhaps I should mention very gently that there are parts of the Parliamentary Estate where asbestos has been used, and that too should be a matter of some concern to us in all parts of this Committee.
The Minister has told the Committee what is being done to eliminate or at least partly curtail such exposure. Can he give any indication of what the target dates will be for this being finally overcome? That may be too much to hope for, but it should still be the intention, target and aspiration of whoever is in government to take away the cause of the suffering, as well as compensating those who are suffering. Can the Minister give any indication of the anticipated time period until the demand for such compensation, on the present trajectory, would be finally eliminated?
Finally, I return to the slate industry. The demand for slate has increased in the recent past and now the employment profile is on an upward trajectory, interestingly, for the first time in decades. I am glad to say that employment is now being secured for more people, but greater care is being taken to minimise exposure to the dust—and that is to the credit of employers and unions alike. The slate industry landscape of north-west Wales was awarded world heritage designation 18 months ago, which pleased me and other noble Lords, I know, very much. It is worth noting that part of that story was the social dimension, not least the fact that the industrial hospitals provided in three major quarries, starting around 1820, were among the first such hospitals in any industry in the UK.
Today’s uprating regulations should be seen in the context of the social battles to get fair play for those working in particularly dirty and dangerous industries, and the recognition by government that compensation is appropriate. In any way that government can undertake such action, the cause of compensation should be eliminated.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and succinct introduction. It is always instructive to hear the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Wigley, with their committed and highly informed references to the lump sum payments. On page 4 of the first item on our Order Paper, in lines 4 and 5, I see the magic words that refer to
“increasing the amounts payable under the 2008 Regulations by 10.1 per cent”.
That is really good news. The Minister can be proud of proposing these regulations, which represent a humane approach by a great, undervalued department. Perhaps we can blink at the detail of tables 1 and 2 and contrast those sad figures with the Explanatory Memorandum, which posits words at paragraph 2.1 that must be music to the ear of the recipients or their families. Let us put into Hansard for the record the names of Lewis Dixon of the department and Louise Everett, the deputy director for ESA.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, on the substance of the two instruments before us and the uprating of payments by 10.1%, we on these Benches, like the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Jones, of course welcome that. I have learned a lot from noble Lords in the debate. I know from reading Hansard on their previous appearances on these uprating instruments that they have long and honourable records of advocating for sufferers of these appalling diseases. I thank both noble Lords present and those whom the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, reminded us are no longer with us. Their words have helped to inform me and provided me with information that I understand will be useful in future years, as we continue to come back to debate these issues.
Much has been said that I will not repeat, but I will emphasise three areas that I am interested in and where I hope the noble Viscount might be able to expand in his response. The first is the question of the latest trends in the numbers of sufferers. As he pointed out, there is an expectation that they will decline once we reach a point 30 years or so after there was a reduction in the use of asbestos. But it would be interesting to hear from the Minister the extent to which there have been any surprises in the data, to understand more about the distribution of sufferers geographically and in terms of their professions, which has already been raised, their gender and any other factors that have surprised people, given the expected exposure and rate of suffering.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was right to remind us that the exposure is not finished. Indeed, as we stand here, we are standing over huge amounts of asbestos, which is securely contained within the basement but which, at some point, will have to be removed as the works take place on this building. That is true across the country: in the 20th century a huge amount of electrical infrastructure was put in using asbestos as a fire preventer, and that is being replaced; people are now saying, “We need to get rid of it”. Whether that is meters in people’s own domestic premises or something on this scale, asbestos exposure is not finished—it will be an ongoing issue. I know that is broader than the instruments before us today, but I hope the Minister will make sure that his colleagues with relevant responsibilities continue to focus on that.
The predictions of expected sufferers would be helpful—not about individuals but about the population as a whole. Making that information public would help people to understand what is taking place. The Minister raised the effect of Covid on the figures, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether diagnoses were missed during that period. Again, if there were changes during the Covid period, it is really important that we understand whether they were material changes or changes because of practice—because people were no longer presenting to their doctors and, therefore, in a sense, there is a false lowering of the numbers, rather than a genuine change in what has been occurring.
The second area about which it would be interesting to hear from the Minister is research, particularly the development of international networks. It has been mentioned that this affects people across many different countries. I was interested to see PREDICT-Meso, a network of international researchers run by the University of Glasgow involving countries in the EU but also countries such as India and Brazil, which industrialised very rapidly in the 20th century and which will also, sadly, see significant issues. Given that government support for scientific research is very topical at the moment, I am keen to understand the extent to which the Government are supporting research being carried out in this area. Can the Minister say any more about government support for research networks into respiratory diseases?
My final point, which has been touched on already, is about why the uprating is a manual rather than an automatic process. I can see from Hansard that this has been repeated on many occasions. I am sure that those who support the Minister did not have to do much work to recycle the comments made in previous years, but it would be interesting to hear from him again why the Government believe that this should continue to be a manual rather than an automatic process, whereby the people planning can understand that they will be entitled to the uprating, rather than us having to debate it each year. Perhaps the Minister will surprise us and there will be a change in the Government’s position this year, but I will not hang on for that.
I hope that the Minister can put some flesh on those three points about predicted numbers, government support for research and the manual versus automatic process. I will be interested to hear about them, but, as I said, broadly speaking, we welcome the 10.1% increase.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations to the Committee, and all noble Lords who have spoken. As we have heard celebrated by my noble friend Lord Jones and others, the sums payable under the 1979 and the 2008 schemes are to be uprated by 10.1%—the rate of inflation as measured by the CPI 12-month rate last September, which is in line with other social security benefits, including the industrial injuries benefit.
First, I join the Minister in remembering all those who have suffered so much from these terrible diseases. Although many of us would like not to have to come back every year, it is at least an opportunity to pay tribute to them and to remember the lives so blighted. These schemes continue to provide crucial compensation to those who suffer from these terrible diseases and their families. Annual deaths from mesothelioma in Britain increased steeply over the last half century, due mainly, as we have heard, to the widespread industrial use of asbestos from about 1950 to 1980, which accounts for the high death rates among males over 70 whose younger working lives coincided with that period of peak asbestos use. It is good to see that death rates from mesothelioma among the under 65s have been falling.
I looked through the latest statistics on mesothelioma deaths published by the Health and Safety Executive last year, which went up to 2020. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, there were 2,544 mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2020, 6% up on 2019 but similar to the average across the previous eight years. But as the Minister pointed out, there are gender differences here. Those deaths comprise 2,085 men and 459 women. The projections are that annual deaths in men will reduce after 2020 but that female deaths will not, likely staying in the range of 400 to 500 throughout the 2020s but hopefully reducing further after that. Does the Minister know why there is this gender difference? I would be interested to know anything he can share on that.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank the Committee and all noble Lords for participating this afternoon, and for their general support for these regulations. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Jones, described our approach as humane; I might think that was a little bit of an understatement, but I appreciate the comments that he made.
I will pick up on some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He did the Committee a huge service by reminding us about the historical context of this. We should remember, as he rightly said, Lord Newton of Braintree, who I remember—just, as a much younger person—as Tony Newton. I think he was an ex-Health Secretary. It was helpful to hear the noble Lord’s comments there and to remind ourselves, as we do need reminding, of my noble friend Lord Freud, who did so much in this area. We should particularly remember Lord McKenzie of Luton—the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is completely right on that—who was so active in this House and did so much for it.
On a personal note, I also want to mention a very dear friend who died of mesothelioma about 18 months ago. He was a quite remarkable individual who survived for eight years. He told me that he knew the longest surviving period of time was seven years and he managed, through thick and thin, to survive for eight. He was an incredible individual who gained an MBE for the work that he did in prisons, so I always remember that.
A number of questions were asked and I will start by saying that the Government recognise that the two schemes we are debating are a crucial part of the support available to people suffering from these dust-related diseases. It is right that we maintain the value of these payments at this time. In addition to the compensation awarded through these schemes, the department provides specific support for those who have industrial injuries, or diseases caused by occupational exposure, through industrial injuries disablement benefit, a weekly payment based on the assessed level of disablement. Other state benefits may also be available to claimants of the schemes to cover other needs, such as income replacement and caring costs, as well as further costs arising from their disability.
I want to pick up an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, which was followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, on the question of funding. Research is crucial in the fight against cancer and the Department of Health and Social Care invested £98.3 million in cancer research in 2021-22, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. For several years, we have been working actively to stimulate an increase in the level of mesothelioma research activity from a pretty low base. This includes a formal research priority setting exercise, a National Cancer Research Institute workshop and a specific call for research proposals through the National Institute for Health and Care Research—so those are important points to be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about schemes comparable with civil damages claims. When the DMPS was introduced in 2014, the payment tariffs were based on 80% of the average damages award in the civil courts. As a result of the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Amendment) Regulations that were laid on 27 February 2015 and came into effect on 31 March 2015, the tariffs increased from 80% of average civil claims to 100%. Since then, the tariff payments have remained the same. However, in line with commitments made during the passage of the Mesothelioma Bill, working collaboratively with the insurance industry and other key stakeholder groups, the department has now started to progress the tariff review to ensure that the expectations of the stakeholder lobby groups are managed and that, fundamentally, the payments are still commensurate with damages awarded in civil cases for occupational mesothelioma.
The noble Lord also raised equalisation. I hope that I can give him a reasonably comprehensive answer on this, because there is often much interest in the Government’s position on equalisation of payments made to dependents with those made to the sufferers of these diseases. I have listened carefully to the concerns raised today by the noble Lord. The Government remain of the view that available funding should be prioritised for those currently living with the disease to support them in dealing with the challenges that these illnesses bring in life. It is therefore right that available funding should be targeted where it is needed most. Indeed, around 90% of payments made under both schemes are paid to the sufferers of the diseases covered by them. However, it is of course clear that whole families can be devastated by the diseases covered by the lump sum schemes, which is why dependants are still entitled to some compensation under the schemes.
The noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Wigley, asked a number of specific questions on the figures involved. I will do my best to answer them, although I fear that there may be a letter arriving after my comments. As a generic response to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on the numbers per sector, data on mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain is published on the Health and Safety Executive website, on the health and safety statistics page under the sub-heading “Ill health”. These statistics include analyses of the relative frequency of recording of different occupations on mesothelioma death certificates, which are more useful as an indication of potential past sources of occupational asbestos exposure than absolute numbers recorded for particular occupations.
The noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Jones and Lord Allan, asked about the breakdown of costs by region. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, also asked about quarrymen and those working in the slate industry. I feel that I will need to write to him on that. Volumes of awards through the 1979 and 2008 schemes, broken down by region, are now published. Unfortunately, information on the occupational breakdown of these awards is not published or readily available. This would require analysis of multiple datasets for the 1979 scheme and the industrial injuries disablement benefit scheme to determine industry information. Information on IIDB assessments is published on Stat-Xplore. I will write to see what more I can do to help all noble Lords on this point.
However, I might be able to help in one respect. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked, perhaps more as an aside, whether I could give some figures on the sex of those who have suffered. It is fairly simple: in 2017-18, the breakdown was 5% female and 95% male; the overall figures from then until 2021-22 are 7% female and 93% male. I hope that is of some help.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked why statutory uprating should not be done on a regular basis—and this may be asked every year. Perhaps I can make some reassurances to this Committee that, although there is no statutory requirement to review the level of these payments annually, DWP Ministers have agreed to uprate payments under both the 1979 and the 2008 scheme together in line with inflation each year since 2010. A change of this nature is unlikely to make any monetary difference to those who receive awards under these schemes. Making this a statutory requirement would require amendments to primary legislation and, even with amended primary legislation, it is probable that statutory instruments would still be required to uprate the schemes annually. As such, parliamentary debates on this subject would continue. I add that these debates provide a valuable avenue to raise awareness of the lump sum schemes and, more broadly, support for people with respiratory diseases. That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and I very much appreciated that.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations, which were laid before the House on 30 January 2023, is to raise the national living wage and the national minimum wage rates on 1 April 2023.
The strength of the UK labour market remains something to be proud of. Unemployment is low, the number of employees on payrolls is 1 million above pre-pandemic levels and demand for workers remains close to record levels. The Government’s overarching priority is to achieve sustained economic growth. Our commitment to a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy will further address cost of living pressures, as well as levelling up every part of the UK and hastening the transition to net zero.
However, we recognise the impact of inflation for people right across the country, which is why this Government have continued to take robust action. This year sees the largest cash increase in the history of the minimum wage, and, once these measures come into force, the national living wage will have risen more than twice as fast as inflation since its introduction in 2015. Furthermore, benefit payments and the state pension will increase by 10.1% in April, in line with September’s CPI inflation rate. We have also delivered a package of measures, including the energy price guarantee, which has saved a typical UK household around £900 across the winter, and hundreds of pounds-worth of support in the form of cost of living payments targeted towards the vulnerable households that need it most.
I turn to the detail of the national living wage and national minimum wage regulations, which will come into force on 1 April. Following a comprehensive impact assessment prepared and published by the Government, we estimate that 2.9 million workers will receive a pay rise across the United Kingdom. I am pleased to confirm that the Government have accepted all the rate recommendations made by the Low Pay Commission in October 2022. The Low Pay Commission is an independent body which conducts expert research and analysis and brings together input from representatives of business and workers. I thank it for its tireless efforts.
The Government remain committed to their ambitious target for the national living wage to equal two-thirds of median earnings by 2024, provided that economic conditions allow. This will have the effect of ending low pay in the UK in line with the OECD definition, and this year’s increases keep us on course to achieve that target. Under the new regulations, the national living wage, which applies to those aged 23 and over, will increase to £10.42 an hour. This is an increase of 9.7% or 92p. As a result, a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual pay before tax rise from £17,300 to over £18,900—an increase in excess of £1,600. This also ensures our national living wage rate remains one of the highest in the world. According to the Low Pay Commission, as of the start of 2022 the UK had the fourth highest minimum wage rate in Europe.
These regulations will also increase the national minimum wage rates for younger workers and apprentices, as well as the accommodation offset. Workers aged 21 and 22 will be entitled to a minimum hourly rate of £10.18, representing an increase of £1 or 10.9%. This narrows the gap with the 23 and over rate and keeps this group on course to receive the full entitlement to the full national living wage by 2024—another ambitious target set by this Government. Those aged between 18 and 20 will be entitled to a minimum rate of £7.49 an hour, an extra 66p, while those aged under 18 will be entitled to a minimum rate of £5.28 an hour, an extra 47p. Both these changes represent an increase of 9.7%. Apprentices under 19 or those in the first year of their apprenticeship will also receive an increase of 9.7%, as their rate rises from £4.81 to £5.28.
Finally, on the detail of the regulations, the accommodation offset will also be increasing. This is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes; it will be rising by 4.6% from £8.70 to £9.10. The Low Pay Commission has made recommendations about the future of the accommodation offset in its recent report. The Government are continuing to consider them carefully and will issue a full response in due course.
These regulations aim to reward the lowest paid workers in every sector and in every part of the country for their contribution to our economy. We are aware of cost of living pressures and will continue to closely monitor all the impacts of increases to the national living wage and national minimum wage rates. To that end, the Government will shortly publish this year’s remit to the Low Pay Commission and ask it to provide recommendations for the rates which will apply from April 2024.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the report on this statutory instrument. I note that, only a few minutes ago in the Chamber, the Minister answered an Oral Question and gave a lot of information related to what we are discussing here. I thank him for that information as well. He said that we do things in bits to get them through. In a sense, it is not very clear when you are doing it “in bits” what the whole picture is.
The increases in minimum wage must be welcomed; of course, we welcome them. But they are not that generous, as £10.42 per hour times, say, 35 hours over a seven-day week is only £364. I wonder if we really consider that anybody can manage on that sort of sum in our large conurbations—£364, if you manage to do 35 hours. It should be more.
The Minister kindly gave us the detail that in October 2022, five months ago, these were considered to be the increases that ought to happen. The question I ask him to consider, because we are doing this five months later, is how up to date those figures are. Should they be more generous? As a start, perhaps we should consider an independent review to consult on how to set a genuine living wage across all sectors. For instance, we could pay the living wage in all central government departments and their agencies and encourage other public sector bodies to do likewise. It is important to set minimum wages at appropriate levels, including setting a 20% higher minimum wage for those on zero-hours contracts at a time of normal demand to compensate for the fluctuations in their hours of work. This statutory instrument takes no account of that.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My thanks are due to the Minister for setting out the upratings on the national minimum wage, the living wage and associated allowances, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for setting out his views on how things should improve in future. These changes are welcomed by the Opposition. Not surprisingly, it was us who set up the national minimum wage in 1999. We had a minimum wage, below which earnings must not fall, in the teeth of fierce opposition from the then Conservative Opposition Benches. I am glad that that situation has now been ameliorated, and they now support the minimum wage; all converts are welcome.
I think the number of jobs covered in all these figures is 2.9 million. The number affected by the national minimum wage is approximately 1.5 million, which compares with 700,000 at the time of its introduction. Does the Minister have any explanation for this increase in the numbers covered by the national minimum wage? Retail, hospitality and cleaning and maintenance are overrepresented in the minimum wage sector, and women are approximately two-thirds of those currently on the national minimum wage. Some explanation for that would be helpful.
The Labour Party would ensure that the national minimum wage was a real living wage. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked how to do so. We would do it by changing the Low Pay Commission’s remit so that, in addition to other factors, it reflected the need for working people’s pay to at least cover the cost of living. The national living wage would finally live up to its name. We would ensure that the national minimum wage applied to every adult worker and was properly enforced. It is unfair to pay adult workers below the national minimum wage, and by adult worker we mean everyone aged 18—the age at which you are treated as an adult in the UK—or over.
Many employers already pay the national minimum wage, and that is to be commended, but compliance is a big and continuing problem. Can the Minister tell us how many prosecutions or enforcements took place last year for failure to pay the national minimum wage? We welcome these upratings, as I have said, and look forward to having the opportunity to progress this legislation further by extending the protection that the national minimum wage provides for all adult workers sometime in the near future.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions in today’s debate. I particularly appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about my responses on the OQ earlier. I like to think that we will have a slightly more mature exchange over this issue than we experienced then—but such is the nature of the important scrutiny of the parliamentary system.
If noble Lords do not mind, I will go through and try to answer some of the points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about the relationship between the October date and the bringing into practice date of 1 April. In normal periods, that would be a perfectly reasonable time lag; in fact, it is relatively fast for Governments to move with only a six-month or so period. I am very sensitive to the fact that we live in an inflationary environment, and inflation is taken into account by the Low Pay Commission. A number of factors are taken into account, as noble Lords may imagine. It would be difficult to make sudden changes, however, given the fact that we need to make sure that employers have a suitable timeframe to bring into practice the pay increases. Although the public sector is also paying the minimum wage and the national living wage, we must not forget that it is on the whole employers who are paying these additional wages, and we should be thankful to them for the support of this overall concept.
Given that this is appraised every year, I hope we will still be in a position to make sure that these wages reflect our ambition, which is to make them represent two-thirds of median earnings. In preparation for this debate, I did some work with the officials from the department, who can bear witness to this. I wanted to see where we were in relation to other European countries on median earnings and absolute amounts, given the currency fluctuations. It is not my place to celebrate or feel triumphant about minimum wage levels, because we want people on maximum wage levels—but it is important to see where we stand, so at least we can benchmark. We compare very strongly. If you look at where we are on the European averages, you can see that we are one of the highest, out of the whole of Europe, and we compare extremely favourably with countries such as Germany.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, made a very good point, and I have thought about the philosophy of minimum wages, which were brought in in 1999 by a Labour Government and not supported by the Conservative Opposition at the time. I personally was unsure of what the effects would be on business; I was concerned that it would drive up costs for business and cause a negative or opposite effect to giving people security—that it would lead to greater insecurity and lower levels of employment. Actually, it has made sure that people are guaranteed a level of income, and it is an extremely powerful way for us to manage our economy. I am very pleased that we have converted—and, like all converts, we have probably ended up being more passionate about the cause than the original proponent. We have introduced the national living wage, which is a very effective way to ensure that the overall pay rates are raised.
On the noble Lord’s comment about the age at which these rates should apply—in other words, that the national minimum wage and the national living wage should be synchronous—I have some sympathy. At the same time, it has been believed, and I think there is evidence, that an element of flexibility for 18 to 22 year-olds, or those in their early 20s, is necessary, particularly as that is where there is greater vulnerability for employment volatility. We have plans for the pay scales of those over the age of 21 to eventually come into line with the national living wage, but we would still be keen to retain some flexibility for employees below that level.
This is all about making sure that the employment market functions properly and that we can employ as many people as possible at the right rates. This is certainly a matter for debate—we are trying to ensure, not that people are paid less, but that there is flexibility in the market so that new workers in the workforce can get the jobs they need.
It is important to cover the noble Lord’s point about there now being 1.5 million, from 700,000 when this came into practice. I am happy to do some more analysis of that, but my surface suspicion is that there are 3.75 million new people in the workforce since 2010. It would be interesting to see an analysis of what those jobs are. I would like to inquire into this, as I appreciate that the noble Lord has raised a very relevant point. In some respects, I would like to think that it is a good thing that we have people coming into the workforce, but clearly we do not want to see a derogation of wages. We want to see people being paid more. I stress that these are minimum-wage levels—they are not the set wage levels—to ensure that no one is paid less than that rate.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned issues around fixed-hours contracts and the flexible economy. We are doing an awful lot in that area to make sure that people have an element of certainty. He was generous enough to remember my response to the Oral Question earlier today. There is quite a long list of different types of specific protections that we are bringing in. I draw his attention to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill, which effectively allows employees to demand flexible working from day one, rather than week 26, and to the Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill, which is probably more relevant to what he was talking about. It gives more strength to employees’ requirements for predictability in terms of numbers of hours if they are on temporary work contracts. Once you have worked for an employer on a part-time basis for a certain length of time, you will be given a greater opportunity to ask for predictability in how you are paid and your hours.
We have to strike a balance—and I think we do—in giving employers flexibility, which is at the core of what has been an incredibly dynamic and successful labour market over the last 20 years or longer, and making sure that workers feel protected. Importantly, flexible working hours are very much appreciated by a number of workers who want flexibility. It would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bath water and get rid of zero-hours contracts or highly flexible working. People appreciate them, as they give a great deal of flexibility. A lot of students and part-time workers who could not do full-time work and would not want predictable work will use these contracts. They constitute about 3% of the workforce. There are mechanisms and there is analysis of how we can improve the rights of workers, but we do not want to dilute the flexibility that these structures give to our workforce and economy.
The question from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, about the factors that the Low Pay Commission takes into account is well made. It takes a great number of factors into account when assessing pay. I believe that the Government have accepted all the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission; this is a very important partnership that we have. My assumption is that the factors in decision-making are continually reviewed, which is absolutely right. Ultimately, our ambition is to ensure that the national living wage effectively reaches two-thirds of median earnings by next year. I am very pleased to say that we are on track to achieve that. As a nation and a society—let alone a sense of triumph for the Government; this is about people’s hard work and being rewarded properly—it would be a great thing if the United Kingdom could achieve that, and we are on track and very close to doing so.
I believe I have covered all the issues, except for the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on tips. I am afraid I do not recall seeing the noble Lord in his usual place on Friday for the debate on tips. The legislation is very specific and will be brought to bear specifically so that all tips go to the workforce, with no deductions, not even for credit card charges. I hope that is clear, because that is the whole purpose. They will be paid monthly, so they cannot be accumulated, and, importantly, they cannot be used as so-called “pay bonuses” or “top-ups”.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he comment—or write to me if he cannot—on enforcement actions in the past 12 months? What are the numbers and so on?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. I try to answer all the questions, but there is always one that I miss. Enforcement is very important and all businesses are responsible for paying the correct minimum wage to their staff. HMRC follows up on every worker complaint it receives, even those that are anonymous. This includes complaints made to the ACAS helpline. In 2021-22, HMRC identified pay arrears in excess of £16.3 million for more than 120,000 workers. I am very happy to go through this now, but it might be more useful to write to the noble Lord if he is happy with that.
I will address one point that has been raised. To some extent I am embarrassed by it, but not embarrassed to be open and transparent about it. The question was why the listing of companies that have not paid their staff the minimum wage had not happened. The list is supposed to be published every quarter. I am afraid that there has been some turnover of Ministers. I spoke to the Minister responsible today and he is determined to make sure that it happens in the very near future. I cannot give a specific time, but we are very aware of it. We want to make sure these companies are named; it is a powerful incentive for employers to behave properly. We are entirely of one mind here and I will be delighted to put the information in the House of Lords Library relating to enforcement. The good news is that I can reassure the Committee that HMRC in particular has been focusing on tackling wilful non-compliance and that significant progress has been made.
Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 31 January and will be made under powers conferred by the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, also known as ATMUA. Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, this legislation created a more flexible set of powers for Ministers to implement alleviation measures for airport slots related to the impacts of Covid-19, subject to a vote in both Houses. This allows the UK to adapt its approach to best support the recovery of the aviation sector.
Ordinarily, airlines must operate their slots 80% of the time to retain the right to those same slots the following year. This is known as the 80:20 or “Use it or lose it” rule. This encourages efficient use of scarce airport capacity. We have been amending the airport slots requirements since the summer of 2020; we have seen a promising recovery in passenger demand during 2022 and in the early part of 2023, but there remains some continued uncertainty in the industry and demand remains below the levels seen before the pandemic. The Government have therefore designed a package of measures for the summer 2023 season that sees a return to the normal 80:20 rule on slots usage. This will encourage more efficient use of slots, combined with flexibility to help manage that remaining uncertainty.
When the pandemic originally struck, the 80:20 rule was fully waived. This avoided environmentally damaging and financially costly ghost flights. We then made fairly generous alleviations for the four subsequent seasons, while travel restrictions remained. Last summer, in 2022, we changed the usage ratio to 70:30 because we felt there was a more positive outlook in demand and wanted to ensure that the slots were used as effectively as possible.
However, as noble Lords will recall, there was some disruption during the summer season last year and we made an additional alleviation, a one-off slots amnesty, which helped to calm the disruption and meant that the aviation sector was flying the schedule that it said it would. That very much helped to reduce last-minute cancellations, which ended up being around the 2019 levels.
For summer 2023, the season that starts on 26 March and runs to 28 October, we are planning to return to the pre-pandemic 80:20 allocation—there has been no change in that. We will continue to include the enhanced justified non-use provisions, which we introduced for winter 2022, for those areas where there is still considerably reduced demand. That might be because of pre-departure testing, flight bans, quarantine or self-isolation requirements, all of which put a significant dampener on demand. It is in those circumstances that the justified non-use provisions come into play. Following consultation with the industry—that is, airlines and airports—we have decided to include an alleviation of a 5% slot hand-back, but this must happen before the start of the season so that there is no uncertainty going into it about whether a route will be operated on a day or at any particular time.
It is worth noting that the instrument applies to England, Scotland and Wales. This is because aerodromes are a devolved matter in relation to Northern Ireland. In any event, there are no slot co-ordinated airports in Northern Ireland.
I have had many conversations with the aviation sector and we are very focused on ensuring that summer 2023 is a success. I believe that the provisions within this statutory instrument will contribute greatly to that. However, we also recognise that the sector has nearly recovered and the alleviations we are proposing are therefore limited in nature. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this. She will be appreciative that I am not my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. She looked slightly puzzled earlier that he was not here. I can only say that he is on important duties elsewhere. I have gone through the material and, as my colleagues in the Commons were keen to say, there is not a big policy difference between us; we are quite happy with the measures that the Minister has set out. I will just make a few points.
Obviously, it is vital for our economy that the aviation sector recovers fully to its pre-Covid levels. My understanding is that we are likely to come back to this issue again in the autumn when the summer season will have been reviewed and we will have to decide whether we need to offer some further form of alleviation.
I have looked a little at the data on the strength and pace of the recovery, and my understanding is that aviation in 2022 was at 83% of 2019 levels. It would be good if the Minister could provide us with a bit more of an update on monitoring since those stats were produced and offer us a bit more on how the sector is recovering generally. I live in Brighton, not a great distance from Gatwick, which is a very important part of our economy. I am sure the Minister will be familiar with that from her time spent—usefully or otherwise—knocking on doors in the Brighton Pavilion constituency. I am sure that she will have come across a few people from the aviation sector during that time.
What financial assistance is currently being made available to airlines to support their recovery, and what more can the Government do to underline that? Although I guess the information is less important for Heathrow and Gatwick, is targeted support being offered to regional airports? I note the closure of Doncaster Airport, which is very unfortunate. The strength of our industry is very reliant on its regional recovery as well. With that, I restate my support in general terms for the policy objectives adopted and ask the Minister whether she could cover those points—in particular, whether we are going to be here again in six months’ time.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for standing in for the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I bumped into him earlier; all I will say is that he looked very dapper, so I am sure he is going somewhere important.
I am very happy to go through the questions raised by the noble Lord. Will we be back here in autumn? I do not know; quite possibly. You have the summer season and the winter season. The winter season will start towards the end of October, and it will very much depend on the outcome of the consultation. We tend to try to do the consultation with industry as late as possible before the next season starts, but we need certainty, so we need to do it before the season starts. We will consult with industry again. It will depend on how the summer has gone and how things are looking from a Covid perspective for the winter but, as I think I said the last time I was standing here, at the moment, alleviations are moving in one direction, and I do not particularly want to continue them forever. It is right that we get back to the normal slots regime at some stage because it is important for the efficient use of capacity. We will monitor that carefully and speak to the industry in due course.
House of Lords
Employment: Disabled People
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for new initiatives to encourage business and industry to employ disabled people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, a range of government initiatives are already supporting disabled people to start, stay and succeed in work. The Government are working to improve and better integrate resources for businesses, helping them to support and manage health and disability in the workplace. The Government are looking in detail at workforce participation, including discussions with business and industry, whose role is key to making the most of the talents of disabled people in the workforce.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his helpful Answer; I will follow up on some of the points that he just made. Just 5% of adults with a learning disability are in work. One way to change this is by offering more supported internships; the charity Hft tells me that this helps business better understand the benefits of employing someone with a learning disability. However, the problem is that supported internships are available to people only up to the age of 25. Will the Government consider extending this scheme to include learning-disabled people over the age of 25, which would enable many more to get into work?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s question and the work that he does in this area. I can assure him that the Government are committed to reducing the disability employment gap, including in relation to the young and interns. It is important that those who have a disability are given every chance to start on the path to a career. What I cannot do, I am afraid, is commit to the noble Lord’s point about extending the scheme beyond the age of 25, but I have noted it and will take it back to the department.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, what happened to the Government’s national disability strategy, which was declared illegal by the Court of Appeal a while ago? It does not seem to have been renewed. Moreover, many of the recommendations made by the committee on disability that I chaired have still not been implemented by the Government. When are the Government going to be proactive?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We have a disability action plan, but it is separate from the noble Baroness’s point about the national disability strategy. We are disappointed by, and strongly disagree with, the High Court’s finding that that strategy was unlawful; as the noble Baroness may know, the Secretary of State has been granted permission to appeal the court’s declaration. In order to ensure compliance with the court’s declaration, we are obliged to pause a limited number of policies referred to in the strategy or directly connected with it, which is a disappointment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests in this field as set out in the register. What are the Government doing to make sure that businesses, particularly small ones, know that, if they employ a disabled people, they have somebody who is less likely to take time off work and less likely to change jobs frequently—both those things are proven—than a non-disabled person? This sort of information would certainly help to break down perceptual barriers.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Indeed, and this is very much a matter for Jobcentre Plus. Further training is being given to job coaches in jobcentres. It is very important that those with health conditions or disabilities receive the support and advice that they need to move into or to stay in employment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, last December, research conducted by the economic and social inclusion unit revealed the huge benefits and the challenges regarding the working conditions, employment and retention of personal assistants for working-age disabled people to allow them to be economically active. This is the third time that I have raised this issue in the House, so hopefully it will be third time lucky. Has the Minister taken account of this useful evidence on service user need and experience? Will it inform improvements and, if so, how and when?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Yes, indeed, I am aware of the question. Although I do not have an answer to that point, I will certainly write to the noble Baroness about it. I am not sure that she has asked it three times, but maybe she did so with my predecessor.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, employment figures show that a significant number of older people have left the labour market. There is a large differential in healthy life expectancy across the country. Many people in their fifties and sixties are not well. Some may have left work due to ill health or disability but would be able to work part time. What more can the Government do to encourage flexible working to provide more help in this area?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As my noble friend will know, all employees have the legal right to request flexible working provided they have worked for the same employer for at least 26 weeks. As she will know, under the Equality Act, employers must make reasonable adjustments to ensure that workers with disabilities are not substantially disadvantaged when doing their jobs. This could include a flexible working arrangement; for example, a change to the timing, hours or location of work. I assure her that in December 2022 the Government responded to a consultation that considered changes to this legislation to provide employees with better access to flexible working arrangements.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, given that a major challenge to the UK’s economic recovery is a significant labour shortage, not least because activity rates for the over-50 age group remain low, is it not in everyone’s interest that those labelled as disabled people should be looked upon for their abilities rather than their disabilities, and helped into the active workforce by the availability of every positive assistance that the state can provide?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord is right. This is why we have the disability action plan, which, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is distinct from the strategy. A new disability action plan will be consulted on and published this year. It will set out the action that the Government will take this year and in 2024 to improve disabled people’s lives. The noble Lord is right that ensuring that the voice of disabled people is properly heard is a priority for the Government. We will run a fully accessible public consultation on the plan this year.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, on 12 January, the Disability News Service reported that neither the Secretary of State, Mel Stride, nor Tom Pursglove, the Minister for Disabled People, had signed up to become members of Disability Confident, unlike many previous Ministers. On 23 January, Mel Stride said that
“we have to ensure that employers see disabled people with eyes wide open—their abilities and the contribution they can make. That is why we promote Disability Confident”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/1/23; col. 735.]
Have the Secretary of State and the Minister for Disabled People now signed up to Disability Confident?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can certainly confirm that a whole range of departments have signed up to this, including the Department for Work and Pensions. Although I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question in terms of the individuals concerned, the department at least has signed up.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, for a number of years, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and I have worked together to improve the lives of disabled people. Motability has over 650,000 people. Importantly, what has changed is that now many of them are computer literate. What is more, instead of loneliness, they can work at an office. Many whom I know would love not only to do that but to feel that they can put something back into society, which has helped them over the years. How can we encourage employers to realise that, as was just said, this would help the economy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I hope that I can help my noble friend by talking about the work that we are doing on communication. It is very important that a digital service is organised for employers and offers tailored guidance on health and disability. This is a key outcome of the “health is everyone’s business” consultation, which was rolled out in 2019. It is very important to use this as a vehicle to allow the people to whom my noble friend referred to move forward in their careers.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, following the original Question about the low number of adults with learning disabilities in the workforce, what are the Government doing to ensure that schools have adequately funded programmes available, so that young people with learning disabilities can have work experience opportunities and, therefore, develop their aspirations to be part of the future workforce?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness again raises an important point, which would go to the Department for Education, but I will answer on behalf of the Government. I have no doubt that there are some initiatives within that department that would help in this area. As I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, it is very important to ensure that those with disabilities can, as soon as possible, move seamlessly from school into work and can stay in work.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, several gardening charities do wonderful work with people with disabilities, whether mental or otherwise. Would my noble friend look at the opportunities that are offered in horticulture, which range from simple to degree-level qualifications?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will certainly look at that. My noble friend raises a very good point and I happen to know somebody with disabilities who works in the gardening sector. I agree that this is a useful area, particularly for young people to start out in.
Carers in England
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to recognise the role of carers in England and their contribution to the economy.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
Carers play a vital role in our communities and we owe them all a debt of gratitude. The adult social care sector employs 1.5 million people, with Skills for Care estimating that paid carers contribute around £50 billion to the English economy. In 2016, the ONS also estimated that the gross value added of unpaid care in the UK was £59.5 billion. The Government recognise the value of unpaid carers and provide financial recognition, primarily through the carer’s allowance.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
Yes, the Government are at last starting to recognise the value of carers. In spite of the excellent work of front-line carers, the paid-for system remains inadequate, even with the adult social care Bill—a Private Member’s Bill. We know that it is inadequate because millions of men and women, and even children, have to step in as part-time carers, limiting their time in work, education or training, at great cost to the economy. When are the Government going to introduce the social and economic reforms to the social care system that would enable these voluntary part-time carers to fully participate in and contribute to the economy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government have set out our long-term plan for the reform of adult social care. In the autumn, we announced that we were making additional funding of up to £2.8 billion available in 2023-24, and £4.7 billion in the following year. Those decisions also involved a delay to rolling out some of the reforms that we had set out, so we will be updating our plan to implement that vision this spring, setting out the path forward.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, about three years ago, my most reverend friend the Archbishop of York and I commissioned the Reimagining Care Commission, which the Minister is probably familiar with. It published its final report the other day. It sought to reimagine social care for our time, particularly to answer the question of who is responsible for what, given that it is not just the Government. Will the Government consider the commission’s main recommendation—that a national care covenant be created to set out clearly the mutual responsibilities of the Government, communities, families, churches and other organisations around care and support?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government welcome all contributions and ideas to this space, and I am sure that we will consider the proposals very carefully. As I have said, the Government set out their own plans in this area last year. We will update those plans, looking to put people at the heart of the social care system, this spring.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, with over 7 million people in the UK juggling work alongside unpaid care, and continuing to contribute their much-needed skills to the economy at a time of labour shortages, will the Government commit to produce a cross-departmental strategy for unpaid carers? Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss how this might best be done?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will happily take the suggestion from the noble Baroness back. I, or perhaps someone else in the Government, could meet her to discuss it. She talked about many people juggling unpaid care with working responsibilities. That is why I am pleased that the Government are backing the Private Member’s Bill on carer’s leave, which will provide one week’s unpaid leave for carers.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, carer’s allowance is the lowest benefit of its kind. Research by Carers UK found many unpaid carers in poverty and struggling to make ends meet. Why, therefore, do the Government continue to refuse calls from Carers UK and others to raise the real value of carer’s allowance if, as they claim, they genuinely recognise and value the work that carers do?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, carer’s allowance and the carer’s element of universal credit will be uprated by inflation this April. For those carers on low incomes, the Government’s focused cost of living support will also help. That is worth up to £650 this year and £900 next year. I believe around 60% of low-income working-age carers are also in receipt of universal credit, so may be eligible for that support.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I was honoured to be a member of the Adult Social Care Committee over the last year. We produced the report A “Gloriously Ordinary Life’’: Spotlight on Adult Social Care, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. We are still waiting for the Government to respond. Among the 36 recommendations, we suggested that:
“The Government should establish in the next 12 months a Commissioner for Care and Support to act as a champion for older adults and disabled people and unpaid carers”.
Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the committee for all the work that it has done. I recognise that there has been a delay in responding to that report. I cannot pre-empt that response, but I reassure the noble Lord and all members of the committee that the Government are looking very carefully at the recommendations and taking them seriously.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, considering the role of paid carers as well as unpaid, has the Treasury done any modelling of the effects of raising carer salaries above the national minimum wage, where many of them are stuck today? Does the Minister agree that such a move to lift carer salaries could help with recruitment and retention as well as boost local economies, where most carer salaries are spent?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have considered a number of aspects for the adult social care workforce, including the support for training that can be provided and proper recognition of the profession. Of course, the noble Lord makes a point about pay as well.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have long promised an employment Bill, which would allow Ministers to address some of the specific issues faced by carers, as well as others who face barriers to full economic participation. Given the absence of the Bill from last year’s Queen’s Speech, does it remain the Government’s intention to bring it forward? If so, when will we see it and, if not, how else will these issues be addressed?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I can pick up on the noble Baroness’s final point. The Government are supporting the carer’s leave Private Member’s Bill to provide an entitlement to employees of one week of unpaid leave per year. We also support the flexible working Private Member’s Bill, which will make requesting flexible working an employment right from day 1, also providing more flexibility for those seeking to balance work and care. We are seeking to take forward the policies and proposals that we have set out while we await the arrival of the employment Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Treasury does not seem to understand that by spending more money in one area, you can save even more in another area. If we spend more money in care homes, we can save a lot of money in the health service. As my noble friend Lord Haskel said, if we spend more money on carers, they can go out to work and help the economy. I have great faith in the noble Baroness. She has a lot of experience and is very persuasive. Will she go back to the Treasury and try to persuade it of this truth?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Perhaps I can persuade the noble Lord to have a little more faith in the Treasury’s attitude towards these things. I set out in an earlier answer the additional money that is going into social care this year and next, which was announced alongside healthcare spending. But the amount that we were putting into social care was precisely to acknowledge the role it plays, for example, in reducing delays to discharge that are affecting our health system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that if a patient has cancer, they are entitled to comprehensive healthcare free at the point of use. If they have dementia, they are subject to a very hard means test with often wholly inadequate care. Does she think this is justifiable, with all the challenges we face, particularly for older people?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has set out the difficulties that there can be in drawing the lines between health and social care, but those distinctions are made in our system and removing them could have significant cost implications. The Government have set out their vision for the way forward on social care and will update it later this year. It is about reforms matched with increased funding.
Nuclear Weapons: Failsafe Review
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the plans of the United States of America’s Department of Defense to commission an independent review of the safety, security, and reliability of its (1) nuclear weapons, (2) nuclear command, control and communications (NC3), and (3) integrated tactical warning and attack assessment systems; and whether they intend to carry out a similar failsafe review.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, it would not be appropriate for His Majesty’s Government to comment on the United States Government’s plans to commission an independent review into the safety, security and reliability of their nuclear capabilities. We have absolute confidence in the safety, security and reliability of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent, but for the purpose of safeguarding national security, we will not provide detailed comment on arrangements for its assurance.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, on 27 February, the Minister for Europe, Leo Docherty, addressed the UN Conference on Disarmament. He mentioned emerging threats posed by new technologies, promised transparency, and committed to the continuing development of concrete initiatives in reducing the risk of the use of nuclear weapons. He did not mention the US Administration’s ongoing public and independent review of the safety and reliability of their nuclear weapons, command and control, and warning systems to reduce the chance of a blunder or miscalculation, particularly from cyber threats, as an example of a confidence-building, concrete, risk reduction initiative. Since all nuclear-armed states face the same risks, surely this is a concrete and transparent risk reduction initiative, which the UK and France, at least, as nuclear and NATO allies, should also commission. Will this be on the agenda for the Prime Minister’s meeting with President Macron on Friday?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I said in my initial response to the noble Lord, there is a very robust system within the United Kingdom, as he will be of aware, for how we deal with the safety of our nuclear weapons—there is a surveillance programme to check that they are continuing to be reliable and safe—their security and the regulatory regime that covers our nuclear activity. We continue to invest in future capabilities to underwrite safety and performance. That includes collaboration with France under the 2010 Teutates treaty; we are jointly building and operating a hydrodynamic trials facility—EPURE—in France and a complementary capability, AWE. It is interesting that the United States last carried out a review in 1991, I think. I am aware of the noble Lord’s organisation and I pay tribute to his knowledge. His interest in this matter has been encouraging the US to carry out a review, but I reassure noble Lords that there are very robust structures within the United Kingdom.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, are not the issues addressed by this Question highly sensitive and probably better dealt with privately rather than on the Floor of your Lordships’ House?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his observation. I understand the interest of your Lordships in the general frameworks which apply, and that is something that I am happy to comment on.
Lord Walney (CB)
Should the Government’s focus not be on maintaining continuous at-sea deterrence, which has been unbroken since 1969, but which the Minister and many others know is under increasing strain given the longevity of the Vanguard submarines and the delays in the Dreadnought class? Does not the whole focus of the Government need to be on ensuring that Dreadnought can come in in time to take the strain?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Indeed. I reassure your Lordships that the Government are fully committed to maintaining that independent minimum credible nuclear deterrent based on a continuous at-sea deterrence posture. We do not anticipate any challenge to the transition from Vanguard to Dreadnought.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I do not expect the Minister to comment in detail, as she mentioned—of course not—but, in general, she will be aware that on several occasions in the past, human override has averted potentially catastrophic nuclear weapons use. The point that has been made is not about the safety of those systems themselves, in engineering terms, but, given the encroaching autonomy of decision- making throughout industry, including in the military, the complexity of the interrelationship between them, and the increasing reliance on artificial intelligence, the dangers of averting that by human override are constantly being eroded. So, while the Minister cannot comment in detail, will she accept that very great danger and assure us that the highest priority is being given to seeing that that human override—the decision by human beings—is not being undermined by the complexity and the increasing use of autonomous, digital-based systems when it comes to nuclear weapons?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord asks a very important question. We are cognisant of—we are certainly not complacent about—the swiftly changing picture of threat or the swiftly changing and challenging situation of artificial intelligence. With reference to the core of the noble Lord’s question, we will ensure that, regardless of any use of AI in our strategic systems, human political control of our nuclear weapons is maintained at all times, and we strongly encourage other nuclear states to make a similar commitment. While I cannot go into detail, the noble Lord will be aware that there are a number of very robust procedures that would stop either an unauthorised intervention or a state intervention.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sure many noble Lords understand my noble friend the Minister’s reluctance to share any detailed information but, in general terms, given that the United States has commissioned this review, what plans are there for the UK Government to learn from any suggestions or recommendations of that review in the United States?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, a moment ago, we encourage other nations to be vigilant about the risk and we share information and intelligence. We are always willing to look at what other nations do.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, is not the most dangerous situation in the world currently presented by both Iran and North Korea? Given that Iran has now produced enough enriched uranium to build several nuclear weapons and that, in 2022, North Korea launched at least 95 ballistic and other weapons, some of which have an intercontinental capability, can the Minister tell the House what response we have received from our colleagues, international partners and, indeed, those who would be our adversaries on the United Nations Security Council?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
These are matters of profound concern, as the noble Lord rightly indicates. We deploy whatever influence we can in the appropriate fora, whether at the United Nations or in other diplomatic or bilateral defence discussions. We deplore what Iran and North Korea are doing. There is a consistent call upon them to desist but, as the noble Lord will be aware, these are two covert, secretive and independent states. It is difficult to influence or leverage any positive response to the entreaties that the international community makes.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what recent conversations the MoD has had with NATO and other key defence allies about this important review? Is it our intention to follow suit with our failsafe review, as outlined in the Question, and what would be the proposed timescale?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
At the risk of being tedious, I simply reiterate to the noble Baroness what I have been saying: we have a very robust structure within the United Kingdom. It is not only inherently robust in terms of the MoD construct but monitored and regulated both within the MoD and externally. We are satisfied that we have due regard to all possible risks or vulnerability. It is for other states to make their decision as to how they deal with the presence of nuclear weaponry, but I indicated earlier the partnership we have with France. I think that is an interesting example of where there is knowledge sharing.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, of course, we support the nuclear deterrent but the US has said that the failsafe review of its nuclear posture
“offers an historic opportunity to reduce the risk of nuclear use today and for generations to come.”
It says:
“The failsafe review must result in concrete actions”
to make both the US and the world safer. So, notwithstanding her earlier comments, can the Minister say what discussions or, indeed, involvement we have had on such an important review, which is ultimately about the security of the world, particularly given the current uncertainties?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I have indicated to the House, we have in place an array of safeguards, checks and structures to ensure that we are responsive to any identified vulnerability or potential area of risk, however that risk might arise. As I said earlier, it is for individual sovereign states to make their own decisions about how they deal with these matters. It would be wrong to suggest that the United States, for example, regularly does this. I pointed out that the last review was in 1991—it is for the United States to make its decision upon that and absolutely right that it does so. It is also right for the United Kingdom to make its own determination. But I reassure the House that we constantly liaise and speak with allies, we share intelligence and we always want to learn from good practice.
Workers’ Rights
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to legislate to ensure high standards of workers’ rights.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)
Over the past year, we have proven our commitment to supporting workers across the UK by raising the national living wage to its highest rate yet. The Government are supporting six Private Members’ Bills to increase workers’ rights. These deliver enhanced protections for new parents, unpaid carers and hospitality workers. They also give all employees easy access to flexible working and workers the right to request a more predictable contract.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, the Tories won the last election by promising improvements to employment rights, but we have seen completely the opposite. I am sick and tired of posing the same questions to the Minister time and again concerning the protection of TUPE legislation. We never get a straight answer, and I believe that it is disrespectful to this House. The Minister’s attitude to date has always been, “Let’s just wait and see.” That cannot possibly be right when we have employers and employees wondering what is coming round the corner—if, indeed, there are any fundamental changes to the Government’s thoughts on employment legislation. So, for the fourth time of asking: will the Minister confirm that TUPE will remain to protect workers’ wages and terms and conditions? Or, failing that, will he finally admit that the British people were hoodwinked at the 2019 election?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising this matter, and I think it right that we look at employment rights. He asks what is coming round the corner, and I will tell him: the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill, the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill, the protection from redundancy Bill, the Carer’s Leave Bill, the employment relations Bill and the Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill, all supported by the Government. Three of those Bills were brought into this House on Friday with the wonderful cross-party support of everyone here who believes in actually doing something for workers and giving them the protections this Government will afford them.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, do not workers’ rights apply equally to all our school leavers this summer, regardless of whether they were educated in the independent or public sectors? If those rights do apply, why has the Bank of England announced that independent sector pupils, including those on bursaries, will be excluded from its education presentations and group talks? Surely this is social discrimination. Will my noble friend approach the Bank and ask it to think again?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I saw that article myself and I was surprised by it. It is not for me to comment on the tour practices of the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, but this is certainly worth further inquiry.
Lord Storey (LD)
I want to come back to the issue of paid care workers. Care workers are skilled workers who are often subject to low wages and poor working conditions. Without urgent reform, this sector will continue to suffer from high vacancies that jeopardise the quality of care. Currently there are 165,000 vacancies, an increase of 55,000 from last year. Is not the answer that if more money is provided to these skilled workers, many of the problems the care sector faces will no longer exist?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I appreciate the noble Lord’s point. It is an incredibly important sector, and the approximately 1.5 million people who work in it are to be cherished and celebrated. The Government have put £7 billion into the sector over the last two years, which clearly is a follow-on from the crisis we faced during Covid. I will be pleased this afternoon to place a statutory instrument before this House to raise the national living wage and the minimum wage by a substantial 9.7%. All these things will help, but I am always aware that we must do all we can to support that important and vital sector.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I think the Minister mentioned hospitality work. Freelance work has been a long-term and growing aspect of the economy, with 1.77 million freelancers contributing £125 billion to the economy. What attention are the Government going to give to those insecure workers’ rights?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for that point. Hospitality has been an important focus for this Government, which is why we are introducing the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill, an important measure to ensure that, when you tip, the money actually goes to the service staff who have supported you. To my surprise, and probably that of many other Members of this House, in many instances it did not. These are the sort of Acts we absolutely need to focus on, and I am always delighted to have further conversations about how we can do more to protect this vital sector.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, the employment Bill that was promised back in 2019 has been promised time and again; in fact, on 20 different occasions we have been promised a comprehensive Bill that would deal with workers’ real concerns. Millions of workers in this country are on zero-hours contracts, false self-employment or other forms of temporary work, or stuck in low-paid employment, and now with the prospect of real fears and concerns about what will happen to their rights. Can the Minister explain why there has apparently not been time to bring forward a Bill that would give workers much-needed and urgent protection on everything from TUPE to sexual harassment to insecure contracts, yet the Government have found time to bring forward two red-rated Bills, on retained EU law and strikes, that will make it harder for workers to stand up for their rights?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I enjoyed that question because it bites into my time for answering questions, so I thank the noble Baroness. It is very relevant to realise that this Government have invested a huge amount of time in focusing exactly on this, and I would like to go through a few quick points. Apart from increasing pay by raising minimum wage levels, we have extended the ban on exclusivity clauses, which is vital for allowing flexibility in the workforce; we have introduced legislation to ensure that an equivalent to the minimum wage is paid to thousands of seafarers, who are in a sector that is very important to this country and needs protecting; we have closed loopholes that allowed agency workers to be employed on cheaper rates than permanent workers; and we have quadrupled the maximum fines for employers who treat their workers badly. I have mentioned the list of employment legislation that we are bringing in, and we continue to try to do more. If you look at it in the round, better than having one huge, complicated piece of legislation is getting these measures through in their own way and actually making a difference to the workers in this country. That is how I would prefer it.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, the disability work gap remains stubbornly wide. Can the Minister update the House on the workforce review being conducted by the DWP, which is examining proposals for subsidies for occupational health services that could close that gap?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. I am afraid this is not my department, but I would be delighted to come back to her with a Written Answer.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, both the Minister and I founded and ran our own businesses before coming to this place. I hope he will agree not just with me but with many business leaders and trade unionists, such as my noble friend Lord Woodley, that decent working conditions for employees’ security, health and well-being directly lead to improvements in productivity. Will he remind his government colleagues that a surefire way to make UK plc more productive would be to enshrine the highest standards of workers’ rights in legislation and not to seek to weaken or remove them through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill or the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill going through both Houses?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that point and for the extraordinarily high level of collaboration we engaged in last week when we were doing exactly this: bringing in protections for workers—in this case, the Carer’s Leave Bill, which will allow carers the flexibility to have a much-needed one week of unpaid leave. Ultimately, the best way to strengthen the workforce in this country and to enable businesses to give pay rises is to encourage the sorts of policies this Conservative Administration have brought into play, which have resulted in nearly 4 million new people in work, the average and minimum wages going up by over £8,000 and—
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
This is important, because if you do not have a strong economy, you cannot deliver the sorts of benefits this country needs and the strength of pay, which is the most important thing in a proper workforce.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the catalogue the Minister read out is welcome to many people. I was here last Friday when we brought some of those laws forward, but the fact of the matter is that the wealth generators of this country who go to work every day feel that the Government do not particularly see them as colleagues. May I ask the Minister to do his best to get the social partners back together again and, in particular, to meet with the TUC and other people who want to improve the benefits and productivity of this country so we can all work together as a team?
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising that point. It is important that we work collaboratively, and my department does meet regularly with the unions in terms of trade advisory groups. We will continue to do so, and to collaborate to ensure that we have the best framework for employment, employment rights and business in this country.
Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill
Monday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 View all Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 March 2023 - (3 Mar 2023)
Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill
Monday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 View all Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 March 2023 - (3 Mar 2023)
Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill
Monday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 View all Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill
Monday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023 View all Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text
Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 3 and 4, Title.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Monday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 9 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-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (6 Mar 2023)
Lord Callanan
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
At end insert “and that it be an instruction to the Committee that no new amendment shall be considered today after 10.00pm”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, following the tabling of my amendment on Friday, there has been positive discussion in the usual channels, and I am pleased to say: not moved.
Baroness Ludford
“Conditions for bringing section 3, 4 or 5 into force(1) None of sections 3, 4 or 5 may be brought into force unless all the following conditions have been satisfied.(2) The first condition is that a Minister of the Crown has, after consulting organisations and persons representative of interests substantially affected by, or with expertise in the likely legal effect of, that section on a draft of a report, laid that report before Parliament setting out, with reasons, the Minister’s view as to the likely advantages and disadvantages of bringing that section into force, setting out in particular the effect of that section on –(a) the rights of and protections for consumers, workers and businesses, and protections of the environment and animal welfare, (b) legal certainty, and the clarity and predictability of the law,(c) the operation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU, and UK exports of goods and services to the European Economic Area, and(d) the operation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland in the EU withdrawal agreement.(3) In relation to section 4, the report must take into account any regulation made or likely to be made by a relevant national authority under section 8(1).(4) The second condition is that a period of 60 days has passed since the report was laid before Parliament, with no account taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.(5) The third condition is that, after the end of that period, both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section come into force.(6) If both Houses of Parliament have approved a resolution that that section should not come into force unless it is amended in a way set out in that resolution, then the Minister may by regulations amend that section accordingly, and that section may not be brought into force until that amendment has been made.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires Ministers to analyse, and to explain their analysis of, the effect of the removal of retained EU law rights, the principle of supremacy of EU law, and of the general principles. It also includes opportunity for Parliamentary approval and timeframes for laying reports before both Houses.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 68 I will speak to Amendments 69 and 69A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I will take a little while; I know we want to make progress today, but these amendments are on legally very significant issues in relation to Clauses 3 to 5. Last Thursday, we discussed the fact that, unlike the sunset under Clause 1, there is no saving provision for Clauses 3 to 5, such as appears in Clauses 1(2). We moved an amendment to try to change that, and perhaps the Government will accept it.
I heard a Conservative MP on “Any Questions?” this weekend assert that Brexit meant bringing democracy back. I think that noble Lords across the Committee who have taken part in the four days of proceedings so far on the Bill would agree that it does not bring democracy back. Instead, it reinforces the executive diktat that, unfortunately, we have become rather used to.
The effect of these amendments, beginning with Amendment 68, would be to require
“Ministers to analyse, and to explain their analysis of, the effect of the removal of retained EU law rights, the principle of supremacy of EU law, and of the general principles”
of EU law. I presume that the Government have conducted such an analysis before bringing into force such wide-ranging changes. In the words of the Bar Council,
“it would be extraordinarily irresponsible were that not done”.
We would like to see a sharing of that analysis; it needs to
“be consulted on, made public, and put before Parliament. The new clause … gives Parliament the chance, in the light of such an analysis, to prevent the bringing into force of those sections or to propose amendments”.
The fact is that the effect and scope of Clauses 3 to 5 are extremely unclear.
On legal certainty, the principles of the interpretation of EU law are ones with which UK lawyers and courts are, by now, very familiar; they are well settled as principles of the interpretation of UK statues as well. Removing those principles is likely to generate uncertainty and unintended consequences, in particular because quite a lot of those topics will have been the subject of considerable EU case law and removing them will create instability. The Government have not explained what the consequences of the removal of those principles will be on the various rules and protections concerned. I am very grateful to the Bar Council for its briefing, and, again, in its words:
“It is not a good idea to legislate when you have no idea what the consequence of that legislation will be.”
However, I am afraid that that is where we seem to be.
Under these clauses, there will be a retrospective effect to alter the position of domestic legislation, which could not have been foreseen by the domestic legislator at the time. That appears to be a very dubious thing to do. The rationale for retaining, for instance, the principle of the supremacy of EU law—a much misunderstood term; lawyers describe it better as a hierarchical rule—is legal certainty, because individuals and businesses will have taken decisions, sometimes far-reaching and involving significant investment, based on the law as it was. Removing that principle to give priority to any subsequent domestic legislation would mean that it would be impossible to say whether the consequence of removing the principle in any particular case would reduce the clarity of the law or change its effect. Even if it does not do those things, it will at least reduce certainty and lead to unpredicted—and perhaps undesirable or unjust—consequences.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I have not contributed at all in this Committee and I am going to say only a very few words, which I hope I can keep as simple as possible. I very much support Amendment 69A here, because I think it is particularly relevant. I hope it is of help to my noble friend the Minister, who last week dismissed out of hand Amendment 44, to which I had added my name. I hope he will understand that I am trying to be helpful in supporting this. With the legal uncertainty that we seem to have here, it is terribly important that the Government, and indeed Ministers, protect themselves in some way.
The suggestion last week was that we should have a commission set up for the purposes of looking at these proposals and at what effect they might have, and move them to parliamentary scrutiny in the appropriate manner. Now we have a proposal in subsection 2 of the proposed new clause introduced by Amendment 69A that would make it a condition that
“a Minister of the Crown has asked the Law Commission”,
as it is presently constituted,
“to report on the effect of … this Act on legal certainty, and the clarity and predictability of the law.”
I am sure I do not need to remind my noble friend of the importance of certainty, and how important it is in the law to have that. We do not have so many comparisons here. I use the term “void for uncertainty” in relation to legislation. For instance, in the United States, all legislation that is “void for vagueness”, as is the term, cannot proceed. In the European Union, it is quite clear that there has to be clear certainty in the imposition of laws on the people who have to obey and follow them. Here we have a situation where we have nothing of the sort. It is important, therefore, that the Government find a way in which they can, if necessary, protect themselves; otherwise, we are going to get in due course a considerable amount of legal interest, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, just referred to. Whether that is through judicial review or other means, it will be so complex and convoluted that, while it might please some lawyers, other lawyers such as myself, of a rather more modest disposition, would find it quite appalling to see this happen. I ask my noble friend perhaps not to dismiss this amendment quite as easily as he dismissed Amendment 44.
Throughout the proceedings I have watched so far in Committee, there have been many references to the democracy which is necessary—and that the Government wish to pursue—compared with the lack of democracy that the Government allege in the European Union. As a Member of the European Parliament—as my noble friend the Minister was too, although for a shorter period—I think it is very difficult to make out a good case for a lack of democracy in the work that was done by me and my other colleagues from Britain in the European Parliament. This is particularly the case in recent years where the European Parliament has had co-decision and a right to block legislation from the Commission. The proposals of the Government at the moment—if they are not put to some form of independent assessment—would leave us with a situation where the secondary legislation lacks every single shred of evidence of democracy. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to seriously consider conceding Amendment 69A when he comes to respond.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to both Amendments 68 and 69. This Bill, as others have said, creates huge uncertainty for business at a time when business is struggling to cope with so many uncertainties that are outside the control of the Government. But the Government do have control of this. Both amendments require the Government to report on the likely advantages and disadvantages of taking the action they propose. What could be more reasonable? What member of society would expect the Government not to have weighed up the advantages and disadvantages of taking any particular action? How on earth can it be justified to go ahead and do away with protections and rights bestowed by European law, without actually having done some consultation as to what the results are likely to be? There might be disadvantages but, unless the work is done, who knows what advantages will be thrown away. What justification can there possibly be for taking such rash and foolhardy action?
Amendment 68 also requires a resolution in Parliament as to whether such action should go ahead. It is all about bringing back control to Parliament. Why would the Government—who are so keen on bringing back control to the UK—not wish to give Parliament the say on whether EU retained rights and protections should remain? Why should consumers not have the protection of a vote in Parliament? Perhaps the Minister could tell us why he does not want to know what the advantages and disadvantages of legislating would be and does not want consumers to have their rights taken into account.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support the three amendments, but I do not intend to speak on them. I just wanted to support and admire what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, had said about the European Parliament. It was about time it was said.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I will add one very brief point as well—following on from my noble friend Lady Ludford when she introduced Amendment 68 and 69A—which is the background in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has been referred to consistently during the preceding three days of Committee. It makes the important point:
“The approach taken in the Bill gives rise to significant legal uncertainty … There is no certainty about the sunset provision itself because Ministers can extend it under the delegated power in clause 2.”
The point about these two amendments is that they set out a framework including, at the end, a very high bar that both Houses of Parliament must agree the same recommendation to go back to the Minister, which would then ensure that the Minister acted on it. It is not just for debate in Parliament, as usually happens with secondary legislation; it is making sure that there is the evidence about the background—which other noble Lords have spoken about—but then both Houses must approve the same recommendations.
I echo the questions that other noble Lords have asked. I hope that the Minister can explain to us why this safety net, as set out by the various stages in these amendments, would not be enough to reassure Ministers that we are helping them to do the job they need to do in this extremely complex matter.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am not a lawyer—that will become very apparent from what I am going to say—but I support Amendments 68, 69 and 69A. I am puzzled that the Government say that their aim is to introduce legal clarity. I think back to 50 years ago and Lord Denning’s great speech about EU law coming inextricably up the estuaries and rivers. He did not think that we should join the European Community. He made a remarkable speech, which was correct: over 50 years, EU law has come up the rivers and estuaries. How do you desalinate the common law of England? It grows organically. Which bits do you prune? How do you know which nutrients were of European origin and which were of domestic origin? How do you go about this task? Fortunately, it seems that we are not going to be allowed any role in this, because it is going to be done by a Minister with the stroke of a pen. Surely that cannot be right.
The wonderful letter we got from the Minister at noon today explains what we are doing now in the following terms:
“Retained case law is not being sunset”—
I would have said “sunsetted”, but still.
“However, the repeal of section 4, and the removal of supremacy and general principles by clauses 3 to 5 will mean that after the end of 2023 the effects of these features of EU law would not be expected to be read in to relevant retained case law, when our domestic courts are interpreting and applying assimilated law. However, where there is a restatement of case law concerning the application of principles being removed by clauses 3 to 5 of the Bill … 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.”
If I were the court, I would have no idea how to interpret that. What am I supposed to do? I am supposed to work out what the Minister’s intention was from his restatement. Did he intend that I should still look at that EU law, or not? If I am not to look at it, what am I supposed to look at? Fifty years have passed. Does all that salinated law—all these precedents—have to be ignored? I find it quite hard to believe.
The letter explains:
“From the end of 2023 our domestic courts should no longer apply the retained EU principles of interpretation … when they are interpreting and applying assimilated law. Instead, we expect them to apply domestic principles of interpretation.”
What are “domestic principles of interpretation”? We have 50 years of precedent and case law. Is that domestic? I say, yes, it is—but, of course, it is salinated. EU law did affect the development of UK law. So, the reports that are called for in these amendments are absolutely necessary. I feel reluctant to impose on the Law Commission the heavy load that Amendment 69A would place on it. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and I would have preferred his solution to the matter.
I have one other mild grievance with the letter that arrived at noon from Lord Gobbledy of Gook—sorry, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. It answered a lot of points raised in this debate over the past three days, but not mine. I have now asked four times what the procedure is for getting rid of pieces of EU law—our law—that are to be disapplied and abolished altogether. What we get in reply are examples: we hear about olives, lemons, and navigation in the Skagerrak. I agree with that; no doubt there are several pieces of law that have never been relevant and have no relevance now, and that none of us will miss much. However, there could be others that a Secretary of State might wish to abolish but some of us might take a different view on. For example, if Mr Rees-Mogg were still in charge of this exercise, one could imagine that his might be quite a liberal interpretation of the power to extinguish. What procedure is to be followed? People have to know whether or not laws exist, so there must be some sort of publication. The Minister cannot do this absolutely in private.
Secondly, I would have thought that there would have to be some sort of legal instrument. I do not see how you can pare the statute book without doing so in a clearly legally established and recognisable way. Thirdly, it seems to me that there must be some role for Parliament in that exercise. I cannot see what it is and we have not been told. My questions for the Minister are these: what procedure is going to be used; how will the users of the law know that it has been used; and what role will Parliament have in making the decision?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too am extremely grateful to the Minister for his letter; I actually got it on Friday. I certainly welcome it. One of the sentences in the letter that struck me—it hit me in the face, as it were—was in the paragraph at the bottom of the second page:
“The Government is intent on bringing clarity to the statute book, and for citizens and businesses so that they are clear as to the rights that they rely on”.
That is the fundamental issue here; it is certainly the one that I want to concentrate on in our debate on this group. By the way, I am not going to repeat the points about the potential impact as we have had lots of discussion about that.
We are dealing here with known unknowns, if you like. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, just said, it is about the idea that we do not know quite what impact the case law and common law that has developed over 50 years has had. Of course we had a very detailed discussion on Clause 1, but Clause 3 is potentially even more serious because it deals not with specific regulations that might be identified on the dashboard—it is now approaching 4,000 pieces of legislation—but with areas where we are not sure whether the legislation is EU-derived, are not sure about the impact of EU law on them, and where decisions will undoubtedly have a huge impact.
These amendments are trying to assist the Government in how to ensure a proper process for identifying these things before anything falls off a cliff edge ahead of this date, and how to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is a reasonable question in relation to process. This is not about trying to frustrate the Government, as noble Lords have already commented. It is about how we assist the Government in avoiding chaos.
Certainly, this clause requires more than simply cataloguing instruments. It requires us to look into how courts have interpreted decisions and what impacts that will have. Whether it is the Law Commission or another body, the Government must ensure that proper time is allocated to research this so that, coming back to the letter, we have certainty, because businesses require certainty. We have had that debate. Workers require certainty as to their rights. Consumers require certainty. All those things have been impacted by decisions through common law.
Nobody disputes that there may be EU rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that we could do better without. There is no doubt about that, but let us have a proper procedure for determining it. It cannot be right that we simply have a cliff edge with a dashboard that the Minister repeatedly refers to that does not even quantify them. I think there are 28 in the dashboard that you can consider impacted by Clause 3 out of the 4,000. There are clearly lots more examples.
I am attracted to Amendment 69A signed by my noble friend Lady Chapman, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It provides a clear structure and timetable for us to work through that will ensure a transparent way of dealing with people’s rights. That is the most important element of these groups of amendments. Let us not frustrate what the Government want, but let us do this in a proper way that does not lead to the confusion and chaos which undoubtedly Clause 3 would.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank all Peers who have contributed to the debate. I was getting a bit concerned about the subject of my famous correspondence with the House, but I took on board the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, at the end of the last day in Committee, about wanting to see the letter in advance. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, got his on Friday afternoon; I approved it in draft on Friday afternoon. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, did not get his until noon today. I received it on my parliamentary email at 10 am, so perhaps his email is a bit slow. I did attempt to get it out as early as possible because I suspected that it might come up and I knew that noble Lords would want to read it before the debate. I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that it is gobbledegook, but that is lawyers for you.
The amendments in this group are Amendment 68 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, Amendment 69 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and Amendment 69A tabled by all three noble Lords. These would set unnecessary conditions on the commencement of Clauses 3, 4 and 5. Let me start by drawing noble Lords’ attention to why we are making the changes in these clauses. Each of the clauses is vital to the Government’s programme of reforming retained EU law.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before he sits down, I refer him to the second paragraph on page 2 of his letter—for which I was grateful, joking apart:
“From the end of 2023 our domestic courts should no longer apply the retained EU principles of interpretation … Instead, we expect them to apply domestic principles of interpretation”.
What are these domestic principles?
Lord Callanan (Con)
They are the domestic principles of interpretation that have been used by the courts since time immemorial: the normal procedures they use to apply their scrutiny of UK law. That is the point we are making. It is important that the general principles of EU law, which were introduced into UK law with our accession and which have applied to retained—[Interruption.] Will the noble Lord let me finish making my point before he intervenes again?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
In time immemorial, we were not members of the European Union. Is the Minister saying that we all should go back to pre-1972, and that anything that happened when Denning salt water was coming up the estuaries—anything that happened in the last 50 years—is to be ignored by the courts?
Lord Callanan (Con)
No, I am not saying that at all. Case law is not abolished: courts will still be able to take case law into account. We will use the power of restatement where necessary. Departments will look at whether the general principle of EU law, which we are abolishing with this legislation, affects the particular statutes that they are retaining, and they will adjust them accordingly so that the same policy effect is maintained. Of course I am not suggesting that we go back on what was agreed. The principles of case law will remain.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
We are talking about the courts and cases. Surely the courts will have to look at the domestic principles of interpretation which they are going to apply. Will they be given any guidance?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The courts will use the same principles they have used for the interpretation of UK statute for many hundreds of years.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Workers will want to know precisely which of their rights will be impacted by this clause. Of the current numbers, can the Minister identify how many regulations in the dashboard will be impacted by Clauses 3 to 5?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will keep the dashboard updated as work progresses. As the noble Lord knows, we had this debate in the first grouping on workers’ rights. We are proud of our record and have given a commitment that the UK will not go back on our excellent principle of workers’ rights, which are far in excess of that guaranteed by European law. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, is smiling.
We have had this debate on the issue of the dashboard, which noble Lords have raised on many occasions, but let me restate the Government’s position. We are happy that departments know what legislation they are responsible for. Their lawyers are still going through it to determine which is or is not retained EU law, but we have introduced technical amendments to make it clear that, by default, if they are not sure, they should retain that law. No detriment or challenge could be made if they did that.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I have just realised that my noble friend referred a moment ago to this Parliament’s lack of involvement in EU matters or legislation. He and others here are always putting forward that Ministers of this Government are accountable to Parliament—although, we sometimes argue, not sufficiently. Of course, they make up the Council of Ministers, which they attend in order to approve all European legislation. He surely therefore recognises that Parliament is almost directly linked to European legislation, but he says that there is no UK parliamentary input. I just wanted to correct that point.
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is slightly off the point, but I hope the noble Lord is not trying to argue that the UK Parliament is President in the Council of Ministers.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the point that I want to probe a bit more is the known unknowns. We do not really know what will be impacted. I will read from the noble Lord’s letter:
“A comprehensive review of all retained EU law on the UK statute book began in September 2021, and work is well underway by departments to assess line by line, the desired policy intent and effects of retained EU law on the statute book and to ensure that REUL that needs to be preserved, is preserved”.
What and who decides the policy intent? The Bill does not tell us anything. That is the biggest concern and why these amendments try to assist the Government by providing a process where we can have greater transparency. The noble Lord is unable to give an answer at this stage of the game, and we are not far away from the cliff edge that we have all been talking about. He cannot tell me what the dashboard numbers are. Can he tell us the policy intent identified in his letter?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The reference in that is to the policy intent of the particular piece of retained EU law. The point we are making is that if the abolition of the principles of EU law, the supremacy and interpretive effects, changes the policy intent of that particular piece that is worth retaining then of course it will be changed using the powers in the Bill—the powers of restatement, which we will debate later—to preserve the original policy intent, as would have been approved by Parliament, if Parliament had any role in approving that in the first place.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
This takes us back to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, which specifically made the point that there is not,
“an indication of which legal or policy areas the Government think should be retained, amended or revoked”.
It says absolutely specifically:
“The Government need to explain how they propose to use the powers in the Bill. They also need to explain what is behind the headlong rush and the impending and arbitrary end-of-year deadline”.
With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, the letter does not say that. I think noble Lords would agree that we have not had that explanation over the last three days in Committee either.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry if the noble Baroness believes that. We have debated the principle of the sunset. I accept that she presumably has a different position from mine, but I have stated the Government’s position on numerous occasions. The dashboard will continue to be updated as departments come to decisions on what they want to do with their stock of retained EU law.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, while it is in my mind, I am not sure the Minister answered my noble friend Lady Brinton’s question, which was, in citing the Delegated Powers Committee report, to ask what was the policy intention and to point out that the Bill is a blank sheet of paper as far as that is concerned. That is what is completely worrying us, because of its effect on the real world and the lack of any parliamentary grip on this process.
For him to say that Amendment 69A would involve the Law Commission in Government policy misrepresents the amendment—no doubt inadvertently—which talks about asking the Law Commission to report on,
“the effect of sections 3, 4 and 5 … on legal certainty, and the clarity and predictability of the law.”
That is surely within the purview of the Law Commission. That would not involve the Law Commission in policy. I fear that the Minister misrepresented Amendment 69A, perhaps in his enthusiasm.
Lord Callanan
“Retained EU law governing the CAP direct payment schemes Retained direct EU CAP legislation | Assimilated law governing the CAP direct payment schemes Assimilated direct CAP legislation” |
This amendment renames bodies of law relating to direct payments to farmers as regards times after the end of 2023.
Lord Callanan
““retained EU law governing the CAP direct payment schemes” and “retained direct EU CAP legislation” have the meaning given by section 2 of the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 (as it has effect on the day on which this Act is passed).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to Clause 6, page 4, line 15 .
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment restores discretion to the higher court.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for the letter which we received during the course of this morning. I am slightly concerned that he did not reply to the question on the fact that the Scottish Parliament has withheld its consent, or tell us the Government’s response to that, nor to the amendments that the Scottish Parliament has laid on the table. I would be grateful if at some point that could be addressed.
In speaking to the amendments in my name in this group, I will speak also to those tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which I have also signed. I would like to say a general word about Clause 7, on the role of the courts. I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for preparing me on the amendments that I have tabled today. This clause deals with Section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which dealt with the interpretation of REUL and the application of retained case law by domestic courts.
The amendments tabled to Clause 7 are quite complicated and convoluted. I would hazard to say that it is difficult to understand the effect of the amended provisions. Therefore, the amendments that I have put forward should make it clearer that, if Clause 7 simply substituted a new Section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, the new Section 6B, which Clause 7(8) proposes to insert into the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, would provide that UK or devolved law officers could make a reference to the Supreme Court, the High Court of Justiciary or the appropriate relevant appeal court, as defined by proposed new Section 6A and the circumstances set out therein.
Even though new Section 6B(7) provides that any decision by the court to which reference is made does not affect the outcome of the proceedings, the view of the Law Society of Scotland, which I share, is that it is contrary to the interests of justice that the law officers can be empowered to make a reference in a civil case that has been concluded and where there has been either no appeal or the appeal itself has been concluded. This contravention of the principle of finality and interference by the state in civil litigation needs to be explained and justified by the Government; I urge my noble friend the Minister in summing up to take the opportunity to do so.
I understand that the innovation would apply only on a point of law on retained case law, thus diluting the unity of civil law. Further, any such power of reference would not be comparable, for instance, to the role of the Attorney-General or the Lord Advocate in criminal proceedings. Such law officers have a direct interest and an integral role to play in all such proceedings, including instituting appeals or references on points of law. Law officers do not currently have that role in civil proceedings and it remains to be seen why they should have it in respect of one particular category of civil case law. Again, I seek clarification from my noble friend.
New Section 6B(2) identifies the law officers who can make a reference. The Lord Advocate’s power to make a reference is limited to where the point of law relates to the meaning or effect of relevant Scotland legislation. There is no corresponding restraint on the powers of any UK law officer to either the law of England and Wales or a matter of law on reserved matters. Again, the Law Society questions whether it is appropriate that any UK law officer other than the Advocate-General for Scotland should be able to make a reference to the High Court of Justiciary or a relevant appeal court, which is the Scottish court, on a matter of legislation. I refer to Taylor Clark Leisure plc v the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue in 2015.
New Section 6C provides that each UK law officer and devolved law officer is entitled to notice of proceedings. The Lord Advocate’s power to intervene is limited to where the argument relates to the meaning or effect of relevant Scottish legislation. There is no corresponding restraint on the powers of any UK law officer to either the law of England and Wales or to the law on reserved matters. Again, I question whether it is appropriate that any UK law officer other than the Advocate-General for Scotland will be able to intervene on a matter of Scottish legislation before the High Court of Justiciary or a relevant court of appeal, which is the Scottish court. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify those points.
On Amendment 81, Clause 7(3) as currently drafted introduces a new subsection (5) into Section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act requiring the judiciary in a higher court—that is, the UK Supreme Court, the High Court of Justiciary and a relevant appeal court, as defined in Clause 7(6)—to have regard to certain factors when deciding whether to depart from any retained EU case law. It is the view of the Law Society of Scotland, and I share that view, that the courts must be able to exercise discretion when deciding such matters, and that a statutory obligation to consider these matters is an unjustifiable intrusion on judicial independence. I therefore hope the Minister and the Government will accept leaving out “must” and replacing it with “may” in Clause 7 in that regard.
Amendment 82 would delete new subsection (5)(a) that Clause 7 currently inserts into Section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Again, as currently drafted, Clause 7(3) introduces a new subsection (5) into Section 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act requiring the judiciary in a higher court—that is, the UK Supreme Court, the High Court of Justiciary and a relevant appeal court, as defined in Clause 7(6)—to have regard to certain factors in deciding whether to depart from any retained EU case law. One of those factors is contained in new subsection (5)(a):
“the fact that decisions of a foreign court are not (unless otherwise provided) binding”.
In the view of the Law Society of Scotland, judges are well aware that decisions of foreign courts are not, unless otherwise provided, binding. Therefore, in the society’s view, and I share that view, it is unnecessary to prescribe that the judiciary take the matter into account, and I recommend on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland that this provision be deleted from Clause 7.
Amendment 84 would delete “proper”. The reason for that is that the courts must be able to exercise discretion in deciding such matters as set out in Clause 7(3) when deciding to have regard to certain factors to depart from any retained EU case law. Creating a statutory obligation on the courts to consider how retained EU law constrains the proper development of domestic law imposes an unachievable objective on the judiciary by requiring judges to assess what the development of the law might be and to determine whether that development will be “proper”. That is essentially a matter of policy, which is the province of government rather than the judiciary.
I would like to briefly refer to the points raised in Amendments 95 to 99 in this group from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as well as Amendment 99A, which go to the heart of the role and function of the Lord Advocate and the particular arrangement that pertains to what Scots law should be in this regard. I omitted Amendment 94, which, again, is a consequential and probing amendment seeking to delete new Section 6B. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords who will speak to amendments in the group, but with those few remarks, I beg to move Amendment 81.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I agree with what has just been said by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I speak only with reference to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, of which I was a member for about nine years. We regularly considered cases from all over the world—the High Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of the United States, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, or any court that had similar law to the law of England and Wales. We considered them, but none of them was, or is today, binding. It is absolutely unnecessary to put this in, and I have to say I find it offensive to judges who have treated these cases in the way I have just explained for many years. I was on the Bench for 35 years, and I looked at these cases many times. I would be offended to be told I could not apply them as part of English law, because I knew that from my childhood, for goodness’ sake.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am going to speak briefly about Amendments 83, 84, 87, 87A and 87B. I do so as a jobbing barrister, with some diffidence, because I note that the noble and learned Lords who have put their names to these amendments have not yet spoken. Indeed, I do not think they are in the Chamber. I am against the provisions in the Bill, and I am going to outline my reasons.
When drafting legislation, we need to ensure clarity. Laws need to be clear, unambiguous and capable of being understood by members of the public, otherwise compliance is impossible. Furthermore, to ensure justice, advisers need a degree of certainty and predictability as to what the law is or is likely to be when they have to advise on it, otherwise, as I say, justice will not happen. When one applies those criteria to the provisions in the Bill, one becomes profoundly uneasy. The phrase found in new paragraph (b) in Clause 7(3), “any changes of circumstances”, is astonishingly broad. It would apply to any change of circumstance without any regard to degree or nature.
The same sort of criticism applies to new paragraph (c), on
“the extent to which the retained EU case law restricts the proper development of domestic law.”
But what do we mean by “proper development” of domestic law? Who is to judge what is proper? Are we to contemplate judge-made or statute law, which are extraordinarily different? Does this concept not drag judges into political and perhaps partisan areas? A determination by a judge on what the law ought to be is, in many senses, to intrude into a political decision that judges would be well advised to avoid.
Precisely the same criticisms apply to the word “influenced” in new paragraph (a) in Clause 7(4), to which Amendment 87 applies. They also apply to the phrase “would depart”, to which Amendment 87A applies. Giving practical interpretation or advice on the meaning of these words is almost impossible, which inevitably impacts on compliance by individuals and the doing of justice by the courts. For the reasons that I have briefly outlined, these proposed provisions, as presently incorporated in the Bill, are profoundly objectionable and should not feature in this legislation—but, in conclusion, I say that this applies to the entirety of the Bill.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, as a result of the lack of time to address the amendments to Clause 7 last Thursday, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, are not able to speak to the amendments to Clause 7 in their names. As your Lordships will see, I have been asked to do so on their behalf. These are Amendments 83, 87, 87A, 87B, 90, 91 and 93. I will also support Amendments 85 and 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. A number of these amendments are quite technical so, rather than weary the House with detailed observations on each of them, I will take a broad approach, in the hope that the Minister will permit a meeting when the others can be elaborated further.
Broadly speaking, the amendments fall into two parts, the first of which comprises amendments to the provisions in Clause 7(3) and (4), about the circumstances in which the court may depart from retained EU case law and retained domestic case law—these are Amendments 83 to 89. The second group concerns the procedure on references of points of law arising from retained law in lower courts or tribunals—this is in Clause 7(8). Like many of the earlier provisions of the Bill that were discussed, the issue of legal certainty runs through the first group of amendments. They either involve removing provisions that create uncertainty, or invite the insertion of new provisions to bolster certainty and predictability. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to one of the most egregious of these tests: that of
“any changes of circumstances which are relevant to the retained EU … law”—
this is in Clause 7(3), which inserts new Section 6(5)(b) into the 2018 Act. I also cite another test:
“any changes of circumstances which are relevant to the retained domestic case law”—
this is in Clause 7(4), which inserts new Section 6(5ZA)(b) into the 2018 Act. These are too wide, too uncertain and, above all, subjective.
Looking at the issue from a slightly different perspective from those that have been debated in the past, I will concentrate, in broad terms, on the position of UK plc. Legal certainty is critical to the position of the courts of this country as one of the most important litigation centres in the world. The United Kingdom attracts international disputes of huge value and complexity because of the intellectual standard of the judges in our higher courts, the absence of corruption in the judiciary and, critically, the predictability and certainty of our legal principles.
This is true not only of general business cases but of particular specialist areas, such as intellectual property. These cases contribute very large amounts to our GDP through the engagement of lawyers, bankers, accountants, experts and other relevant disciplines. In its report, published on 7 December 2022, TheCityUK stated:
“Legal services contributed £30.7 billion to the UK economy in 2021”,
posting a trade surplus of £5.4 billion, and:
“Parties from 75 countries used the Commercial Courts in 2021/22”.
It continued:
“The UK is the largest legal services market in Europe (valued at £41 billion in 2021) and is second only to the US globally.”
Unpredictability and uncertainty in the law and dispute resolution put this pre-eminence at risk. As a country, we cannot afford to allow that to happen.
In large international cases, the claimants usually have a choice of places in which to litigate. The idea that existing law can be departed from because of any changes in circumstances which the court may consider relevant—which could include, for example, the political manifesto or aspirations of the Government of the day or some new government policy—would greatly undermine the attractiveness of this jurisdiction.
I will illustrate this briefly by reference to what, in the case of many major businesses, is one of their most important assets: their intellectual property. Our trademark law is derived entirely from EU law. Our Trade Marks Act 1994 gives effect to an EU directive. Since its enactment, the case law has been determined partly by EU case law, especially where there has been a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union or an appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union from the EU Intellectual Property Office, and partly by our domestic law in interpreting and applying the 1994 Act. In fact, there is a huge body of EU law relevant to trademarks; it therefore falls squarely within Clause 7 of the Bill and the amendments to the 2018 Act introducing the “any change of circumstances” test.
Large international companies, such as Sony, Nokia, Eli Lilly or Pfizer, to name but a few, which conduct their business in many countries across the world, generally have a choice as to the country in which they wish to bring their proceedings. Although, strictly speaking, each country can only make decisions limited to its territorial boundaries, a decision in any one of the major IP litigation centres, such as France, Germany, the Netherlands or the United Kingdom, will be accepted as determinative everywhere. The fact is that, if there is a broad, unlimited “change of circumstances” principle for departing from the existing law, one of the parties to the litigation will almost always invoke it. If they do so, and do so successfully, there is absolutely no certainty as to what would replace the existing law. All this would fatally undermine the certainty of our law and be a huge disincentive to litigating in this country when another is available.
The same is equally true of design law and registered designs. In this country, that law, set out in the Registered Designs Act 1949, has been substantially rewritten, particularly in relation to what is a registrable design, to give effect to an EU directive. This is also true of large parts of our law relating to copyright. The word “influenced” in the proposed new Section 6(5ZA)(a)—see Amendment 87—has been referred to earlier in today’s debates. It would, in some trademark, design and copyright cases, be difficult now to disentangle which parts of the law have been influenced by EU law and which are purely domestic in origin.
In the area of patent law, the same position applies in relation to supplementary protection certificates, which operate to extend the patent in certain circumstances. Litigation in these areas of the law can be of huge value and economic significance.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The Committee will be aware that I am not a fan of this Bill because it marginalises Parliament. Therefore, I was pleased to be able to put my name to and speak to the group of amendments beginning with Amendment 32, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and also spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane.
I have to say, as I said the other evening, that I sometimes find that we seem to be facing in all directions. I mentioned before about how one group of people were concerned to get clarity as soon as possible and therefore wanted to foreshorten the sunset clause. There were others who wanted to have time for consultation to bring people along and therefore lengthen the sunset clause. I never quite heard a serious reconciliation of those points of view.
I have to say that on this group of amendments, I have the same concern. I recognise that I am putting my head into not one legal lion’s mouth but several simultaneously, and I do so with due care, not being a lawyer. First, I note the emphasis on the importance attributed to certainty, clarity and predictability. That comes up in Amendment 85, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. It is referred to again in Amendments 86, 88 and 89. I get that: even I, as a non-lawyer, can see that certainty, clarity and predictability are quite important.
Then I look at some of the other amendments—Amendments 81, 90 and 92—and I see that we are changing “must” to “may”. As a non-lawyer, I feel that “must” to “may” does not increase predictability and clarity. Then, in Amendment 91, we have
“ought to be considered at that time”.
That seems to me, from the point of view of clarity and predictability, to run in completely the opposite direction. Where we had, in paragraph 4, on page 7, “a court must”, it is now “a court may”, and to the end of that is added
“and ought to be considered at that time”.
I am happy to be corrected because I am not a lawyer, but as a non-lawyer this seems to me to be running in both directions, and not to have the sort of clarity, predictability and certainty that I can quite understand. It seems to muddy waters that a previous series of amendments had sought to clarify.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 85 and 88, as a co-signatory of both those amendments, led by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who unfortunately cannot be here today. He has been kind enough to share his thinking with me.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
And his notes, indeed, although any use I make of them is entirely down to me.
I want to start by reflecting that in the last group, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is no longer in his place, rather airily dismissed a question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who was seeking to find out what “domestic principles of interpretation” means. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, “Oh, it is quite clear: the courts know what ‘domestic principles of interpretation’ means”. Fine, we rely on the courts, as we do. I think it is an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson: the courts know what they are doing, so if we use the word “may”, that is predictability, because the courts generally follow precedent and know what they are doing. If we tell them they “must” do something, that actually constrains them in a rather awkward and unpredictable way. That is my understanding, anyway. I found the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, masterful.
The Minister told us in discussing the last group that the courts know what they are doing, but in Clause 7 they are told what to do by the Government. As I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said, the drafting appeared to lack any litigation or judicial experience. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out—I cannot remember her exact words, but I interpret what she said—that she found it rather impertinent of the Government. I may be over-reading what I heard, but the courts know what they are doing and the Government come along and are prescriptive about what they are allowed to do. Arguably, Clause 7 is unnecessary, but the amendments seek at least to improve it. By the way, I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for pointing out that the amendments to Clause 7 are pretty complicated and convoluted, and it might have been better just to provide an alternative text to substitute a new Section 6 of the EU withdrawal Act, rather than making pages of amendments.
The fact is that the higher appeal courts are already not bound by retained EU case law and can depart from it if it is right to do so. This test is well established, having been set out in the House of Lords Practice Statement in 1966. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said, the Court of Appeal comprehensively considered the power to depart from retained EU case law in the case of TuneIn Inc v Warner Music UK. It considered various factors but decided not to depart from retained EU case law. You would get another impression from government explanations and commentary.
The courts in this case, and in other scenarios, have made comprehensive analyses and have given balanced reasons why and when the courts should or should not overturn settled case law. One of the things cited in that Court of Appeal case was the need to balance the need not to
“unduly restrict the proper development of the law”
with
“too rigid adherence to precedent.”
They are conducting that balancing exercise, but they drew particular attention to the special need for certainty in the law. Therefore, they gave legal certainty a particular value which must not be overlooked.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I am listening carefully to what the noble Baroness is saying, but it has nothing to do with “predictable”. Everything she is saying about the way the law works is unpredictable because it depends on how the courts interpret it at the time. The idea that we are putting the emphasis on predictability in these amendments seems to me to be inaccurate.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I trust the courts; clearly, the noble Lord does not. I believe that the courts do know what they are doing, and that we have an extremely experienced and valuable judiciary. That is why, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, pointed out, lots of people come here to use the UK courts, particularly in London. The Government do not seem to have given any consideration to the fact that they are undermining the extremely valuable legal services that London sells to the world. They did not give consideration to service industries during Brexit generally, but this one brings in a lot of money for the UK economy and is being totally undermined, not least by this Bill.
Legal certainty was given a particular value by the Court of Appeal, but the Bill overlooks it, as many noble Lords have said, and detracts from the courts’ ability to do their job. In the notes from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, pointed out, I do have—he points out that Amendments 85 and 88 in his name are very moderate. Amendment 85 leaves intact the power of the courts to depart from retained EU case law, and Amendment 88 would retain domestic case law. They even leave intact the three factors the Government wish them to have regard to. The noble Lord says that he is persuaded, having seen Amendments 83, 84 and 87, that those factors—if they are to be kept—really need to be amended, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope, Lord Judge and Lord Thomas. The factors specified in the clause at present each militate in favour of departing from existing law. It seems to have been concluded that the judges require a powerful shove in the direction of the unknown. That is another seam of this Bill: we are jumping off a cliff edge and into a void.
All this is the antithesis, as has been said several times—the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who was interrupted at one point by the Government Front Bench, said how un-Conservative this Bill is. It requires leaps into voids and unknowns and off cliffs—
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right about the leap into the unknown. Does this not emphasise the point that members of the public cannot understand what the law is? That prejudices compliance and the ability of advisers to give good advice.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The noble Viscount is absolutely right, and I agreed with every word of his earlier contribution.
What the amendments do, instead having of a one-way impetus to the judges, is to introduce some balance to the exercise. Both these amendments would introduce two factors—they are repeated for the two scenarios—which might incline the judge in favour of caution:
“the consequences of disturbing a settled understanding of the law”
and
“the importance of legal certainty, clarity and predictability”.
The amendments give the judges more space for their judgment, which is—I am quoting the notes of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—“after all what judges are for”. What is the point of having judges if all they have to do is read the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill? Good luck with that.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, says of the quotation and reference in the Explanatory Notes to the Court of Appeal case of TuneIn Inc v Warner Music Ltd that “this, I am afraid, is disingenuous and I do hope the Minister will not repeat it from the Dispatch Box”. I am looking at the Minister—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy—and hoping that he does not do that, because TuneIn was a case in which the Court of Appeal decided not to depart from the jurisprudence of the CJEU for a number of reasons which were carefully enumerated. One decisive factor was that to
“return to the drawing board and start all over again … would create considerable legal uncertainty”.
So, the judges are stressing continuity, predictability, being able to weigh up factors and not being constrained. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, with respect, that he has got this wrong: if you say that the judges must do something and allow them to take into account only certain factors, it does not allow them to exercise their training and judgment. That is what we pay them for: to continue the law to provide the predictability that we need.
I finish by conveying that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, wanted to register his strong support for Amendments 90 to 93 in the names of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope, Lord Judge and Lord Thomas. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said: “They know a thing or two about the pressures of business in the highest courts, and this Bill is going to create a tsunami of business for lawyers. A sturdy floodgate is needed if those courts are not to be swamped, and these amendments provide one.” I respectfully recommend these amendments to the Committee.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships may have noticed that there is a rather cruder amendment in my name towards the end of this group: Amendment 99A. I am not a lawyer, but much of my life in politics and trade unionism and as a consumer champion has been defined by decisions of the British courts—some of the most important of which have been influenced by European law or by the judgments of the European courts. The advances we have made on equalities, employment rights, a number of consumer items and the environment, and indeed on issues such as intellectual property and digital protection and so forth, have been in large part—not entirely; I will not overstate the case—affected by European law, now called retained EU law, or the European courts’ own judgments which have been followed by the British courts.
In the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—he is not here at the moment; I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy—and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that the courts will go on interpreting cases as they have done from time immemorial. However, from time immemorial, the courts have interpreted the law on the basis of what is on the statute book at that time. They continue to do so until that law is changed by this Parliament. The implications of parts of Clause 7 are that that will no longer be the case; that the courts will need to have less regard to the types of cases that arose because they were influenced, at least in part, by European law; and that European decisions will not need to be held in the same regard in future. That is the purpose of Clause 7, which is why my amendment would delete it.
I largely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that it could be rewritten—we do need some guidance on case law—but this is taking it in entirely the wrong direction and destabilising what has, from time immemorial, been the basic role of the British courts in interpreting legislation. If the Government and Parliament change the law, that changes it; some of those cases no longer have the same effect as they do at the moment. However, if we take Clause 7 as it stands, we are undermining a number of improvements in the conditions of our people and, at the same time, undermining the credibility, consistency and historical role of our courts. I therefore suggest to the Government that they should remove this clause. If the Bill proceeds—noble Lords know that I am not in favour of it—the Government could come back with a rather more sensible Clause 7. However, as it presently stands, it is one that we ought to oppose root and branch.
The role of our legal system is being undermined by a political doctrine that has yet to find its way into the legislation and the statutory law of our land. That is a dangerous road that we should not go down; I therefore suggest that we remove Clause 7 and think again.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have no legal training, so I going to rely on noble and learned Lords to tell me whether I have understood this whole section properly. It seems a bit odd.
In contrast to the first clauses of this Bill, which have been designed by the Government to take power away from Parliament—all the decision-making process and scrutiny—Clause 7 seems designed to outsource the task of making sense of the huge legal mess in the Bill. It is wrong on many levels but, in particular, it calls on judges to make political decisions that Parliament ought to take instead. The Bill is potentially going to create a huge legal mess; it does not seem fair for the Government to outsource this issue. That is worrying enough on its own, but it is all the more worrying because of the way in which this Government have demonised lawyers and judges over the past two or three years. They have been scapegoated at every twist and turn of the Brexit process. It has been a nightmare to see people who clearly have our best interests at heart being demonised in this way.
Clause 7 seems to have a very specific purpose. Forgive me if my language is oversimplified but, quite honestly, the Government are making a huge legal mess and are going to ask other people—judges, lawyers and the courts—to sort it out for them so that those people will take the blame when it all falls apart. Can the Minister explain whether I have understood it properly?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I have been looking forward to this group of amendments because I thought that this might be the moment when we got to the nuts and bolts of how this is all going to work. It is a real pleasure to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, in his place for this group. We welcome him and hope that he can provide some clarity on the Government’s intentions here. I have tabled a couple of amendments but all the amendments in this group attempt a similar thing, which is to neuter Clause 7 to some extent and, should Clause 7 persist, to balance out some of the instruction to courts.
There are some very helpful amendments, particularly those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, which have been referred to by others. What troubles me most about this is that we are endangering the legal certainty, clarity and predictability that are so important. The problem is that retained law will now be reinterpreted. Law can now be given a fresh interpretation so that laws which are still in force as of 31 December 2023 might mean something different from what they meant when they were passed and from how courts have interpreted them if they have been considered by the courts previously. They will mean something else after the end of this year.
From the citizen’s point of view, a major requirement of law is that they know what the law means. If we pass this Bill, that requirement no longer applies to this section of law—in respect of huge swathes of important regulations, from environment and employment to product safety and consumer protections. I will not go into all the examples that we have been talking about on previous days, but the Minister will know what I am trying to get across to him. We just do not know what the effect of this will be. It is impossible to tell from the Bill as it is drafted. The Government cannot possibly know either. They cannot know today, when they are asking us to consider this legislation, the effect that applying different canons of construction will have on thousands of pages of regulation. No Government could think that the best way to remove EU law is to replace it with law the meaning of which is yet unknown. That was my understanding of this, and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who took time yesterday to talk to me about this, to ensure that I was getting this right. This is the situation as he sees it as well. It is quite extraordinary.
I note the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the coherence of civil law, which no one else has referred to. I had not considered this before listening to her speech. She made an important point there. Her points about Clause 7 in relation to the operation in Scotland are also important and it would be very useful if the Minister could respond to those specifically.
We have had some great experience brought to this group, not least by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It would be wise of the Minister to respect that contribution, which I am sure he will. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, asked: who will judge what is proper? This gets to the heart of this clause and why we are concerned about it. Who will decide, and by what criteria? Clause 7(4) says:
“A higher court may depart from its own retained domestic case law if it considers it right to do so having regard to”,
before going on to list other things.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. I will start with some general comments and observations on Clause 7 and thereby deal also with Amendment 99A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which would remove Clause 7 altogether.
In short, Clause 7 gives higher UK courts greater flexibility to depart from retained EU case law than is currently the case. I emphasise first that we are talking about appeal decisions. First-instance courts continue to be bound and that is an important part of any answer to the points raised about legal certainty. Currently, the Supreme Court or the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, and other higher courts, must apply the same tests that they would apply if departing from their own previous case law.
Clause 7 lowers the bar somewhat. It provides that, in deciding whether to depart, the court must have regard to, among other things, the principle that decisions of a foreign court are not, generally speaking, binding in UK courts; any change of circumstances relevant; and the extent to which retained EU case law restricts the proper development of domestic law. I will come to the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and to the questions of change of circumstances and the word “proper”, in a moment.
That is a lower bar than is currently the case. It does not necessarily imply a cliff edge or any floodgates; it is looking ahead. We do not know what circumstances will arise as the next 20 or 30 years pass, how things will change and whether existing retained EU case law should be followed. The clause essentially says that it is for the higher UK courts to determine how that case law should develop and that it is not the case that previous EU case law can be changed only if the ECJ says yes. Without such a mechanism it is difficult to credibly say that one has withdrawn from the EU, so, in the Government’s view, some such mechanism is needed.
That is the first and general point. The second is that much, but not all, retained EU law is highly influenced by a context that is no longer relevant to the UK: for example, the need to promote among the 27—previously 28—member states the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, and to protect the single market. All of that is reflected in the case law. There is also the common agricultural policy; the quite different institutional structures of the EU, notably the role of the Commission; the, if I may say so, laconic nature of much EU legislation; and the inevitable challenge of finding a common denominator among so many different legal traditions, languages and national backgrounds while, internally, working entirely in French.
One can pay the highest tribute to the way that the CJEU has navigated these difficulties over the years, and I readily do. But it does not follow that case law developed in those circumstances is necessarily suitable for the UK in the future, particularly in a fast-changing world with such things as the digital economy, artificial intelligence, climate change, genetic science, data protection and so forth. These present novel challenges all the time. In the Government’s view, the UK’s higher courts should be fully equipped to deal with them without being constrained by EU jurisprudence if they feel that they should depart therefrom.
Thirdly, if your Lordships will forgive me saying so, we have in this country a pearl beyond price: the common law. It has nurtured and protected us for centuries and has successfully taken root all over the world. By some measures, it is the world’s most widely used legal system. I was asked whether I would refer to the Warner Music case, which is referred to in the Explanatory Notes. The only reference I will make to that case is that made by the Master of the Rolls, the right honourable Sir Geoffrey Vos, who observed that the CJEU is “very far” from being a common law court. In other words, it is a quite different animal from the courts that we traditionally have in this country. We could spend much time philosophising but, in my humble experience, the continental legal tradition places emphasis on identifying abstract legal principles from which a solution may be deduced, while the common law starts from the other end, as it were, with the facts of a particular case and how those facts relate to other decided cases and the legislation in question. The art of distinguishing cases and building a legal system via a mosaic of interrelated cases has been perfected over the centuries by the judges of this country and other common law jurisdictions.
A very experienced solicitor working in a deprived part of north London said to me, when he heard that I had some previous association with the EU, “Don’t let them weaken the common law.” The common law is a people’s law. It comes up from the bottom; it does not come down from the top. In the Government’s view, it is very important that we never underestimate, underplay or weaken the great common law tradition that we have in this country.
That forms an essential part of the background to this clause, which is essentially to enable our judges to use the best of the common law traditions to take us forward. The Government are not saying that any one approach is better than another, only that the common law is in our DNA. Clause 7 will reinforce the common law tradition and allow it to flourish.
That being the essential rationale, I turn to the various amendments suggested to modify the new tests as set out in the Bill. I will first comment on the theme of legal certainty. The common law, as it has developed, has always been fully aware of the need to preserve legal certainty, but that has not inhibited the proper development of the law as the needs arise—I will come to that in a moment. It is always a question of balance. If one bakes in or gives priority to legal certainty one would never change anything. Legal certainty will of course remain an important circumstance, as it was in the Warner Music case—no doubt judges will have regard to it; it will be up to them—but we cannot say that legal certainty means that we have to slavishly follow old EU jurisprudence until the cows come home just because of legal certainty. We have to find a balance. That is one factor among others, but not necessarily a dominant factor.
I turn to the specific amendments. Amendment 81 was moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I am not completely sure that we have in this group all the amendments to which she originally referred in her speech, but we will sort that out through the usual channels, if we may. Amendment 81 would reduce the “must” have regard to “may” have regard. In the Government’s view, this would again tend to bake in the existing situation and enable the courts to ignore changes of circumstances, and to not allow or to continue in a state of undue deference to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
I say “undue”, by which I mean that some deference is clearly highly necessary. In particular, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said, parts of our law where the statute is essentially an EU creation may well be different situations from other parts of the law. I agree, although I am bound to say, on the legal certainty and accessibility of case law to the general public points, that I very much doubt whether any member of the public, having fought through the 25 often conflicting decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the question of communication to the public, which is the subject matter of the Warner Music case, would be much the wiser when it came to working out what the law was. However, that is another matter.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
It also clearly extends to statute-based law. Is that not a case for bringing the courts into expressing a view as to what is essentially the function of Parliament?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the courts are always astute. They sort of intuitively know where they have to stop and where Parliament has to take over. That is a process that has been honed and refined for the past 100 years at least, but it does not prevent the courts moulding, refining and developing the common law. There comes a point where you cannot go further, but quite often in a court you can, especially when you have existing jurisprudence. It is quite early on in the development of a new technology. In the Warner case, we were talking about hyperlinks, graphic interfaces and all sorts of high-technology things with which I am sure your Lordships are extremely familiar, but it is a new area of law, and the courts, generally speaking, work with that until they find that they have gone as far as they can as a court and then Parliament takes over. With respect, I would not completely accept the observation of my noble friend Lord Hailsham that this is usurping Parliament.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I think I understand the Minister’s argument about “proper” in new paragraph (c) in Clause 7(3), but is the wording of this not prejudicial because it assumes that retained EU law restricts the proper development of domestic law? It does not say that the court should consider whether and to what extent retained EU law restricts the proper development of domestic law. It says that it should consider the extent to which it does, assuming that it does. Would it not be better to go for non-prejudicial language, as well as, I hope, including the balancing language in Amendments 83, 85 and 88?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
As far as I know, this is not intended to be prejudicial, but it presupposes a case where there is a tenable argument and it is put to the court that a retained EU law has that effect. Then the court will decide whether it does and what would be the proper development going forward. Taking that intervention on the hoof as it were, I am not sure at first sight that one is convinced that it would be better to change the wording. Let me reflect further.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am looking at the same clause as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. He asked about new subsection (5) (c). I shall ask the Minister about new subsection (5ZA)(a), in which the courts are being asked to consider
“the extent to which the retained domestic case law is determined or influenced by retained EU case law from which the court has departed or would depart.”
If we are not encouraging courts to depart, why would we be asking them to consider the extent? That seems to raise a question, given what the Minister has just said.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
If I may say so to the noble Baroness, I think this is just a drafting point. The extent may well be nil. There is no particular reason to suppose that the retained EU case law in a particular case is restricting the proper development of domestic law. That was the situation, as it turned out, in the Warner music case, although at least one learned justice in that case very pointedly left open the possibility of further developments in a fast-moving technology.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I was not referring to the proper development of domestic law on this occasion. At the top of page 6, we seem to be asking courts to consider the extent to which EU case law “determined or influenced” in and of itself rather than about the “proper development” which is in new subjection (5)(c). I wonder whether that is, to use the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, prejudicial or leading the court.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I think I can take it not much further than the answer that I have just given—that the extent may well turn out to be nil.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
But why are we asking courts to ask themselves that question?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The answer is that the courts will not raise these questions of their own motion. These points will be raised by a party to the proceedings. Then the party to the proceedings will argue that this retained domestic law is influenced by EU case law and is now having—or may have in five or 10 years’ time—a restrictive effect that is holding up the common law. Those are the kinds of circumstances that it envisages, I think.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think the Minister was about to sit down, but he kindly invited me to respond so I will. I think that is the problem. He must surely understand that we anticipate this leading to an enormous amount of uncertainty—if that alone is something a party in the court is able to point judges towards and say that, because the case law came from the EU, in and of itself that is a reason to ask for a decision to be made in a different way.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Respectfully, as I said a moment ago, I do not accept that this will lead to a great deal of uncertainty. It is binding on the courts of first instance. No one is going to take this to appeal unless there is a real point to be argued. If there is a real point to be argued, it is right that that our courts of appeal and higher courts should consider that point.
Perhaps we have had sufficient exchanges on this topic and I ought to move on as best I can. Finding my place in the notes, I think I have not answered the concerns raised about what we mean by “changes of circumstances” and how we manage that. Again, this is a matter that the common-law courts are very well equipped to deal with and they can decide for themselves whether there has been any relevant change of circumstances or, in particular, whether the change of circumstance is relevant.
I would not have thought that a change of government or a change in the political wind is a relevant change of circumstance. What you need is some circumstance that makes it either difficult to operate, or less than ideal to be bound by, a particular judgment of the European Court of Justice that may have been made many years ago. It may now be completely out of date or may have failed to take account of various factors that the court feels should be taken account of. Very often in a common-law system, when you look at a case and at previous decisions, you see that the particular point had not in fact been decided and you are therefore free to decide it yourself. That is much more difficult to do in a European system, which purports to lay down perfectly general principles.
If I may trespass on your Lordships’ kindness for a moment, it is often quite interesting to look at the summary of a European Court judgment, which in English terms would be referred to as the “headnote” of the case. It extracts principles from the judgment. The equivalent headnote in an English case says: these are the facts, and this is what the decision was on these facts. That encapsulates a difference of approach, thought and philosophy as to how you develop the legal system.
As I said a moment ago, I am not saying that it is better or worse; it is just different. Historically, we in this country belong to a huge family across the world that uses this technique, whether in the United States, Canada, Australia, India—very prominently—or otherwise. The Government are simply saying that we should not forget that we have a great legal tradition and we do not have to, as it were, slavishly follow the latest emanation from those very hard-working, very able, but not necessarily relevant to us, judgments and judges in Luxembourg.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I have listened very carefully, and there is a fundamental flaw in my noble friend’s argument as it relates to Scotland. Scotland has a mixed legal system. I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates. I chose to go and practise EU law because every reference was either passed down to London or you could practise EU law in Brussels; there were very few opportunities to practise at the Scottish Bar. But my noble friend must accept that the Scottish system—which, I would hazard a guess, has many advantages over the English system—is based on Roman law. It is based on a system of codified law, and what distinguishes it fundamentally from what he has just described about the common-law system is that it is a mixed legal system. I wonder whether he would like to address this in his remarks, given the comments that I made in relation to the amendments that I spoke to—Amendments 81, 82, 84 and 94—and mindful of the fact that I am approaching this from a mixed civil and common-law system.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for that intervention, and I stand corrected. She is completely right that Scotland is a mixed system, although I venture to suggest much influenced—if I may use that controversial word for a moment—by the common law. As I said a moment ago, Scottish judges have been, frankly, the best common lawyers anyone has ever known. They happen all to be called Reid but that is a coincidence.
Of course, I accept the comment, although I beg to differ as to whether any different conclusion follows. Essentially, the “may”, “must” and other amendments that the noble Baroness has proposed are independent of the exact legal approach one is talking about. It may well be that, in a Scottish situation, there would be a greater willingness not to disturb retained case law than in an English situation. I do not know; maybe these things will come up to the Supreme Court and someone will say “That is what we are going to do”. Maybe the Scottish tradition will prevail; that is perfectly likely. With respect, the Government do not feel that that changes the general thrust of Clause 7.
That was changes of circumstances. The next question is on this word “influence”—whether it has been influenced or determined by European law. I think “influenced” is included simply to give a sufficient degree of flexibility and to avoid deciding what might be quite a difficult point: whether European law was in fact determinative of a particular point or just part of the general context. Very often, it is part of the general context and the influence of the European element on the final outcome.
On that point—I am not sure we picked it up entirely; I may be speaking out of turn—I shall, if I may, at least attempt a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on the question of principles of interpretation. I think it is relevant to the influence point. It arises in the context of legislation. Many here will know better than me, but the essential difference, as I understand it, is that traditional common law, including the Scottish approach, is a highly textual interpretation: what the meaning of the words is. The European Court’s general approach is a teleological interpretation of the general idea of where the statute is going. Very often, because of the laconic and sometimes completely deficient nature of European legislation, that court is much more prepared to fill in the gaps in the legislation than an English court would be. It is along those general lines; I am sure we can elaborate further as necessary later in these proceedings. So that is the influence point.
I think I have dealt with adding in the factors of settled understanding, legal certainty and so forth. The Government do not support that approach because it would simply bake in the status quo; that is the Government’s essential position. Legal certainty is inevitably something the courts will consider. They considered it in the Warner Music case because they were dealing with an international treaty and there was a desire not to disturb the law—albeit that the law was a right old muddle, as far as one can see, if I may put it colloquially just for a moment. In that case, it was not actually very seriously argued that we should depart from EU law; it was a perfunctory argument that took place in a few minutes at the end of the day, so it was a bit of a non-event.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I apologise if I am interrupting the Minister before he has finished; I think he is replying to Amendments 85 and 88, although he did not specifically refer to them. He dismisses the need for the factors introduced in those amendments because he says the courts can have regard to them anyway. Why have the Government prescribed several elements themselves if the courts can have regard to them? Our whole argument is that the courts can have regard to factors they want to have regard to. The impetus behind Amendments 85 and 88 was that the Government were being partial and pushing in a certain direction for the three elements they will allow the courts to consider—the argument for adding the extra elements, the consequences of disturbing the settled understanding of the law and the importance of legal certainty, clarity and predictability—and to try to re-establish the balance that the authors of the amendments felt was lacking.
If I may say so, I find the Minister’s reply so far extremely puzzling. He has, correctly, given a paean of praise to our courts and the common law, saying that they have perfected the art of creating this mosaic—
Lord Harlech (Con)
I ask the noble Baroness to put her question to the Minister.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Yes, I am getting to it. I want an explanation. I said the Minister’s reply was “puzzling” but, if I may say so, I want to say “contradictory” and “does not add up”. I want to press the Minister to clarify what he has said. I find it really quite irritating that Ministers keep interrupting us when we are trying to say something. The fact is that the Minister has praised our common-law courts and said they have not been inhibited in the proper development of the law and so on, but now he wants—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True)
My Lords, at the previous stage I reminded the House, I thought courteously, of chapter 4.29 of the Companion, where it is made perfectly clear that lengthy and frequent interventions are not desirable, whether or not the Minister accepts them. This is Committee. The noble Baroness can return with a reasoned response to what the Minister has said, but I think it is to the advantage of the House generally in our debates to hear the Minister’s arguments and then respond in a proper Committee manner. If I may, the noble Baroness’s intervention seemed to me to be getting into the category of “lengthy”.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Before the Leader of the House sits down, perhaps he could just clarify that point. I have always understood that Committee stage in this House is about having a conversation so that the House as a whole can understand the nature of the arguments. With all due respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, with whom I often disagree, I think she is trying to get some elucidation, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bellamy, will answer fully in a moment.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True)
I say to the noble Lord that the answer is precisely so; it is a conversation, but that conversation is conducted politely one to another. It is perfectly correct and reasonable for the House to ask a question for elucidation in the course of a Minister’s remarks, but a lengthier intervention criticising the Minister’s argument follows naturally in the Committee conversation afterwards.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
If I may be permitted to finish, I have now had three interventions from the Government Front Bench, which of course have lengthened this intervention. I ask the Minister please to explain how his paean of praise to our courts and their ability to develop the common law without inhibition accords with the constraints and straitjackets the Bill is putting on the courts he is praising.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s position is that this is not a straitjacket. The courts are required to look at three things: the fact that the retained EU case law is made by a different court, whether there has been a relevant change of circumstances, and how the proper development of the common law should continue in future.
As to why we have not included other considerations—notably, legal certainty—the Government’s position, which noble Lords may or may not agree with but this is the explanation, is that once you write down the importance of legal certainty, that is potentially a recipe for passively doing nothing and continuing to be a rule taker for 20 years to come. That is not the consequence of withdrawing from the EU. The courts can continue to look at it, but that is the reason why the Government have drafted Clause 7 as it is.
I hope I have dealt with most of the issues raised about Clause 7 one way or another. There is the reference procedure, and noble Lords, and noble and learned Lords, have made the point that higher courts always have the discretion whether to take a case, and they should be able to decline it. I completely understand that point. The Government had thought that the ability of those superior courts—the higher courts or the Supreme Court—to decide whether what they were being asked to do was relevant and whether the point raised was of general public importance was sufficient protection and would enable them to decline to hear the case if that were so. I must say that the circumstances in which a lower court actually gets as far as making a reference and identifying a point of public importance that a superior court feels it should not hear seem to me, if I may say so, somewhat remote, but we can have another look at the drafting if there is a need for further reassurance. I cannot commit to changing it, but I can commit to looking at it and discussing it with the relevant persons.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister please reply to the point I made? The situation may be such, as we know from bitter experience, that you can identify an important point of law in a case but, unless it is dispositive of the whole of it, it will lead to further expense and time. That may apply equally to this point of law as to any other. There is no special feature regarding points of law relating to retained law, as opposed to points of law in any case.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
That might raise the question of whether indeed it was relevant. You could say, “That’s not relevant here because it’s not dispositive”, or “It’s only one point among several”. However, I say to the noble and learned Lord that the Government will have another look at this. There is no point in having provisions that are not satisfactory in this regard.
That takes me to the law officer reference and intervention powers. On the essential points made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh about the position of the Lord Advocate, I hope she will bear with me. My understanding of the exact position of the Lord Advocate is probably not as good as hers and that of other noble Lords in the Committee. Essentially, the law officer reference power provides another mechanism for resolving these various points, and it gives the UK law officers and the relevant officers of the devolved Governments a statutory right to be considered and so forth. It does not extend the Lord Advocate’s powers to anything outside the devolved competence of the Scottish Government, any more than it does for the Counsel General for Wales or the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. The Government’s view on this point is that the other law officers in the devolved Governments should be involved in matters that affect the devolved Governments and not matters that are retained UK law. That is the Government’s position.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
The Minister does not have to be sorry. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was only coughing.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am sorry. I am rather nervous when noble Lords come at me from all directions, especially the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
That is quite all right.
This is the logic of the approach. It is a cross-UK approach and not a Scotland-specific approach. It does not seem appropriate that the previous functions of the Lord Advocate, so far as they have been retained, should change.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am sorry. I was saying that this is a structure that gives the UK law officers power in relation to UK competence and the devolved Governments power in relation to their competence. That is the structure of it all.
Amendment 101, on the question of incompatibility orders, is described as a probing amendment. Again, this has precedence in other parts of the statute book. The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 has a similar power. If there is a point of incompatibility, the courts are given a power to manage that; it would probably mean deferring making an order for six months until the Government could fix it, as did the Court of Appeal in the Open Rights Group v The Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: we have found a problem, and we are going to give you time to come up with solution, whether it is legislative or otherwise. In that particular case, the power was said by the Court of Appeal to derive from EU powers, but this is giving the court power under domestic legislation. I hope it is a sensible process for making the compatibility mechanisms work properly if incompatibility is found, which is likely to be a fairly rare event. I hope I have covered most points, if not all.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for the skill with which he is trying to explain to a layman like me abstruse points of law. Could he give us a worked example, please? I was struck by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said about the potential cost to the country of a loss of clarity. Take his example of the copyright law of the United Kingdom, which, he said, was virtually exclusively based on EU law. What changes of circumstances do the Government envisage that the courts should be considering when they consider cases that are tried under the present British copyright law? The only change of circumstances I can think of is if the Government were to pass new legislation on copyright. I do not think that is the plan, but if they do not, what are the courts supposed to do? What change of circumstances would they have to consider?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, fortunately, I think I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for only one example, and so I will just give one because it is getting quite late. The example is changes in technology, which are moving very quickly. The Warner case, which has now been mentioned several times, was a case in which a radio station in the US put some music in a hyperlink on its website. Consumers in the UK could click on the link on that website, and the question was whether the UK copyright holders could get a royalty on that even though the UK user was accessing it in the United States—it does not matter if it is the United States, Taiwan or anywhere else. In that kind of area, the technology is moving very quickly. The existing EU decisions are not entirely consistent, and it can be easily envisaged that in some future situation, where some technology that we do not yet understand or know of has come into being, a UK court might take a different view and distinguish previous EU jurisprudence. That sort of situation is more than likely to happen at some stage.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it has been a lengthy and thorough debate, and I fear it has not gone quite as smoothly as my noble and learned friend the Minister would have wished. I am pleased he has conceded that Scots rule approaches this from a different angle. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has not been able to be present today, and I do not think my noble and learned friend has entirely answered the concerns of either the Royal Society of Scotland or the noble and learned Lord. In particular, my noble and learned friend has not addressed the question of why there is no corresponding restraint on the powers of any other UK law officer—for example, the England or Wales law officer—but only on the Scotland law officer. I would like to understand, perhaps at a meeting before Report, why that is the case. It is quite serious.
My noble and learned friend spoke at length about why retained EU law is historic now, but we are in a situation where court cases may arise. For example, the chemical industry here is going to be covered by the fledgling UK REACH programme, but the industry would also hope to export to the EU and so will have to meet the terms of the EU REACH programme. Does my noble and learned friend not accept that there will be cases that relate to this?
I fear that Clause 7 is an exam question seeking to show that, on appeal, there will be no reliance on retained EU law going forward. I think that was the wrong question to put, as has been adequately set out to such an extent that a distinguished former President of the Family Division, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said it is offensive to treat judges in this way, as did my noble friend Lord Hailsham, in slightly less graphic language.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for speaking to the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I believe that work is not complete on this chapter but, with the promise of a meeting before Report, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will move the Motion, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox, that Clause 10 do not stand part of the Bill. I am relying on the persuasive report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which points out that the powers in Clause 10 to amend retained direct EU legislation affect over 50% of retained EU law, because 50% is retained direct EU legislation. At present, much of this can be amended only by primary legislation or Henry VIII powers. So Clause 10 in fact downgrades the status of retained direct EU legislation.
The DPRRC quotes the delegated powers memorandum from the Government, which says that they are doing this so that such law
“can be amended by ordinary powers to amend secondary legislation”
to “save parliamentary time”. As the committee remarks, perhaps somewhat caustically,
“the argument based on saving parliamentary time is unpersuasive. It should be for Parliament to say what is the best use of its time.”
So it seems a little forward of the Government to make that assertion on behalf of Parliament.
However, as the committee points out, retained direct EU legislation
“has a special status because much of it is of considerable significance in policy terms”.
Therefore, it is necessary for Parliament to keep control of which elements of the law to keep, amend or repeal. The committee says:
“Clause 10 … is an unacceptable interference with the position in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that substantial policy changes should be for Parliament to decide in primary legislation rather than for Ministers to decide in secondary legislation.”
We have made that point repeatedly during the proceedings on the Bill. The Government broke a pledge. When the EU withdrawal Act went through, we were repeatedly assured that it would be for Parliament to make decisions about what retained EU law to amend and how to do so. But then the Bill comes along, and they do not even admit that this is a complete switch of approach and a grabbing back of powers for the Executive—but that is what it is.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 104, 115, 116, 122, 124 and 125 in my name, and in support of Amendment 141 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Amendment 104 again substitutes the end of 31 December 2028 in place of 2023, as the statutory deadline, to enable more means for the Government or any of the devolved Administrations to consult, to analyse the results of such a consultation and to prepare legislation. This would also enable Parliament or the devolved legislatures to consider and pass the legislation. By the time the Bill receives Royal Assent, there simply would not be enough time, given the parliamentary recesses in place, to conclude such an exercise. So, in my humble submission, the deadline needs to be extended to allow time for proper legislative practice to be completed.
Amendment 115—
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Before my noble friend proceeds to the next amendment, she has gone on about the uncertainty created by revising this legislation, but surely the longer the period you create to consider all of that, the more uncertainty you cause.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I would agree with my noble friend if we knew which bits of REUL were being repealed, which were being revoked and which were being reformed—but, as we speak, we do not. As we know, many devolved measures are simply not on the dashboard at the moment, which makes that time even more unacceptable.
Amendment 115 requires a “relevant national authority” or “Minister of the Crown” to consult those who may be affected by regulations under Clause 15(2) before making them. All relevant national authorities will be required to publish the results of this consultation. The idea is to oblige the Minister of the Crown to consult the devolved Administrations before making regulations that concern them.
Amendment 116 makes similar provisions under Clause 15(3), so the same comments apply there. Amendment 122 also extends the statutory deadline from 23 June 2026 to a similar deadline of 31 December 2028, allowing more time than permitted under the present deadline to ensure that all legislation which will be encapsulated will be covered through a consultation, and to allow time for consulting and analysing the results of such a provision. Amendments 124 and 125 are simply consequential to that.
I do not know if the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will speak to Amendment 141 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but I conclude by saying that I support his amendment, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, has added her name. I welcome the fact that the
“amendment modifies the powers conferred on Ministers of the Crown when making regulations in devolved areas under this Schedule so that the power may only be exercised with the consent of the Scottish or Welsh Ministers.”
I hope that my noble friend the Minister, when summing up, will look favourably on those amendments in this group.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will follow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I have added my name to the question on whether Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill. As noble Lords know, my view is that the Government really have a responsibility to withdraw the entire Bill; they should take it away and have civil servants work up all the policy developments that are assumed in it. As it stands, decisions on all these policy areas will simply be left to Ministers to make through delegated legislation; that is not acceptable at all. I was strongly supported by my noble friends Lord Wilson and Lord Lisvane and many others when I made this point in an earlier debate.
Clause 10 transfers powers wholesale from the EU to Ministers, who will then decide which regulations to propose. It includes extensive amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. In omitting sub-paragraphs (1) to (5) of paragraph 4, the Government are further reducing the power of the UK Parliament with respect to retained EU legislation, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, with particular respect to retained direct EU law. The Government justify that on the basis that retained direct EU law did not have as much parliamentary scrutiny as other parts of retained EU law, but that was because the UK was bound to comply with retained direct EU law under the treaty of Rome. We are now not in the EU—we are in an entirely different situation—and the UK Parliament needs to take over responsibility for this area of law, which represents at least 50% of retained EU law.
As noble Lords know, we parliamentarians cannot amend secondary legislation. It would be extremely difficult in this context for Parliament to reject the secondary legislation involved, and therefore Parliament will have no option, in my view, but to accept the delegated powers we are talking about here. Surely this is entirely unacceptable. Ministers’ regulations across a vast range of policies will affect the entire UK population very considerably.
Clause 10 radically changes the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, affecting a huge transfer of powers from Parliament to Ministers. This is in conflict with stated government policy and the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. Clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher; I agree with everything she said. I also very much agree with the previous speakers, including my noble friend Lady Ludford.
I will make a point in response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, when he questioned the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on whether her amendments would delay the process and whether that would be a problem. The fundamental problem we have is set out very clearly by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in paragraph 35 of its 25th report, which quotes from the RDEUL memorandum:
“Overall, the change in status will make it possible to amend or repeal a greater amount of RDEUL using secondary legislation, which will enhance the ability for amending RDEUL more quickly without the need for primary legislation. This is a more proportionate status for RDEUL, as when made it was not subject to the same degree of UK Parliamentary scrutiny as an Act of Parliament or even domestic secondary legislation.”
However, the committee goes on to say that
“RDEUL has a special status because much of it is of considerable significance in policy terms.”
Once again, we have spent most of the last three Committee days discussing issues relating to policy and asking for clarification on when that will be nailed down and understood and when Parliament can look at it before final decisions about the Bill are made.
I return to the question I asked on the first day of Committee: at what point will the dashboard be frozen? After it is frozen, how long will it be before it comes into law? Will it be 31 July, October or 30 December? How do Ministers respond to the issue that Parliament will have to give up a significant role in key policy terms, which is normally part of primary legislation, and which would be moved into secondary legislation under this clause? At the moment, we still do not have an answer as to when Parliament will be able to look at the detail of the dashboard to make decisions on it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Before the noble Baroness finishes her remarks, I would be grateful if she could answer my question: if you delay the implementation of considering this legislation, do you not create greater uncertainty?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
It is fairly straightforward. Those of us with extreme concerns about the Bill do not want a Bill passed where time after time people, especially the wider public, realise that regulations have been sunsetted without their understanding of the consequences—and without our own Parliament’s understanding of the consequences. Frankly, that is the one delay that really should be put in place, because we do not know what is going to happen.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have tried to follow and to listen to as much of the discussions on the Bill as possible, and I confess that some of the legal arguments happening earlier were beyond me. I will raise a couple of points, the first of which is in relation to the delay. I said at Second Reading, and I maintain the point now, that the Bill has been a long time coming. The public perceive the debate about how we deal with taking control of our own laws, as the UK having left the EU, not in the sense that it has been rushed through, but rather that it has been sluggish and blocked, and that any attempts to try to force through that break from the European Union have been obstructed by people who did not approve of the decision taken in 2016.
I am very sensitive to the perfectly reasonable criticisms made throughout the arguments I have heard. The Minister must give some reassurance that there are no unintended consequences of the Bill and that important laws are not lost that the Government do not intend to lose—those they will lose by accident, as it has been described. That is of some concern. Reassurances that they are in control are not that reassuring when we look at the parlous state of the way everything else is falling apart at the moment. So I have reservations myself; I wanted to clarify that. But saying that we should delay things until 2028 will be seen, understandably, as quite simply putting off the task, and that does not work at all.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I just wanted to say to the noble Baroness—and I probably will not go into lawmaking in the EU, as the noble Baroness was an MEP herself—that to say that lawmaking in Brussels is not democratic is, to my mind, ridiculous.
I particularly want to address her assertion that objections to this Bill are mired in politics. Had she been here, as I have, through the entire four days—now nearly four and a half—on this Bill, she would know that across the House the objections have been because it is an Executive power grab. Almost no reference has been made to the Brexit referendum or the policy of Brexit. It is about the way that the Bill is constructed and the power that the Government are concentrating in themselves. It is a question of the rights of Parliament and the type of governance we are objecting to. It is not political in that sense. The objections to this Bill are constitutional.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I appreciate that I have not been in the Chamber for all of that time, although I have been here a fair few hours, one way and another, and I have read everything that was said in previous discussions. I do not feel as though I am just wandering in to make this point.
I have also talked to people outside this House about their understanding of this discussion and I am trying to draw attention to that—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I have got more questions flying at me today.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for giving way for my question to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. If the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is not concerned about Clause 10, does that mean that she disagrees with the very clear comments from the Delegated Powers Committee? It sees it as a power grab and thinks it is a completely inappropriate use of secondary legislation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am concerned about aspects of this Bill from a delegated powers point of view, as I have been on a range of Bills that we have had in this House. Maybe it is because, as in the previous intervention, it was made clear to me that there is a disagreement about what democracy is. I do not think that while we were in the European Union that was a democratic, accountable form of lawmaking. I did not make that point. That point has just been made back to me. I am saying that although I understand that the arguments put forward say that they are not replaying a lot of discussions from the past, I think that argument has been implicit in a lot of the discussions. That was certainly what I heard at Second Reading and I have picked it up.
I am also making the point that if there was a genuine enthusiasm from this House about how we can take the opportunity of having left the European Union to now study and look at all of those laws, there might be less cynicism outside this House. That was my point.
I also was making a different point about timing. I have not heard from this House, either while I have been in it or before I got in it and was watching it from the outside, an enthusiasm to rush things through, as soon as we voted in 2016, to say, “Let’s take all the laws. Let’s look at the EU retained laws. Let’s now make a decision about what we do with these laws.” People did not want to do that because they did not accept the decision. Now, people are saying that it is too rushed and that there is a danger that this will come over—as it is doing—as an attempt at blocking taking back control.
As to the delegated powers and the power grab, I am afraid that that is something I have broadly been worried about from this Government, not just with this Bill. I have spoken on it many a time.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 129 and 131 in this group in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble friend Lady Boycott, who, I am sorry to say, are not in their places. These two amendments are about transparency, accountability, and scrutiny, so, in a way, they follow neatly from some of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was making a few moments ago.
Transparency, accountability and scrutiny are surely not contentious concepts so I hope that the Government would agree and therefore sign up to these amendments. Amendment 129, very simply, would require the Government to seek advice from the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland as to whether any proposed changes to the regulations will reduce food safety or other consumer protections in relation to food.
Noble Lords will recall that the Food Standards Agency is the non-ministerial department in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with responsibility for food safety and consumer protection in relation to food. It would surely be bizarre beyond belief not to consult the relevant department and its Scottish counterpart before making any changes to retained EU law. The importance of this underlined by referring back to a previous debate in Committee. I quote from Hansard. I said on 23 February that
“I will quote what Professor Susan Jebb, the chair of the Food Standards Agency, said on 2 November last year:
‘In the FSA, we are clear that we cannot simply sunset the laws on food safety and authenticity without a decline in UK food standards and a significant risk to public health’.”
I then said:
“According to the government department in charge of food safety and standards, the sunset clause is putting public health at risk. There is no point in the Minister trying to deny it, because that is what a government department is saying.”—[Official Report, 23/2/23; col. 1832.]
I will now quote the Minister’s reply because she did indeed deny it by saying:
“Let me assure noble Lords that any decision on REUL reform will not come at the expense of our high standards.”
She added that
“our commitment to not reducing consumer protection remains in place.”—[Official Report, 23/2/23; cols. 1856-57.]
Here you have it in black and white. The head of the relevant government department, Professor Susan Jebb, says that we cannot sunset EU-derived laws without sacrificing consumer safety and other protections. The Minister told this House on 23 February that, in effect, that is a load of rubbish. Who would you believe? I know where my trust lies. It is with the department that has the responsibility and accountability for and expertise in protecting consumers’ interests in relation to food. There could not be a clearer demonstration of why Amendment 129 is essential
Lest this be thought to be some sort of political point, I want to say that when I was chairman of the Food Standards Agency, with a Government of a different political complexion, Ministers were keen to rush to reassure the public on issues to do with food safety, whether it was BSE or foot and mouth disease, and I really had to stand up against pressure from Ministers and say, “No, we can’t provide reassurance on safety”. If this amendment is accepted, it will ensure that the proper expertise, lines of accountability and scrutiny are in place to review any proposed changes in food law.
I turn now to Amendment 131, which is about transparency. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, reminded noble Lords earlier in Committee, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland published their first annual report on food safety and standards across the UK, entitled Our Food 2021, in June. Here is a quotation from the introduction:
“At a time when the UK is taking on new responsibilities for food following our departure from the European Union … consumers need strong watchdogs looking out for whether standards are being protected. This report—the first in a series to be published annually—will help us do so by providing an objective, data-driven assessment of the safety and standards of food over time.
Why us? Because the Food Standards Agency … and Food Standards Scotland … are together responsible for food standards across the whole of the UK—this is an important, long-term collaboration between our two organisations that should provide greater transparency and accountability for food quality across the four nations. This, in turn, will help us work with food businesses, local authorities and other partners to address any emerging threats or vulnerabilities.”
Amendment 131 simply seeks to put this annual report, or a slightly modified version of it, on a statutory basis. It will tell the public, businesses, the Government and others whether, as result of changes to our laws, food standards and safety are being compromised. How on earth could one object to this transparency?
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, reminded us the other day in Committee, transparency is one of the keys to trust. It has taken years of work by the Food Standards Agency to rebuild public trust in the UK food system after the disasters of the 1990s, including BSE and salmonella in eggs. Indeed, that is why all parties supported the creation of the Food Standards Agency, so it could be a department that puts consumers’ interests first and rebuilds trust in our food system. Why would the Government wish to squander those gains now? I therefore look forward to the Minister warmly welcoming both my amendments, and to assuring us that the FSA and FSS will have the necessary resources to fulfil the duties that are implied by them. These are very modest changes to the Bill, aimed at improving it, and I hope that, if the Minister does not welcome them, he will at least agree to meet me and others to discuss the implications of not accepting them.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Will the noble Lord explain why the Government would want to compromise the health of the consuming public of this country and undermine our food exports abroad?
Lord Krebs (CB)
That is an extremely good question and I thank the noble Lord for asking it. That is precisely what I would say too. Therefore, if the Government do not want to risk undermining public safety or public confidence in our food businesses, and therefore our food exports, they should accept these amendments. After all, the chairman of the FSA could not have said it more clearly, and I shall just repeat it once more:
“we are clear that we cannot simply sunset the laws on food safety and authenticity without a decline in UK food standards and a significant risk to public health.”
It is not me who is saying this; it is the head of the government department with this responsibility.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. Obviously, my noble friend and the Front Bench team oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill, for very good reasons, as outlined by the Delegated Powers Committee. I shall just address the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, on this point: no one disputes that what the country and the Government wanted was a transition. They voted for a transition, returning to Parliament the powers to make laws. That was actually what was contained in the 2018 withdrawal Act, and we now have a policy change: it will no longer be the responsibility of Parliament to revoke, retain or advise; it will be a government Minister.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, we have ensured that the Bill contains robust scrutiny mechanisms that will enable the appropriate scrutiny of any amendments or repeals of retained EU law made by the powers included in the Bill. The debate touched on two different things: we need to differentiate between the effects of Clause 10 and the application of pre-existing delegated powers contained in other Acts of Parliament, and the delegated powers included in the Bill.
Because of the points that have been made, I want just to touch on the scrutiny mechanisms. These include a sifting procedure that will apply to regulations proposed to be made under the power to restate and the powers to revoke or replace. This will afford additional scrutiny to the use of the power while retaining the flexibility of using the negative procedure where there are good reasons for doing so. We recognise the significant role Parliament has played in scrutinising instruments subject to sifting procedures previously and are committed to ensuring the appropriate scrutiny under the delegated powers in the Bill. Indeed, the Leader of the House of Commons has written to the chair of the European Statutory Instruments Committee proposing that the committee take on the role of sifting committee in the House of Commons to determine where the negative procedure may apply.
I wanted to give that background because there are these two different aspects to the debate, but I turn first to the clause stand part motion introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Clause 10 must stand part of the Bill because it provides the answers to two fundamental questions. First, is it right that technical regulations should be treated as equivalent to an Act of Parliament? Secondly, are this Government happy with the risk of these regulations sitting stagnant on the statute book? The answer to both, as we have argued all along, is no. Clause 10 modifies powers in other statutes to allow them to be used to amend or retain direct EU legislation and directly effective rights. Over 50% of retained EU law currently identified on the REUL dashboard—I agree with the noble Baroness on that figure—is retained direct EU legislation. It is comprised mainly of EU regulations in which the UK Parliament had no real say. This legislation often does not reflect the UK’s priorities or objectives—to drive growth, for example. We are currently forced to treat some retained direct EU legislation as equivalent to an Act of Parliament when amending it. This is not appropriate; it does not fit with this Government’s vision of REUL reform following the Brexit process, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred.
I understand the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but we do need to think of the opportunity that Brexit affords, while maintaining necessary protections. In doing so, we must ensure that parliamentary time is used appropriately. Furthermore, relying purely on primary legislation to amend these technical regulations to meet the UK’s needs would take decades. It is of critical importance that we ensure that these mostly technical regulations do not remain static and can be updated, amended and reformed in response to events and new knowledge, using appropriate delegated powers. Without the measures in Clause 10, thousands of regulations will become stagnant and will be unable to stay up to date, react to new information or implement new international agreements without requiring an Act of Parliament.
I will now move on to a set of amendments relating to the delegated powers, starting with amendments—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Before the Minister leaves the question of allowing Clause 10 to stand part, I am surprised at her disagreement with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—a dangerously radical body containing wild revolutionaries such as the noble Lords, Lord Janvrin and Lord Goodlad, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. Their view was clearly set out in their report: that Clause 10
“effects a significant transfer of power to Ministers”,
contrary to what was set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Act said it would be for Parliament to decide changes in primary legislation, rather than for Ministers to do so in secondary legislation.
I understand the argument the Minister is making, but it is not one likely to find much support across the House. We think we have a role in deciding what should be on the statute book; it is not simply for the Executive. I can see the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—yet another dangerous radical—that it will take time so there will be, in a sense, continuing uncertainty. This is why I support an extension of the sunset deadlines—although that is not a sufficient cure, I think it is a necessary one for the Bill. But the noble Lord has to recognise that there is huge uncertainty now for economic operators across the country: they do not know which laws are to be amended, which are to be retained and which are to be extinguished. Once we know, perhaps it would be sensible to discuss how long it will take to make the necessary changes.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Surely the thing that concerns businesses is how legislation is going to be amended, not whether it is or not.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Lords for their interventions. I did say that I understood the concerns of the Committee. I was trying to explain that, in this particular case, we need to go forward with the arrangements we have because of the situation the EU law of 2018 has left us in and the need to tidy up the statute book, which, otherwise, would take decades to do.
Amendments 115 and 116 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering would insert a requirement to consult any interested persons or relevant devolved Governments before any secondary retained EU law could be revoked or replaced. Amendment 115 would require that no regulations may be made under Clause 15(2) unless Ministers comply with a set of conditions, including a requirement to consult any interested persons in relevant devolved Governments before any REUL can be revoked or replaced. Amendment 116 would insert the same consultation requirements regarding regulations made under Clause 15(3). These amendments would hinder the efficient removal of outdated and unnecessary burdens and regulations and their replacement with regulations that are more fit for purpose.
Furthermore, we have sought, as I have explained, to ensure that the Bill contains robust scrutiny mechanisms, including for the powers to revoke or replace. In particular, the sifting procedure will apply to those regulations proposed to be made under the negative procedure. The sifting procedure largely corresponds with the procedure under the EUWA and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. In both cases, sifting has been effectively used to ensure proportionate parliamentary scrutiny of legislation regarding EU exit. We are scheduled to debate the sifting procedure in more detail on Wednesday, and obviously I look forward to that debate. In addition, it is our expectation that the departments concerned will follow standard procedures regarding consultation and engagement with the devolved Governments during policy development, so I do not consider adding a requirement to consult on the face of the Bill to be appropriate or necessary.
Amendment 128, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, would create a new clause introducing additional restrictions on the use of powers under Clauses 15 and 16. Among the proposed extensive conditions is a requirement that Ministers provide a report outlining an assessment of the potential impact of proposed new regulations. This would include the difference between current and proposed new regulations for protections for consumers, workers, businesses, the environment, animal welfare, any changes to the regulatory burden, and whether the UK’s international commitments to the trade and co-operation agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol continue to be met. Such conditions are unnecessary. The Bill has been drafted to ensure that legislation made under these powers is subject to scrutiny procedures that are proportionate to the scope of the powers. It is our expectation that departments will follow the standard procedures for consultation and impact assessment where it is undertaken. Adding these conditions would significantly delay the process of REUL reform, impact departments’ delivery plans and could prevent departments maximising the use of the powers in Clauses 15 and 16.
Before coming to the sunsets, I turn to Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which seeks to add a clause to the Bill introducing additional restrictions for food standards legislation. It is only right to have powers in the Bill which will help put the UK statute book on a sustainable footing. The powers will facilitate the much-needed review and reform of outdated retained EU law that not is fit for the UK, and they will ensure that we can capitalise on the benefits of Brexit. As I have said, the powers to amend are not intended to undermine the UK’s already high food standards. I say again that this Government are committed to promoting robust food standards nationally and internationally, so that we can continue to protect consumer interests, facilitate trade and ensure that consumers can have confidence in the food they buy. I also value the work of the food standards agencies, for all the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has outlined, but that is not a reason to amend this general Bill.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the Hansard that he referred to reflects the position that retained EU law that needs to be kept will be preserved. The FSA is saying publicly that retained EU law on food standards should be preserved. It is for the relevant department—the Department of Health—and the devolved nations to decide whether retained EU law in their area should be preserved. Therefore, I humbly suggest that the two statements are not in conflict.
Lord Krebs (CB)
To wind back a few sentences, the Minister quite rightly said that the Department of Health would be responsible ultimately for changes in the law that affect food safety and standards. However, my amendment was not questioning that issue; it was questioning where the Department of Health is going to get its expert advice from. I did not hear the Minister say that the Department of Health would not propose any changes unless the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland had agreed that they would not compromise consumer protections in relation to food, whether it is to do with safety information or health. Could she therefore confirm whether that is the Government’s intention?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am sure the Ministers responsible at the Department of Health and in the devolved nations will consult the Food Standards Agency. In the work I do with the Department of Health which involves food, the Food Standards Agency is an incredibly important part of the decision-making process.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Baroness should not therefore have a problem in saying that they will consult it. Can we not have a commitment from the Government that they will do so? That is all.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As I said, I am sure that the Health Ministers will consult the Food Standards Agency. The food standards agencies have been set up for this purpose. If you are making changes to legislation, of course there will be consultation. I am not the Health Minister, so I cannot make a declaration of that kind, but I have already said that I will pass on to the Health Minister the discussions we are having on food safety.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I think the question my noble friend was asking was what the Government’s position is—that is the answer we need.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I have given my answer. I have been very clear about the importance we attach to food safety from both a government point of view and my own historic point of view, which I hope adds some credibility. I do not think I have a lot further to say, apart from the fact that officials are working with the Food Standards Agency day and night on these areas.
Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, proposes that a Minister of the Crown should publish a report 30 days before the powers can be exercised. The report would have to include a list of criteria which relevant national authorities would need to take into account when exercising the powers under Clauses 12 to 17 of the Bill. The delegated powers within the Bill will enable Ministers to make active decisions regarding their respective retained EU law. It is only right to have such powers; they will help to put the UK statute book on a sustainable footing within a reasonable timeframe and facilitate the much-needed review and reform of retained EU law to ensure that we can capitalise on the benefits of UK autonomy. Furthermore, the Bill has been drafted to ensure that legislation made under the delegated powers is subject to scrutiny procedures proportionate to the scope of the powers. I therefore do not consider that publishing a report setting out criteria which Ministers must take into account when using the powers within the Bill is necessary given the scrutiny already provided for.
I turn now to Amendment 141 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead; I am sorry he is not here today. The amendment would impose a requirement to seek consent from a Scottish or Welsh Minister where a Minister of the Crown intends to exercise a power in the Bill separately on legislation which is in an area of Scottish or Welsh devolved competence. First, I assure your Lordships that the Government are committed to respecting the devolution settlements and the Sewel convention. Indeed, none of the provisions within the Bill, including the powers, affects the devolution settlements, nor is the Bill intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments.
I recognise that the extension power is not conferred on the devolved Governments. However, we are keen to ensure that the provisions within the Bill, including the powers, work for all parts of the UK. That is why the majority of the powers will be conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments: to enable them to make active decisions regarding their retained EU law. As such, introducing a requirement for a Minister of the Crown to seek legislative consent when using the powers on legislation within areas of devolved legislative competence is not necessary.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We keep being told that there is not going to be consultation or legislative consent, and that the Food Standards Agency would of course be mindful of what the Government have to say. We are being asked to take all these things on trust, but it is not as though the Government have an impeccable record on these things. Can the noble Baroness not appreciate that what the Committee is trying to get at is to understand how these determinations will come about? We are looking for some sort of signal from the Government that there will be openness and a willingness to involve, and an attempt to do more than what is absolutely strictly necessary within the letter of the Bill that she is referring to. Were she to endeavour to give us that reassurance or explain how that would be done, she might find a little—not a lot—more sympathy for the position she is taking.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I understand. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for trying to help to move things forward; we are certainly keen to do that. Clearly, this enabling Bill is going through Parliament ahead of the some of the work that has been going on around the dashboard and the individual governmental plans, which is perhaps a pity. I think my noble friend the Minister said that he would try to make more information available as that became possible. Indeed, we have given an extra couple of days for debates in Committee. Progress is being made all the time in departments on their plans. We have these two processes—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said, the Minister has turned down every single amendment in this group, whether it is for more consultation or for the Food Standards Agency to have a proper say. Every time, she has simply said, “That would take decades”. I am not sure whether an impact assessment has been done to work out what lies behind that phrase; I suspect it is just a throwaway phrase which is meant to cast dust in our eyes. However, it is not terribly convincing, because not a single amendment on the Marshalled List suggests putting the cut-off date beyond 2028, as the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, suggest. Nobody is suggesting a period of decades. What those of us who support these amendments are suggesting is that the Government should follow the normal procedure, which we have always had in this country before, of consultation and legislation. Could we please not dismiss everything by saying that it would take decades?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think I said “decades” once. This is of course a bit different from the normal laws that we debate and put through this Parliament, because it is dealing with retained EU law, and we think that there is a need for special arrangements. Equally, there is also a need for your Lordships to understand what our plans are. This is Committee; it is quite conventional at this stage to explain the problems with amendments, which I have obviously been doing.
Picking up on what has just been said, perhaps I should move on to the final issue in this group, which is timing. Amendment 104, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, relates to Clause 12 and seeks to change the date on which the power to restate under Clause 12 is capable of acting on retained EU law from the sunset date—the end of 2023—extending it to 2028. The existing power to restate under Clause 13, which is exercisable up to 2026, provides an adequate opportunity for the reform of retained EU law and assimilated law while providing a deadline to ensure that retained EU law does not languish on our statute book indefinitely.
I turn to Amendment 108A in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Although she did not speak to it on this occasion, I am glad that one of her early interventions as a Member of this House has been on this important Bill. Her amendment seeks to bring forward the date on which the power to restate assimilated law expires to the end of 2024. This power already puts a protection in place after the sunset by allowing departments to reproduce the effects of retained case law and EU-derived principles of interpretation in relation to specific provisions of restated assimilated law, which sunset at the end of 2023 up to 23 June 2026.
Although I understand where my noble friend is coming from, I believe that it is necessary to make the power to restate assimilated law available for a sufficient window of time following the sunset date to ensure that the Government can mitigate any unintended consequences associated with the sunset in 2023. While we expect the power to be used only in exceptional cases, it would be irresponsible for the Government not to have a protection in place. Bringing forward the expiration date of the power to restate assimilated law to the end of 2024 would provide a limited time window for departments to use this power and could result in provisions not being restated that are necessary to maintain the desired policy effect.
Amendments 122 and 122A are also on timing. Amendment 122 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering would change the date on which the powers to revoke or replace are capable of acting on REUL and post-sunset secondary assimilated law, extending it to 2028. Exercising the powers to revoke or replace will allow the Government to seize our new regulatory autonomy and ensure that REUL can be tailored to meet the UK’s needs in a timely manner. We need to complete that important process.
The powers to revoke or replace are important, cross-cutting enablers. They will allow the Government to overhaul EU laws in secondary legislation across the many different sectors of the economy where, if left, many pieces of REUL risk becoming fixed features of the statute book that are ill suited to the UK. As my noble friend Lord Hamilton said, extending the date to 2028 would also add to uncertainty. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was right to remind us that some of the public think that the process of EU reform is sluggish, but I think that 2026 gives us ample time.
Lastly, I turn to Amendments 124 and 125 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In broad terms, they would change the dates that enable the power to act upon assimilated law. I will not go through the detail of why these amendments do not work because I have already explained it quite clearly. The powers to revoke or replace are already capable of acting on assimilated law for an additional two and a half years after the sunset, which is adequate time to complete REUL reform and provide greater legal certainty UK-wide.
I am sorry to have spoken at length but there were a lot of amendments in this group. I hope this has provided noble Lords with some reassurance on the powers in the Bill, their timeframes and the way in which scrutiny will work, as I tried to set out at the beginning of my speech. With this in mind, I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The Question is that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I believe I have a right to reply; I have been corrected so many times today that I do not know what my rights are nowadays.
The Minister seems to believe that robust parliamentary scrutiny is enshrined in a sifting, negative procedure power. I do not agree, I am afraid. Parliament is being sidelined in this Bill. Indeed, I wonder when this radical, revolutionary, un-Conservative Government will seek to abolish Parliament.
On the assertion that the UK Parliament had no real say in EU law, that is the nature of the organisation. Law is made at the level at which it is considered, obviously. However—I made this point at Second Reading—some Parliaments in the EU, notably the Danish one, kept their Ministers on a tight leash. Ministers went to the Council of Ministers from the UK Parliament; if they did not represent the views of the UK Parliament, we have to look at them and their record. The UK Parliament could have done the kind of scrutiny and accountability exercises that the Danish Parliament notably did; if it did not do so, that is the fault not of the EU but of the UK Parliament.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Baroness for what happened earlier.
“(1A) Before making regulations under subsection (1) a relevant national authority must consult with any person who may be affected by the proposed regulations.(1B) If a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under subsection (1) which concern devolved matters the Minister must, before making the regulations, consult with the relevant national authority.(1C) A relevant national authority and, where subsection (1B) applies, a Minister of the Crown must publish the results of any consultation conducted under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a relevant national authority or a Minister of the Crown to consult with those who may be affected by regulations before making them. All relevant national authorities are required to publish the results of the consultation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that we have reached this group, which concerns restatement powers. The two most radical amendments in this group will probably capture the Committee’s imagination more than my more modest ones; I look forward to hearing from the authors of the amendments on whether Clauses 12 and 13 should stand part of the Bill.
I want to speak briefly to the amendments in my name. Amendment 102 would require
“a relevant national authority or a Minister of the Crown to consult with those who may be affected by regulations before making them.”
This would require all
“relevant national authorities … to publish the results of the consultation.”
Why is this necessary? Under Clause 12, a relevant national authority
“may by regulations restate, to any extent, any secondary retained EU law.”
Clause 14 states:
“A restatement may use words or concepts that are different from those used in the law being restated”
and
“may make any change which the relevant national authority considers appropriate for … resolving ambiguities … removing doubts or anomalies … facilitating improvement in the clarity or accessibility of the law (including by omitting anything which is legally unnecessary).”
Given the debates that we have had, this will increase the uncertainty and lack of clarity. I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland, which proposed Amendment 102. Its purpose is that such changes, which may obviously be considerable, should require to be consulted on.
Amendment 105 would require
“a relevant national authority or a Minister of the Crown to consult with those who may be affected by regulations before making them. All relevant national authorities are required to publish the results of the consultation.”
I will not rehearse this. It is very similar under Clauses 13 and 14 to what I referred to under Amendment 102. However, as these changes would again be major, they should be consulted on, as is laid out in this amendment. I beseech my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom that, if he is seeking clarity and certainty and wants a short deadline, he must share my concern that the clauses dealt with in this group will have quite the contrary effect to that which he referred to.
Amendment 107 has a similar requirement on a national authority to consult all the national authorities to publish the results of the consultation. Clause 13(8) states that:
“A relevant national authority may by regulations reproduce, to any extent, the effect that anything which was retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or 6(3) or (6) of European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 would have, but for sections 3 to 5 of this Act.”
Again, this is a significant regulation-making power which could affect a large number of individuals and businesses. Surely my noble friend and the Government would wish that they and the devolved Administrations consult before making such wide-ranging regulations as those envisaged in this clause. Therefore, under the terms of this amendment, a Minister of the Crown would be obliged to consult a devolved Administration before making regulations concerning devolved matters.
Amendment 108 looks to extend the statutory deadline from 23 June 2026 to 31 December 2028, a mere 18 months,
“within which a restatement of assimilated law or reproduction of sunsetted retained EU rights, powers, liabilities may be made.”
It cannot be right to have such a short deadline giving such wide-ranging powers. Therefore, in my humble submission, the deadline needs to be extended to allow sufficient time for the exercise of going through what the impact on the Government, the devolved Administrations and all the interested parties would be. A better and more realistic deadline, capable of being met, would be 31 December 2028.
Amendment 109 is purely consequential, extending the deadline from the end of 2023 to 31 December 2028. I am delighted to say that Amendment 110 would have a similar effect by leaving out Clause 14(7), which states:
“The provision that may be made by regulations under section 12 or 13 may be made by modifying any enactment.”
That is an extremely broad Henry VIII power to empower Ministers to amend any enactment. It is identified by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 28th report, Losing Control?, as too broad a power. Therefore, Amendment 110 gives my noble friend and the Government the opportunity to explain why such a broad power is necessary.
I hope that my noble friend will look extremely favourably on this small but perfectly formed group of amendments. With those few remarks, I beg to move.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 103 and 106 in my name. My Amendment 103 is an amendment to Clause 12. It ensures that a legislative consent Motion must be passed by the relevant devolved legislature if a Minister of the Crown seeks to make regulations to restate secondary retained EU law where the provisions of those regulations fall within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature.
Amendment 106 is an amendment to Clause 13. It has the same effect as Amendment 103 but refers to the restating of secondary assimilated law, and therefore is exercisable from only 1 January 2024. Both clauses are commented on in the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which was concerned about the way that they “inappropriately delegate legislative power”. It recommended that they should be removed from the Bill. The committee said that both clauses gave Ministers power to legislate and achieve effects that ought instead to belong to Parliament and be achieved in subject-specific primary legislation. My noble friend Lady Ludford will speak to Clauses 12 and 13 not standing part of the Bill.
Our debate on Amendment 58 last Thursday warranted far more time and attention than we gave it. We saw there that the UK Government appear ready to take over the powers of the devolved nations when they think that they can. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, who is in his place, for probing powers over sunsetting and what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to as the
“equality of treatment between the various Governments of the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 2/3/23; col. 467.]
I am sure that we will return to this issue at a later stage of the Bill.
With the UK Government’s attitude to the devolved legislatures in mind, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s very significant sentence in the report seems pertinent:
“The powers conferred by clause 12 are open-ended, there being no requirement for consultation, for criteria to be met or for pre-conditions to be satisfied.”
The committee was of course concerned about the powers of Ministers to legislate, to achieve effects that ought instead to belong to Parliament. The powers of the Senedd are implicit in this, and the belonging should also extend to them.
I want to make a few comments about consent, the Sewel convention, and the powers of the Senedd. I was part of the first intake of Members to the Welsh Assembly, as it was then, in 1999. I have watched its powers grow as a result of the votes of the people of Wales in referenda over the years. I welcomed the introduction of the Sewel convention and its assertion that the UK Government would not normally legislate in devolved areas without consent, to protect and defend the powers of Welsh Ministers and the Senedd itself. That welcome was tempered by a concern shared by many others about the definition of “normally”. Our concerns have been justified. Despite assurances from Ministers during the progress of the Bill, recent history has shown that reality is completely different. Over the last three years or so we have been faced with an increasing disregard for the powers of the devolved legislatures, and an attitude which borders on contempt for the legislative consent Motions.
It is now accepted that the Sewel convention is no longer working. Sadly, its operation is seen as the biggest constitutional issue facing Wales. The First Minister has called for the re-establishment of the way in which the convention was respected from 1999 to 2019 and has supported the intergovernmental agreement that will lead to “some work” being done on how the Sewel convention could be strengthened. As he said in his recent appearance before the Commons Welsh Affairs Committee,
“if you cannot repair the Sewel convention, then one of the major underpinning props of the devolution settlement has simply been kicked from under it.”
Covid Pandemic: Testing of Care Home Residents
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard much about the former Health Secretary’s thoughts via WhatsApp, but today’s Question is about care homes. The Government claimed early in the pandemic to have thrown a “protective ring” around care homes in response to the alarm bells that were ringing across the country about elderly, frail patients being transferred from hospitals without being tested for Covid. Tragically, over 17,000 residents lost their lives in the pandemic’s first year. Between the advice given by the Chief Medical Officer about the necessity of testing and Matt Hancock’s final decision to act, residents were left exposed and isolated, and staff put at risk.
The latest revelations will be deeply distressing for families up and down the country who lost loved ones. Why were care homes not urgently prioritised when the impact of Covid was there for all to see? Will the Government ensure that the Covid inquiry gets full disclosure of the texts, minutes and documents on this matter and receives whatever support it needs to report by the end of the year?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, for the record, noble Lords are aware of the Covid testing business that I set up at the beginning of the pandemic. We offered testing to the Department of Health and Social Care on a not-for-profit basis. That offer was not taken up and the business never had any government contracts. I wanted to make that clear at the beginning of my answer.
To answer the noble Baroness’s question on the Covid inquiry, the team is staffed to make sure that all the information that is needed is provided. Everyone agrees that we need to learn any lessons from what happened and that all the information that is available is brought to bear.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Mr Hancock denies that he rejected Chris Whitty’s advice in April 2020 that everybody going into a care home should be tested. On 19 May, I said to the then Minister in the Lords:
“The Secretary of State has repeated his claim that he has prioritised testing in care homes, yet he still repeats that testing for everyone in care homes … will be only ‘offered’ by 6 June.”
My noble friend Lord Rennard asked whether the Minister had heard the programme “More or Less” and the
“total demolition of the claim that 100,000 tests were being conducted each day”.—[Official Report, 19/5/20; cols. 1086-94.]
The following day, I said that
“Dame Angela McLean said testing had been prioritised in the NHS over care homes. Today, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said the Government had prioritised the NHS over care homes as well.”
The Minister said that
“we rolled out outbreak testing for all symptomatic care home staff and residents.”—[Official Report, 20/5/20; col. 1177.]
Two weeks later, I said that
“a number of CCGs are still pushing care homes to take block-bookings of patients coming out of hospital without having had Covid tests.”—[Official Report, 3/6/20; col. 1417.]
We all knew what was going on at the time because we were being told by care homes and by the families of residents. Will the Government now apologise to the many families who lost loved ones as a result of the delay in getting full testing into care homes?
Lord Markham (Con)
It is to the regret of everyone that so many deaths were caused in care homes. That is something that I know everyone feels very deeply about. At the same time, the testing capacity was expanded very rapidly. As we know, at the beginning of the pandemic in mid-March, there was capacity for only 3,000 tests a day. At that point, the decision was made that they should go to NHS front-line staff. However, it was then rapidly expanded: on 15 April there were 39,000 tests, and by May there were about 100,000 tests a day. Obviously, at that point, the Government were able to expand the tests more fully to care homes.
Was that prioritisation right? That was the subject of the Gardner review but, clearly, the body that can decide best on whether the right decisions were made at the right time is the inquiry, with which everyone will co-operate fully.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what is so devastating in reading the Telegraph’s WhatsApp lockdown file is that it has confirmed that the most susceptible to Covid were victims of a lack of targeted testing in care homes, while the least at risk were hectored and frightened into getting tested to reach one government Minister’s self-set arbitrary targets. Will the Minister take back that we urgently need this public inquiry? Will it scrutinise the process of target-setting that lost sight of its original aim? Also, after the revelations that Minister Helen Whately raised concerns about the inhumane policies of separating people in care from their families—so lonely and distraught that they gave up—will the Minister support the Rights for Residents campaign to enshrine in law the right to maintain family contact in all care settings? It was not just the lack of testing that killed people but some of the policies too.
Lord Markham (Con)
We all agree that visiting should be allowed as much as possible. I know that the policy is that people can receive at least one visitor, but I know that there are also examples where that is not happening enough. It is very clear, from our side, that it is a priority that everyone should have visitation rights, because they are vital. Can we say that that will always be the case in every circumstance in the future? Well, clearly no one foresaw the pandemic, so this is one of those situations where we can never say so definitively, but we all firmly agree that visitation is a key part of people’s care and well-being.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that I should declare an interest, in that my wife is a retired GP? In the period February-March 2020, it was very clear to those of us who were in contact with the medical services that things were not right in care homes. On 21 April 2020, I put down a Question—and I have a copy for my noble friend—which read:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what has been the COVID-19 testing policy for hospital patients that have been discharged to nursing and care homes over the last four weeks.”
That took us back to 23 March 2020. I got an Answer some three weeks later, which read:
“As outlined in the Adult Social Care Plan, published on 15 April 2020, any patient who moves from the National Health Service to social care will be discharged in line with the current NHS COVID-19 Discharge Requirements. NHS England and NHS Improvement published a letter on 16 April addressed to all accountable officers of all hospitals (public and private sector) working for the NHS and discharge teams outlining the new requirement to test patients being discharged from hospital to a care home.”
This did not answer the Question that I had asked about what had happened between the latter end of March and early April.
I recognise that my noble friend has only recently joined the Front Bench but, as far as I am concerned—I have taken a detailed interest in this—it is fundamental that we are honest. If things went wrong, as I am sure they did, they must come out in the public inquiry. I am happy to give a copy of my Question to the opposition parties, so that they do not have to scratch around to find it.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes, it is vital that we understand exactly what happened when and that we learn lessons. I am sure we will see that some mistakes were made, and we need to learn from those. From our side, that was the whole point of setting up the Covid inquiry. We will ensure full co-operation.
The Lord Bishop of London
In advance of the outcome of the UK Covid-19 inquiry, which will take some time if it is going to be thorough, can the Minister tell us what attempt the Government have made to learn from how decisions were made during that period and to ensure that better decisions are made today?
Lord Markham (Con)
The first major finding was setting up the UK Health Security Agency, because of a feeling that the bodies that were there at the time were not best placed. That was the first learning. From that, things such as the 100-day vaccine challenge were set up to make sure that we are well placed should another pandemic occur. We have tried to learn lessons all the way through and have made sure that testing capacity is still in place, so that we are able to react quickly, and stocks are there. I like to think that sensible measures are being taken and that we are not waiting for the inquiry, but I am sure we will learn more as the inquiry is fully engaged and when it makes its own findings.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s defence of their entire testing strategy has been that we should trust them but, based on all that we have seen of the former Health Secretary over recent months—far too much, would be many people’s reaction—can the Minister say whether he is a person who displays consistent good judgment or is he capable of making some quite serious mistakes?
Lord Markham (Con)
I do not know the said ex-Minister, so cannot comment on that. If we cast our minds back, it was a very pressurised environment in which lots of decisions had to be made very quickly. Mistakes were undoubtedly made as part of that. As to how we did overall, it is best for the inquiry to make findings rather than for me to give my opinion.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm that, when the results are published, the contingency plan brought forward by the Government will include, quite clearly, what will happen with care homes in future situations? We are all concerned that this was very last-minute.
Can I ask my noble friend to reflect on my own circumstances? My aunt Vicky, aged 99 years and nine months, died in April 2020 in a care home that she had been in for some time. The death certificate said “Covid”. She was symptomless and not tested. When the family challenged it, it was changed to “died of old age”. I ask my noble friend to reflect on that.
Lord Markham (Con)
I am sorry for my noble friend’s loss, albeit one of too many losses in those circumstances. Yes, we absolutely need to learn the lessons around social care settings. Most people would accept that, of the many things that were done well during Covid, that was probably one that we would have done differently, in the early stages, if we had our time again. The Covid inquiry is all about making sure that we learn those lessons, going forward.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Following the question asked by the right reverend Prelate about what is happening today, I actually agree with part of the Government’s response, which referred to selective snippets of WhatsApp conversations. That is what we are hearing today. While we are waiting for the official inquiry, which will give us a clear, independent view of what happened, it is clear that there were big problems in our care homes. What are the Government doing today to look at the problems that continue in our care homes, particularly those associated with excessive profit taking and privatisation, particularly in homes under the management of hedge funds?
Lord Markham (Con)
I know that that is something in which Minister Whately is very engaged. The House has already seen some of the plans around social care and there is further work on discharge going on as we speak. I have spoken many times in the House about the need to resolve this, not just to make sure that the right care is in place for those involved but to free up hospital beds to improve the performance of the whole system.
Turkey and Syria Earthquakes
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement from Andrew Mitchell and the Government’s emergency response to the situation in Turkey and Syria. I also congratulate the people of the United Kingdom on their response.
We have seen a terrible death toll—50,000, plus hundreds of thousands now homeless and many more injured. First, how are the Government working with NGOs to support hospitals and health facilities, in particular to ensure the provision of emergency medical kits and supplies?
The speed of search and rescue teams in the initial 72 hours clearly saved many lives. With new demands for food, water and shelter, we must now move to a long-term strategy for aid and support, which was the point made by Sarah Champion, the chair of the IDC in the other place. Following the calls for the Security Council to play a greater role, what steps are we taking at the UN to offer political leadership and direction on that longer-term strategy? Martin Griffiths, the UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief co-ordinator, said that the 2023 response plan alone will require $4.8 billion. What steps are the Government taking to encourage our international counterparts to support the plan by financial donation?
Of course, the opening of border crossings between Turkey and Syria is vital for the delivery of aid. I know that the Government have done much to assist in that, but can the Minister tell us how the FCDO is monitoring operations, so that NGOs are alert to any blockages and can make the necessary plans?
Finally, it was reported late last year that the Government intend to cut funding for the Syria country team by up to £8 million. Is that still the case, and will this humanitarian crisis make the Government reconsider their position? We obviously need to do more, and Syria’s situation is particularly difficult. I would appreciate the Minister responding to the points I have made.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, further to the very pertinent questions from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the Minister’s visit as outlined in the Statement is significant, and the Government’s support so far is to be welcomed.
More than 50,000 people have now lost their lives, and 18 million are affected overall. According to the Disasters Emergency Committee, 54,000 buildings have been lost. On an evening such as this, when more winter weather is forecast in the UK, we can imagine not being able to go back to a warm and secure home, as is the case for many hundreds of thousands of people in the affected area.
It is worth reminding ourselves that in the north-west region of Syria, 60% of the people were already displaced because of conflict. It is regrettable that UK support to that region has fallen from £232 million in 2021 to £158 million. Can the Minister explain why that has happened? What is the latest estimate of the UK’s support for the people of Syria next year?
The British people, however, as has been said, have responded in a truly stunning manner, raising more than £100 million for the DEC appeal. When we first had a Statement on this subject, I asked the Minister’s noble friend Lord Ahmad whether the Government would provide aid match support. It is welcome that they have, but it is only £5 million. More than £100 million from the British public being matched by only £5 million from the British Government is jarring. Will the Minister commit to the Government being open to lifting the cap on the £5 million if the British public continue to donate to the appeal?
Given the need for long-term support, including foodstuffs, particularly for young families and mothers, can the Minister explain why, in the response to the Statement last week, Andrew Mitchell said that the Government did not intend to provide extra support to the World Food Programme for this emergency? Can the Minister also explain why, in stark contrast to the German Government, who have provided emergency visa support for families seeking to host people in Turkey affected by the earthquakes, the Home Office has ruled out the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece? Are the Government’s minds closed on this? There are still families in the UK diaspora community who are willing to help and provide guarantees and support, but the Home Office seems set on denying families support and refuge.
Why have the Government not provided any clarity about a safe and legal route for those in Syria who may seek asylum in response to the Assad regime’s reaction to this emergency? The Syrian routes to the UK were closed in 2021, but why is no consideration being given to opening them?
Finally, in the House of Commons last week the Minister was asked why the Government’s humanitarian crisis reserve, which recently stood at £500 million, has now been depleted to only £30 million, which means that the UK’s response to any other emergencies or disasters will be greatly reduced. Why has there been such a massive reduction in a crisis reserve for humanitarian assistance?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I join both noble Lords and others in offering sincere condolences to all those affected by the devastating earthquakes that struck Turkey and Syria last month. Today, the death toll across these countries stands at more than 51,000, which is possibly an underestimate, with at least 108,000 people injured. I pay tribute to the hundreds of British personnel engaged in specialist health and humanitarian rescue work in Syria and Turkey. They have done and continue to do outstanding work to save lives and help those suffering.
As has been noted, this disaster has intensified the humanitarian need in Syria in particular, affecting what is already one of the most vulnerable areas, weakened by the appalling Assad regime’s brutal war machine. Our consular teams are supporting British nationals who have requested assistance.
In response to the initial point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the UK Government have responded, and very quickly, to the request put out by the Turkish Government immediately following the disaster; I thank him for recognising that. We deployed a 77-person search-and-rescue team in Turkey, along with state-of-the-art equipment. Although the team has now returned to the UK, having saved a significant number of people trapped in the rubble, they have done so in line with the response of other countries that have sent search-and-rescue teams, because we are now in a new stage, as the noble Lord pointed out.
On the quantum of our support for the crisis, and in response to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we announced £4.3 million of new support for Syria Civil Defence, also known as the White Helmets, who carried out life-saving search-and-rescue and emergency relief operations and have helped thousands of civilians overall. The MoD and Foreign Office set up a field hospital in Türkoğlu, which included an emergency department and a 24/7 operating theatre. Some 150 UK-Med and MoD personnel were working alongside Turkish medics to save lives and have treated nearly 6,500 patients to date. In northern Syria, UK-funded charities and NGOs are caring for the injured through mobile medical teams and health centres. The UK has delivered more than 478 tonnes of relief items to Turkey and Syria through civilian and Royal Air Force flights, including tents, blankets, solar lanterns, water purification tablets, hygiene kits and so on. We have also contributed to the UN’s distribution of food and other essential items, including through the UN’s Syria Cross-border Humanitarian Fund. On 15 February, we announced a further £25 million of funding to bolster our humanitarian response. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that that will further support the work of the UN, aid agencies and the efforts in Turkey led by the Government there. This includes a particular focus on protecting women and girls, including support with childbirth and efforts to reduce the risk of gender-based violence.
Both noble Lords mentioned the issue of access. We obviously welcome the UN-brokered agreement opening two further crossings into Syria, but it is crucial that there are clear monitoring processes and that we, as well as the international community, ensure that the Assad regime upholds its commitment not just now but for as long as aid is needed. We will continue to monitor that situation very closely.
There has been a difficulty in relation to Syria, for all the obvious reasons. Difficulties of humanitarian access to north-west Syria are a direct product of the ongoing conflict, including in areas hit by the earthquake, and the Assad regime’s sustained use of aid as a political weapon. Even before the earthquake, it was clear that the single remaining UN-mandated border crossing in Bab al-Hawa was wildly insufficient to address the needs in north-west Syria.
Both noble Lords asked about the UK’s past and future ODA contribution. We have supported the international response through our existing support for key multilateral organisations helping in Turkey and Syria. I will give some figures. Clearly, we are a committed humanitarian donor globally, but we responded quickly to these earthquakes, providing over £43 million of immediate aid to Turkey and Syria, including the items I listed earlier.
The UK assists Turkey in other ways by providing humanitarian assistance through the EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey programme, having already committed approximately £957.1 million from 2016 to 2023 through the UK’s contributions to the EU budget, which will continue to 2025 under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and through additional contributions paid by the FCDO.
It is worth pointing out that the UK is the third-largest bilateral donor to the Syria crisis, having committed over £3.8 billion to date, which is our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis. That includes £2.1 billion since 2012 to support over 5.5 million refugees in the region. Since 2012, across Syria and the region we have provided over 28.3 million food rations, over 24.9 million medical consultations, 6.3 million cash grants and vouchers, 11 million relief packages and 15.4 million vaccines. We are a significant contributor.
The UN’s global fund, Education Cannot Wait, announced a $7 million grant for Syrian children affected by the earthquake and the Global Partnership for Education will provide $3.75 million to support the emergency education response. Again, the UK is a significant donor to both funds. We are also a long-standing partner and donor to the World Bank, which announced $1.7 billion to assist Turkey, and to the UN Central Emergency Response Fund, which has released $50 million for the crisis.
As the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, said, the British people showed extraordinary generosity through their response to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, raising over £100 million. As has been noted, that figure includes £5 million from the UK taxpayer, via the Government. I make the obvious point that the Government’s contribution through part matching that sum is not government money but public money, and that is clearly not the extent of our support for the region following the disaster that we are discussing today.
In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, our Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary spoke to their Turkish counterparts to offer condolences and reaffirm the UK’s support. His Majesty the King wrote to President Erdoğan to convey his condolences. His Majesty also visited Turkish diaspora groups and members of the British Syrian community at the opening ceremony of Syria House, a donation point in Trafalgar Square, on 14 February. The Foreign Secretary visited Syria House on 16 February, which the Government have helped to organise with the Asfari Foundation. My noble friend Lord Ahmad spoke to Syrian opposition leaders and the White Helmets.
I have not answered the question on visas and the US visa scheme put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, so I will briefly touch on that before I draw this to a close, and let others speak. We want to support British nationals with relatives impacted by the disaster. Where family members do not have current British visas, they will need to apply via one of our standard visa routes, which remain available, and applications can be submitted in-country. Our visa application centre closest to the affected region in Adana, in Turkey, has now reopened following temporary closure after the earthquake. It will support people looking to apply for a UK visa and enable those who have applied to submit their biometrics. Currently, we have no plans to create a new bespoke route for family members of British citizens affected by the earthquake in Turkey and Syria, but the Home Office will keep both Houses apprised of that.
The House will understand that the scale of the human tragedy is immense. The devastating impact on the lives of millions of people continues, and goes way beyond the numbers that I cited at the beginning of my response. The UK will continue to stand resolutely with Turkey and the people of Syria during these testing times. I welcome this opportunity today to respond to the Statement.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Minister touched, as did both Front-Bench speakers, on the catastrophe of attempting to get aid to north-west Syria. It has been nothing less than shambolic, particularly the role played by the United Nations itself. On the one hand, the humanitarian chief, Mr Martin Griffiths, said that we have failed the people of north-west Syria in attempts not to assert themselves over border crossings and deliver aid to the rebel-held areas of northern Syria, and then we had the UN Secretary-General himself ordering the UN not to go there through those crossings for a period of time until there was other intervention.
What is the Foreign Office’s legal assessment of the UN position? The noble Lord will know that this was challenged by international lawyers and that the International Court of Justice itself intervened by publishing an open letter that said:
“There can be no doubt that the provision of strictly humanitarian aid to persons or forces in another country, whatever their political affiliations or objectives, cannot be regarded as unlawful intervention, or as in any other way contrary to international law”.
Did His Majesty’s Government attempt to tell the United Nations Secretary-General that he was misinterpreting international law and in doing so collaborated with the Assad regime in adding to the disaster that had befallen the poor victims of that earthquake?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I cannot provide a direct answer because I do not know what advice has been sought or received by the Foreign Office. I will convey the noble Baroness’s question to my noble friend Lord Ahmad when he returns.
I do not know whether the UN Secretary-General or the UN as an institution misinterpreted international law. The difficulties that the international community has faced in providing assistance to north-west Syria are a product of the Assad regime’s behaviour over recent weeks, months and years and, as I said earlier, its continued use of aid as a political weapon. The blame needs to be placed squarely at the feet of Assad himself. I will be working with the UN to verify that the UN-brokered agreement to open those additional border crossings into north-west Syria for an initial period of three months happens, and happens on the terms that have been agreed.
I should add that, according to the latest figure I have, the UN has sent 583 trucks with aid from six UN agencies, via Turkey, to north-west Syria using three border crossings: Bab al-Hawa, where 473 truck-loads managed to enter; Bab al-Salam, where 91 truck-loads entered; and al-Rai, where 19 truck-loads were able to enter the region.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (LAB)
My Lords, perhaps the biggest danger that we will face now is that public attention will fade, and gradually that outpouring of grief and generosity that we have seen up to now will fade because of other events taking place. Are the Government going to maintain public interest in the subject? I also draw attention to the role of Turkey in the present crisis. The Turkish people have been the worst affected by this terrible catastrophe. Although one may have differences of opinion with President Erdoğan and his Government at the moment, there is little doubt that the Turkish people have carried a huge responsibility and shown immense generosity over the years to those who have fled from Syria and are presently in refugee camps in Turkey. I hope that, in recognising that, the Government will pay specific attention to the sensitivities of Turkey at this time.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes the important point that Turkey has faced the brunt of this disaster. The vast majority of those people killed and displaced are in Turkey. The numbers continue to mount. Frankly, we do not know the real figure but, as I said earlier, 51,000 people are known to have perished. As the Assad regime has caused such mayhem, Turkey has been left to pick up many of the pieces, and it has done so in a generous fashion, as the noble Lord said. The UK Government are not going to take their eye off the crisis that has hit Turkey and Syria. We have been one of the biggest responders. We will remain at the forefront. We have made serious commitments to Turkey and the Syrian people, and we will honour those commitments and continue to negotiate within the international community to ensure that the international donor community—not just Governments, but the multilateral agencies—provides as much support as it can to deal with the immediate aftermath of the crisis and to help with the process of rebuilding.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I will follow on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and look at today and forward to the days, weeks, months and, indeed, years ahead. It is obvious that people today are still suffering enormously from grief, the uncertain living circumstances they find themselves in, and, for the injured, the medical services are struggling to provide treatment. I am trying to get a grip on what financial contribution the UK Government have made and what they might make in the future. Looking through the figures in this Statement, I see that there is £4.3 million to the White Helmets in Syria, £25 million to the humanitarian response and £5 million as the seed fund for the Disasters Emergency Committee. There is also talk of 429 tonnes of relief and of medical teams. Can the Minister tell me whether that £25 million includes the cost of that relief and the medical teams?
The Statement also refers to contributions from multilateral funds—the humanitarian fund, Education Cannot Wait and the World Bank. Are the Government planning to make extra contributions to those multilateral funds to reflect Britain’s share of the funds that have had to be put into this emergency, unexpected situation—which, by definition, is what an earthquake is? Also, is this money extra money? We know how desperately strained all our overseas assistance budgets are. Will this money be taken from somewhere else in our overseas assistance budgets or will we genuinely put the extra money in—given that, as the Front-Bench speakers noted, the British people have been hugely generous, donating more than £100 million?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I will not go through all the figures that I cited in my response to the two Front-Bench contributions but I will make a couple of points, if I may. The first is that the UK, notwithstanding the reduction from 0.7% to 0.5%—this House has a clear view, which I certainly share, that we need to return as quickly as possible to 0.7%—a significant proportion of our ODA has been put aside and effectively ring-fenced for humanitarian response. The very nature of humanitarian crises is that they are not, on the whole, anticipated long in advance. That is what that money is for and, therefore, where it is coming from, which is exactly as it should be.
The noble Baroness mentioned the World Bank and a number of other multilateral institutions. We are one of the biggest investors in the world in the multilateral system. Again, despite the cuts that we have seen in recent years, many of those institutions exist to help countries through problems such as those faced by Turkey and Syria today. Therefore, our contribution through the multilateral system is directly contributing to alleviating the crisis in both those countries. As we go through the figures on our bilateral contribution to either organisations in Syria or the Turkish Government, it would be wrong to discount the contribution that we make through the multilateral system, which has been the major provider of support following the crisis.
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Monday 6th March 2023
(1 year, 9 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-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (6 Mar 2023)
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the proposal that Clause 12 should not stand part, which is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Fox and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I will also speak to the proposal that Clause 13 should not stand part, and to Amendment 111, which would require consultation, reasoning, et cetera for proposed restatement regulations.
My noble friend Lady Humphreys quoted the powerful view of the Delegated Powers Committee that Clauses 12 and 13 should be removed from the Bill because they inappropriately delegate legislative powers and appropriate powers that ought to belong to Parliament and be achieved subject to specific primary legislation. That committee brought to our attention, or reminded us of, the delegated powers memorandum, which says:
“This power cannot substantively change the policy effect of legislation.”
The DPRRC says:
“We doubt whether this is correct. Where there is ambiguity—
allowing Ministers to make changes to resolve ambiguities is one of three factors that a restatement is supposedly able to address—
“as to whether policy A or policy B is intended and the legislative restatement emphatically resolves in favour of policy A, the restatement has … made a firm policy choice”.
That view of our committee makes sense. It invited us to ask the Government to explain why none of the law that can be restated under the powers in Clause 12 would instead merit being restated in primary legislation. I hope the Minister will do so in his response.
The committee also draws attention to the powers that Ministers have, I think in Clause 14(6), to reproduce the effects of the supremacy of EU law, the retained general principles of EU law and retained EU case law, to ensure that the restatement has the same practical outcome that existed previously. These three elements are the ones that are otherwise abolished by the Bill; we debated that today in relation to Clauses 3 to 5. So the Government want to bring back, under Clause 14(6), the power for Ministers to reproduce the effects of the things they are abolishing, to ensure that the restatement has the same practical outcome that existed previously.
The DPRRC comments:
“This power may give rise to significant policy questions”,
but they are given to Ministers to answer rather than Parliament. I add to that a suggestion that it will also create legal confusion, because, on the one hand, you have abolished these three elements—supremacy, general principles and retained rights—yet, on the other, Ministers can bring them back. I have not quite worked out how that is supposed to work.
My noble friend Lady Humphreys quoted the fact that the powers in Clause 12 are completely “open-ended”, with
“no requirement for consultation … criteria … or … pre-conditions”.
That explains our Amendment 111, which again seeks to repeat the elements we constantly introduce.
The other thing that Clauses 12 and 13 give to Ministers, in restating REUL in secondary legislation, is the power to use different words or concepts from the original instrument and to make any change considered appropriate. That is rather worrying, and requires the Minister to explain what is meant by “restatement” if the restated law will be different in concept from the original law. To what extent can different words be used before the restatement changes into a new and distinct law? It is no longer a restatement; because different words and concepts have been used, it becomes, in effect, a new and distinct law. When does it morph into a new law, having started off as a restatement? There is quite some confusion on that.
Finally, if I have understood correctly the email from, and blog of, the distinguished legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg, it appears that he has been highlighting the fact that the pensions of some 11,000 serving or former part-time judges were going to be abolished because they relied on EU law. But apparently the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Justice, announced that he was going to save these pensions and that there was no intention to grab them back from affected judges.
I presume that this is the first announcement we have had of what is to be preserved under the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. Obviously, I think it is a good thing. I do not think that judges’ pensions, any more than former MEPs’ pensions, should be whipped away. I suspect the Minister might agree on that point. That is a good thing, but we are still fighting for confirmation on things such as water safety, air quality, product safety, employment rights and everything else. When are we going to hear about what is going to be preserved from those other areas of deep concern? I am very pleased for judges, and indeed gratified, but it seems quite odd that we have had an announcement about that but we do not know whether anything else is going to be preserved. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us in his reply.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I support Clauses 12 and 13 no longer standing part of the Bill. Opposition to those clauses has been led by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I support them on the very simple premise that the Government are attempting to sweep all legislation, including primary legislation which creeps up on secondary legislation; in other words, the secondary legislation has been adopted as primary legislation.
Before I go further—and I think I have attempted to do this already—I would like to put right the misconception that the EU law coming into our country was all under the carpet, that it was not considered and endorsed by Parliament. I suppose the Government have not put it quite so colourfully, but they could well say, on that basis, “What’s all the fuss about? The EU legislation arrived under the parliamentary carpet, why are you making all this fuss now?”
I want to correct that misconception. I sat for a number of years on the EC Committee and then the EU Committee in the 1980s and 1990s. I must have had about 10 to 12 years sitting on those committees—it was the same committee but it was renamed when the EC renamed itself the European Union. When I was on that committee, we had very alert clerks and very good relations with Brussels. The result was that when a regulation that caused concern was being considered by the Commission, with great co-operation from the Commission we were shown the draft of that regulation, really in its final form, before it was introduced as a regulation. We would examine it. It happened on a number of occasions; I cannot count the number. Your Lordships’ European Committee considered in detail the regulation, took evidence, wrote a report and sent that report back to Brussels.
I do not want to fancy ourselves too much, but the House of Lords European Committee had a great reputation in Brussels. Of all the parliaments in the union, we were the most constructive. I suppose I have to include whatever the other place was doing. With our good relationship with the Commission, when the Commission read our report it was influenced and changed the drafting of that particular regulation.
Of course, of the many regulations that were brought through when we were in the European Union, I am referring to only a few, but it is an example of how we were involved in the creation of regulations in an influential way.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in particular, for her speech. She said a lot of the things that I was going to say, and noble Lords should all be grateful to her, because she has saved them listening to me. We agree that we have real problems with Clauses 12 to 14. Our concerns about Clauses 12 and 13 are mainly about the extent of the powers that are going to be held by Ministers for national authorities, and the lack of consultation. I also want to mention Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, because it seems appropriate, on the face of it, for the devolved Administrations to have rather more involvement than these clauses, as currently drafted, seem to allow for.
In Clause 12, it would be good to get a bit more clarity from Ministers on this issue of restatement. I am not entirely clear what is meant by restatement. It is rewriting, I think, because if it were not some sort of rewriting, it would just be “retain”; we would not be having another category called “restate”. Can the Minister define what is meant by “restate”? Obviously, it means that the language can be changed, which could change the meaning, the scope, the power of the law. It could be altered, maybe inadvertently or perhaps intentionally; so who is going to check that the restatement has the effect that Ministers would want, that the devolved Administration would want, that those who are subject to the law would want, or that Parliament would want? I understand if it is about wanting to bring different pieces of law together, perhaps, or to resolve some sort of ambiguity, but how is the Minister going to determine that something is ambiguous? If it is ambiguous, by definition that must mean that there is more than one way of interpreting this piece of law; if there was not, it would not be ambiguous. So how are they going to determine what the right answer to that should be?
The DPRRC is very helpful and clear about this. Apart from anything else, it says that both Clause 12 and Clause 13 should be removed from the Bill—we think it is completely right—because they “inappropriately” delegate legislative power and give
“Ministers powers to legislate to achieve effects that ought instead to belong to Parliament and be achieved in … primary legislation.”
But they also refer to restatement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, drew to our attention. We are concerned that that could take the Government somewhere they perhaps do not intend to go. Given the pressures on time, which we have already discussed at length—do not worry, Minister, I am not going to go through all of that again—restatement could have a different outcome from that intended. That is before we even get to the powers to revoke, which in some ways might be more concerning. That is a real problem for the Government, and it would be good to know whether they have recognised that potential issue and if so, what measures they have put in place to help prevent any undesirable outcomes that may arise.
I will leave it at that because we will probably come on to similar arguments in the next group. We are very concerned. We do not generally have clause stand part debates, but we are very worried about these two clauses in particular.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I will do my best to assuage the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. The main objective of this Bill is to end REUL as a legal category, as we have said many times. We view the powers to restate as critical to ensuring that the Bill delivers this vital objective, while at the same time ensuring that UK legislation is clear, accessible and improves legal certainty.
I will start by addressing the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, spoke to. Clause 12 is critical in ensuring that the UK and, crucially for the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, who I do not think is in the Chamber any more, devolved Ministers—
Lord Callanan (Con)
Oh, she is! I apologise to the noble Baroness. She was sat somewhere else earlier.
My point is that devolved Ministers would also have this power and are able to clarify, consolidate, codify and restate any secondary retained EU law to preserve the effect of the current law, while removing it from the category of retained EU law. Removing this power will remove the ability of departments to restate retained EU law to preserve the effects of retained EU-derived principles of interpretation in order to maintain the existing policy effect where it is considered appropriate for the UK in a post-Brexit setting.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, queried whether restatements were just bringing back principles removed by the Bill. I can understand why she might think that, but other parts of the Bill are clear that supremacy and general principles are being abolished and Section 4 of the EU withdrawal Act is being reprieved. These principles or rights will not be recreated in general terms; rather, this power is limited to restating specific individual effects of these principles in particular case law. Indeed, this power will, I submit, provide greater legal certainty to the UK statute book by enabling Ministers—both UK and devolved Ministers—to restate REUL and codify the effects of retained EU case law or EU-derived interpretive effects in a clear and more accessible way.
On the query from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the general legal definition of “restate” is to articulate the principles of REUL for a specific area of law—which is in fact what these powers do. I submit that there is no need to remove this clause from the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 102, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I assure her that we have sought to ensure that the Bill contains robust scrutiny mechanisms, including for the power to restate under Clause 12. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, cited the comments from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I reassure her that the restatement power—I think this also goes to the heart of the query from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—can be used only to retain a current policy effect of specific individual implications of interpretive effects or retained case law; that is, it maintains the policy status quo, so there would be no changes to the underlying policy.
Regarding consultations, our expectation is that departments will follow the standard procedures with the devolved Governments during policy development. The UK Government are, as always, committed to respecting the devolution settlements and the Sewel convention. Indeed, as I said earlier, the majority of the powers in the Bill—including the powers to restate under Clauses 12 and 13—are indeed conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments. We will of course continue discussions with the devolved Governments moving forward to ensure that the most efficient and appropriate approach to REUL can be taken in a way that provides certainty for all parts of our nation. Therefore, we do not consider that adding a requirement to consult on the face of the Bill is necessary.
Amendment 103 would prevent the power to restate from being able to operate fully on devolved REUL. It is pivotal that there are no impediments or delays in delivering this much-needed REUL reform. I recognise the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, made. Indeed, she may have concerns about the potential impacts of the power to restate within areas of devolved competence. However, I will endeavour to convince her that her concerns are unfounded. None of the provisions in the Bill, including the power to restate REUL, affects the devolution settlements, nor is the Bill intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments.
I turn now to amendments relating to Clause 13 and the powers to restate assimilated law, starting with the Clause 13 stand part notice; the noble Lord, Lord Fox, cannot be here, so the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, spoke to it. Clause 13 is critical to ensuring that the Government are able to reproduce the effects of retained case law and EU-derived principles on the body of law that was REUL and becomes assimilated law at the end of 2023. This is essential to ensure that a consistent approach to the UK statute book can be taken following the sunset by enabling Ministers to exercise this power on former retained EU law that has not been revoked by the sunset and which remains on the UK statute book as assimilated law.
On Amendment 105, I reiterate that this Government recognise the importance of ensuring that legislation undergoes the appropriate level of scrutiny and consultation, and we are committed to working collaboratively and constructively with the devolved Administrations. Therefore, we do not consider it appropriate or necessary to add a requirement to consult to the Bill, because doing so would limit the ability of departments to use the power before it sunsets on 26 June 2026.
Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, would require legislative consent to be sought from the devolved legislatures before a UK Minister makes regulations under the power to restate assimilated law in areas of devolved competence. I reassure the House again that none of the provisions in the Bill, including the power to restate assimilated law, affects the devolution settlements, nor is the Bill intended to restrict the competence of either the devolved legislatures or the devolved Governments. The majority of the powers in the Bill, as I have said, will be conferred concurrently on the devolved Governments. This will enable them to make active decisions regarding their retained EU law or assimilated law within their areas of devolved competence, and it will provide them with greater flexibility to decide how to regulate those areas currently governed by REUL within their competence.
I will move on to Amendment 107. As I have said, we are committed to devolution and to working collaboratively and constructively. We are committed to continuing discussions with the devolved Governments moving forward to ensure that the most efficient and appropriate REUL can be taken to every situation in a way that provides certainty for all parts of the UK.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good debate. There is a body of opinion which is strongly opposed to the three clauses subject to the clause stand part notices, two of which are in this group.
I will express my personal disappointment. I am grateful to my noble friend for the replies that he gave, as far as they went, but I was told earlier by my noble friend Lady Bloomfield sotto voce that I could expect a reply on what the Government’s response is to the Scottish Parliament having withheld its consent. I thought that this was the group in which we would hear that. It echoes entirely the concerns about legislative consent Motions from the Welsh Assembly expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. Both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are concerned that their views are not being heard. I place that on the record.
I have no reason to doubt that my noble friend is right that there will be consultations. One of the Law Society of Scotland’s concerns, which I share, is that it is becoming an increasing habit of this Government to hold consultations over sometimes a 12-week period, and sometimes substantially less, and not publish the results in detail. For legislation such as this it is extremely helpful to know a little more detail. They would be published online anyway, so it is not as though people have to print it off at vast expense. The Government should not be afraid of publishing the results.
For the moment, without prejudicing what might happen at a later stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(1A) Before making regulations under subsection (1) a relevant national authority must consult with any person who may be affected by the proposed regulations.(1B) If a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under subsection (1) which concern devolved matters the Minister must before making the regulations consult with the relevant national authority.(1C) A relevant national authority and, where subsection (1B) applies, a Minister of the Crown must publish the results of any consultation conducted under subsection (1A) or (1B).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a relevant national authority or a Minister of the Crown to consult with those who may be affected by regulations under subsection 15(1) before making them. All relevant national authorities are required to publish the results of the consultation.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to briefly introduce Amendment 112 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It is a pleasure and I thank her for inviting me to do so. Amendment 112 would require a relevant national authority or a Minister of the Crown to consult with those who may be affected by regulations under Clause 15(1) before making them. All relevant national authorities would be required to publish the results of the consultation.
We have been discussing Clause 15 on and off since we started. It is about the power to revoke and has caused a great deal of interest among noble Lords as we have gone through this. We have tabled Amendment 113, which would remove some important measures from the scope of Clause 15. We went for what we thought were the least controversial topics imaginable, so we have the Cocoa and Chocolate Products (England) Regulations 2003, some regulations on toy safety, regulations on the control of asbestos—which we discussed at length on day one—and the Civil Aviation (Denied Boarding, Compensation and Assistance) Regulations 2005.
What we are trying to get at here is this issue of desired policy effect. Repeatedly, we have been assured by Ministers that we have nothing to worry about; every time we raise a particular measure, we are told, “No, that’s all fine; we are going to keep that one.” If that were the case, then an amendment such as Amendment 113 would pose no threat to Ministers because they would be able to back up their assurances with something within the Bill that would mean something.
Not anticipating that that is about to happen, I thought that I should explain a little further why we are quite so concerned about this. Clause 15(2) talks about the right of the relevant national authority to
“revoke any secondary retained EU law and replace it with such provision as the relevant national authority considers to be appropriate and to achieve the same or similar objectives.”
It is quite a broad power to be able to revoke a law and replace it with something else that the national authority thinks is appropriate—never mind what anybody else, this House or the other place might think. Achieving similar objectives is all very well, but the Bill does not say that the replacement law must have the same effect, which is very different. The DPRRC draws our attention to this as well. In fact, the committee says:
“Clause 15 is the most arresting clause in the Bill for its width, novelty and uncertainty,”
which is pretty strong language for this kind of report. This is something that we will definitely want to come back to at a future stage.
I find Clause 15(3) to be the most concerning thing. It states:
“A relevant national authority may by regulations revoke any secondary retained EU law and make such alternative provision”,
but it does not say what the desired policy effect would have to be. The Government do not set out anywhere what their policy outcomes are intended to be, so we cannot challenge the Government by saying that their replacement law is or is not going to meet their policy objective.
We have touched before on the issues raised by Clause 15(5). Ministers know that we are very worried about the last part of that subsection, which says that any changes must
“not increase the regulatory burden”.
A law can be revoked and replaced, but the regulatory burden must not be increased. When we have touched on this previously, we have been told that our understanding is not quite correct, because we were talking about categories of law and the burden must be the same in total across a category of law; a particular measure may result, on its own, in an increase in burden. The “burden” is defined as a financial cost; an administrative inconvenience; an obstacle to trade; an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability; or a sanction, criminal or otherwise. That seemed very odd to us. We are not clear what a “category of law” is and, as far as I can see, it is not stated anywhere in the Bill. This would seem an appropriate set of amendments where the Minister might further explain exactly what is intended.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 114 and 120 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fox, who, as the Committee knows, is unable to be with us today, sadly. I will also speak to the clause stand part notice.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said, this clause is fundamental to discussion of the Bill. She referred to the DPRRC report and, if we thought that it was scathing about Clauses 12 and 13, as the noble Baroness rightly said, it is extremely concerned about Clause 15. Not only was there the phrase that she mentioned, but its conclusions were pretty damning, at the end of the day. It said:
“Clause 15 contains an inappropriate delegation of legislative power and should be removed from the Bill. It gives Ministers an extraordinarily wide discretion to revoke and replace secondary REUL merely where Ministers regard it as appropriate to do so. Clause 15 contravenes the commitment given at the time of the 2018 Act, a commitment that was enshrined in section 8 of the 2018 Act, that substantial policy changes to REUL should be for Parliament in primary legislation rather than for Ministers in secondary legislation … We have recommended that, of the six most important provisions containing delegated powers in this Bill, five should be removed from the Bill altogether.”
This is a very strong recommendation from the DPRRC, whose conclusions we always take extremely seriously in this House. The noble Baroness also referred to the difference between effects and objectives. That was the purpose of Amendment 114.
I really want to speak about some of the impacts of Clause 15(5), also mentioned by the noble Baroness. During our extensive debate on Clause 1, on Thursday 23 February, I mentioned the potential sunsetting of product and consumer safety regulations as an example of the extreme danger posed by the Bill and that, far from there being a need to deregulate, there is in fact scope for improvement in safety standards, particularly regarding online transactions.
Under current product safety legislation, online marketplaces are not accountable for the safety of products being sold by third parties, which enables non-compliant and unsafe toys to be sold in the UK. I went on to give some examples of products, particularly one involving magnets and a young girl called Rebecca McCarthy, who was left critically injured after swallowing 14 magnets that were above the legal limit. I referred also to the fact that Which? has regularly found unsafe products offered for sale in online marketplaces, including Christmas tree lights that were a fire and safety hazard, baby carriers that posed a suffocation risk and electric blankets that were so poorly made that they risked giving electric shocks.
I mentioned a recent report by the National Audit Office that found that product safety regulations had not kept pace with the trends in online commerce; it noted that online marketplaces were used by about nine in 10 adults but were not responsible for the safety of goods sold by third parties. I also pointed out that the Office for Product Safety and Standards had been consulting on the UK’s product safety framework, in particular addressing the lack of obligations on online marketplaces to place only safe products on the market, in a similar way to how obligations apply to traditional retailers.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned the review at the time. Of course, that makes the ambit of Clause 15, the subject of this debate, particularly relevant: not only is sunsetting available under the Bill but there is the right to revoke until 2026, as we see in the clause.
We can debate changes to Clause 15, such as those contained in Amendments 114 and 120, but it is the whole clause that creates the damage. In her letter of 28 February, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, refers to the review of the Office for Product Safety and Standards and seeks to reassure us about the ambit of Clause 15. I recognise that this letter has not had universal acclaim. I think that perhaps one of the kindest comments was made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who said it was
“a letter which can be described only as obfuscatory, tautological gobbledegook”.—[Official Report, 28/2/23; col. 169.]
If that is the kindest thing that we can say, we have more to discuss.
In the letter, the noble Baroness explicitly says that
“it is possible for additional regulations and higher standards to be introduced through the powers to revoke or replace, so long as”—
this is the crucial bit—
“the package of reforms contained within each statutory instrument does not increase the overall regulatory burden for that particular subject area”.
My bafflement is equal to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. The letter continues:
“For example, through removing unnecessary or unsuitable regulations or consolidating multiple regulations into one, it will be possible to add new regulations with higher standards provided that the overall regulatory burden is not increased Therefore, it will be possible for a single instrument made under the power in clause 15 to increase the regulatory burden, so long as this increase is offset by a decrease of regulation in the same subject area”.
Here is the rub:
“It will be for the relevant Minister or devolved authority to decide if they are satisfied that the use of the power does not increase the overall regulatory burden in a subject area”.
So it is for the Minister to decide—itself hugely objectional, as discussed on the third day of Committee—but let me set the Minister a hypothetical if he is to decide in this area. If the product safety review recommends that we need a major increase in product safety regulation to cover products sold on online marketplaces, how on earth is that going be balanced by a decrease in regulation within the same package of reforms so that it does not fall foul of Clause 15(5), especially given the definition of burden under subsection (10), which is pretty extraordinary in itself and which I am not going to quote? What would the Minister suggest? Some heavy deregulation on toy safety perhaps, or for baby carriers?
This clause is nonsense and potentially extremely dangerous nonsense. However, in the debate on Amendment 16, the noble Baroness tried to reassure us that the Government are committed to protecting consumers from unsafe products. How on earth could and should something as desirable as product safety for internet-purchased products need to be balanced by deregulation on product safety elsewhere?
It begs the question of how wide the package is within which the Minister will make a judgment. This is the nub of what the noble Baroness was hoping to elicit at some stage—I hope she does. How wide is the package within which the Minister will make a judgment? Is it across the whole of what we described in the debate on the first day as “a bucket”? If so, what is the potential size of a bucket, dear Liza? This is especially relevant as the Minister’s letter says the search is still on for retained EU law. It is the hunting of the Snark, clearly.
Finally, the DPRRC made it clear that we should delete Clause 15. I have a particular objection to subsection (5). I very much hope that, if we have a satisfactory debate today, we will move on to Report and delete Clause 15 at that stage.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I support the opposition to Clause 15 standing part. Other noble Lords have explained potently why it should not. It is the epicentre of taking back power to the Executive and not to Parliament. It is at the heart of the debate we have been having for three days—it is now the fourth day and the fifth is to come. If Clause 15 stands part, the taking back of control to the Executive and not to Parliament will have been consecrated by Parliament, and that would be a terrible error.
The clause contains a bizarre reference to the overall regulatory burden not being increased. This is a phrase in legislation without a metric. There is no description whatever of how this will be judged. I can perfectly well see a Minister from the Front Bench, whenever an attempt is made to change a government proposal, nodding his head sadly and saying, “Ah, yes, I’m afraid you can’t do that, because the regulatory burden will be increased”. It is just a catch-all, kill-all argument yet again for the Executive to have absolute authority. Those are the reasons why I argue that Clause 15 should not stand part.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 118A in my name. I thank my noble friend Lady Chapman for her kind words about my modest amendment, and other noble Lords. From the discussion at Second Reading when my noble friend Lady Crawley referred to human rights and equality, and from earlier in Committee, it became clear to me that it is necessary to provide protection for human rights and equality and their infrastructure in the UK in the Bill.
I actually have been on the dashboard. I went to have a look to see whether I could gain some knowledge and possibly reassurance about the consequences of the Bill. I spent an hour or so putting questions about a variety of issues; of course, human rights and equalities are not a government department so I had to work out how to identify them across the variety of departments concerned. Digging into workers’ rights, I found descriptions of all kinds, many of which have been mentioned in the Committee over the past few days—maternity rights, trade union rights, and so on—but what I could not find out was what might be retained, what might be changed and what might be abandoned, so clearly I either need to spend more time communing with the dashboard or perhaps the criticism levelled at it in earlier debates has been borne out.
As a result, like other noble Lords I decided that the only safe solution was to require, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, proposed earlier today for the Food Standards Agency, that any proposed change, revocation or alternative provision should require an opinion from the EHRC on its impact on equalities and human rights before the powers can be used. Parliament gave the EHRC powers to advise on the equality and human rights implications of laws and proposed laws and to publish information and advice, including to Parliament, on any matter relating to equality and human rights. The breadth of law within the scope of the Bill is considerable and has considerable implications for equality and human rights. They include, but are not limited to, parental leave, annual leave, rights for part-time workers, maximum hours for heavy goods vehicle drivers, and other employment rights. The Bill could also impact on laws on minimum rights for refugees and disabled people’s access to rail and air transport.
So rather than going into detail about all the things that might be affected by this, I thought it would be worth putting on the record five concerns that the EHRC has about the Bill and why this amendment is important. These are:
“Uncertainty about the Government’s policy intentions and potential effects on equality and human rights protections … lack of parliamentary scrutiny of potential changes … limited time available before the proposed ‘sunset’ date … Legal uncertainty resulting from the Bill … implications for devolution and the Union”,
which are immense. So it seems to me that this amendment should help the Government. It is a logical answer to those concerns, and I hope that the Minister might see it in that light.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am much more a supporter of this bit of Bill than some, but even I am astonished by Clause 15(5), which seems to introduce uncertainty and immense delays in the process without offering any great benefit. After all, what we are talking about here is essentially declaratory legislation. It is the Government saying, “We are not going to increase the burden of regulation by what we do under this Bill”. It is a political promise. It will, by and large—unless the Government chose to commit suicide, which is always possible—be delivered before the next election, so there is no benefit to be gained from this declaration. The Government will do it anyway and they will make the changes they wish to make, but the Bill introduces huge uncertainties.
I go back to my previous intervention when I queried the letter that we got as a result of the first day in Committee, which I think misinterpreted the way this subsection works. It is clear to me that, in deciding whether you are allowed to deregulate, you have to look at all the previous regulations made under this section within that subject area and decide whether your particular regulation plus all those adds up to something deregulatory.
It is going to get challenged in judicial review. If you give a water company a couple of hundred million quid fine for dumping turds in the Thames, you will find that its lawyers look at opportunities. Through this section we have introduced so much vagueness, such widespread uncertainty, that whether the regulation is in any way valid can be questioned at enormous length—including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, says: what is the subject area? Has the Minister got it right? Should it have been narrower? Should it have been larger? What is the right way of measuring these things, of all the things that can be taken into account in regulatory burden? Have they been weighed correctly?
It is total apples and pears mathematics anyway. How on earth do you summon these things to produce a single-digit answer? There is no formula in here as to how you can weigh an obstacle to trade and innovation against an administrative inconvenience. There is no way you can use this clause to arrive at a safe answer. The Government will never know—because of Clause 15(5)—whether any legislation that they have passed through Clause 15 is valid. It will be open to endless challenge. Because of that, in deciding whether to bring forward regulations under this clause, civil servants will have to go through the most enormously detailed and tiresome exercise to discover whether they will be able to make this balance work. That must add hugely to the delays.
I entirely appreciate what my noble friend on the Front Bench said on our previous day in Committee: that the Government want to get on with this and that he has his suspicions—which I hope do not embrace me—that there are people who do not want him to get on with it quite as quickly as he would like. I want these things to happen with speed and accuracy but the work that will have to go in to satisfy Clause 15(5) is huge, and an enormous diversion of effort away from the purposes of this Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, the only way of avoiding it is to introduce some whacking bit of deregulation smack in the middle of the most important subject areas, such as—let us take the environment since that is something I am heavily involved in—some enormous bit of environmental deregulation; then you know that you are safe because the rest of it cannot add up to excessive regulation.
We have been promised that that is not going to happen, in any segment of the Bill, so that is not open to the Government. They will have to weigh these little changes, pluses and minuses, in detail, every single time—to achieve what? As I said, to achieve nothing, because all of this is totally in the Government’s control. They can choose whether a particular instrument increases or decreases the regulatory burden and they will do it all within their term in office. There is absolutely no net benefit at the end of the day for all the work, difficulty and uncertainty of this, except that it will reduce the chances that my noble friend will achieve what he says are his objectives.
Of course, I am well used to getting things wrong in this House, and it may well be that I have here. In that case, I have Amendment 134, which mimics Clause 15(5) and says, “If you’re going to do this and we’re going to have declaratory legislation, then let’s do it for the environment”. Let us put in this Bill the promises the Government have made in front of us in this Committee about their environmental legislation, and then we can all be comfortable and spend the rest of the decade challenging their interpretation of that.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I want to draw attention to two paragraphs in Clause 15 to which there has not been any reference in our Committee. Indeed, I do not think there has been any reference to them since Second Reading, but concern was certainly raised then about Clause 15(4)(c) and (d), and it is those that I now want to address.
We should remind ourselves that immense powers are vested in the Minister under Clause 15. Subsection (1) allows them to
“revoke any secondary retained EU law without replacing it”,
while subsection (2) allows them to
“revoke any secondary retained EU law and replace it with such provision as the relevant national authority”—
that is, the relevant Minister—
“considers to be appropriate and to achieve the same or similar objectives.”
That is a power, without reference to Parliament, resting entirely in the hands of the Minister.
I now turn, more precisely, to Clause 15(4)(c) and (d). I shall read those paragraphs out to your Lordships. When replacing revoked secondary EU law, the Minister has the power to
“create a criminal offence that corresponds or is similar to a criminal offence created by secondary retained EU law revoked by the regulations”,
and, in paragraph (d), to
“provide for the imposition of monetary penalties in cases that correspond or are similar to cases in which secondary retained EU law revoked by the regulations enables monetary penalties to be imposed”.
It has been a cardinal feature of our law that the creation of criminal offences and the penalties that arise from the breach of those offences rest entirely in primary legislation. If, hidden under some carpet, there have been EU regulations that create a criminal offence or monetary penalties, then I am ashamed and embarrassed. But for the Government now to seek powers to replace them—again, without putting that before Parliament—is another wrong. My simple contention to your Lordships is that two wrongs do not make a right.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 121 and 123 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. At Second Reading I welcomed the opportunity created by the Bill to review, improve and update a wide-ranging tranche of important legislation. However, I expressed some concerns about process, and one of those is the constraint that I believe Clause 15 imposes on improving and updating existing legislation. That constraint is also a concern to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and Which?, among others. Here I should declare an interest as the president of the CTSI, my predecessor in that role being the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley.
The principal constraint I am referring to has been well articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others: Clause 15(5) —namely, the proposed requirement that any changes to retained EU law should have an overall effect of not increasing the regulatory burden. I say immediately that I am a long-term advocate of better regulation. Over the years, I have served on the better regulation commission and various other bodies advising government on what better regulation looks like and the framework for its development and oversight. I fundamentally believe that regulation should be avoided wherever there is an effective alternative and that, when there is no alternative, it should be designed so that it achieves its desired effect with the least possible burden.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I would also like to speak in support of the amendments on the definition of regulatory burden, because the truth is that throughout our history, one person’s burden has also possibly been somebody else’s vital protection. This is particularly true in respect of employment rights.
It was good to hear the Minister talking positively about the living wage, which started life as the national minimum wage. As somebody who campaigned for it, I vividly remember huge opposition and resistance to the introduction of a national minimum wage, precisely on the grounds that it would be a burden on employers, cost too much and so on. Of course, today, it is now seen as one of the most successful policy innovations this country has ever delivered. I might add that it has been delivered on the advice of one of our few remaining tripartite bodies to make recommendations to government—the Low Pay Commission.
I am also particularly concerned about this clause’s impact on equality. Equal rights for part-time workers, which we also campaigned for, meant that, for the first time, millions of women in particular had access to occupational pension schemes. Without doubt, some might describe that as an administrative burden and an added cost for employers. I would argue that driving up labour standards is good for productivity, protects the decent employer against the bad and is ultimately good for our country. We want a country where people can work and retire with dignity. This clause is really unhelpful: the definition of “burdens” is unhelpful and does not appear to consider the impact on ordinary working people at all. It would be wise to drop it.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, we have heard some excellent contributions in this debate, not least the latest one from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones made an extremely powerful case on product safety in online marketplaces. In the course of his contribution, he, like others, tested or tried to probe what “subject area” means—the Bill says, “a particular subject area”. I am afraid we are rather used to this, but the letter that we received from the Minister simply repeated that and did not explain it. It said:
“it will be possible for a single instrument made under … clause 15 to increase the regulatory burden, so long as this increase is offset by a decrease of regulation in the same subject area.”
But it did not enlighten us about the scope of a subject area, because that is a very subjective definition.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that if civil servants were considering one new measure they would have to look at all of the past measures. I suggest that they would have to look at all of the anticipated future measures as well and be Mystic Meg, because they need to know what is coming down the track to take any kind of view of what a single instrument might do to the weighting of the scales in the balance and amount of regulation. It is a bit of a lottery whether any single measure will fall foul of the overall regulatory burden test.
I note that the Minister’s letter admitted that
“There is no definition of regulatory burden in the Bill, as the Government considered that such a definition could unnecessarily constrain departments given the considerable variety in what is covered in regulations across Government.”
This is not the first time that we have been told that we must not unnecessarily constrain departments—which means unnecessarily constrain Ministers. So consultation, analysis, publication of the results of consultation and the role of Parliament all have to fall by the wayside because we must not unnecessarily—that is a loaded word—constrain departments: that is, constrain Ministers. The Government are acting in a very arrogant and high-handed way. They are getting too big for their boots by saying that nothing should be allowed to constrain ministerial powers. I am quite fed up with it.
So we are not getting any satisfactory explanation of how Clause 15 will be applied, and we cannot have any confidence, given the factors in Clause 15(5), that it will not lead to a de facto lowering of standards. That is the whole thrust of what has been talked about, and the whole rhetoric around the Bill, which started as the Brexit freedoms Bill, so it is very difficult to trust the assurances we have had that Ministers do not intend to lower standards.
During an evidence session with the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee, the Secretary of State for Defra referred to the goal of the Environment Agency
“to change quite a lot of the water framework directive”.
That immediately makes one somewhat worried. It may well be that we need a sensible approach to looking at the water framework—and even my favourite one, the urban waste water treatment directive—but it is well known, and a source of great public concern given the state of our rivers and seas because of the discharge of raw sewage, that tackling the dire state of our waters will not be possible without substantial investment, which would trigger both a financial cost and the profitability limbs of Clause 15(5). So how will Clause 15 be a route through which the Government deliver improved environmental outcomes? There is a simple contradiction at the heart of all this.
The noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has told the Committee several times that the Government are committed to maintaining high environmental standards and that they want to see standards improve in future, but the whole thrust of Clause 15, particularly subsection (5), pulls in the opposite direction. You can just see water companies coming along and saying, if we require them to improve our pipes—which are bursting all the time, not least in my neck of the woods in Islington—and to stop raw sewage discharges by having better treatment facilities, that it will reduce their profits, which are of course being creamed off, with no benefit to consumers and citizens. So it is clear that the thrust of all this is towards a lowering of standards, and it is really impossible to believe the opposite of the case.
Finally, I will speak to the weakness of the “same or similar objectives” test. The reason for us wanting to replace “objectives” with “effects” is because you could have a law which might have the same or similar objectives of protecting consumers, but which will achieve the objectives in ways which are controversially different. I will leave noble Lords with the example of parental leave. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, talked about various employment areas, and one of those rights is to parental leave. If Ministers wanted to have replacement regulations under Clause 15, they could argue that they could decide to give employers the right to refuse leave rather than just postponing it, as they are able to do in narrow circumstances where the operation of the business would be unduly disrupted. The Government could say, “Oh, well, we would be pursuing a similar objective of creating provision for parental leave while protecting businesses from being disrupted”. But if you gave employers the right to refuse leave—pursuing the similar objective because it is about parental leave—you would be driving a coach and horses through the parental leave rights.
Clause 15 is riddled with weaknesses and dangers; it is a “Here be dragons” clause, and it should be removed. It cannot be improved, and it should be taken out of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good debate, probing our powers to revoke or replace, which are important cross-cutting enablers of the REUL reform in the Bill. They will allow the Government to overhaul retained EU laws in secondary legislation across many sectors of the economy, as we have heard, and replace them with domestic laws that are tailored to and beneficial for the UK.
It would make sense to begin with the debate on the clause stand part notice, which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and explain why we believe that Clause 15 must stand part of the Bill. Retained EU law no longer aligns with EU law, nor does it keep pace with the evolving needs of the UK’s citizens or businesses. That is why reform is needed. Although the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that delegated powers are appropriately limited and have the necessary safeguards in place, we judge the powers under Clause 15 to be necessary in order to deliver this reform. I am afraid we do not agree with the DPRRC recommendation to remove Clause 15 from the Bill.
At present, the problem is that there is a distinct lack of subordinate legislation-making powers to remove retained EU law from the statute book. This is an oddity. It results from our EU membership and it is appropriate to take a power which covers the gap. Removing Clause 15 would significantly damage the UK’s legislative dynamism and potentially hinder the UK’s ability to regulate adequately. There must be scope for reform over the next two to three years if we are to deliver post-Brexit benefits.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, raised concerns in particular around Clause 15(3). We recognise that the power under Clause 15(3) is a broad one, but we want to ensure that departments have the necessary tools to create a regulatory environment which is the right fit for the UK. In addition, Clause 15(3) may still provide only “alternative provision” to the retained EU law or assimilated law being replaced. Any replacement legislation must therefore cover similar ground to the retained EU law or the assimilated law it replaces. Therefore, the power cannot be used to create new regulations in wholly unrelated policy areas, for example. Moreover, I add that nothing in this legislation prevents the Government introducing sector-specific primary legislation where that is considered necessary and appropriate for that subject area, as exemplified by the Procurement Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill in recent times.
I turn to Amendment 112, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mcintosh of Pickering. Although the latter has gone home, I listened to this with care. The amendment would hinder the removal of regulations that have been identified as outdated and unsuitable for UK citizens and businesses, which we do not think would be efficient lawmaking. As I touched on before, we do not consider adding to the Bill a requirement to consult to be appropriate or necessary. Equally, I understand the concerns that have been raised.
I turn to Amendment 113, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. Honourable Members—sorry, noble Lords: exempting regulations and judgments on customer protections, which range from aviation to pensions and, indeed, to toy safety, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke to, from this power would obviously reduce the scope for reform that the Bill sets out to deliver in an orderly manner. There is simply no need for any carve-outs for individual departments or specific policy areas or sectors. Doing that would prevent the UK Government carrying out the necessary work to overhaul secondary retained EU law, which sits across so many different sectors of the economy.
I think my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy talked about tides and how EU law had become entrenched in UK law. Where protections are necessary, these will be kept, but there is an opportunity to improve and in some places simplify laws passed over many years in Brussels.
Turning to Amendment 114, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, Clause 15(2) has already been restricted such that any replacement legislation must be appropriate and must
“achieve the same or similar objectives”
as the legislation it is replacing. This amendment seeks to further restrict that subsection. The use of the word “effects” instead of “objectives” would further restrict the functionality of this limb of the power and prevent departments undertaking reforms that would adjust the existing policy to better fit the UK context. It is important that we ensure departments are able to amend their legislation to better fit that UK context, so this is an important clause.
Amendments 120 and 121, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lindsay, both seek to amend the limitation on Clause 15 that states that the replacement legislation must not add to the overall regulatory burden—so allowing extra burdens. In seeking to remove Clause 15(5) and (6), both amendments would increase the scope of the powers and enable them to be used to introduce additional regulation. Consequently, they would create a wider power than the Government have proposed or intended. As such, these subsections are a necessary check on our powers. Comments have been made that Clause 15(5) and (6) mean that regulation made under these powers could be challenged by the courts. That is of course correct, and like any delegated legislation, an entirely appropriate check.
We recognise that it will not always be a scientific test precisely to establish what the value of regulatory burdens are, or to balance one burden against another. That is why we have sought to ensure an appropriate level of discretion for Ministers in the interpretation of Clause 15(5) and (6). When doing so, the Minister is required to act reasonably and to take into account relevant factors. This strikes the right balance between limiting the scope of the powers and providing Ministers with a pragmatic degree of discretion in deciding whether the regulatory burden test has been met. The restriction to the powers to revoke or replace set out in Clause 15(5) and (6) will help the UK to establish a more UK-specific regulatory approach in order to go further and seize the opportunities of Brexit.
We have sought to ensure that the powers to revoke or replace cannot be used to add to the overall regulatory burden for a particular subject area. However, it will be for the relevant authority to decide. I thought I would share with noble Lords a hypothetical example from my own experience. There may be instances where there are multiple reporting requirements for businesses across a number of regulations in a similar area. Through consolidating these reporting requirements in a single regulation—aligning dates, for example—it can be administratively easier for businesses to comply with the regulations, and it may be possible thus to lower the regulatory burden while maintaining exactly the same standards and, indeed, possibly providing better enforcement. I hope that example reassures my noble friend Lord Lindsay, who I know does so much to try to tackle overburdensome regulation.
In responding to the interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord, Hacking, about the ability of the powers under Clause 15 to create a criminal offence and provide for monetary penalties, I hope I can be reassuring. Any offences or penalties must correspond to, or be similar to, those which the revoked provisions provided. In that sense, the power does not provide licence to create wholly new offences or penalties, but rather allows like-for-like replacements for what already exists: for example, similar conditions for the commission of an offence and similar penalties. Furthermore, any instruments made under Clause 15(3) will be subject to the affirmative procedure, as well as any instruments made under Clause 15(2) which recreate a delegated power or create a criminal offence present in retained EU law.
To conclude, it is right—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I wanted to interrupt the Minister before she got much further because I was much struck by her phrase “damaging legislative dynamism”. What would be more dynamic than changing retained EU law in product safety so that it covered online marketplaces? If that is legislative dynamism—very desirable legislative dynamism—what would prevent it? Well, Clause 15(5) would prevent it. How could it be possibly balanced against any other form of deregulation, however much discretion the Minister had? That would be around the edges. Can the Minister answer the hypothetical that I put in my speech?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
There is a balance here. What we have got are powers that allow us to make changes, such as the example that I gave, which will improve the state of regulation. There may be a bit of an extra burden at the margins, but if you are bringing regulation into a new area, which I think is what we are talking about, in my opinion—and I am not an expert in this particular area—that might be a case for primary legislation. Of course, we are about to have further primary legislation in the digital area in the coming months.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank the Minister very much indeed for sitting down. The Minister did not quite answer my cardinal point that it is well-established in our law that all criminal offences, and all penalties arising out of those criminal offences, are part of primary law, not secondary law. That means that, if there are EU regulations that are creating criminal offences and penalties, they are no more right than the current proposal that Ministers will now do it. Both are wrong.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The point I was making is that we are not creating new offences with these provisions. I will look further at Hansard, but I think that what I said was right and not a cause for concern—obviously, there were penalties attached to Section 2(2) and so on, in my experience.
I need to move on. Amendment 121A was tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. As I made clear in relation to the previous amendments, the restrictions to the powers set out in subsections (5) and (6), combined with a non-exhaustive list under subsection (10), will help the UK to establish a more nimble and innovative approach to seize Brexit opportunities. Furthermore, the ability for the powers to act on assimilated law after the sunset date will enable the Government to have sufficient time to undertake necessary reform. However, the Government agree with the principle that adequate limitation should be in place on the exercise of powers. We have sought to ensure the powers are restricted in their use and are available only in a time-limited window—this ends on 23 June 2026.
In the same spirit, Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, seeks to remove the non-exhaustive list in Clause 15(10). Let me again assure the Committee that the requirement not to add to the overall regulatory burden has been drafted in a manner which will allow the relevant national authority to determine how best to achieve the desirable policy outcome.
I turn to Amendment 134A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas and pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Honourable Members—sorry, I should say noble Lords. I think I need to pay 50p for any such mistakes; I am sorry about that. As outlined by my noble friend Lord Benyon on day two of Committee, the Bill will not alter our commitments to the environment. The Minister made it clear in his speech that the default position of Defra is to retain EU laws. This will allow us to keep protections in place, providing certainty to businesses and stakeholders, and to make reforms tailored to our needs. The Government also recently announced the environment improvement plan, on 31 January 2023, which sets out comprehensive action that the Government will take to reverse the decline in species abundance, achieve our net-zero goals, and deliver cleaner air and water. I hope this will help reassure the Committee that the Government will not be trashing the kind of protections that we want to continue and improve. There will also be a further opportunity to discuss the environment in a later grouping on Wednesday.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 118A—it was the last amendment to be tabled so I have come to it last—for which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Her proposed criteria include a requirement to share the draft instrument with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and for the commission to provide an assessment setting out the potential legal impact on human rights and equalities, including in relation to the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998. As such, no replacement provision could be made under Clause 15(2) and (3) unless the Equality and Human Rights Commission had confirmed that there was no negative impact as a result of the proposed draft instrument.
We fully intend to maintain the UK’s leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights and the rule of law. We have a long, proud and diverse history of freedoms and we will ensure that our international human rights obligations continue to be met. The powers to revoke or replace are important cross-cutting enablers of retained EU law reform in the Bill. Clause 15 has been purposefully drafted to be broad in scope, and we have sought to ensure that there are important safeguards in place. This amendment would restrict the ability for the powers under Clause 15 to be used to undertake important REUL reform, so we do not believe that it is necessary.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Could the Minister write to tell me what the safeguards she is referring to are? She probably does not want to explain them at this time of night, but I cannot see anything in the Bill that tells us what safeguards there are. Perhaps she could write and tell the House what they are.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think the safeguards were in relation to the clause as a whole, but I will certainly write to the noble Baroness. This has been an important discussion, but for now I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the Government are taking huge powers in the Bill to abolish EU legislation and are asking us to believe the promises they have made; for instance, on environmental law, that they will not decrease environmental protection. I entirely accept those promises. This is a well-run Government who are capable of controlling what they do and living up to their promises. In that case, what is the problem with just saying, “And we’re not going to increase the regulatory burden”? We would say, “Okay, we believe you; we don’t need you to have a power to stop yourselves doing that”. What kind of Government need to legislate to stop themselves behaving well?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This clause has got to the guts of the Bill. It is a real mistake for the Government to be quite so certain in their position on this and to not give even the slightest indication that they want to consider some of the suggestions made by noble Lords in this debate. I think the Government may come to regret batting things back without really taking on board the very serious and well-considered points that have been made. This is certainly something we will return to on Report.
I have worked on a lot of Bills—not as many as others in this place—but never one where nobody has turned up to support their Front Bench on the Government side on anything.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Even the support there has been has been heavily caveated, and it has hardly been what you could describe as overwhelming and unquestioning support. I would say it has been very questioning support. I think that noble Lords on all sides are looking for a bit more from the Government on this clause in particular, but the same applies to most of the groups we have debated on all four days. Your Lordships might say that I rush to criticise the Government sometimes; I do not think I do. Other people are much more reluctant to do so, but their criticism is there none the less. I genuinely think that Ministers ought to reflect on this.
We are very disappointed with the failure of the Government to engage with the DPRRC on any of its findings and to recognise that the power in Clause 15(3) is very wide. This issue about categories or subject areas and that the regulations must be “similar”—whatever that means—is going to have to be looked at again. If we need to force the Government to do that through votes in this place, we would be very happy to work with noble Lords on all sides to work out the best way to do that.
The Minister said a couple of times that there would be no carve-outs but there is a carve-out for financial services and it looks like judges are getting one for their pensions. It is interesting to think about how the Government set priorities for themselves when these issues are being exempted but the environment and consumer protection are not. It is no wonder that noble Lords are a little reluctant to take all this on trust. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, says—I am sure he is a Minister who says everything with the utmost sincerity—there is no default position for Defra of retention. That is not possible in this Bill. It is a real shame that a basic understanding of what is going on here seems to be being overlooked, perhaps wilfully, from time to time.
We are disappointed. We are going to come back to this issue. I urge Ministers to have some further thoughts and deliberations, and perhaps come back with something a bit more sensible on Report.