House of Commons
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Chancellor launched the efficiency and savings review in the autumn statement to focus on the Government’s priorities and identify ways in which to work more efficiently and help to manage budgetary pressures from higher inflation. The Secretary of State for Transport and I discussed the costs of HS2 during the review, which helped to inform the decision to rephase certain parts of the project as part of balancing the nation’s books.
Philip Davies
The travel between north and south is the bit of transport infrastructure that works; it is the travel across the north that does not work. What would the cost of HS2 have to reach for the Government to conclude that it no longer represents value for money for the taxpayer, or are the Government pursuing the essentially socialist policy that they will keep paying for this ridiculous white elephant irrespective of the final bill?
John Glen
I took the precaution of researching my hon. Friend’s interest in this subject, and I note that he was issuing challenges on it 14 years ago. The Government remain—as they were then—fully committed to delivering HS2 and the integrated rail plan. This is a long-term investment that will bring our biggest cities closer to each other. It will boost productivity, and will provide a low-carbon alternative to cars and planes for many decades to come. As my hon. Friend knows, we are also working, through the IRP, on a £96 billion package to improve inter-regional rail connections, which obviously affects his constituents.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this country’s performance on productivity has been pitiful over the last 10 years? There has been virtually no improvement in productivity, and one reason for that is our lack of investment in national infrastructure. Slowing down HS2 is a bad move when it comes to improving our infrastructure, and it is years since we agreed to a third runway at Heathrow. Does the Minister agree that if we are to improve our productivity, we have to invest in infrastructure?
John Glen
I can agree with the hon. Gentleman that the investment of £600 billion in infrastructure in all parts of the country to which the Government are committed is critical to easing the productivity challenge that has faced successive Governments, and the Chancellor will introduce measures in the autumn statement to address it further.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
HS2’s costs have ballooned since it was first conceived under the last Labour Government. As my right hon. Friend has said, owing to pressure from the Treasury the project has had to be rephased, and trains will now go from west London—not central London—to a station not in central Birmingham, which negates the benefits that the scheme’s proponents said it would bring. With costs ballooning still further, we just cannot afford it, can we?
John Glen
I am sorry, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I certainly recognise that infrastructure investments of this scale and with this level of ambition are never easy to deliver. I have set out the changes to the profile of the investment, but all the key elements are still on track, and we will continue to work with the Department for Transport to ensure that that remains the case.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Is the Minister not also concerned about cost-benefit analysis? Have not assumptions behind the pattern of business travel demand been changed dramatically by the pandemic, working from home and video conferencing? Is the Minister satisfied that the Department for Transport has properly re-evaluated HS2 to take account of such changes?
John Glen
Yes, I am content with that. I recognise those changes in patterns of behaviour when it comes to the use of public transport, but we also face cost of living challenges. That is why we are working so closely with the Department for Transport to, for example, continue investment in buses over the next two years, and continue to spend £200 million on capping fares to £2 outside London. We must bear in mind, however, that continued investment in transport infrastructure is key to greater connectivity across the United Kingdom and dealing with the economic growth imperative.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
It has been reported over the last couple of days that accommodating HS2 will mean fewer trains between the north and London. One station affected is Wilmslow in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that were that to happen, HS2 would no longer be value for money or good for the north? It would certainly take longer and cost my constituents more.
John Glen
HS2 is going to happen. The question is what additional investments across other parts of the rail infrastructure might benefit my right hon. Friend’s constituents additionally and more directly. I set out with the integrated rail plan the £96 billion package to improve rail connections, and many elements of that will have a direct impact on her constituents in Cheshire.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
As the Minister is well aware, North West Leicestershire has suffered under the blight of HS2 for more than a decade, and the whole project has recently been declared to be undeliverable. It has been unaffordable for some considerable time. Will he urge his colleagues in Government to cancel the remainder of the eastern leg and reallocate just a small portion of that budget so that we can reopen the Ivanhoe line?
John Glen
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has strong views on this, and I know that he has been personally affected by it in the past. The project, although it has been rephased, will continue. There are a number of issues involved in ensuring tight management of that budget, and I am working closely with the Department for Transport to see that that happens.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
The Treasury’s 2021 net zero review noted that unmitigated climate change damage has been estimated to be the equivalent of losing between 5% and 20% of global GDP each year. The costs of global inaction significantly outweigh the costs of action, and McKinsey estimates that there is a global market opportunity for British businesses worth £1 trillion.
Nadia Whittome
A recent report from Carbon Tracker found a huge disconnect between what scientists expect from climate change and what our financial system is prepared for, with flawed economic modelling leading pension funds and others to seriously underestimate the risks. Meanwhile, Energy UK warns that we are lagging behind on green energy investments. Surely the Minister agrees that to revive our economy and avert climate catastrophe we must rapidly phase out fossil fuels and invest in a green new deal to reach net zero.
Gareth Davies
It is important to point out that we are the fastest decarbonising economy in the G7. Since 1990, we have decarbonised by 48% while growing our economy by 65%, but the hon. Lady is right: this will take a balanced approach involving both public spending and private investment, including pension fund investment. The recent pension fund reforms, for example, should unlock some new assets for green infrastructure.
Wera Hobhouse
I agree with the question about the Carbon Tracker report. It has found that policy decisions are being based on 1990s literature. That is 30 years old. Will the Chancellor review the data and the thinking that the Government are using to make sure that all strands are in line with the climate science of the 21st century?
Gareth Davies
The data that I look at shows that last year 40% of our electricity was generated from renewables. That is an amazing achievement, but we are alive and present when it comes to decarbonising our economy. We have great plans and we are building on our great track record. We will continue to do that.
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree with my Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituents that Mayor Khan’s ultra low emission zone expansion hits families and businesses without any significant environmental benefit?
Gareth Davies
Let me welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He has wasted no time whatsoever in advocating for his constituents against a Labour tax that is hitting households and businesses in his constituency and throughout the south-east. It is a massive tax bombshell at a time when families just do not need it. It is simply not right, and we would urge the Leader of the Opposition to tell his Mayor of London to stop it.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor has said that she will not rule out mandating the use of pension fund money for the pet schemes that the Labour party thinks will achieve net zero, putting at risk the savings of many pensioners in this country. What does my hon. Friend think the impact of that will be on the British economy?
Gareth Davies
Pension funds have a fiduciary responsibility to deliver a financial return but also to be mindful of the values of their pensioners. I have every confidence that pension funds will continue to invest in line with the risk that is presented by climate.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
This Tory Government effectively banned new onshore wind, which is vital for net zero, energy security and getting bills down. We now learn this could change because one fine group of Tory rebels is shouting louder than another group of Tory rebels. There is no leadership, just a Government led by their Back Benchers. Can we finally get an answer from the Government on whether they will dither and delay or join Labour in leading the way and acting on onshore wind?
Gareth Davies
Onshore wind has an important part to play, and we are already deploying 14 GW of energy from onshore wind. The cost of onshore wind has come down significantly. It is one of our cheapest energy sources. The hon. Lady does not have long to wait for the Energy Bill, which we are considering later today.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
Over the course of 2022, high inflation from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine saw interest rates increase across most western economies. The path to lower rates is through low inflation, which is why the Prime Minister made halving inflation one of our five priorities for this year. I am pleased that the latest Bank of England forecast shows that we are on track.
Fleur Anderson
Mortgage and associated rental costs are soaring in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and the Government like to claim it is all due to global shocks or the war in Ukraine, but the latest Bank of England data from July shows that the cost of lending to buy a home remains higher in the UK than in Germany, Italy or France. Will the Minister finally concede that this difference is because those countries did not have the devastating growth plan or mini-Budget last year, and that it is because of this Government’s wider economic failure that my constituents face these costs?
Andrew Griffith
I am glad that the hon. Lady’s constituents, among many others, will benefit both from our mortgage interest support and from there being almost double the number of mortgage products on the market now than in October 2022. I repeat the comment of my colleague, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury: if the hon. Lady is so worried about her constituents, what better way of helping them with the cost of living than to do away with the Mayor’s ULEZ tax?
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
In the UK, homebuyers are overwhelmingly dependent on short-term fixed rate mortgages of just two, three or five years, which means that in times of rising interest rates, as we have at the moment, they are hard hit by massively increasing mortgage bills. In most other countries, homebuyers have long-term fixed rate mortgages of 10 or 20 years, or of the entire length of the mortgage. Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulators should ensure a level playing field between short-term and long-term mortgages to give homebuyers a free choice of the sort of mortgage they want, so they can choose to have greater protection against rate rises if they want?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend has great knowledge of these matters. It was a privilege to work with him and the sector on how we can offer consumers and homebuyers more choice. That choice includes the opportunity of long-term fixed-rate mortgages, and my officials and I continue to work on how we can reduce frictions and barriers to those mortgages.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
It is estimated that 140,000 households will face a rise in their mortgage bills this month. If someone in a random constituency, say Mid Bedfordshire, were to remortgage their house in the next six months, they could pay an average of £300 more per month compared with before the disastrous Tory mini-Budget this time last year. What can the Chancellor and his team do to reassure the country that, if the Conservatives were to win the next election, they would not just mess up the economy all over again?
Andrew Griffith
I am sure the constituents of Mid Bedfordshire will be very pleased to know that more than 90% of mortgage providers have signed up to our mortgage charter, which offers the opportunity for relief, to term-out mortgages and to have interest-free periods, if they face adversity at this time when interest rates are high across the world. What will not help the constituents of Mid Bedfordshire is unfunded spending promises that we know will push up the cost of borrowing and defer the point at which inflation falls.
Darren Jones
That is a bit rich from the Government, and it is no answer whatsoever to the people of Mid Bedfordshire who will not be able to afford to pay their bills over the coming months. It is one year ago today that the former Tory Prime Minister took a huge ideological gamble and sabotaged Britain’s economy. They crashed the pound, put pensions in peril and exploded a Tory mortgage bombshell under the homes of millions of working people. Will the Minister take this opportunity to apologise to the British people, on behalf of the Conservative party, for wrecking their hopes and aspirations?
Andrew Griffith
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position. He has had a feisty morning reading his Walworth Road brief. Let me offer him the opportunity to correct the record, because Labour has spent the past 12 months talking down our economy but it is now larger than it was when we entered covid and it has recovered and grown faster than the economies of both France and Germany.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Good morning, Mr Speaker. Brexit was a choice made by the British people and it remains a big opportunity for the economy. Rather than relitigating that debate, this Government are committed to embracing those opportunities.
Dr Whitford
Prior to the EU referendum, the Bank of England warned that Brexit would seriously damage the UK economy, weakening the pound and causing inflation. The Government have now delayed import checks on animal and food products for the fifth time, because the costs would add to inflation. Does that mean the Chancellor finally accepts that Brexit is contributing to the UK’s cost of living crisis?
Jeremy Hunt
No, but of course we are sensitive about the timing of introducing those changes because of cost of living pressures. I am sad to have seen, since we last met in the House, the hon. Lady announce that she is stepping down; we have much in common on patient safety. On the NHS, she will know that because of Brexit an extra £14.6 billion is being directed to public services every year, including the NHS and including in Scotland.
Alison Thewliss
Adam Posen, a former member of the Monetary Policy Committee, has described Brexit as a
“trade war by the UK on itself”.
This unnecessary trade war has had a real impact on small businesses in my constituency such as Guild Antiques & Restoration, which has found that its orders from the EU have fallen off a cliff edge and its costs have increased. Scotland did not choose Brexit and we are all worse off as a result. What can the Chancellor do to fill the economic gaps his hard Brexit has caused?
Jeremy Hunt
There is a certain irony in the Scottish National party opposing Brexit at the same time as advocating a far more draconian separation for Scotland, including a new currency and border checks. On businesses in Scotland, as part of the UK, Scotland is now an independent coastal state for the first time in nearly half a century; the 21,000 people in Scotland who work in financial services are benefiting from the Brexit freedoms in the Edinburgh reforms; and there is extra support for Scottish pubs, because, for the first time, we have a lower beer duty relative to supermarkets.
Deidre Brock
It is not just Brexit trade barriers having a devastating impact on Scotland’s economy, because the loss of freedom of movement has hugely damaged our businesses’ ability to recruit staff. Many businesses have had to reduce their offer, cut their opening hours or close altogether. It is estimated that over the bank holiday UK pubs alone lost out on £22 million because of staff shortages. Does the Chancellor accept that small businesses such as those cannot keep picking up the tab for his Government’s disastrous Brexit? What is he doing to solve these staff recruitment problems?
Jeremy Hunt
May I gently say to the hon. Lady that this country has actually grown faster than France or Germany since we left the single market? This is a bit of a smokescreen for the SNP’s economic policies, which have led to more people out of work and fewer people in work in Scotland than in England.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Leaving the EU gives us the opportunity to modernise our regulations and adapt them to local and national domestic interests, but we will seize the benefits of doing that only if we deliver on regulatory reform. So will my right hon. Friend drive that across Departments so that we can increase prosperity and raise living standards as a result?
Jeremy Hunt
No one knows more about regulatory reform than my right hon. Friend, who wrote an excellent booklet on it. We look at that booklet ahead of every fiscal event, be it autumn statement or Budget. I hope that she noticed in the Budget big reforms to our medicines regulation. We will continue to learn from the things she advocates.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
For generations, Britain’s world leadership on financial services and financial markets has been a key part of our economy. I agree that the post-Brexit initiatives such as the Edinburgh review have made excellent strides on making sure that we keep that world leadership. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to look at the report from UK Finance on the tokenisation of markets, as being the world leader in that innovative area would reduce costs for investors, enable money to flow into less liquid assets and fundamentally unlock future growth?
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. Thanks to the excellent work of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, we have repealed 100 EU rules and regulations in the financial services sector, and we will look very closely at the opportunities when it comes to tokenisation.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Last week, the Government admitted that their planned introduction of food import checks from the EU would lead to an increase in inflation, hitting the pockets of ordinary people during the worst cost of living crisis in our lifetimes. In the Labour party, we believe that a bespoke veterinary agreement would cut red tape from business and avoid pushing costs on to ordinary people. Are the Government planning to negotiate a veterinary agreement, and if not, why not?
Jeremy Hunt
I gently say to the hon. Lady, who I have a lot of time for, that the last thing business wants is the upheaval of a huge renegotiation of our trading arrangement with the EU, which is the largest tariff-free free trade deal by volume in the world.
Mr Speaker
I welcome the Scottish National party spokesperson to his place.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Chancellor claims that it is a success that inflation in the UK has risen higher and remains more stubbornly so than in the EU. Adam Posen, formerly of the Bank of England, has underlined that up to 80% of the UK’s additional inflation woes can be laid at the door of Brexit—something the Tories and Labour are united on. All the while, food price inflation is crushing household budgets. So why have this Government done nothing? Why have this Government learned nothing from countries such as France, which has worked with food suppliers to keep food prices capped to help those most in need?
Jeremy Hunt
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position. His constituency predecessor served as a Minister in the Treasury—whatever greatness the hon. Gentleman goes on to, I am sure he will not sully himself with that role. When it comes to inflation, we have a high level of imported food, like Germany; a high level of imported gas, like Italy; and low unemployment, like the United States. These factors have come together to give us the inflation rate we have. When it comes to growth, the hon. Gentleman will have noted last week’s numbers, which show that we have recovered better from the pandemic than France, Italy or Germany, and we are doing extremely well, despite all the pressures we face.
Drew Hendry
I notice that the Chancellor did not say anything about food inflation hurting families. Well, Tory and Labour “little Britain” attitudes do not stop at food price inaction. Energy costs are a key driver of inflation and costs for families. Energy bills are too high. The Spanish have taken bold steps by cutting VAT and introducing a social tariff to help their people. This Government plan to do nothing for this winter, which is particularly galling for people in Scotland who will continue to pay more for their energy than elsewhere in the UK. Will the Chancellor act on our demands for a £400 energy price grant to be introduced this winter?
Jeremy Hunt
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what we are doing for his constituents, and indeed all the people of Scotland: around £3,000 of support for the average family up and down the country, including in Scotland; paying half people’s energy bills, on average; and a huge amount of support through the benefits system. Nearly £100 billion of support shows that we are stronger together.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government are committed to supporting individuals to live healthier lives. High inflation is the greatest immediate economic challenge that we must address. The Government have made it a priority to halve inflation this year. We are on the path back to the target of 2% and consumer price index inflation fell to 6.8% in July. We will continue to work with all Departments to deal with the inflationary pressures they face.
Mary Kelly Foy
Being unable to pay for essentials such as food, heating and rent has an impact on physical and mental health. It can lead to delayed diagnosis, malnutrition and serious mental health problems. As the former Health Secretary will know, prevention is better than cure, but austerity flies in the face of a preventative approach. What discussions has the Chancellor had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to ensure that the NHS has prevention at its heart? Will we see a rise in funding in the autumn statement?
John Glen
Yes, I have frequent conversations with the Secretary of State and other Ministers about health budgets. We will be increasing the public health grant to £3.575 billion for the next financial year. That is to ensure that we have that real-term funding protection over the next two years, but there are a number of other interventions that we are making on delivering services more effectively, ensuring that we have the provision of additional staff with the long-term workforce plan for the NHS. None the less, I do recognise the challenges that a post-covid NHS faces in terms of the legacy of demand that is yet unmet. We are continuing to work to bring down waiting lists and we have seen significant progress recently, particularly with two-year and 18-month lists.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
A key part of improving the public health and wellbeing of my local residents in Kettering is the redevelopment of Kettering General Hospital. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that the £400 million-plus redevelopment of KGH remains on track for completion by 2030, and that the standardisation of the design of the 40 new hospitals will help to reduce costs and increase deliverability?
John Glen
Kettering General Hospital is always at the top of my mind when I come to Treasury questions, but the bigger challenge, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, is how we ensure the efficiency of the expenditure of every pound of taxpayers’ investment in the health estate. I shall continue to work with the Secretary of State on that plan for the 40 hospitals to make sure that we achieve that.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
In the many discussions that the Minister says he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what figure did they discuss with him that he estimates inflation will be at in the next financial year?
John Glen
There are a range of forecasts, but we have to deal with the reality. I am trying to ensure that, across all of the decisions that Secretaries of State make, we reprioritise effectively and deliver frontline services, but I do not have a number for the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
People in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke find that mental health is a huge barrier to getting back into work and obviously helping to produce economic growth. That is something that the Chancellor is reported to have been considering carefully over the summer recess. My friend James Starkie and I have launched a No Time To Wait campaign to use some existing health and social care funding to get specialist mental health nurses into GP surgeries to help support people in a more preventive way—something the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) asked about earlier. What support will the Treasury give to help the Department of Health and Social Care to enact those plans?
John Glen
My hon. Friend always has constructive suggestions in this difficult area. The Chancellor brought forward a number of interventions in the Budget to get people back into work after some of the behavioural shifts that we saw following the pandemic. We look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend on solutions for his community.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
Investment zones are part of our industrial strategy to make sure that the benefits of our national strengths in our five growth priority sectors are spread throughout the UK.
David Duguid
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. The north-east of Scotland has long been an exemplar of innovation in the fields of food and drink and energy, to name a few. Can he confirm that the north-east Scotland investment zone will lead to more innovation to promote these key industries not just in Aberdeen City, but in the wider north-east, including my constituency of Banff and Buchan?
Jeremy Hunt
I know that the Acorn carbon capture, usage and storage project is based at St Fergus in my hon. Friend’s patch, and that Banff and Buchan is within the north-east of Scotland region, which is one of two eligible areas and has been a long-standing global centre for excellence in clean energy, so I wish him every success as those discussions with the Scottish Government continue.
Simon Baynes
Does the Chancellor agree that my constituency of Clwyd South, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and the rest of north-east Wales represent one of the best candidates for a new investment zone? Will he also consider making this cross-border, given our very close economic, commercial and cultural ties with the north-west of England?
Jeremy Hunt
I know there are some great businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency—I much enjoyed meeting Robin and Helen Jones of Jones’ Village Bakery at a recent reception in No. 10, and I know they are going from strength to strength. I holidayed in Clwyd last year, and from the top of Moel Famau I saw a very impressive offshore wind farm. I completely agree that there is enormous potential in Clwyd for clean energy and, as discussions continue about investment zones, I wish him every success as well.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The UK’s first investment zone is in South Yorkshire, where the Mayor is working hard to develop our world-leading advanced manufacturing and innovation district. I am sure the Chancellor will agree that if we are going to create a growth area, we need to make sure people can access the jobs there via transport links, particularly by bus. Will he make sure that included within the financial package available is money to assist with local public transport?
Jeremy Hunt
I very much enjoyed my visit to South Yorkshire to open that investment zone. It is incredibly impressive what is happening there and it was wonderful to welcome new investment by Boeing as part of that. The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about transport; that is why we involve local authorities in all our investment zone decisions. It is also vital to have universities involved, which is why the University of Sheffield is playing such a key role.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I was present on the day the Chancellor came to launch the investment zone in my constituency, and of course I too welcome the investment into Boeing there. Does he accept that one of the other areas for future development in the investment zone is small modular reactors? A consortium is being developed in Sheffield with Sheffield Forgemasters, Rolls-Royce and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy to look at the future—not merely to develop the techniques for SMRs, but to start building SMRs in Sheffield. Would he be willing to look at that proposal and hopefully offer support for it?
Jeremy Hunt
I enjoyed meeting the hon. Gentleman when we opened that investment zone. Let me reassure him that I am a big supporter of nuclear and I am very excited about the potential of SMRs. There is a competition going on this year, which we hope will be completed by the end of the year, to assess the viability of the various SMR manufacturers, and we want to get going as quickly as we can.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
The Government have been clear that debanking customers on the basis of political views is unacceptable. During recess I met banking executives to discuss debanking and lawful freedom of expression, and they have committed to comply with the changes I published on 21 July. In parallel, the Financial Conduct Authority is conducting an urgent review of debanking practices, which will report back to the Chancellor in the next couple of weeks.
Marco Longhi
Last week the Met Police chief finally seemed to confirm that the job of the police should be to police and not to seek to align themselves with entities or ideologies. Does the Minister agree with me that banks and the corporate world should follow that example and focus their efforts on their core business, rather than play the sinister cancelling agenda of the woke brigade that saw Nigel Farage have his account wrongfully closed?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend represents the views of his constituents in this place clearly. He is quite right; although they are private entities, banks benefit from a privileged place in society and they should focus on doing their core functions brilliantly, treating customers fairly and making a sustainable return for shareholders, rather than taking sides on politically contentious matters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Today it is because some people may have a different political view; tomorrow it could be the fact that someone has a different religious viewpoint. I am a Christian, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I stand up for those with Christian beliefs, those with other beliefs and those with no beliefs, because I believe sincerely that they have a right to have that belief. If ever the day came when banks censured anybody because they had a different religious belief, I would stand up against that. Does the Minister agree?
Andrew Griffith
Let me be clear: yes, the Government agree with that. No one should be debarred from access to banking facilities in our society because of a lawfully expressed view. If he and other hon. Members wish to make representations, the Financial Conduct Authority is currently conducting a review of this matter.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
In April this year the Government announced that we would conduct a formal review of the plastic packaging tax through analysis of environmental and tax data and customer research to assess the impact of the measure. More information about the evaluation will be published later this year.
Caroline Ansell
I am pleased to share that a business in my Eastbourne constituency has made many important changes in the way it operates in order to meet its own environmental ambitions, but when it comes to the transportation of food and pharmaceutical products, industry standards linked to public health regulations require such products to be transported in sterile packaging, which necessitates the use of virgin plastics and brings the containers that the business produces into scope for the plastic packaging tax. Is there a new direction I can share with that business, or will ongoing policy reviews look at such cases?
Gareth Davies
The aim of the plastic packaging tax is to provide a clear incentive for businesses to use more recycled plastic in packaging. Following extensive consultation, we looked at a range of possible exemptions and decided to limit those exemptions because we want to encourage innovation in the industry. Put simply, the more exemptions, the less innovation. However, all taxes remain, of course, under review.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
A proactive approach to a circular economy could create hundreds of thousands of jobs and cut our consumption emissions. What circular taxation measures is the Treasury looking at to help us achieve those outcomes?
Gareth Davies
We are clear that we want all taxes relating to the environment to have an impact. The plastic packaging tax, for example, will clearly have an impact on the amount of recycling that takes place and on the amounts put into landfill. Those are all things that we assess as part of evaluations, and the plastic packaging tax will be evaluated this year.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
At Mansion House, the Government presented a series of pension reforms that will increase returns for savers and enable the financial sector to unlock capital for some of the UK’s most promising industries. The Department continues work to build on the initial package of measures and will set out further details in the autumn.
Nigel Mills
I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome those measures. Have the Government considered what more can be done to unlock surpluses in defined-benefit schemes to allow employers to use that money more effectively, rather than having it end up going into insurance companies on buy-outs? There is a huge tax penalty on unlocking surpluses. Is there a way of relieving that to encourage the money to be invested more efficiently?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes an important point. With the right precautions, it is right that we look at that to incentivise employers to deliver the highest returns for pension savers.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Government have to date taken £4.4 billion from the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The then cross-party Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee concluded that the Government should not be “profiting from mineworkers’ pensions.” How does the Secretary of State justify their continued profiteering?
Andrew Griffith
I am not familiar with the issue that the hon. Lady speaks about. I would be very happy to meet her to understand it in more detail.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
We are ensuring that pubs remain a key part of our local communities by providing support through the alcohol duty and business rates systems. That includes a new draught relief that provides a significant duty discount on alcohol sold on draught in a pub, and the expanded retail, hospitality and leisure relief means more than £10,000 in relief for the average independent pub.
Katherine Fletcher
After a busy summer knocking around South Ribble and speaking to people, I have often popped in for a pint, including in Croston’s famous Wheatsheaf pub. From housing MP surgeries—as many pubs do—to being our community living rooms, pubs are absolutely vital. I have spoken to landlords, including those at the Black Bull and the fabulous Fleece Inn in Penwortham—
Katherine Fletcher
There is a pub crawl there for us all. They need our support, so may I invite the Minister to South Ribble—I will even offer to buy her a pint—to speak to Chris, the landlord at Longton’s fabulous Golden Ball, to hear about his business?
Victoria Atkins
As you know, Mr Speaker, I regard Lancashire as my home, and it would be a delight to return to South Ribble. My hon. Friend has named just a few of the roughly 37,000 pubs in England and Wales—perhaps if we had given her longer she would have been able to name them all. All those pubs will benefit from the Brexit pubs guarantee, which means that the duty on a pint sold in a pub will always be lower than in a supermarket.
Mr Speaker
Let us see if the Minister is going to get another pint—I call Tim Farron.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Following the question from my dad’s MP, I confess that I have been to all the pubs that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) mentioned. The biggest burden on pubs in the lakes and the dales is the fact that they cannot find any staff or sufficient staff. It is a crisis that affects the entire hospitality sector, 86% of which say that the recruitment of staff is a major problem for them. The solution will include more affordable homes for workers, more intelligent visa rules and funding new training and skills initiatives. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the hospitality industry to look at a bespoke package to solve the workforce crisis in the lakes and the dales?
Victoria Atkins
I would go further and give as an example the truly transformational programme that the Chancellor set out at the spring Budget to transform childcare policy in this country. We know that childcare responsibilities hold back many people from entering the workforce, and it is through policies such as this, as well as the work being led by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to help people back into the workforce, that will help pubs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the country.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
On Friday, the Office for National Statistics published an update to the UK’s GDP growth figures, which shows that the UK economy was 0.6% larger than pre-pandemic levels by the fourth quarter of 2021. It means that our economy had the fastest recovery from the pandemic of any large European economy, thanks to decisions such as furlough that protected millions of jobs. For that growth to continue, we need to halve inflation, which I am pleased to report is now nearly 40% below its 11% peak. I can also tell the House that I will deliver the autumn statement on 22 November.
Elliot Colburn
Staying on the subject of pubs, Carshalton and Wallington is also lucky to be home to some excellent pubs, including the Hope, which is this year’s Campaign for Real Ale Greater London pub of the year recipient. Will the Chancellor expand a bit more on the work that the Treasury is doing to support pubs not just in the tax system but further afield, and will he join me in wishing Carshalton and Wallington’s pubs good luck in the local pub of the year competition later on?
Jeremy Hunt
I very much wish my hon. Friend’s local pubs the best of luck in that competition, second only to my desire to encourage South West Surrey pubs to do well. I want to reassure him that we believe that pubs are central to our national life. That is why we have provided relief on business rates of up to 75% for pubs, and as we heard earlier, the Brexit pubs guarantee helps on their duty pricing.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Last week, thousands of parents were told that their children’s schools were unsafe and at risk of collapse. The defining image of 13 years of Conservative government: classrooms propped up to stop the ceilings from falling in. Capital budgets have halved in real terms since 2010, with warnings ignored and repair programmes slashed. Do this Conservative Government take any responsibility for any of this?
Jeremy Hunt
Let me start by reassuring the right hon. Lady that the vast majority of pupils in the 156 schools affected are at school normally, and we are acting fast to minimise the impact on the rest.
Let me answer the more general question that the right hon. Lady raised. Yes, we made cuts in spending in 2010 because, as she knows well, the last Labour Government left this country with an economic crisis. Despite that crisis, the Department for Education budget has gone up by 15% in real terms, and overall capital spend—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is topicals. All your colleagues on both sides of the House want to get in. Topicals are meant to be very short, not a full debate between both sides. I say to everybody: think about others. I think we can move on. I call Rachel Reeves.
Rachel Reeves
I will repeat: capital budgets have halved in real terms since 2010. I understand—indeed, I know—that in the lead-up to the 2021 spending review, the Department for Education made a submission to the Treasury about the dangers of the deteriorating school estate, including from reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Those warnings were ignored by the then Chancellor—the current Prime Minister—and we have seen the consequences, so will today’s Chancellor do the right thing and publish the Department for Education’s submission to the last spending review?
Jeremy Hunt
Capital spending at the Department for Education went up 16% in real terms in that review. Is the difference not that, with the fastest recovery in Europe, the Conservatives build an economy that can pay for our schools and hospitals, and Labour runs out of money?
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Jeremy Hunt
It is very simply this: since 2010, we have become the strongest economy in Europe in film and television, life sciences and technology, and the opportunities are great with a Conservative Government.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I do not accept that characterisation at all. I do understand the impact of mesothelioma, as my father died of it, but this Government have invested £15 billion to keep schools safe since 2015, and the Chancellor has set out other figures as well.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which I take very seriously. Just to put it in context, last year HMRC received 38 million telephone calls; around 3 million of those were to do the simplest of tasks, which can be done digitally if at all possible. If we are able to move people on to digital channels, that will free up at least 500 people to help with more complex tax affairs and help the most vulnerable. This is a period of transition for the organisation, and one that we take very seriously.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
We stepped in during the energy crisis with £94 billion of support, including the energy price guarantee, which effectively paid for half of people’s energy bills. That was important while energy prices were high; wholesale gas prices have now come down.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
During the summer, we announced that we have given directions to the Financial Conduct Authority in respect of access to cash: it should be no more than 1 mile in an urban area, and no more than 3 miles in my hon. Friend’s rural constituency of North Warwickshire. That is the first time that the statutory right of access to cash has existed in law.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
John Glen
I have not heard that matter raised before, but I am very happy to take it back and correspond with the hon. Lady on it. Obviously, we have taken advice on the state pension age and have made clear our policies previously, but I am happy to look at any specific cases she raises.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. I actually had a breakfast with clean energy industry representatives this morning to discuss their concerns. There is a huge amount of potential investment, and he is right to say that maximising the use of our own oil and gas reserves during transition is a vital part of our energy security policy.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Will the Chancellor consider introducing a windfall tax on banks’ excess profits? The profits of the big four banks for the first half of this year were up 700% compared with 2020, yet the Bank of England is forecast to pay out as much as £42 billion in interest on reserves to banks in 2023, at the same time as the Government have cut the level of surcharge on banks’ profits by 60%.
Andrew Griffith
With millions of British jobs dependent on financial services, including an estimated 20,000 jobs in Brighton and Hove, I hope the hon. Lady will join me in celebrating a sustainably profitable financial sector. It is only that that gives us the ability to invest in skills and technology.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Will the Economic Secretary update the House on the progress he is making to enable our constituents to access personalised financial guidance if they are among the 93% of our constituents who cannot afford regulated financial advice?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Treasury Committee, makes a really important point about what is called the advice gap. Treasury officials, the FCA and I are consulting on that, and I will publish an update this autumn.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It has been revealed that Integrated Debt Services, a company set up by the UK Government to recover personal debt, saw its profits increase by a staggering 132% last year. Do Ministers think it is right that this company should be able to profit to that extent out of the misery of the cost of living crisis?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman is referring to a company that works with the Government’s Crown Commercial Service and that works on debt across central Government. It has to operate within a very specific framework and, indeed, it is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. I very much understand the point he has raised, and I will be making inquiries on that point myself.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Research and development tax credits are vital to help businesses grow and invest, but I have received a large number of complaints from businesses across Essex saying that they are facing complexities and delays in processing claims with HMRC. May I please ask the Minister to meet me and some of these businesses to work through the delays and ensure that these businesses can continue to thrive and grow, because they are vital to our economic growth?
Victoria Atkins
I would be delighted to meet my right hon. Friend and those businesses. In fact, the UK is leading world economies with our focus on life sciences and on tech. In that little golden triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and London, we have more tech businesses than anywhere else on the planet other than New York and silicon valley. I hear the cheers opposite, so keen are Labour Members to support British business, but I would be delighted to meet her and to underline the support that this Government give to such important businesses.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I welcome the new focus on engaging pension funds with productive investment, after many years when regulation has pushed the funds into Government gilts instead, but does the Minister have proposals specifically to secure those investments for UK businesses rather than their going overseas?
Andrew Griffith
The right hon. Member makes a significant contribution to the debate about the nation’s pension funds. Our objective to increase investment—to drive increased returns for pension savers, but also to benefit the wider economy—stops short of mandating. There is a philosophical difference between this side of the House and the Opposition. We do not believe it is right for the Chancellor to tell pension funds where to invest, but it is our job to knock down barriers, frictions and impedances to pension funds investing in brilliant British companies.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Economic Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) that he is going to underwrite the statutory right of access to cash, but 6,000 bank branches will have closed by the end of the year, leaving only 4,000 in place, and 15,000 ATMs have closed in the last five years. How is he going to make sure that this actually happens, rather than it just being an empty promise?
Andrew Griffith
The FCA has significant sanctions in respect of the closure of ATMs that would leave communities without the right of free access to cash. On the closure of bank branches, we are seeing a significant change, and I hope my right hon. Friend would respect the fact that technology is changing and consumer patterns are changing. During the recess, I had the privilege of visiting the excellent community banking hub in Brixham, which I think is a brilliant opportunity. There should be more than 100 on their way, and that is my objective.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Chancellor accept that many people see income tax rates at the moment as exceptionally punitive, and does he also accept that there is a need to move as quickly as possible into a growth-based economy and to supercharge our economy in the United Kingdom?
Jeremy Hunt
As a Conservative, I want to bring taxes down as soon as we can afford to do so, and I am very proud that for the first time ever people can earn £1,000 a month without paying a penny of tax or national insurance.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As we want to expand our financial services industry not only in this country but abroad, we need to build confidence among consumers that the right thing to do is invest. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it is vital that regulators respond to and deal with complaints to them and actually impose sanctions against those who breach the regulations?
Andrew Griffith
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend on this matter. It is one reason why we have beefed up the role of the financial regulators review commissioner, and we will also be requiring the regulators to publish regular operating metrics on their performance, to give consumers the trust they need.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Back in 2017, both the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority knew there were problems with the prepaid funeral plan market. Since then, my constituent Gary Godwin of Nantyglo lost over £6,000 to the collapse of a company called Safe Hands. Across the UK, thousands more have lost millions of pounds altogether. Will the Minister please meet me to discuss this scandal and Mr Godwin’s case?
Andrew Griffith
Yes, I will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. What happened with Safe Hands is a scandal, and that is why we have enlarged the regulatory perimeter to bring those who seek to sell funeral plans within the regulatory conduct.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Over the summer ports have been bidding to the Government’s infrastructure fund to help them get ready for the delivery of the new floating offshore wind industry. May I encourage Ministers to look favourably on the bids from the Celtic sea ports of Milford Haven and Port Talbot, because those two ports are key to unlocking the enormous economic benefits of this new clean energy industry?
Jeremy Hunt
I am absolutely happy to do that, and I agree with my right hon. Friend about the enormous potential of those areas.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Some GP practices are at risk of being priced out of city centres, including in places like St Albans, because of outdated Treasury rules that prevent integrated care boards from spending the money they want to on a GP practice location. Health Ministers have confirmed to me that their officials are happy to work with Treasury officials. May I ask for a personal assurance from Treasury Ministers that they will encourage their officials to look at this and resolve it by the end of this year at the absolute latest?
John Glen
Dialogue is ongoing on this matter and I can confirm that we will continue to work on this in the coming weeks.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Andy Haldane, the former Bank of England chief economist, recently said in a Sky News interview that the Bank of England kept on printing money for longer than it needed to. It is clear that central banks across the world have been addicted to cheap money and that this has contributed to inflation across the world. Does the Chancellor agree that printing cheap and easy money has not been without consequence, and instead our monetary policy must focus on important growth factors such as productivity?
Jeremy Hunt
I agree with what my hon. Friend says. The Bank of England itself has said there were problems with its inflation forecasting. It is learning the lessons from that and we must support it every step of the way as it brings down inflation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Sorry I was late today, Mr Speaker: British Airways cancelled my flight.
When the Chancellor’s predecessor, now the Prime Minister, was Chancellor there was huge fraud in the bounce back loans. Has he got any of that money back yet?
Jeremy Hunt
We are always ferociously determined to recover money obtained through fraud, but because of those bounce back loans we have the fastest recovery of any major European country.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I have recently been contacted by several self-employed constituents expressing concern about heavy fines being imposed for filing tax returns late even though no moneys are owed. Will the Treasury meet me with a view, perhaps, to reviewing this policy?
Victoria Atkins
I will of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I hope he understands that I cannot intervene personally in any case, but I will of course look at the general principle he sets out and see whether there are systemic issues here.
Nutrient Neutrality: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
(1 year, 3 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
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if they will make a statement on the Government’s decision to use the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to scrap environmental protections on nutrient neutrality.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up tabled a written ministerial statement yesterday on the Government’s plans, but I am happy to provide an update to the House. In proposing these amendments, we are responding to calls from local—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that it is very good of you to offer to give that update? I decided that it was an urgent question—I expect Ministers to come to the House, as I did not think a written ministerial statement was the way to inform the House.
Rachel Maclean
I am delighted to be here to answer this urgent question.
In proposing the amendments, we were responding to calls from local councils, which want the Government to take action to allow them to deliver the homes their communities need. At present, legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality are blocking the delivery of new homes, including in cases where planning permission has already been granted. This has affected home building of all types, whether that is the redevelopment of empty spaces above high street shops, affordable housing schemes, new care homes or families building their own home. The block on building is hampering local economies and threatening to put small and medium-sized local builders out of business. Nutrients entering our rivers are a real problem, but the contribution made by new homes is very small compared with that of other sources such as agriculture, industry and our existing housing stock, and the judgment is that nutrient neutrality has so far done little to improve water quality.
We are already taking action across Government to mandate water companies to improve their waste water treatment works to the highest technically achievable limits. Those provisions alone will more than offset the nutrients expected from new housing developments, but we need to go further, faster. That is why, as well as proposing targeted amendments to the habitats regulations, the Government are committing to a package of environmental measures. Central to that is £280 million of funding to Natural England to deliver strategic mitigation sufficient to offset the very small amount of additional nutrient discharge attributable to up to 100,000 homes between now and 2030. We have also announced more than £200 million for slurry management and agricultural innovation in nutrient management and a commitment to accelerate protected site strategies in the most affected catchments.
In our overall approach, there will be no loss of environmental outcomes, and we are confident that our package of measures will improve the environment. Nutrient neutrality was only ever an interim solution. With funding in place, and by putting these sites on a trajectory to recovery, we feel confident in making this legislative intervention.
Caroline Lucas
I find it extraordinary that the Minister can stand there and make that statement with a straight face. Over the past eight years, Ministers have stood at that Dispatch Box and promised time and again that leaving the European Union would not lead to a weakening of environmental standards. Those of us who raised our concerns have repeatedly been told that we were scaremongering. As recently as 12 June, the Solicitor General said in relation to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill that
“we will not lower environmental protections.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 828.]
Yet here we have it: proposals to unpick the habitats directive and to disapply the nutrient neutrality rules that protect our precious rivers and sensitive ecosystems.
The Office for Environmental Protection has itself made clear that the proposals
“would demonstrably reduce the level of environmental protection provided for in existing environmental law. They are a regression.”
I underline that point to the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who is chuntering from his seat on the Front Bench. The proposals go directly against the “polluter pays” principle by forcing the taxpayer, rather than house builders, to foot the bill for mitigating increased water pollution from house building in environmentally sensitive areas. What is particularly infuriating is that, as the name suggests, the nutrient neutrality rules were not even about improving our environment, but simply about trying to prevent pollution from getting worse.
Let me ask the Minister some important questions. On transparency, will the Government follow the OEP’s call for them to make a statement, as required by section 20(4) of the Environment Act 2021, admitting that they can no longer say that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would not reduce environmental protections in law? Will the Minister explain how the Government will meet their objectives for water quality and protected site condition when they are at the same time weakening environmental law? What advice did Ministers receive from Natural England before the amendments were tabled? Will she explain why there has there been a complete lack of consultation with environment groups? Will she also explain what consultation there was with house builders, whom Members will have noticed are cock-a-hoop about the announcement and the subsequent boost to their share prices?
Will the Minister admit that it is a false choice to pit house building against environmental protection when there are successful projects under way to address nutrient pollution? Will the Government provide evidence for their unsubstantiated claim that 100,000 homes are being delayed as a consequence of these rules? Will she recognise that money, which can easily be taken away at a later stage, is not the same as a legal requirement to stop pollution getting into our rivers?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for her long list of questions; I am happy to respond to all of them in detail. On our approach, I stand by what I and the Government have said: we stand by our pledges to the environment, and we do not accept that, as she stated, we will weaken our commitment to the environment at all. It is important to consider what we are talking about here, which is unblocking 100,000 homes that add very little in terms of pollution. To be clear, our approach means that there will be no overall loss in environmental outcomes. Not only do the measures that we are taking address the very small amount of nutrient run-off from new housing, but at the same time, we are investing in the improvement of environmental outcomes. We do not agree that this is regression on environmental standards. We are taking direct action to continue to protect the environment and ensure that housing can be brought forward in areas where people need it.
The hon. Lady asked about engagement. Ministers across Government, the Secretary of State and I have had numerous meetings with all parties involved, and we have had meetings with environment groups as part of Government business. It is worth the House noting the significant enforcement steps taken on the water companies by colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Since 2015, the Environment Agency has concluded 59 prosecutions against water and sewerage companies, securing £150 million in fines. The regulators have recently launched the largest criminal and civil investigations into water company sewage. We are taking action against water companies to protect our rivers, leave the environment in a better state than we found it, and build the affordable houses that the country so desperately needs, including in her constituency.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Minister will recognise that I and many other colleagues on the Government side of the House share the admirable objectives of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) in ensuring that the water quality of our rivers improves year by year under the Government and their successors. The Minister’s proposals to amend the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill are not about damaging the status of our rivers; as I understand it, they are about dealing with a particular and specific interpretation of the EU habitats directive by the European Court of Justice in connection with a case in Holland prior to the time we left the EU. If that is the case—she has referred to the litigation and measures she has undertaken—does she agree that in special areas of conservation such as the River Clun catchment in my constituency, where no planning consent has been granted for nine years, these measures will help to unlock that while preserving the quality of the river in the catchment?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my right hon. Friend very much. He is right in his observation that this has been a judgment imposed on the United Kingdom after we left the European Union. This is not a long-standing convention in any shape or form. He is also right to highlight the measures we are putting in place to protect our rivers and the environment more broadly. We are also putting in place a substantial package to help farmers to farm more sustainability, manage their slurry infrastructure more effectively and be able to drive the circular economy in farming that we all want. He mentioned specific catchments in his area. We have committed to bring forward a Wye catchment plan shortly, which I hope will address the issues he is referring to.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am happy to go, but the shadow Minister—
Mr Speaker
Oh, sorry. It has taken so long, I thought we must have moved on to Back Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a result of the Government’s failure over many years to make decisive progress in tackling the main sources of problem nutrients, namely farming and waste water treatment works, the requirements for nutrient neutrality in sensitive river catchments present a challenge to securing planning permission for new housing development. It is therefore right in Labour’s view that the operation of the rules around nutrient neutrality is reviewed with a view to addressing problematic delays and increasing the pace at which homes can be delivered in these areas.
However, we have serious concerns about the approach that the Government have decided on. Not only does it involve disapplying the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, but it does not legally secure the additional funding pledges to deliver nutrient management programmes and does not provide for a legal mechanism to ensure that housing developers contribute towards mitigation.
I put the following questions to the Minister: what advice did the Government receive from Natural England about potential reform of the laws around nutrient neutrality? Did it offer a view on the Government’s proposed approach? Given the amount of mitigation currently available in the pipeline, which is estimated at allowing for approximately 72,000 homes, did the Government consider an approach based on the habitat regulations assessment derogation and a revised credit mitigation system to front-load permissions and provide for future compensatory schemes? If so, why did they dismiss that option? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of their proposed approach on the nascent market in mitigation credits, and investor confidence in nature markets more generally? Why on earth do Ministers believe developers will voluntarily contribute to mitigation under the proposed approach?
Finally, the Government claim their approach will see 100,000 planning permissions expedited between now and 2030. Given that house building activity is falling sharply and the pipeline for future development is being squeezed—not least as a result of housing and planning policy decisions made by this Conservative Government—what assessment has the Department made of the number of permissions that its disruptive approach will unlock within the first 12 months of its operation?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and remarks. I take them to mean that he will support the measures when they come before the House. I am delighted to hear his support for our sensible, practical and pragmatic approach to unblock much needed housing across the country. He asked about our engagement with Natural England; we have had detailed discussions. He asked about the current legal framework; we have looked at and discussed a number of options to make the changes, and we are taking what we believe is the right approach to unblock planning permissions more quickly than the current situation allows.
The hon. Gentleman referred to nature markets; he is right to highlight the groundbreaking work we are doing across that piece. We are continuing with our commitment to those nature markets, which are a very important part of the Government’s plan to keep our environment, protect it and leave it in a better state than we found it. That is what the Conservative Government have always been committed to and continue to be.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have spoken to developers, who, of course, support our objectives. We have very constructive dialogue with the developers, who are happy to contribute. We will have those discussions with industry, as I am sure he has heard from developers, because I know he has spoken to them all. We are on the side of those builders. It is important to say that the developers most affected by the disproportionate ruling from the European Court of Justice are not the big developers but the small and medium-sized enterprises—the small builders—some of which have gone bust. It is right that we stand behind them.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Government on taking action on this very serious issue. I welcome sincerely the remarks from the Opposition spokesperson offering qualified support for what is being done. We have an issue whereby 100,000 homes, spanning 74 council areas, are being blocked. Those homes have planning permission already granted, but cannot be built because of the perverse legacy ruling. More to the point, could my hon. Friend confirm that there is no environmental impact, because we are doubling investment in the nutrient mitigation scheme? That is as well as developing protected site strategies for those catchment areas affected most severely by the nutrients issue, which overwhelmingly is not caused by new housing. Does she agree that the real challenge should be laid down to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on what she would say to all the hundreds of thousands of young families out there who cannot buy a home in the places they need and want, at a price they can afford?
Rachel Maclean
My right hon. Friend has considerable expertise in this matter. He is right to focus on the mechanisms we need to bring forward to enable the much needed planning permission to take effect. His region in particular is affected by this issue, and I know his constituents and people across the region will be desperate to see those homes built, to allow people a step on the property ladder. We are about building a property-owning democracy.
My right hon. Friend is also right to say that we can do that at the same time as protecting the environment, which is why we have doubled the funding for Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme. We are investing £200 million in slurry management infrastructure and we are helping farmers with a £25 million sustainable package to help them invest in innovative farming techniques to manage their nutrients more sustainably, which can be of benefit to their farms and agricultural processes. We are going much further on those protected sites, so that we deal with the problem at source. That is what we need to focus on.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
This is hardly a new problem, is it? The Court decision was in 2018, yet last year we had the levelling-up Bill, which was really a planning Bill with a bit of levelling up added on—no mention of the issue there. In December we had major consultations on changes to the national planning policy framework—no mention of the issue there. The Committee wrote to the Minister and asked how many more consultations on planning issues there would be this year. We were given nine of them—no mention of the issue there. If it is such a serious issue, why has it taken the Government so long to act? It looks like the Government are making it up as they go along. This is a panicked response from the Government to the collapsing numbers of housing starts which the Minister simply wants to do something—anything—about.
Rachel Maclean
I very much value the hon. Gentleman’s scrutiny of the Government’s record and I very much enjoy coming before his Committee. We have discussed this issue, and many others, with his Committee in the past. It is right that we are taking this action. It is a serious and complex issue, and we needed time to consider all the legal aspects of it. However, what I come back to time and time again is that we need to unblock planning permissions. We need housing all over the country. We are doing that at the same time as protecting the environment and I very much hope to have further dialogue with him about this in the future.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
It is always baffling to hear those who believe in environmental improvement saying that only the EU way works. Does the Minister agree with me that outside the EU we have been able to adapt our laws to what works for this country, and also make improvements such as marine protected areas and provide support to agriculture outside the common agricultural policy? To say that leaving the EU has meant a degradation in our approach to the environment is simply nonsense.
Rachel Maclean
My right hon. Friend speaks from vast experience on this issue. I can do no more than agree strongly with every word. Leaving the EU allows us to make the laws that are right for our country, most specifically in the area of building the homes we need across his area and across the whole country. The point here is also that the EU legacy judgment has not improved the quality of the water. That is why we are taking further steps to mitigate the problem at source. Everybody who cares about the quality of water should welcome that.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. The Government have just set up the Office for Environmental Protection—I was on the Environment Bill Committee when we did that—which says that this planning change is a regression in environmental protections. We should not just throw out the rules when they are a bit difficult. What advice did the Government receive from Natural England—the Minister said she spoke with it—on its approach to problem nutrients? Did Natural England green-light the proposals or is it being ignored, along with the Office for Environmental Protection?
Rachel Maclean
Natural England is a Government partner. We work very closely with it, as well as with local planning authorities. We rely on Natural England to carry out some of the mitigation schemes, the nutrient credit schemes, and many others. In response to the Office for Environmental Protection, we have a different view. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) set out very clearly her response to the Office for Environmental Protection. We do not agree with it. Fundamentally, we do not agree that this is a regression in environmental outcomes overall.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
It is perfectly possible to make housing development nitrate neutral in the first place. Bearwood development in my constituency contains over 2,000 new houses and is nitrate neutral through sustainable drainage and building techniques, so we can have new homes without compromising our environment and without taking good-quality farm land out for mitigation. Will my hon. Friend ensure that planning law matches that ambition?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend very much. She is right to focus on some of the very good work that is already taking place through some individual projects I am aware are being brought forward. She is also right to highlight the role that sustainable drainage can take and we have committed to looking at that more broadly to see what more can be done with that particular policy. Planning law is very clear. It has to leave the environment in a better state than it finds it, not only in her area but across the country.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Of course we need more housing, but in my constituency the sewers are over capacity, Victorian and clapped out. I invite the Minister to meet some of the households where in times of heavy rain raw sewage not only pollutes the environment but floats around the streets, the gardens and even the kitchens. It is simply not acceptable to imagine we can somehow wave a wand to solve the housing problem. Finally, may I draw the attention of the House to an excellent website called “Top of the Poops”, which states that in my constituency there were 4,468 hours of sewage last year alone? That is completely unacceptable.
Rachel Maclean
DEFRA Ministers have been at this Dispatch Box multiple times to update colleagues on the work that the Government are proud to do as part of the plan for water. This is the most ambitious and stringent package that has been brought forward to tackle this abhorrent issue. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that storm overflows and sewage overflows are wrong. That is why the £2.2 billion of new accelerated investment will be directed into vital infrastructure. We are clear that the volume of sewage discharge into our waters is unacceptable and that is why we have taken action in terms of stronger regulation, more fines and tougher enforcement across the board to tackle every source of river and sea pollution.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
As the Minister knows, the levels of Somerset are some of the most environmentally enhanced areas in the UK. Natural England has destroyed chances for development. We are about to start building the Tata factory, the largest factory that this country has seen for a long time. That needs to be sorted and I would like the Minister’s thoughts. Conversely, the reality also slips. South West Water, which is an abomination, has just announced it will stop pollutants from 120,000 hectares by 2025. Can we please have a grip on the reality of both sides of this issue? If we do not, nothing will be developed in parts that are environmentally sensitive.
Rachel Maclean
I am aware that my hon. Friend represents an area with acute environmental sensitivities and he is right to raise those concerns on the Floor of the House. We work across Government not only to tackle the storm overflow issue to which he refers, but to find a way to allow house building and other types of building that is much needed to drive jobs and investment, and to support businesses in his constituency, without that having a weakening effect on our environment.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I wonder if I could pick up on something the Minister said a moment ago. Natural England is not a Government partner; it is a Government agency. So far as this issue is concerned, it is literally the Government. This rule has existed since 2019 and the Government’s guidance on it has indeed got in the way of genuinely affordable, environmentally sustainable housing schemes in the Lake District and, I am sure, elsewhere. The answer was not to scrap it but to change the guidance to make it more intelligent, so that we protect our waterways and our landscapes from pollution without preventing vital development. Why did the Government spend four years dithering before panicking, overreacting and then acting in line with their own nature by damaging British nature?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman makes his points in his usual way, but without confronting the reality of the situation that affects his constituents. Of course Natural England is a Government partner and a Government body. We work in partnership with Natural England. We work constructively with it to tackle these complex legal issues. I am sure he would be the first to jump up and complain if we took action too quickly without considering the consequences. As it is, what we are doing is a sensible, proportionate measure to allow much needed development in the Lake District: homes for his constituents that have the planning permission to be built—finally.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Labour-run Kirklees Council is sitting on millions of pounds of unspent section 106 developer contributions for local infrastructure. Much of that unspent cash is for environmental projects. What confidence should we in my area have that our shambolic Labour-run Kirklees Council will be able to deliver these mitigation environmental projects when it is actually not delivering for our local environment as it is?
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is completely right to raise the record—in his words, the shambolic record—of his local Labour-run council. What I can say to reassure him and other colleagues is that I have engaged with local authority leaders to explain to them exactly what this change means for them, what we expect them to do, and what they should be doing on behalf of their residents to make sure the money is spent properly to protect the rivers, seas and lakes, and get houses built.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the only ones blocking the development of the houses that we need, including genuinely affordable social housing—a pitiful number were built last year; I think it was just over 7,000—are those on the Government Benches? It is the Tory Government who are the blockers of housing development to meet housing need. That is the case, is it not, Minister?
Rachel Maclean
It might sound very nice on the hon. Gentleman’s Facebook clip, but if he actually looks at the facts he will find it is Conservative-run councils that have, on the whole, delivered more houses over the last few years in responding to the needs of their constituents, and Labour-run councils that are experiencing significant failures in delivering the houses that their residents need.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister has lifted a blight from my constituency, but as a result of these measures we are all going to be swimming in cleaner water as well, aren’t we?
Rachel Maclean
We are, and I look forward to joining my right hon. Friend in swimming in some cleaner water very soon.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister rightly said that too many house building companies were going bust, but may I gently suggest that that is a consequence of the Government’s crashing the economy last year, inflation pushing up the cost of materials, and a skills shortage? The Government claim that their approach will see 100,000 permissions expedited between now and 2030, but given this context, what is that assessment actually based on, and has the Minister consulted local authorities?
Rachel Maclean
Yes, we have consulted local authorities, and I make no apologies for standing up and taking action when it is needed to help small builders in particular. The diversity of the sector in this country, unlike that in other countries, is disproportionately skewed towards larger developers, and it is therefore right for us, as a Conservative Government, to back small businesses. We understand what people go through to start a business, which is why we are taking action to help them.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s balanced approach, which will improve the long-term quality of the River Stour in my constituency while allowing much-needed planning permissions for new homes to start again. Thousands of people, very sensibly, want to live in Ashford, and they want to see new homes built, not least in accordance with the local plan rather than being built opportunistically around the place, which is what the delays in permissions have led to. Can the Minister give us some indication of a timescale and when councils such as Ashford can start granting planning permissions again?
Rachel Maclean
My right hon. Friend is entirely correct and I thank him for his support. We need to wait for the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to achieve Royal Assent—it must, of course, undergo parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses—but we are working apace. We have already started that engagement with local authorities and partners, Natural England and others, to ensure that they have all the operational detail that they need. What we need to see are spades in the ground as soon as possible.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
It is clear from the Minister’s replies that her statutory adviser, Natural England, opposed this move, so will she please publish its advice? Instead of letting developers and water companies off the hook and pouring even more sewage into our waterways, why does she not take the advice of her right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) and reverse the Prime Minister’s disastrous decision to scrap local housing targets, which has given nimby councils carte blanche to do nothing?
Rachel Maclean
What I take issue with in the right hon. Gentleman’s questions—plural—is his comment that we scrapped housing targets. We have done no such thing. We are committed to building 1 million homes during this Parliament, and we have the target of building 300,000 homes every year. That is a very important target that we stand by. What we are doing, unlike the Labour party, is taking account of local communities. What Labour would do is build all over the green belt, and I can tell the House that its own MPs are not in favour of that: they are blocking developments in their constituencies. What we have is a sensible, proportionate approach—to build the right houses in the right places.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
What the negative social media debate about all this has masked is the fact that a significant amount of work is being done to create, conserve and improve wetlands around the country. The all-party parliamentary group for wetlands, which I chair, is supporting the drive by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust to create 100,000 additional hectares of wetlands in this country, and we would also like to see a dedicated domestic wetlands team in DEFRA to repeat its successes in peat productivity. Will my hon. Friend give us more information about how expert organisations such as the WWT in Slimbridge, in my patch, can apply for the £280 million to continue positive progress on environmental matters, and will she assist my efforts to get the wetlands team up and running?
Rachel Maclean
I know that my hon. Friend does extremely good work on behalf of Slimbridge and other wetlands in her area. I should be delighted to meet her, and to read any of the reports produced by her APPG. I think it important to stress again that the packages to be delivered through the work of Natural England and the credit scheme must continue, and we will be boosting them because we know of the benefit that they have for my hon. Friend’s area and many others.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the proposed investment in the Natural England nutrient mitigation scheme covers only 15% of the total mitigation requirement to 2030? Where will the additional funds required to address the shortfall come from?
Rachel Maclean
I do not accept that figure, and I do not know where the hon. Lady got it. Those schemes are very much in progress at the moment, on an ongoing basis. We are working through some of the details. I should also mention that as well as the Natural England scheme we have the Government’s own scheme, administered by my Department, which we will be able to deliver throughout the country.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there is a flaw in the way in which the Office for Environmental Protection has reached its determination in this matter? It can take into account only what is in the Bill. It cannot take into account the other measures that the Minister has mentioned, the Natural England nutrient neutrality programme and the investment in slurry management. Surely, to form a more coherent view of the environmental impact of these measures, it is necessary to look at all measures in the round, not just legislative measures.
Rachel Maclean
My hon. Friend is of course extremely perceptive and he is absolutely correct. We presented an ambitious package overall, and that means we can meet head-on the challenge of delivering the much-needed planning permissions that my hon. Friend will no doubt welcome in his area—which I know needs more housing—and also protect and enhance our environment. In its recent comments, the Office for Environmental Protection has interpreted this in a very narrow fashion, and we do not necessarily agree with its assessments.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the Minister has struggled previously with what constitutes retained EU legislation, but what we are talking about today is an amendment to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The challenge before the Minister is that this Government pledged, on the record, not once but seven times during the debate on the Bill that became the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, that they would not reduce those explicit environmental protections. Will she say now whether that pledge to match those environmental protections directly remains, or does she want to take this opportunity to correct the record and admit that the Government’s word on the environment is not worth the paper it is written on?
Rachel Maclean
I think that what I am struggling with is the fact that the hon. Lady clearly did not listen to my previous comments on this matter. I have said a great many times that we do not agree that this is a regression in environmental outcomes, and we stand by that. We are the Conservative Government, and we are committed to leaving the environment in a better state than the one in which we found it. That is backed up by a strong package of action across numerous areas.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
My constituency was one of the worst-affected places in the entire country, with 2,000 planning applications held up and thousands of people at risk of losing their jobs. We are talking not about large construction companies, but about everyday jobbing builders—people with families to feed. This is a great step towards getting the country moving again and solving an intractable problem.
May I ask the Minister a very simple question? If I build a small house, or put a little extension on the side of my current house, am I really damaging the watercourses to the same degree as pig farming and chicken farming? Are these well-intended laws completely missing the mark of what they were intended to do in the first place?
Rachel Maclean
The simple answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that he is right. The existing legal framework that has been hindering us has had a disproportionate effect on planning permissions and house building when the main source of the pollution lies elsewhere. Overall, this package will be able to deliver house building and extensions in my hon. Friend’s constituency, help the smaller builders and, of course, protect our rivers.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
In an industrial area such as Teesside, environmental standards are critical, including around water quality and our riverside. Will the new policy framework lead to increased funds for the Canal & River Trust, which has seen its budgets decimated in recent years, leading to huge cuts in its activities and the removal of every single litter bin on its land around the River Tees?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns of the Canal & River Trust. I am sure that his comments will have been heard by DEFRA Ministers, but I will be happy to take those concerns back to them and ask them to provide an answer.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Following the question from the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on mitigation, the Government’s focus seems to be on wetlands, but if we are honest it will take a long time to fully mitigate the possible additional pollution. What will be done in the interim to deal with this pollution before the wetlands become fully operational?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that there is a focus on wetlands but other projects are in scope of the credit scheme. However, she has hit the nail on the head: the key point is that some of these things take a very long time to come on stream but we need to start unblocking those houses now, which is why we have taken this proportionate approach with the amendments.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Over the summer, I met members of the Bedfordshire Great Ouse Valley Environment Trust. They are concerned that our river is the fifth most polluted in England with forever toxins—the level is a shocking 10 times that considered safe—not to mention raw sewage and nitrate and phosphate contamination. Can the Minister explain to my constituents why the Government are decreasing protections for our beautiful river when what is needed is an urgent plan to clean up our dirty waterways?
Rachel Maclean
I can assure the hon. Gentleman and anyone else listening to this, including his constituents, that the package we are bringing forward will protect the river and enable it to be in a cleaner state. That is backed up by our plan for water and the further announcements we are putting in place today. What is more, I know from his correspondence that his constituents also want to see affordable housing being built, and that is what this will enable.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
My constituents, whether they live in urban Lancaster or in one of the rural Wyre villages, recognise the need for housing across north Lancashire, but they also recognise the ripping up of environmental protections when they see it, and they do not like that. The Minister seems to be very concerned about small house builders who are going bust, so will she take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of her Government, who crashed the economy, pushed up inflation and made materials more expensive and who have not dealt with the land banking that is really holding back house building?
Rachel Maclean
What I would like to see from Members on the other side of the House is an apology for talking this country down, which they have done repeatedly. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was able to tune in to Treasury questions recently when the Chancellor set the record straight on how we now have one of the fastest-growing rates in the G7. It is this Conservative Government who will get every industry going, including the house building industry and small and large builders. We are on the side of the builders, not the blockers.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Minister refers to the doubling of investment in a nutrient mitigation scheme, with £200 million put into slurry management, yet 80% of phosphates in the UK’s rivers are from households and only 15% are from agriculture. Is this just another example of this Government passing the buck and blaming farmers for pollution in our rivers?
Rachel Maclean
I would be happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and explain to him what is meant by slurry management grants. We are helping farmers to build a circular economy. He will know that this is a valuable resource. Farmers will welcome this intervention because they know that it could help them to farm more sustainably. Most farmers I talk to want to work in harmony with nature. That is what we are doing. I do not know what the Liberal Democrats’ policy is, though.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
This Tory Government are failing on housing and the environment pays the price. It is not an either/or. Our Welsh Labour Government are delivering on both in Wales. They have been working strategically with all stakeholders, with high-level nutrient management boards set up to tackle precisely this issue, sometimes chaired by the First Minister himself—they are always chaired by Ministers—as well as bringing through regulations to improve agricultural water quality and getting homes built as well. If the Welsh Labour Government can do both, why can’t this Government?
Rachel Maclean
The Welsh Labour Government have a shocking record on house building, as they have on many issues. What is more, they are not tackling the issue at source, which is why we are bringing forward our catchment plans and our protected site strategies. A lot of the rivers that are draining from Wales are impacting negatively on constituencies in England. The only thing I agree with in the hon. Lady’s rather stilted comments is that this is not an either/or. If she had listened to what I was saying, she would know that we are doing both. We are protecting the environment, protecting our rivers and bringing forward housing.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
Work Capability Assessment Consultation
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on our proposed changes to the work capability assessment, which aim to ensure that no one who can work is permanently written out of this country’s strong labour market story. It is a story that has seen nearly 4 million more people in work compared with 2010, 2 million more disabled people in work than in 2013 and record numbers of people on payrolls. But although the overall number of people who are economically inactive has fallen strongly from its pandemic peak, there remain over 2.5 million people who are inactive because of long-term sickness and disability. Yet we know that one in five people on incapacity benefits who are currently not expected to prepare for work want to work in the future if the right job and support were available, and the proportion of people going through a work capability assessment who are being given the highest level of award and deemed to have no work-related requirements at all has risen from 21% in 2011 to 65% last year.
This situation is excluding significant numbers of people from receiving employment support to help them to move closer to work opportunities. It is holding back the labour market and the economy, but perhaps most important of all, it is holding back human potential. I want to ensure that everybody who can do so benefits from all the opportunities that work brings—not just the financial security, but all the physical and mental health benefits too. No one who can work should be left behind. That is why, earlier this year, we announced an extra £2 billion-worth of investment to help disabled people and those with health conditions to move into work. That includes bringing in our new universal support employment programme, which will assist disabled people and those with health conditions to connect with vacancies and provide support and training to help them to start and stay in a role.
Through our individual placement and support in primary care programme, we are investing £58 million to help more than 25,000 people to start and stay in work. We are modernising mental health services in England, providing wellness and clinical apps, piloting cutting-edge digital therapies and digitising the NHS talking therapies programme. We have also published fundamental reforms to the health and disability benefits system through our health and disability White Paper. That will see the end of the work capability assessment and a new personalised tailored approach to employment support to help everyone to reach their full potential.
The scale of our reforms means that it will take time to implement them, but there are changes we can make more quickly that will also make a difference. So before the White Paper comes in, I want to make sure that the work capability assessment—the way we assess how someone’s health limits their ability to work, and therefore the support they need—is delivering the right outcomes and supporting those most in need. Today my Department is launching a consultation on measures to ensure that those who can work are given the right support and opportunities to move off benefits and towards the job market. As I have said, we know that many people who are on out-of-work benefits due to a health condition want to work and, assisted by modern working practices, could do so while managing their condition effectively.
We have seen a huge shift in the world of work over the last few years, a huge change that has accelerated since the pandemic. This has opened up more opportunities for disabled people and those with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work. The rise in flexible working and homeworking has brought new opportunities for disabled people to manage their conditions in a more familiar and accessible environment. More widely, there have been improvements in the approach many employers take to workplace accessibility and reasonable adjustments for staff. And a better understanding of mental health conditions and neurodiversity has helped employers to identify opportunities to adapt job roles and the way disabled people and people with health conditions work.
The consultation I am publishing is about updating the work capability assessment so that it keeps up with the way people work today. The activities and descriptors within the work capability assessment, which help to decide whether people have any work preparation requirements to improve their chances of getting work, have not been comprehensively reviewed since 2011, so it is right that we look afresh at how we can update them given the huge changes we have seen in the world of work.
For instance, the work capability assessment does not reflect how someone with a disability or health condition might be able to work from home, yet many disabled people do just that. Our plans include taking account of the fact that people with mobility problems, or who suffer anxiety within the workplace, have better access to employment opportunities due to the rise in flexible working and homeworking.
We are consulting on whether changes should be made to four of the activities and descriptors that determine whether someone can work, or prepare to work, to reflect changes in working practices and better employment support. This includes looking at changing, removing or reducing the points for descriptors relating to mobilising, continence, social engagement and getting about. We are not consulting on changes to the remaining descriptors, which will remain unaltered. These changes will not affect people who are nearing the end of life or receiving cancer treatment, nor will they affect the majority of activities for those with severe disablement, such as if a person has severe learning disabilities or is unable to transfer from one seat to another.
We are also consulting on changes to the provision for claimants who would otherwise be capable of work preparation activity but are excluded from work preparation requirements on the basis of substantial risk, most commonly on mental health grounds. The original intention for substantial risk was for it to be advised only in exceptional circumstances. It was intended to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable, but the application of risk has gone beyond the original intent. We are therefore consulting on how we might change how substantial risk applies, so that people can access the support they need to move closer to work and a more fulfilling life. We are also considering the tailored and appropriate support that will be needed for this group, safely helping them move closer to work.
These proposals will help people to move into, or closer to, the labour market and fulfil their potential. We are consulting over the next eight weeks to seek the views of disabled people, employers, charities and others on our proposed changes. If the proposals were taken forward following consultation, the earliest we could implement any change would be from 2025, given the need to make changes to regulations and to ensure appropriate training for health assessors.
These plans are part of our wider approach to ensuring that we have a welfare system that encourages and supports people into work, while providing a vital safety net for those who need it most. A welfare system that focuses on what people can do, not on what they cannot do, and that reflects the modern changes to the world of work. It is time to share the opportunities of work far more fairly. It is time for work to be truly available to all those who can benefit from it. It is time to get Britain working.
I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement.
I know from talking to disabled people in my constituency and across the country that work can bring dignity and self-respect through the choice, control and autonomy from having money in their pocket and making the contribution they want to make in life. Work is the reason for my political party, and supporting working people is why Labour Members get up in the morning. That belief is shared by the British public, including hundreds of thousands of people who currently feel shut out of the workplace and trapped on benefits when they could work if they had the right help and support.
On this Government’s watch, a staggering 2.6 million people are now out of work as a result of long-term sickness. That is the highest number ever, up almost half a million since the pandemic alone. This is a serious challenge for millions of our constituents and for the economy, and it deserves a serious response, but that is not what we have seen today.
Labour has been warning for years that benefit assessments are not fit for purpose and, crucially, that unless we have a proper plan to support sick and disabled people who can work, even more will end up trapped in a degrading benefit system, costing them and the taxpayer far more. Labour has already set out plans to transform the back-to-work help that is available by personalising employment support and tackling the huge backlogs in our NHS and social care. Our “into work guarantee” will let people try work without fear of losing their benefits. Our plan is backed by the Centre for Social Justice, the Social Security Advisory Committee and disabled people’s organisations. Why not the Secretary of State?
We will ensure that employment support meets specific local needs through proper devolution to local areas and, when disabled people get a job, we will make sure they get the support they need to keep them there as soon as they need it, rather than having to wait for months on end.
We will study the consultation carefully, but I see nothing in the statement that matches Labour’s vision or scale of ambition. It does not even deal with the glaring problems in the current system. Eighty per cent of personal independence payment decisions are overturned at tribunal, of which only 2% are because new evidence has become available. How will the proposals make any difference to the totally inadequate decision making that causes untold stress to disabled people and wastes millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money?
The backlog of Access to Work assessments has trebled to 25,000 since the pandemic. How will the proposals help to bring that down? Where is the plan to help slash waiting lists for help with anxiety and depression, which we know is a major problem, or to get the carers that families need to look after sick and disabled relatives so that they themselves can work?
This is not a serious plan. It is tinkering at the edges of a failing system. If you run your NHS into the ground for 13 years and let waiting lists for physical and mental health soar, if you fail to reform social care to help people care for their loved ones and if your sole aim is to try to score political points rather than reforming the system to get sick and disabled people who can work the help they really need, you end up with the mess we have today: a system that is failing sick and disabled people, failing taxpayers and failing our country as a whole. Britain deserves far better than this.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. It is gratifying that she agrees with much of the premise I set out. She recognises the importance of work and that 2.5 million people, or thereabouts, are on long-term sick and disability benefits—we are all equally concerned that the number is growing. She also argues that the work capability assessment, in its current form, is not fit for its required purpose, which is exactly why we are coming forward with these reforms. She refers to the PIP assessment requirements, which are not relevant to the work capability assessments that we are discussing and that are subject to the current consultation.
We clearly have a plan. The hon. Lady has been in her position for a very short period, and I respect and understand that. I invite her to look closely at the announcements that were made—the £2 billion-worth of support at the last fiscal statement, including our White Paper reforms in exactly the area where she is seeking progress; the universal support; and the WorkWell programme. She mentioned working with local providers, and there is a huge drive on that. As for mental health, we are consulting on occupational health across businesses to make sure that we get in right at the start where people may otherwise end up on a long-term health journey. We are also working closely with the NHS on getting employment advisers involved, for example, in talking therapies, which we know are so effective in addressing mental health concerns.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I strongly support the initiative to help more people who are long-term sick and disabled into work where they wish to do that. My query is: why on earth is it going to take so long? We need to be doing this now, to ease our workplace shortages and to give those people earlier support and hope. Will my right hon. Friend please work with his officials to speed it all up?
Mel Stride
I share my right hon. Friend’s keenness to see these proposals—whatever may or may not emerge—come forward as soon as possible. They will require a lot of work on IT systems and changes to systems. The providers will have to incorporate the changes that may or not come forward as a result of this consultation. Let me reassure him that, given the benefits there will be to many people who will otherwise not benefit from work, I am as anxious as he is to make sure that we move forward at speed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesman.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The big difference between the SNP and the Conservative and Labour parties is that we do not approach this from the point of view that people are somehow on the make and on the take; we do not assume that when somebody comes for an assessment they are somehow trying to cheat the Government. That is why it is important that the Select Committee on Work and Pensions noted in its recent report the concerns that disabled people are still experiencing psychological distress as a result of undergoing these health assessments.
Let me show just how perverse some of those assessments are. One of the first constituency cases I dealt with as an MP involved someone literally being asked at an assessment whether they still had autism. That gives us an idea of how fundamentally flawed this whole process is. Has the Secretary of State read the Institute for Public Policy Research report that came out today? It makes a specific recommendation to:
“Limit conditionality to facilitate person-centred support on universal credit.”
It says:
“People with health conditions, single parents and parents of young children on universal credit should be exempt from requirements or financial penalties under any circumstances.”
Has he seen that?
Will the Secretary of State also agree to look again at the Access to Work scheme? Far too often, the Government’s own Committee has received evidence that shows that Access to Work simply is not working. I come back to my fundamental point: will the Government change their philosophy—this deep suspicion that somehow claimants are on the make and on the take? All they actually need is support from their Government.
Mel Stride
I respect the hon. Gentleman; having appeared before the Select Committee, I know how seriously he takes the matters that he has raised. However, I cannot accept being described as bearing down on those who are
“on the make and on the take”.
If he can find any example of myself or my Ministers making those assertions, I would like to see it. In the absence of that, I hope that he will be big enough to withdraw those comments.
The hon. Gentleman does not like the assessments, but we hear nothing about alternatives or what the SNP’s plan is to replace assessments. If there are inherent problems with assessments, presumably the logic is that he is not going to assess anybody at all. So we do not know what his plan is. He refers to conditionality, so let me make a point about that. There are those whose health and disability situation is such that I passionately recognise that they should not be expected to undergo any work to look for work or to carry out work itself. As a compassionate society, we should be there to support those people, and we will continue to do so. But where somebody can work, there is a contract between the state and the individual: if people are to be supported and they can work, it is right that they should be expected to do so. In those circumstances, the conditionality should apply.
The hon. Gentleman made specific reference to Access to Work. That programme provides up to about £65,000 for each individual involved to bring forward adaptations to the workplace to accommodate that individual into employment. It is a huge commitment on the part of this Government, and I can inform him that the latest figure I have is that 88% of those applications are being processed within 10 days.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is greatly welcome that we are trying to get the assessment to give people the outcome they deserve, but it is intriguing to make what sounds like a fundamental change to an assessment that we are going to try to scrap in a few years’ time. Will the Secretary of State set out how many of the 2.5 million people he cited as being in this situation he thinks would not be in the same group after these changes? How many of them will have a chance to be reassessed before we scrap the assessment entirely?
Mel Stride
I dealt in my statement with my hon. Friend’s question about why we are doing this, given that we will be getting rid of the WCA in due course: I said that there is no reason why we cannot bring forward these benefits earlier, even though we are going to be removing the WCA altogether. As for the numbers impacted, we know that about one in five people on those benefits do want to work, given the right support. Until the consultation is concluded and we know the exact nature of the policy changes that we may or may not be making at that point, we will not be able to assess the numbers exactly.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
This will lead to a lot of fear among disabled people. I appreciate the tone that the Secretary of State has taken, but the record of the past 13 years has been one of excluding the most vulnerable disabled people from more support than they need. We know that disabled people are a group who are living in huge poverty. We also know that some of them have died, not just through suicide, but because of the lack of safeguarding in the Department and how it operates. So I urge him to ensure that the safeguarding system within the Department ensures that people are protected. I agree with the SNP spokesperson about Access to Work; we are talking about 4 million disabled people able to work and 35,000 being provided with it through Access to Work.
Mel Stride
I listen to the hon. Lady’s remarks with great respect; having appeared before her at the Select Committee, I know how serious she is about the issues she raises and how strongly she promotes her ideas and concerns. She mentioned the lack of support available for the people in the situation we are describing, which is precisely why I want to start providing more support to them by making these reforms. Let me make an important point in an area where I am in agreement with her: we need to do this in the right way. We need to listen carefully to those who will be affected by any changes we may bring forward, which is why we have a full eight-week consultations. My Ministers and I will be engaging closely with the various stakeholders, disabled people and so on. We will of course welcome her comments as part of that process.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
When I was a Minister, whenever I went on a visit I would ask young disabled people what they would do if they were the Minister. They said that they would always want to have the same career opportunities as their friends. I therefore welcome any moves to make more personalised and tailored support available, to build on our record disability employment. However, we lose more than 300,000 people a year from the workplace and the majority of long-term health conditions and disabilities develop during the working age. So during this consultation I urge the Secretary of State to work with employers to see what more support and advice they need to make sure that people do not ever have to even enter the WCA system.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for that typically sensible and astute intervention. May I personally thank him for the advice and input he has given over the preceding months, particularly in this area? He is right that we should be proud of our record of assisting disabled people into work—2 million more in work since 2013. Equally, he is right about addressing the hundreds of thousands of people with these kinds of difficulties and challenges who are leaving businesses and the workforce every year. I recognise that it is essential to get help to those people as early as possible, before they progress too far along that health journey. That is why we are already consulting on occupational health, so that we can make sure that is rolled out more effectively across large and medium-sized businesses.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned that four descriptors would be reviewed, but there were no plans for any other changes. He certainly did not mention adding any descriptors. At yesterday’s Westminster Hall petition debate on disability assessment, one of the key issues discussed was remitting and relapsing conditions, particularly fatigue. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking at fatigue, and either adding it as a descriptor or telling us what he is going to do about it instead?
Mel Stride
Nothing in the consultation excludes bringing forward exactly the point that the hon. Lady makes. I hope she will do just that, and encourage others to do so as well.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Secretary of State is quite right to refer to the 2 million additional people with disabilities who have come into work since 2010. He will recall that the first Disability Confident event, held in 2013, was in Gloucester. His Department worked closely with charities and employers to ensure that more opportunities happened. I have met many people who benefited from that programme, so I support him in the principle. Can he confirm that he will engage closely with charities and organisation such as Seetec Pluss, which has a lot of experience in helping to bring people with disabilities back into the workplace?
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for all the passion and intelligence he brings to these issues. I can confirm that our door will be open to Seetec Pluss. In fact, I will go further and make sure that our officials reach out to my hon. Friend to ensure that that happens.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
In a key paragraph of his statement, the Secretary of State appears to envisage that he will either remove or reduce the descriptors giving access to benefits for people who have problems with mobility or are incontinent. Will he explain what he means by that? Will he also tackle problems on the other side of the world of work, including rogue employers exploiting people through low-paid part-time or temporary jobs? One in nine workers are in poverty as a result. Is it not time that he took on the employers rather than the poorest in our society?
Mel Stride
That sentiment of taking on the employers is probably not conducive to having an economy that is generating the jobs that have occurred under this Government. As to the descriptors—indeed, the activities—that the hon. Gentleman refers to, there is a plethora of information out there about exactly what those mean. If he has trouble finding that, I would be very happy to have my Department point him in the right direction.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
The Secretary of State rightly points to the tripling of the number of people receiving the highest award after a work capability assessment. Does he share my concern that a false assumption is growing not only that those people cannot work, but that they should not work, which therefore writes them off? Do we not have a serious moral obligation to remove all sorts of barriers that come between those individuals and the workplace? His approach is exactly right in trying to target those obstacles that most get in the way of people enjoying the agency and autonomy that activity in the workplace brings.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for the advice and support he has given me when we have discussed these issues over the last few months. I know he is extremely knowledgeable in this area. He is absolutely right that we do not want people to be trapped, to use that expression, on benefits. We want to help people to move into the labour market and work. That is better for the economy and the labour market, but most importantly it is better for the physical and mental health of the individual concerned, as shown by all the evidence.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on myalgic encephalomyelitis. The Secretary of State has said that the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose, and many disabled people with invisible or fluctuating conditions would agree with him entirely. They report not being believed, their medical evidence being disregarded and leaving the assessment feeling as though they have been belittled by the assessors. The Department of Health and Social Care is undergoing a massive change in the way it deals with people with ME and other conditions like ME. Can he provide an assurance that his Department will look at how people with ME and other invisible disabilities are being considered through work capability assessments?
Mel Stride
I can give the hon. Lady exactly that assurance when it comes to ME. I point her to the White Paper that we published in March, in which we made a clear commitment on fluctuating conditions and said that we would test and trial around those conditions, as part of the White Paper process.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and thank him for his offer of more personal, tailored support for disabled people, who we must always do our best to help and support. Given that this is the 21st century and there have been huge advances in medical treatments, adaptations of buildings to help disabled people, improvements in mobility devices and a rapid rise in digital connectivity, it is staggering that the proportion of people going through a WCA who are deemed to have no work-related requirements at all has gone up from a fifth to almost two thirds in just over a decade. Why does the Secretary of State think it is like that?
Mel Stride
It is correct that we have gone from 21% to 65% in that short space of time and I recognise that that statistic is simply unacceptable. We know that one in five people in that group wants to work, given the right support, and we need to do something about that. Quite rightly, my hon. Friend also raises the fundamental change in the way that work is conducted in the modern world. The last time the work capability assessment was reviewed for reform was 10 years ago. That is inadequate and it is now time to make appropriate changes.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
There are 76,000 people in Wales with a severely limiting condition. New research this summer shows that four in 10 of them are having to skip or cut down on meals or have gone without heating. Is the Secretary of State confident that the proposed changes will remedy that?
Mel Stride
It is a fact that people are better off, on average, being in work than being on benefits. I pay tribute to my predecessor who introduced universal credit, which makes that the case. Bringing people into work who would not otherwise be in work means that they will, on average, be better off. This Government have increased the national living wage by over 9%—it has been £10.42 since April—and have introduced cost of living support for 8 million low-income households, 6 million disabled people, pensioners and so on. In response to the hon. Gentleman, the proposed changes are another step in exactly the right direction.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), the Secretary of State referred to the statistic of 65%. It strikes me that out of that 65% of people, a number of them could work, should work or want to work, because that is the best thing for them. Building on the 2 million people with disabilities who we have got back into work, is it not the case that there must be people who are trapped in that 65%? Is it not imperative for the Secretary of State and his officials to get those people into the world of work as soon as possible?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend has used exactly the right word: it is imperative that we get those people into the world of work. If somebody is on benefits—and we know that one in five of those people would, with the right support, like to get into work—it is our duty as a Government and as a society to do whatever we can to support them.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
In 2011, this Government said that they would help 100,000 disabled people into employment through dedicated personalised support, such as Access to Work. In the 12 years since, the number of disabled people supported by Access to Work has risen from 37,000 to 38,000. Given the Department’s failure and the wider context of cuts, would disabled people not be forgiven for thinking that this is just further cuts dressed up as modernisation?
Mel Stride
Not at all, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have set out very clearly the principled reason why we are bringing forward these measures. As the hon. Gentleman will know, when it comes to more disabled people moving into the workforce, we set a target for the 10-year period from 2017 to see a million more disabled people in employment. We broke that target in half that time, reaching 1.3 million in addition after just five years.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The number of people who are economically inactive due to long-term sickness has reached a record high of 2.55 million, which is very concerning. Given the Secretary of State’s fanfare today, what level of reduction in those figures would he measure as a success in supporting disabled people into secure and sustainable employment? What specific improvements does he envisage to the sorely inadequate Access to Work scheme to prevent the disability employment gap widening even further?
Mel Stride
I have addressed the issue of Access to Work—what a significant programme it is and the recent improvements in the processing of those particular awards. On economic inactivity, I make two points. First, compared with the EU, the OECD and the G7, economic activity overall is below the average across those different groups. Secondly, it has declined by about 360,000 since the peak that occurred during the pandemic, and that in substantial part is due to the policies of this Government.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is very noticeable that the Secretary of State did not answer the question of the hon. Member for Wellingborough about why he believes that there has been a trebling of the number of people who are now getting the maximum verdict under the work capability assessment. I have helped many of my constituents who have had problems with their WCA, and not one of them has come to me and said that it is the WCA that is keeping them out of work. Many of them have said that it is not nuanced enough to understand the issues, and I welcome the fact that it is to be replaced. However, can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment he has made of how many people are likely to win their appeals after the changes that he has brought in, and what percentage are winning them now? At the moment, huge numbers are winning their appeals, which makes it clear that the work capability assessment is not working.
Mel Stride
I feel duty bound to correct the hon. Gentleman. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) who asked the question to which he referred. Of all the Members in this House, he is probably the one who promotes his constituency the most, and he should be lauded for doing so.
The bottom line is that we know that one in five, or thereabouts, of those who are receiving these benefits at the moment actually want to do some work, if they are supported in doing so. That means that we have a duty to look at the way that the WCA operates and to look at reforming it to make sure that, in every case that somebody can do some work to the benefit of themselves and the economy, we facilitate that.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I have been supporting a disabled student who has not been able to access universal credit because their work capability assessment was not completed before they started their studies. They are now at risk of dropping out of university, because they cannot work to support themselves through their course because of their disability, and they cannot access social security either. That means that they cannot improve their skills and abilities, when that might lead to an opportunity of employment in the future. What resources or flexibilities, if any, are featured in this consultation and the Department’s plans so that my constituent can carry on with their studies, and others will not face the same situation in future?
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman is able to feed into the consultation and I encourage him and his constituents, as appropriate, to do so. I cannot comment on the individual case that he raises, but if he would like to get in touch with me and my private office, I would be very happy to look at the circumstances that he has raised.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I think all of us in this place would welcome an improvement to the work capability assessment. Like many others here, I have had a number of constituents who currently receive PIP payments coming through my door. They have contacted the DWP to advise officials that their situation has significantly deteriorated. They now face lengthy delays of several months before their payments are taken over by Social Security Scotland and their change in circumstances is considered. Can the Minister assure us that, in the work being undertaken and in the consultation, there will be discussion between the DWP and the Scottish Government to make sure that payment recipients in Scotland are not put at a significant disadvantage, and that the upheaval that they are currently undergoing is taken into account?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Just to clarify, there are no plans on the part of the Government to make any changes to the way in which PIP operates—and she did refer specifically to PIP. On the broader point, which is an important point about the interaction between my Department and the Scottish Government, I assure her that I have written today to my Scottish counterpart to open my door to whatever discussions they wish to have. The Minister for Disabled People will also be having his regular engagement with the Scottish Government next week.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I am almost tempted to say another week, another consultation. Disabled charities come to me regularly with real doubts and worries about the way disabled people are being treated. I visited Project Search in my constituency last week. It was wonderful and inspiring—they practically had to throw me out the door. It is a programme that takes in young people, often from college, with severe disabilities and learning issues and gets them into work and then continues to support them. The support that is offered once people get into work is crucial to the success of any programme the Government undertake, and how they treat these people is vital. What is the Government going to change? How are they going to change these work capability assessments to benefit the recipients, and how will they treat the people that they force into them?
Mel Stride
I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People will be meeting the hon. Lady very shortly. That is in the diary, so those matters can be discussed in greater detail then. Specifically, she asks what support we will be providing. It will be exactly the kind of support to which she has just alluded. There will be universal support to help train and place individuals in work, and it will stay with those individuals for up to 12 months to make sure that they get the support to hold down that job.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
Illegal Migration Update
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement about illegal migration.
Tackling illegal migration is one of the Government’s central priorities because it is the British public’s priority. People can see that illegal migration is one of the great injustices of our time. It harms communities in the UK, it denies the most vulnerable refugees a chance of resettlement, and it leaves behind a trail of human misery. Indeed, the perilous nature of the small boat crossings was underscored once again last month when six fatalities occurred in a tragic incident off the French coast. My thoughts are with all those affected, and I pay tribute to the first responders in both the UK and France who worked in difficult circumstances to save as many lives as possible.
That reminds us all why we need to do whatever it takes to stop the boats, which is exactly what the Government have been doing throughout the summer. We started by redoubling our efforts to smash the criminal gangs upstream, well before those gangs are in striking distance of the United Kingdom. We have agreed a new partnership with Turkey to target the supply chain of small boats, which establishes the UK as Turkey’s partner of choice in tackling the shared challenge of illegal migration. Two weeks ago I visited my counterparts in Egypt, as the Security Minister visited Iraq, to deepen our law enforcement co-operation with two more strategically important countries in that regard.
In the UK, we have been ratcheting up our activity to break the business model of the gangs. Unscrupulous employers and landlords who offer illegal migrants the ability to live and work in the UK are an integral part of the business model of the evil people-smuggling gangs. We are clamping down on them; we announced over the summer the biggest overhaul of our civil penalty regime in a decade, trebling illegal working fines and initiating a tenfold increase in right to rent fines for repeat offenders.
As we do so, more rogue employers and landlords are getting knocks on the door. Illegal working visits in the first half of this year increased by more than 50% compared with the same period last year. So far in 2023 we have more than trebled the number of right to rent civil penalties issued compared with last year, resulting in a sixfold increase in the number of penalties levied. Following the resumption of the immigration banking measures in April, banks and building societies are now closing the accounts of more than 6,000 illegal migrants.
As we surge our enforcement activity, we are driving up the returns of those with no right to remain in the United Kingdom. Last month we announced the professional enablers taskforce, which will increase enforcement action against lawyers and legal representatives who help migrants to abuse the immigration system. Lawyers found to be coaching migrants on how to remain in the country by fraudulent means will face a sentence of up to life imprisonment.
Since our deal with Albania in December last year, we have returned more than 3,500 immigration offenders, on weekly flights. As we have done so, we have seen a more than 90% reduction in the number of Albanians arriving illegally. So far there have been more than 12,600 returns this year, with returns in the first half of this year 75% higher than in the same period last year. Of course, those changes follow the landmark Illegal Migration Act 2023, which, coupled with our partnership with Rwanda, will deliver the truly decisive changes necessary to take away all the incentives for people to make illegal crossings from the safety of France.
As we adopt a zero-tolerance approach to illegal migration, the Government have extended a generous offer to those most in need of settlement. The latest statistics published over the summer show that, between 2015 and June 2023, 533,000 people were offered a safe and legal route into the United Kingdom. Last month the Home Office resettled the thousandth refugee through the community sponsorship scheme.
While this Government’s focus is on tackling the source of the problem, we have none the less worked to manage the symptoms of illegal migration as best as is practicable. We have made significant improvements at Manston since last year, and it continues to operate as an effective site for security, health and initial asylum checks, despite the pressure of the summer months.
We have worked to ensure that when migrants depart Manston they are now heading to cheaper and more appropriate accommodation, by rolling out room sharing and delivering our large accommodation sites. Those sites are undoubtedly in the national interest, but the Government continue to listen to the concerns of local communities and Members of this House, and throughout the summer further engagement has taken place to ensure that those sites are delivered in the most orderly way possible. We have successfully ended the use of Afghan bridging hotels, with Afghan families now able to move on with the next stage of their lives in settled accommodation, and the hotels are now returning to use by the public.
Reducing the backlog in asylum cases and establishing a more efficient and robust decision-making system is not in and of itself a strategy to stop illegal migration, but it is important for taxpayer value and we have prioritised it. We have transformed the productivity of asylum decision making by streamlining processes, creating focused interviews and instilling true accountability for performance. As of 1 September, we have met our commitment to have 2,500 decision makers, an increase of 174% from the same point last year. As a result, I am pleased to report to the House that we are on track to clear the legacy backlog by the end of the year, and that recently published provisional figures for July show that the overall backlog fell.
Tackling illegal migration is not easy; more people are on the move, and more are mobile, than ever before. Countries around the world are struggling to control it. But our 10-point plan is one of the most comprehensive strategies to tackle this problem in Europe, and that is showing. As of today, arrivals are down by 20% compared with last year, and for the month of August the reduction was more than a third. That is against the reasonable worst-case scenario of 85,000 arrivals that we were presented with when taking office last year.
In contrast, irregular migration into the EU has significantly increased, with Italy alone seeing a doubling in small boat arrivals. In Italy, a 100% increase; in the UK, a 20% decrease. Our plan is working. There is of course much more to do, but it is clear that we are making progress. I commend this statement to the House.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, thin though it is, and I echo his sentiments in sending condolences to the families of those six people who died tragically in the accident in the channel earlier this summer. We simply must stop these dangerous crossings.
I am absolutely bewildered that, after the summer we have had, yesterday the Prime Minister claimed victory in his broken pledge to stop the boats. This Saturday we saw the year’s record number of channel crossings, with more than 870 people making that dangerous journey in a single day, and the total number has now soared to a whopping 21,000 for the year. The only reason the number is not breaking last year’s record is the poor weather in July and August—and a strategy that depends on the weather is probably not a very sustainable strategy at all.
What has that left us with? A Government flailing around, chasing headlines with gimmicks and stunts rather than doing the hard graft of actually stopping the boats, clearing the backlog and getting people out of the hotels. Take their much celebrated small boats week last month, which turned out to be an absolute omnishambles, with taxpayers paying the price. No wonder the Home Secretary did not want to do a single interview, and no wonder she is not in the Chamber today.
Do not take my word for it: that well-known pro-Labour publication the Daily Mail did a day-by-day review. On the Monday, just 39 migrants were brought into the 500-capacity Bibby Stockholm barge. On the Tuesday, the Conservative deputy chairman admitted that his party has “failed” on immigration. On the Wednesday, the Immigration Minister sparked fresh Tory infighting over whether Britain should leave the European convention on human rights. On the Thursday, channel crossings hit their highest daily number for the year. Then, to cap it all, on the Friday, all the asylum seekers were removed from the Bibby Stockholm because of the presence of legionella in the water supply. You could not make it up.
The Bibby Stockholm was supposed to be a symbol of the Conservatives’ cutting asylum costs, but the Minister has not even mentioned those costs today. Instead, it stands alongside the boats and the hotels as a floating symbol of Conservative failure and incompetence that is costing the taxpayer half a million pounds a month. On top of that, new Home Office data in August showed us that the asylum seeker backlog has grown ninefold to an enormous 175,000 under the Conservatives at a cost of £4 billion a year to the taxpayer—incredibly, eight times higher than it was when Labour left office in 2010. That waste is the cost of 13 years of Conservative neglect.
Today, we debate the cost of the spiralling asylum backlog, driven by cutting the costs of asylum decision making in 2013. Yesterday, the Chancellor was promising to spend “whatever it takes” to fix crumbling classrooms caused by the Prime Minister’s cuts to the schools budget as Chancellor. Tomorrow, we will no doubt be back to the economy and the financial costs of low growth and spiralling mortgages. Everywhere we look, we see the costs of Conservative incompetence.
The Minister speaks now of this new deal with Turkey. Well, I am glad that the Government have started to listen to Labour—we have been calling for tough action to disrupt the gangs upstream for well over a year—but this looks pitifully weak. This announcement comes with no new funding or staff, meaning that officers could be taken off existing functions. That stands in contrast to Labour’s fully funded plan to hire hundreds of specialists specifically to work on that challenge. Meanwhile, Turkish nationals have become one of the largest groups crossing the channel this year.
The Minister boasts about returns of failed asylum seekers going up, but they are actually down 70% compared with when Labour left office in 2010. Forty thousand are awaiting removal, and, at the current rate, it will take the Government more than 10 years to achieve their target. Two thousand fewer foreign national offenders are being removed per year compared with when Labour left office in 2010.
The Minister brags about the legacy backlog—a figment of the Prime Minister’s imagination—going down, but he knows full well that the only backlog that matters is that of the 175,000 people, and that number is still going up. We know that the Government are cooking the books in that regard, marking large numbers of asylum seekers as “withdrawn” because they have missed a single appointment or failed to fill in a form correctly. A Conservative Back-Bench MP described that as an amnesty in all but name.
The Minister has decided to make illegal working even more illegal. The problem is that there has been a lack of Government enforcement. Employers who are exploiting and illegally employing migrant workers should face the full force of the law, but in reality, the number of penalties issued to firms has fallen by two thirds since 2016.
There are so many questions that it is difficult to know where to start, but let us start with these: when did the Minister know about legionella on Bibby Stockholm? How much is the barge currently costing? How many people are currently in hotels? Does he actually intend to implement the much-vaunted Illegal Migration Act 2023? The Prime Minister keeps declaring victory, but the reality is that nothing is working and everything the Government do just makes everything worse, so when will they get out of the way so that we on the Labour Benches can take over, implement our plan and retake control of our broken asylum system?
Robert Jenrick
That was a desperately thin response. We can deduce from it that the Labour party has absolutely no plan to tackle this issue. Of course the hon. Gentleman has had a quieter summer than me, but that is because the Labour party is completely uninterested in tackling illegal migration.
The hon. Gentleman talks about small boats week. Well, let us see how it went for the Labour party. On Monday, the Government announced the biggest increase in fines for illegal working and renting for a decade, while Labour MPs called for illegal migrants to have the right to work immediately, which would act as a massive magnet for even more crossings. On Tuesday, we announced our professional enablers taskforce to clamp down on lawyers who abuse the system, while Labour MPs were awfully quiet, weren’t they? They did nothing to distance themselves from the litany of councillors and advisers exposed as being implicated in efforts to stop the removal of criminals and failed asylum seekers. On Wednesday, we announced a partnership with Turkey to smash the gangs, while the shadow Home Secretary claimed that morning that what we really needed was a return to the Dublin convention—something that even the EU described as “prehistoric”.
The truth is that the Labour party has no plan to tackle this issue, and does not even want to tackle it. We on the Conservative Benches are getting on with the job, and we are making progress: while the rest of Europe sees significant increases in migrants, we are seeing significant falls. Our plan is the most comprehensive of any country in Europe and it is starting to work.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Of course, he is more than aware of the various reports over the summer regarding the Wethersfield site in Braintree district in my area. Could he explain how long the Government will be using that site? Is the five-year period that has been publicly reported correct? What planning processes will be used beyond the 12 months permitted under the class Q regulations? Are the Government considering increasing the £3,500 per bed space given to councils if the site remains open for more than a year?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the co-operation that we have had in respect of that site. I know that she supports the use of large sites, such as disused military bases, for that purpose—it was her policy when she was Home Secretary. We want to use that site for the shortest possible period. We have not put an end date on our use. We have taken advantage of the emergency planning powers that are available in these circumstances; she knows that that has a limited timeframe, after which further action needs to be taken. It is important that we provide the local community with the resources necessary to manage such sites appropriately. That is why we have provided the £3,500 payment. If the site is used for a sustained period, it is correct that we should look again at that and see whether a further payment is appropriate. We have also provided funding for Essex police and for her local NHS services so that the pressure on her constituents, and those of her neighbouring MPs, is as minimal as possible while we deliver this service in their area.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister comes here again with another statement, but the problem is not the boats; it is the backlogs. He comes here fiddling figures with legacy backlogs, but the flow backlog of people coming into the country continues to increase, and the hidden backlog—those granted asylum by the courts but left waiting for his party to complete the paperwork—grows and grows. In reality, we have a backlog of 175,000 people waiting for a decision from his Department—the highest number since records began— and we local MPs get only boilerplate replies that give no reassurance to our constituents left in limbo by his incompetent Department.
We all want to see an end to the small boats and to people risking and losing their lives in the channel, but that requires safe and legal routes, which do not exist. They certainly do not exist for Iraqis, Iranians, Eritreans or Sudanese people. For Afghans, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which they should be able to access, are not fit for purpose, either. Fewer than 50 people have been settled through pathway 3 this year, but just shy of 2,000 have come on small boats in the past two quarters because the system is broken and the Government are not interested in fixing it.
Has the Minister met the Fire Brigades Union regarding his expensive plague ship moored off Dorset? Has he given any thought to how his Illegal Migration Act will actually work? Many in the sector do not understand and have not had any guidance from the Minister on what will happen to the people left in immigration limbo by his Department.
Finally, Scotland has sought an alternative to this broken system, and in the summer we launched our “Citizenship in an independent Scotland” paper. The Government are more interested in pulling up the drawbridge and courting the Daily Mail, so will the Minister devolve immigration to Scotland and let us get on with the job of being a welcoming country and playing a role in the world?
Robert Jenrick
When I last called out the hon. Lady’s humanitarian nimbyism, the statistics were stark—in fact, they have continued to be so. The SNP Government still accommodate only 4.5% of the total asylum population in the UK, while Scotland makes up 8.1% of the overall UK population. In Scottish local authorities where the SNP are the largest party, including in Clackmannanshire, Dundee, East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, Midlothian, North Ayrshire and Falkirk—I could go on—no asylum seekers are being accommodated. In fact, there were only 59 more asylum seekers in SNP-controlled councils in the two months that have passed since we last debated this issue.
The reason I say that is that I do not believe that Members should come to this place and write cheques for which other people have to pay. The costs of SNP Members’ fake humanitarianism are borne by everyone but themselves. If they do not want illegal migrants in their own constituencies, then they should support our effort to stop the boats.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. This is a very important statement, but we have the remaining stages of the Energy Bill later, which is not protected time. Many people wish to speak, so I urge colleagues to ask one short question of the Minister on matters for which he has responsibility, as opposed to matters for which he might not, so that he is able to give quick answers. Leading the way will be Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
When the Prime Minister announced that he was imperilling £300 million- worth of levelling-up investment on RAF Scampton, he said he was going to lead by example by accepting migrants into Catterick camp in his constituency. Home Office officials have now informed us that that is not happening, so where is the leadership in that?
It gets worse. I was informed by West Lindsey District Council that, despite being told that the scheme was value for money and will have to be available for three years not two, the value for money is infinitesimal compared with hotels—it will not even save money for a few days on hotels. Will the Minister now drop this ridiculous scheme, which is derisory and will do nothing for deterrence, and sit down with me and West Lindsey District Council to work out a discreet location for illegal migrants in West Lindsey?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question and our continued co-operation. We believe that this policy is in the national interest. It is right that those coming to this country are accommodated in decent but never luxurious accommodation, so that we do not create a pull factor to the UK. It is through delivering sites such as Scampton—which I appreciate have a serious impact on his constituents—that later this year I hope we will begin to close hotels in earnest and return those facilities to the general public for tourism, business and leisure, which I know is supported by Members across the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On behalf of the Home Affairs Committee, may I send our thoughts and prayers to all those affected by the loss of life in the channel last month?
The Home Affairs Committee has long urged the Government to clear the asylum backlog, and I am pleased that the legacy backlog is starting to shrink. However, there are important questions about the quality and quantity of decisions. On quality, it was reported in The Sunday Times last week that interviews have been slashed from seven hours to 45 minutes. Could the Minister explain how the Home Office is evaluating and guaranteeing the quality of those decisions?
On quantity, the Home Office has reportedly doubled the rate of decision making on the legacy backlog since the end of June. What resources and support will be offered to local authorities when they start having to deal with the dramatic increase in the number of positive asylum claim decisions?
Robert Jenrick
On the first of those two important questions, the right hon. Lady is right to say that the work we have done to transform the decision-making process is bearing fruit. There will be an increase in the number of decisions—a very sharp one—in the weeks ahead. That will mean some more people being granted but also some more people being refused who then need to be removed swiftly from the country. In respect of those people being granted, I am working with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to provide the support and guidance to local authorities that they will need. However, those people who have been granted—particularly young adult males—need to get on with their lives, get a job and contribute to British society, which is what I think they want to do.
We have achieved this transformation through better management, performance targets, working overtime and having shorter, more focused interviews. I do not believe that we need to have a seven-hour interview to identify the salient points and decide a case, and that has been borne out by the good work we have done in recent months. I think Members will see, as data is published in the weeks and months ahead, an absolute transformation in the service.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Minister is absolutely right to be doing everything to tackle the small boats issue and illegal migration. Over the summer months, nearly 500 asylum seekers have arrived in destinations in Chelmsford, and I am grateful for the time he has spent speaking to me about it. Local people are really worried about extra pressure on local health services, local housing lists and other local services. Will he work with me to ensure that areas that take larger numbers of asylum seekers get financial support, so that this cost is shared fairly across the whole country?
Robert Jenrick
Yes, I would be happy to continue to work with my right hon. Friend, as we have done in recent months. We have provided £3,500 per bed space to local authorities that house dispersal accommodation, which goes to meet the costs to them of looking after these individuals, but she is right to say that the wider costs of housing asylum seekers are very high—there is no escaping that. That is one of the reasons we need to reduce the number of people coming into the country in the first place.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Over the past few years, the Government have allowed the backlog of asylum claims to rise and rise to over 170,000. For all the Minister’s warm words, progress in tackling it has been disgracefully slow. What additional measures will the Minister now implement to get that backlog down and reduce the need for his Department to scrabble around for additional accommodation, which often proves to be unsuitable and impractical, such as the Stradey Park Hotel in my constituency?
Robert Jenrick
I hope I have already described in previous answers the work that we have done. I can assure the hon. Lady that it is bearing fruit and that the backlog of legacy decisions will be cleared by the end of the year, and we will swiftly move thereafter to other decisions. Order and efficiency have been restored to the asylum decision-making process, but just waving more people in and processing their claims faster is not a strategy to stop the boats in and of itself. That is why we need the full deterrent and the comprehensive plan that we have.
One of the issues that is putting pressure on asylum accommodation is the very poor performance in Labour-run Wales, which has taken only 2.9% of the total asylum population, yet Wales accounts for 5.2% of the UK’s population. In some areas of Wales—such as the constituency of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock)—there are no asylum seekers whatsoever. I would strongly encourage the hon. Lady to speak with the Welsh Government and get them to step up and help us provide more accommodation.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of effective processing, but he is right about the underlying importance of having a clear plan to deter people from coming to this country illegally, which leads us to Rwanda and the upcoming Supreme Court judgment anticipated later this year. Does he recognise the very strong sentiment among many of us in the House—and, indeed, among many of my constituents—that if the Supreme Court rules against the Government’s policy on this vital question, we should withdraw from the European convention on human rights?
Robert Jenrick
Parliament’s support for our Rwanda plan was made clear with the passage of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. That is a statutory scheme to underpin the Rwanda partnership, so the will of Parliament to get on and deliver the policy is clear for all to see. I am confident that we will secure the result that we seek in the Supreme Court when it hears the case in October, and that is the Government’s focus right now, but like my right hon. Friend I do not think we should take anything off the table. If we are truly committed to stopping the boats, we will have to consider all options, including with regard to the European convention on human rights.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If the Government’s attention is so strongly focused on crossings in the channel, can the Minister explain to me why one of the four Border Force cutters spent so much time this summer tied up at a pier in Orkney? We have a history of people coming in small boats to Orkney, but the Vikings have been quiet for quite a while now. Is that not a curious use of that scarce resource?
Robert Jenrick
I am happy to look into that issue, and I am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman’s Damascene conversion to stopping the boats. I can assure him that the UK has a very robust and efficient operation in the channel. We have been commended by international organisations—including when I spoke to the director general of the United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees—for the work that we do to save lives at sea in the channel. I commend the Border Force officers who are part of that. At the end of the day, though, we have to put in place a deterrent if we want to stop people crossing the channel, and that is why we need policies such as Rwanda, which the right hon. Gentleman and his party have vigorously opposed.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I echo the comments of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), about the tragedies in the channel. It is a miracle that more lives have not been lost.
The Minister has committed to subsidising the French police force to the tune of £480 million, and yet, as at the end of August, the number of successful interceptions on French beaches was 45.2%, which was down from 45.8% in the previous corresponding period. Over the same time, the Belgians have managed to increase the number of successful interceptions by 90%. Will the Minister have a word with his French counterparts to suggest that they have a word with their Belgian counterparts, to see what they are doing differently? Are we paying the wrong country?
Robert Jenrick
First, I would say that the number of small boat arrivals coming to the UK has fallen by 20%. That is a very significant achievement, bearing in mind the context of a 100% increase in Italy and corresponding amounts in other border states of the European Union.
However, my hon. Friend is right to say that, despite elevating relations with France to their highest level for many years and doing a great deal of work, there is clearly more that we need the French to do for us. He is particularly right to focus on Belgium: I visited there recently and met with the Belgian Interior Minister, and the approach that that country has taken has been extremely helpful. It has worked very closely with the National Crime Agency, Border Force and policing in the UK, and has been willing to intercept in the water small boats leaving its shores. That has proven decisive: small boats from Belgian waters are now extremely rare, so that is an approach that we encourage the French to follow.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the cases in my constituency are being processed. From what I have seen, the vast majority are being given leave to remain. The Minister advised me that those people would then be given 28 days’ notice to leave the hotel but, last week, I sent him examples of cases where they have been given five, seven or nine days’ notice. That is creating a homelessness problem in my constituency, because the time is not available to set up the arrangements to house them. The local Christian centre workers have been housing them in their own homes as well, which is wonderful, but we cannot go on like this. I was to meet the Minister next week, but that meeting has been postponed. I would be very happy to meet with his officials, Hillingdon Council and the local Christian centre to talk through how we can resolve this problem, but it is a matter of urgency.
Robert Jenrick
I was not aware that our meeting had been postponed—I will look into that immediately after the statement. In one sense, the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the House is a sign of progress: it means that the work we have done to clear the backlog and create an efficient service is now bearing fruit, and more decisions are being granted. In fact, in the last week in August, over 2,000 decisions were granted in a single week, which is the highest for several years. That will mean that there will be increased pressure on some local authorities, such as the right hon. Gentleman’s, which houses a very large number of asylum seekers. Particularly with respect to families, local authorities will have duties and responsibilities that will be challenging for them. I am very keen to work with him and other Members across the House who are affected by that.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I greatly commend the Minister for the progress he has made with respect to procedure and to the disreputable lawyers who have been exploiting the system, and for the procedures that he has announced today, but could I say something on the question of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court is going to make a judgment. Could it possibly be encouraged to go more quickly? It really is important: the perception in the country is that nothing is being done, which is not true. The Government have behaved extremely well in relation to the Act of Parliament that has just been passed.
On the question of the ECHR, it is not necessary to abolish the entire convention in these circumstances regarding the issue of illegal immigration. If the Supreme Court case were to go the wrong way, we can tailor legislation: we can use the “notwithstanding” formula and tailor it to the specific requirements that are needed, which would be limited but extremely effective. Will the Minister please bear that in mind?
Robert Jenrick
I have always taken and valued the advice of my hon. Friend in this regard. We will, of course, consider what action we need to take if there is a negative judgment from the Supreme Court, but that is not our expectation: we are going to vigorously contest that case and expect a positive outcome. The Supreme Court is going to hear the case in the middle of October and I hope that those justices will come forward with their decision expeditiously because—as my hon. Friend has rightly said—the country is waiting for action and the good work we have done thus far is not enough. We have to go further and, at the end of the day, that will only happen by putting a decisive intervention such as the Rwanda policy in place.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
All this just confirms that the hostile environment is still alive and well. The Minister talks about reducing the backlog; how are cases within that backlog being prioritised? I have a constituent who was caught up in the tragedy at the Park Inn hotel in Glasgow in 2020—a city, incidentally, that takes more of its share of asylum seekers than any other local authority area in the country. He was the roommate of one of the attackers. He was told that he would have a decision by 25 October 2022, so nearly a year later, what is his place in the backlog queue?
Robert Jenrick
I am happy to look into the case that the hon. Gentleman raises but, as I have said in answer to numerous questions, we are now making very strong progress with the backlog. We are making decisions at a rate that has not been seen for several years and that is escalating rapidly, but the fundamental difference of opinion between him and his party and ourselves is that we do not see clearing the backlog as a strategy for stopping the boats. It is an important thing that we need to do as a country, in order to operate an efficient system in the interests of British taxpayers, but it is not enough. We have to put in place a deterrent that fundamentally breaks the business model of the people smugglers so that people will not want to come here in the first place.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement regarding the Professional Enablers Taskforce, and encourage him to make sure that that taskforce looks at the entirety of lawyers’ interventions in the immigration system. I for one am sick and tired of having people come to my surgeries who have spent years in the immigration system, with application after application that have no chance of ever succeeding, but are making lots of money for the solicitors advising them.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I speak as a former solicitor, so I mean no harm to the profession, but the abuse that I have seen in my role over the past nine months is truly shocking and has to end. I am pleased that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has taken swift action against the lawyers and legal representatives who were identified by the Daily Mail over the summer, but that is the tip of the iceberg. There is much more work to be done by the profession and I hope this taskforce will root out that abuse as quickly as possible.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I envy the Minister’s apparently limitless capacity for self-congratulation, but it does not bear much relationship to what people are experiencing on the ground. I went to visit migrants in a hotel in Chesterfield; there were 81 people there, not a single one of whom had had their case heard. The Minister is apparently congratulating himself on the most basic improvements that any competent Home Office should have been making over the past 18 months. How does he explain the fact that, under this Government, more migrants are arriving, yet 70% fewer are being returned than in 2010?
Robert Jenrick
I can tell the House what would happen if the Labour party was in charge of returns. [Interruption.] No, this is an important point to make. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), during his campaign to be leader of the Labour party, campaigned to close detention centres. Dozens of Labour MPs have campaigned against immigration removal centres, and numerous Labour MPs have sided with dangerous foreign criminals versus the British public, opposing their removal from this country. The Labour party, including the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), opposed our reforms to modern slavery legislation—reforms that were essential in order to remove people from this country expeditiously. While we are getting returns up—as I said in my statement, they have already risen substantially—I worry what would happen under the Labour party, because it has absolutely no strategy to tackle that issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I re-emphasise the importance of answering on responsibilities that the Minister has.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the very helpful telephone calls I have had during the summer concerning the Bibby Stockholm barge, which is in Portland port in my constituency—something that the majority of us oppose, as he knows. We do not have any migrants on board due to the legionella problem, and I understand that the Government are facing various legal actions, not least from the Fire Brigades Union. Could he kindly update me and my constituents on the situation concerning that barge, and when and if the migrants will return?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the co-operation that we have had over the summer. I appreciate his position with respect to the barge, although we believe it is important that we move away from expensive hotels to more rudimentary forms of accommodation such as barges. It was very unfortunate that migrants had to be moved off the barge over the summer. We deeply regret that. We did take a very precautionary approach. Tests have subsequently been carried out and the definitive answers to those tests will be received very shortly. Assuming that they show no signs of legionella, or indeed any other bacteria or cause of concern, we will move people back on to the boat as soon as possible and I think we can expect that within weeks.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), the European convention on human rights was negotiated some 70 years ago, long before international criminal gangs engaged in trafficking people across Europe and, indeed, more widely. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time for the Government to make an approach to the Council of Europe with a view to renegotiating the terms of the European convention, because clearly it is not protecting our borders or those of many other countries across Europe?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is correct to say that the framework of international treaties, many of which were forged in the years after the second world war, now appear out of date given the challenges that we face today, and that is a sentiment shared by other European countries we have been working closely with. We have sought to put illegal migration and reform of the international framework on the table for all of the international fora that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary or I are represented at, and we will seek to make the UK a leading force in reform on that issue. Other countries are looking intently at the work we are doing, particularly the Rwanda partnership and, once we are able to establish it, I think it is very likely that other countries will follow suit.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
It is nearly a year now since the Home Office first requisitioned two hotels on Bostock Lane in my constituency and, despite numerous commitments from the Dispatch Box, hundreds of migrants are still housed at that location. I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s good intentions and the hard work he has put in, but my constituents really want to know when the sites will be closed and when the hotels will be returned to their originally intended purpose.
Robert Jenrick
Three things have changed decisively over the summer. First, it is increasingly clear that the numbers coming over are lower than last year as a result of the plan that the Government have put in place, particularly the deal we struck with Albania that has been so successful. Secondly, the backlog clearance work that we have done is bearing fruit, as we have already heard today. Thirdly, we have doubled the number of asylum seekers living in each room, whether that be in hotels or in dispersal accommodation, saving the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. Those three things lead to the ability to exit hotels in the near future and we are working very closely on plans to do so. I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels, so when we are able to do so, her hotels should rightly, because of some of the issues that have been experienced by her community, be top of the list.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware of an unwritten deal, but a deal based on trust, that east Kent would not be facing any accommodation because of the pressure that Dover is obviously facing and the pressure we have in Manston as a primary dispersal centre. So he can imagine my displeasure that a hotel in Cliftonville, the Glenwood Hotel—a small facility of just 21 rooms—is being readied to be set up on 20 September. I am unhappy about this because of, as I say, the deal based on trust because of the pressure that east Kent is bearing. I would certainly hope my right hon. Friend will intervene to make sure that this pretty insignificantly sized facility will be withdrawn.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just a quick reminder that we must have succinct questions because we have a lot to get through later.
Robert Jenrick
I would be very happy to take a look at that, and I completely understand and appreciate the unique pressures that Kent faces.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
In my last communication with Doncaster Council, there were 6,710 people on the housing waiting list and we have hotels that are full, too. So will my right hon. Friend continue his great work, and make sure that we stop these illegal boats and reduce immigration to a sizeable level?
Robert Jenrick
I strongly support the view of my hon. Friend. He is right to say that illegal migration places immense pressures on public services, housing supply and community cohesion. That is what we on this side of the House understand and that is why we are taking the action that we are to stop the boats.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
When will the Old Palace Lodge in Dunstable be available for the people of Dunstable again, given its particular role in providing a social community for marking life events for the whole town?
Robert Jenrick
I have had numerous conversations with my hon. Friend about that hotel. I hope that we will be in a position to exit hotels shortly, as a result of the work we have done to restore order to the asylum decision-making system and the reduced numbers of illegal migrants crossing the channel.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I was pleased to see the reduction by 20% in the year to date and, of course, the work that has been happening with Albania, but residents in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are concerned about the increased numbers coming from Turkey and India. What assurances from the Prime Minister has my right hon. Friend and the Home Secretary had about a returns agreement being included in any free trade deal that we sign with India?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there have been significant numbers of illegal migrants from both those countries. I visited Turkey earlier in the summer, and one of my objectives is to create an enhanced arrangement for returns with Turkey, with which we are working very closely in that regard. For India, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I have been meeting Indian counterparts regularly to increase the return of illegal migrants there. That is absolutely essential, because the number is very substantial.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I very much agree with the Minister that we must increase deterrence if we are to reduce the numbers of people coming here illegally. A key part of that is increased deportation, so what is the Minister doing to ensure that we increase the number of deportation facilities and increase the speed of those deportations?
Robert Jenrick
We have one of the largest detained estates of any major European country, and we are increasing it. We are investing in two new ones that will come on line next year, and we are looking for further opportunities as well. That is quite right, because under the Illegal Migration Act individuals who come to this country illegally will be detained and then swiftly removed.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome the progress in processing applications. Will my right hon. Friend commit that the extra resources will be maintained and the focus on productivity improved to deal with the legacy events and then other cases, while doing the important work of stopping the flow?
Robert Jenrick
Yes, I was very pleased that we met our pledge to increase the number of decision makers to 2,500 from 1 September. That is coupled with management changes so that there are financial incentives and proper accountability for the civil servants involved. We are seeing now the fruits of that labour, with a much more productive service than we have seen for many years.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The one-year anniversary of the Novotel in Ipswich being taken over by the Home Office is about to be met. My right hon. Friend knows how strongly I feel about this. Anger in Ipswich has not abated. Looking at that hotel—a blaze of light—and knowing that those people, who broke our immigration rules, are getting three meals a day during a cost of living squeeze has caused immense anger. Will my right hon. Friend outline a timescale to get the Novotel back to its proper use, which would be good for the economy. It would also be good for fairness, and a sense of fairness is vitally important.
Robert Jenrick
I hope that I have given my hon. Friend some reassurance that we are now at a point where we can move forward with exiting hotels—we will come back to the House in due course to set out those arrangements—but he is right that this is a fundamental question of fairness. It is not appropriate for people who have broken our laws and come into our country illegally to be accessing luxurious accommodation that is way beyond the means of millions of our fellow citizens.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Royal Hotel in Kettering and the Rothwell House Hotel in Rothwell are unsuitable as asylum hotel locations, not least because of their heart-of-town-centre sites. The Minister already knows the strength of local feeling about those two hotels. Local people want them back as normal hotels. I believe they are on 12-month contracts. Will he ensure that those contracts are not renewed when they come to an end?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has made very strong representations on behalf of his community, and he and I met earlier in the year to discuss that further. When we are in a position to close hotels, it will be ones like his—small hotels in market towns that take away very important community assets—that will be top of the list.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
Reducing the asylum backlog is important, but we absolutely must not fall into the trap of having a de facto amnesty to try to achieve that. In the past year we approved the claims of 73% of applicants, including many from undisputed safe countries, while France approved just 25%. Why are we approving nearly three times the proportion of claims approved by France, given that this is clearly one of the pull factors that draws people across the channel?
Robert Jenrick
That is a very important question. We have not done an amnesty—that is what the last Labour Government did when they had a backlog of asylum decisions. We have chosen to do good, old-fashioned management reforms to make this service more productive and deliver for the taxpayer. We have also taken on this issue in respect both of countries with high grant rates, such as Afghanistan, and of those with low grant rates, such as Albania, and we have rapidly got through those cases. There are a number of nationalities—Egypt, Turkey, India—where grant rates should be very low indeed because there are very few circumstances in which somebody should be successfully claiming asylum in this country. We want to ensure that our asylum grant rates are no higher than those of comparable European countries.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the near end to illegal Albanian immigration, the crackdown on immigration lawyer abuses, and UK Visas and Immigration caseworkers helping MPs. However, as more asylum seekers become refugees, has my right hon. Friend considered creating a homes for refugees programme, building on the successful Homes for Ukraine scheme?
Robert Jenrick
It is worth remembering that those individuals granted asylum are predominantly young men of working age, and I would hope that they will integrate into society, get a job and start contributing to the UK—that is certainly our intention. I do understand that there will be some pressures on local authorities, and we are working through those with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. That Department is considering the possibility of a homes for Afghans scheme, but that is in respect of the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which cover a different cohort of individuals where that kind of intervention is more appropriate.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Although I am pleased to see the 20% fall in channel arrivals this year, I do not believe we will see a more meaningful fall until we get the Illegal Migration Act 2023 operational. I know that we are waiting for the Supreme Court and I urge it to hurry up, but given that the Government lost only on a very narrow point that was specific to Rwanda, can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, should they lose in the Supreme Court, the Government have alternatives planned so we can get removals going as soon as possible?
Robert Jenrick
Of course, we consider all eventualities, but my hon. Friend is right to make the point that we won in the High Court and the Court of Appeal on the fundamental question: can a country such as ours enter into a partnership with another whereby asylum claims are heard there? Despite the many individuals who offered contrary opinions, that was deemed to be legal and in compliance with our obligations under the refugee convention. That was a huge step forward. There is a narrow point to resolve and we hope we will be successful in that regard in the Supreme Court in October, but my hon. Friend knows of our determination to tackle this issue one way or another.
Points of Order
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that raising this takes up time in itself, but I am concerned that we now have just about three hours, including for the ten-minute rule motion, for the final stages of a Bill that runs to 328 pages, plus 145 pages of amendments, which include 68 new clauses and at least 240 amendments. This House has not been overrun with business lately—we had many days before the recess when we were going home early—and it seems to me that it is not respectful to this House to try to shoehorn such a large piece of legislation into such a short period of time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving notice of it. I know that he, as a former Leader of the House, will be very aware of the procedures for organising business in the House. He also knows that it is not a matter for me. I would remind him that I said on three occasions during the previous statement that there was a lot of business to get through, that it does not have protected time, and that therefore short questions and answers were required. I have tried my best to reflect the fact that there is pressure on business, because he is quite right that many colleagues want to contribute to the next debate. The Leader of the House is present and may wish to respond, so I will allow her to do so.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to place on the record that we are always keen to ensure that this House has time to debate matters. Contrary to what some might be saying, this is not a zombie Parliament and we are putting through a lot of legislation as well as private Bills. I also remind the House that the programme motion for the Energy Bill was agreed on 9 May.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I was about to say that the programme motion was agreed to by the House. I thank the Leader of the House for her response, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, a previous Leader of the House, will remember that sometimes it is not possible to please everybody.
Electronic Cigarettes (Branding, Promotion and Advertising)
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Electronic Cigarettes (Branding, Promotion and Advertising) Bill 2022-23 View all Electronic Cigarettes (Branding, Promotion and Advertising) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the branding, promotion and advertising of electronic cigarettes, for the purpose of preventing electronic cigarettes from being marketed in a way which appeals to children; and for connected purposes.
We are seeing a rapid and very concerning increase in underage vaping. A recent study by Action on Smoking and Health found that in the past three years the number of children taking part in experimental vaping has increased by 50%. One in five 11 to 15-year-olds in England used vapes in 2021, a figure that is likely to be significantly higher now. Alongside this has come significant growth in the awareness of e-cigarette promotions, with 85% of children now conscious of e-cigarette marketing either in shops or online.
We can see how this has happened. In every single one of the constituencies we represent, on high streets and in town centres up and down the country, there are vaping shops where the shelves and window displays are filled with brightly coloured packaging and products. The packaging mimics popular brands, with flavours of sweets like gummy bears, Skittles and tutti-frutti, or soft drinks like cherry cola, or emblazoned with images of cartoon characters. The problem is just as widespread online, with vapes being openly promoted to children on social media sites, drawing them into experimental vaping so that they become addicted to nicotine. The marketing strategy is clear to see: the products are designed to be attractive to children, to draw them in when they are very young so that they will become addicted to vaping and then become long-term customers.
Vaping has shifted from a smoking cessation tool to a recreational activity in its own right. It is driven by the rapacious desire of tobacco companies—which fund many of the largest e-cigarette suppliers—to keep making a profit from the highly addictive substance of nicotine.
There is evidence that the approach is working for the companies profiting from vapes, with new data from the Office for National Statistics this week showing that the increase in children and young people vaping is already feeding through into a dramatic increase in young adults vaping, with a particularly sharp increase in the number of young women using vapes.
The important role of vaping in smoking cessation has led to a widespread perception that it is a harmless activity, rather than a less harmful activity than smoking. It is not harmless. Last year, 40 children were admitted to hospital for suspected vaping-related disorders. Young people using e-cigarettes are twice as likely to suffer from a chronic cough than non-users. There are reports that nicotine dependency contributes to cognitive and attention deficit conditions and worsens mood disorders.
Concerns about vaping are being widely raised by teachers and parents in a way that was not the case just a couple of years ago. Schools are installing heat sensors in addition to smoke detectors in school toilets, taking steps to stop children constantly leaving the classroom to vape, and managing the impacts of addiction to nicotine on the mood and concentration levels of their students.
The sale of e-cigarettes to under-18s is already illegal, but the dramatic increase in the number of young people vaping shows that the current legislation is completely ineffective, so we must learn from the substantive evidence on what worked in reducing smoking rates among children. In 1982, when smoking rates among children first started being monitored in England, one in five children were current smokers—the same as the proportion of 11 to 15-year-olds now vaping. Eighteen years later, despite substantial advertising campaigns to educate young people on the dangers of smoking, the proportion was exactly the same. That was not because children were not educated about the dangers, but because some adolescents are more susceptible to taking risks.
Between 2000 and 2021, smoking rates among children fell from 19% to just 3%—not because of better education or enforcement of the existing prohibition on the sale of cigarettes to children, but because the regulatory framework during that time ratcheted up year by year. Under the last Labour Government, all point-of-sale advertising and display of tobacco was prohibited. A comprehensive anti-smuggling strategy was implemented by HMRC and UK Border Force, which reduced sales of illicit tobacco, and cigarettes were put in standardised packaging with all the brightly coloured glamourised imagery removed.
What is true for the strategy to tackle smoking is true for the challenge of vaping. Without much tougher regulation, we will not succeed in driving down vaping among children and young people. Regulations on packaging, advertising and labelling are essential. It is disappointing that the Government refused to support the amendment to the Health and Care Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) in November 2021, which would have prohibited branding that appeals to children on packaging. The cross-party Health and Social Care Committee wrote to the Secretary of State in July stating:
“Decisive action is needed from both Government and industry to protect children from the harmful effects of vaping.”
An Opposition day debate in July also served to demonstrate the high level of cross-party consensus on this issue, yet the Government have still not announced any action to address it.
A series of important and complex issues relating to e-cigarettes, in addition to their impacts on children, also require Government attention. They include the harmful impact of disposable vapes as a source of plastic pollution and the fire hazard caused by the presence of batteries within the vape casing. There is also the alarming rise in the number of 18 to 25-year-olds who have never been smokers using e-cigarettes as a recreational activity in their own right. That also requires urgent attention. I hope the Government will come forward with a wider strategy to address these issues and that we will be able to scrutinise them in this House, but there can be no disagreement that urgent action is needed right now to stop the sale of vapes to children and to halt the number of children who are becoming addicted to nicotine.
No one wants to undermine the vital role of e-cigarettes in smoking cessation—smoking remains far more harmful than vaping and a major threat to health—but brightly coloured branding, advertising, names and imagery specifically designed to make vaping products attractive to children are not remotely necessary for vapes to be readily available to those who can benefit from vaping as a smoking cessation tool. My Bill is designed to deliver rapid action on an issue on which there is broad consensus and that is presenting itself with increasing urgency in families, schools and communities right across the country.
My Bill would ban e-cigarettes from being advertised, branded and packaged to appeal directly to children, including online. We know this will work, because the same approach was so effective in reducing smoking in children. We can act now to stop the harms of nicotine addiction to the physical and mental health of children and young people. I hope that the Government will choose to support this Bill and take the action needed to protect children’s health. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That Helen Hayes, Andrew Gwynne, Rachael Maskell, Alex Cunningham, Mary Kelly Foy, Mrs Paulette Hamilton, Kirsten Oswald, Maggie Throup, Caroline Nokes, Dr Caroline Johnson, Daisy Cooper and Peter Gibson present the Bill.
Helen Hayes accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 358).
The Speaker’s Absence
Ordered,
That the Speaker have leave of absence on Thursday 7 September to attend the G7 Speakers’ Conference.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Energy Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 5 September 2023 - (5 Sep 2023)
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:14 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 188 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 19 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will call the Minister in a second to move the new clause, but I take this opportunity to remind colleagues that many Members have put down to speak in this debate, and it will last until 7 o’clock, including Third Reading. There is quite a lot of pressure, and I hope colleagues will bear that in mind when putting together their speeches.
New Clause 52
Revenue certainty scheme for sustainable aviation fuel producers: consultation and report
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation on the options for designing and implementing a sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty scheme.
(2) A “sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty scheme” is a scheme whose purpose is to give producers of sustainable aviation fuel greater certainty than they otherwise would have about the revenue that they will earn from sustainable aviation fuel that they produce.
(3) The Secretary of State must open the consultation within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) The Secretary of State must bring the consultation to the attention of, in particular, such of each of the following as the Secretary of State considers appropriate—
(a) producers of sustainable aviation fuel;
(b) suppliers of sustainable aviation fuel;
(c) airlines.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on progress made towards the development of a sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty scheme.
(6) In this section, “sustainable aviation fuel” means aviation turbine fuel whose use (as compared with the use of other aviation turbine fuel) will, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, contribute to a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases; and for this purpose—
“aviation turbine fuel” has the meaning given by article 3(1B) of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/3072);
“greenhouse gas” has the meaning given by section 92(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, intended to be inserted after clause 156, requires the government to consult on options for setting up a revenue certainty scheme for sustainable aviation fuel producers, and to publish a report about progress towards developing such a scheme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 63—Renewable liquid heating fuel obligations.
Government new clause 64—Regulations under section 92(1): procedure with devolved authorities.
Government new clause 65—Regulations made by Secretary of State: consultation with devolved authorities.
Government new clause 66—Regulations under section 292 and 293: procedure with devolved authorities.
New clause 1—Community benefits relating to onshore wind farms—
“(1) Within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out proposals for ensuring that local communities benefit from onshore wind farms.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must set out, but is not limited to, proposals for—
(a) 5% of the gross revenue of new wind farm, solar, hydro and other renewable developments generating over 1MW to be paid into community benefit funds;
(b) widening the distance of communities around new renewable developments which receive shares of community benefit funds, with the aim of limiting the wealth disparity amongst rural communities; and
(c) ensuring that communities surrounding wind farms have a statutory right to benefit from local renewable energy development.”
New clause 2—Prohibition of new coal mines—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit the opening of new coal mines and the licensing of new coal mines by the Coal Authority or its successors.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 3—Prohibition of energy production from coal—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the UK to cease energy production from coal from 1 January 2025.
(2) Regulations under this section may amend primary legislation (including this Act).”
New clause 4—Flaring and venting—
“(1) The Energy Act 1976 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 12, after subsection (5), insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State may not grant consent under this section after 1 January 2025; and any consent granted under this section ceases to have effect from 1 January 2025.
(7) Paragraph (3)(a) of this section ceases to have effect from 1 January 2025.”
(3) In section 12A, after subsection (5), insert—
“(6) The OGA may not grant consent under this section after 1 January 2025; and any consent granted under this section ceases to have effect from 1 January 2025.””
This new clause is intended to ban flaring and venting of natural gas after 1 January 2025.
New clause 5—Date of cessation of issuing of oil and gas exploration and production licences—
“(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish an independent body to advise on the date after which no new licences for oil and gas exploration and production should be issued.
(2) The body must make its recommendation to the Secretary of State not later than three months after the day on which it is established.
(3) Not less than three months after the date on which the Secretary of State receives the body’s recommendation, the Secretary of State must present to Parliament legislative proposals to give effect to the recommendation.”
New clause 6—Net zero power supply—
“(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the aggregate amount of net emissions of carbon dioxide and net emissions of each of the other targeted greenhouse gases associated with the supply of power in the UK in 2035 is zero.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for the means of calculation of net emissions of carbon dioxide and of each of the other targeted greenhouse gases for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) The means of calculation provided for in regulations under subsection (2) must be consistent with the means of calculation of the net UK carbon account for the purposes of section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(4) For the purposes of this section a “targeted greenhouse gas” has the same meaning as given in section 24 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
This new clause is intended to provide for the UK’s power supply to be net zero by 2035.
New clause 7—Energy Charter Treaty—
“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must initiate procedures for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty.”
New clause 8—Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Export Guarantee Scheme—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations require licensed energy suppliers with more than 150,000 customers (“eligible licensed suppliers”) to purchase electricity exports from sites including those operated by community groups, that generate low carbon electricity with a capacity below 5MW.
(2) Fossil fuelled local power plants with a capacity of less than 5MW are not eligible for participation in the Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Export Guarantee Scheme, with the exception of a local combined heat and power plant that generates electricity ancillary to its purpose of providing heat for local heat networks.
(3) “Fossil fuel” has the meaning given in section 104(4).
(4) Licensed energy suppliers with fewer than 150,000 customers may also purchase electricity exports from the sites defined above provided that they do so on the terms set out by the regulations.
(5) The regulations must require that eligible licensed suppliers—
(a) offer to those sites a minimum export price set annually by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (“GEMA”),
(b) offer to those sites a minimum contract period of five years, and
(c) allow the exporting site to end the contract after no more than one year.
(6) Within six months of the passing of this Act, GEMA must—
(a) set an annual minimum export price for those sites that has regard to current wholesale energy prices and inflation in energy prices and the wider economy,
(b) introduce a registration system for exporting sites meeting the requirements set out in subsection (1) and wanting to access these export purchases,
(c) define specifications for the smart export meters required by such sites,
(d) define “low carbon electricity” in such a way that it includes renewable generation technology and may include other technology with extremely low carbon dioxide emissions,
(e) define requirements for an exporting site generating low carbon electricity with a capacity of less than 5MW to be registered as a Community or Smaller-scale Energy site, and maintain a register of such sites.
(7) To access the export purchase agreements defined in this section exporters must—
(a) register their site with GEMA,
(b) install a smart export meter that meets specifications defined by GEMA, and
(c) notify GEMA if their ownership structure meets the definition of a Community or Smaller-scale Energy site.
(8) All licensed suppliers providing such purchase agreements must report annually to GEMA—
(a) the number and capacity of Community or Smaller-scale Energy sites that have been offered contracts to purchase electricity and the number of these that agreed those contracts,
(b) the total amount of electricity purchased under these agreements, and
(c) the price paid for that electricity.
(9) OFGEM must make and publish a report annually on the operation of the export purchase agreements, setting out—
(a) the number of Community or Smaller-scale Energy sites contracted with licensed energy suppliers under this section and the total amount of electricity purchased,
(b) the licensed suppliers contracting with Community or Smaller-scale Energy sites and the amount of electricity each has purchased,
(c) an assessment of how the mechanism is performing and the contribution it is making to delivering secure and low carbon electricity supplies, and
(d) recommendations on how the mechanism could be improved.
(10) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 9—Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Services Scheme—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations require licensed energy suppliers with more than 150,000 customers (“eligible licensed suppliers”) to offer a Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Service agreement to any registered Community or Smaller-scale Energy site under section (Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Export Guarantee Scheme) for the purposes of allowing that site to sell electricity to local consumers.
(2) The Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Service agreement will require licensed suppliers to make a community or smaller-scale energy tariff available to consumers local to the exporting site that has regard to the export price paid or that would be paid to that site under section (Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Export Guarantee Scheme).
(3) The eligible licensed supplier may limit the total number of consumers the community or smaller-scale energy tariff is available to such that the total annual energy sold under the tariff is broadly equivalent to the total annual energy generated by the site.
(4) The eligible licensed supplier will be the registrant for the meters of any local consumer purchasing energy under the community or smaller-scale energy tariff.
(5) The eligible licensed supplier may charge a reasonable fee for the provision of services under this section provided that it has regard to distribution, licensing and regulatory costs and any guidance provided by GEMA.
(6) The eligible licensed supplier must return any money raised through the sale of energy under a tariff set up under this section to the Community or Smaller-scale Energy site, save for the fee allowed under subsection (5).
(7) Eligible licensed suppliers must report annually to GEMA on—
(a) the number and capacity of community energy groups or smaller-scale sites offered Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Service agreements and the number who have contracted to use them,
(b) the total amount of electricity purchased under these agreements, and
(c) the tariffs for each agreement.
(8) GEMA must—
(a) produce guidance on the level of community or smaller-scale energy tariffs and on the reasonable charges that eligible suppliers may charge for Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Service Agreements,
(b) make and publish a report annually on the operation of the export purchase agreements, setting out—
(i) the number of community energy projects or smaller-scale sites contracted with licensed energy suppliers under this section and the total amount of electricity purchased,
(ii) the licensed suppliers contracting with community energy groups or smaller-scale sites and the amount of electricity each has purchased,
(iii) an assessment of how the mechanism is performing and the contribution it is making to delivering secure and low carbon electricity supplies, and
(iv) recommendations for how Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Service agreements could be improved.
(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 11—Enhancing rewards for solar panels—
“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a report on enhancing the reward under the Smart Export Guarantee for customers who install solar panels.”
This new clause seeks to enhance the reward under the Smart Export Guarantee for energy customers who install solar panels.
New clause 12—Prohibition on flaring and venting and enhanced measures to reduce fugitive methane emissions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations—
(a) prohibit the practice of flaring and venting by oil and gas installations other than in an emergency within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom,
(b) require monthly leak detection and repair inspections to reduce fugitive methane emissions,
(c) require a measurement, reporting and verification process to quantify methane emissions, and
(d) require the upgrade of all equipment to alternative zero- or low-emission and low-maintenance equipment, such as electric, mechanical, or compressed air equipment.
(2) In this section—
“flaring” means the burning of methane gas and other hydrocarbons produced during oil and gas extraction;
“venting” means the release of methane gas and other hydrocarbons directly into the atmosphere, without combustion.
(3) Regulations under this section must be made so as to come into force by 31 December 2025.”
This new clause would prohibit “flaring” and “venting”.
New clause 13—Introduction of a social tariff for vulnerable energy customers—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a plan to bring forward a social tariff for vulnerable energy customers.
(2) The plan under subsection (1) must set out ways in which the social tariff for energy would satisfy the following conditions—
(a) it is additional to the Warm Home Discount and Default tariff price Cap,
(b) it is mandatory for all licensed electricity and gas suppliers,
(c) it is targeted at households that are in or at risk of fuel poverty,
(d) it is set at a level that is below the market price, and
(e) it automatically enrols eligible households onto the tariff.”
This new clause will require the Secretary of State to bring forward a plan to introduce a social tariff for energy.
New clause 14—Smart meter roll-out for prepayment customers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that all legacy prepayment meters are replaced with smart meters before the end of 2025.
(2) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare a plan to end self-disconnections by the end of 2026.
(3) Such a plan may include but is not limited to—
(a) the introduction of a social tariff for prepayment customers,
(b) the introduction of mechanisms to apply credit automatically if a prepayment customer runs out of credit,
(c) the introduction of a mechanism to transfer a prepayment customer to credit mode automatically if they run out of credit.”
This new clause places duties on the Secretary of State to ensure prepayment metered customers are prioritised in the smart meter rollout, and to create a plan to stop self-disconnections before the end of 2026.
New clause 15—Restriction of the use of prepayment meters—
“(1) Within 90 days of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must make regulations prohibiting energy suppliers from authorising or undertaking the installation of new prepayment meters for domestic energy use unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.
(2) The condition is that the energy supplier has received an explicit request from the consumer for the installation of a prepayment meter.
(3) In this section “installation of new prepayment meters” includes switching existing energy meters to a prepayment mode.
(4) The Secretary of State may make subsequent regulations that amend or repeal regulations made under this section.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prohibit the installation of new prepayment meters unless consumers explicitly request them.
New clause 16—National Warmer Homes and Businesses Action Plan—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish an action plan entitled the Warmer Homes and Businesses Action Plan, to set out proposals for delivery of—
(a) a low-carbon heat target, of 100% of installations of relevant heating appliances and connections to relevant heat networks by 2035,
(b) an Energy Performance Certificate at band C by 2035 in all UK homes where practical, cost effective and affordable, and
(c) an Energy Performance Certificate at band B by 2028 in all non-domestic properties, and
(d) the Future Homes Standard for all new builds in England by 2025.
(2) The Secretary of State must, in developing the Warmer Homes and Businesses Action Plan, consult the Climate Change Committee and its sub-committee on adaptation.”
This new clause imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to bring forward a plan with time-bound proposals for low carbon heat, energy efficient homes and non-domestic properties and higher standards on new homes.
New clause 17—Plan for vulnerable consumers—
“(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a plan addressing the needs of vulnerable consumers and consumers from low-income households in relation to the cost of energy.
(2) The plan under subsection (1) may include, but is not limited to—
(a) the extension of the energy price cap on heating oil,
(b) the extension of the warm homes discount,
(c) the increase of winter fuel payments,
(d) preventing electricity suppliers from recovering the costs of paying a revenue collection counterparty under the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022 from customers claiming Universal Credit or other legacy benefits,
(e) requirements for energy suppliers to offer social energy tariffs to households experiencing fuel poverty, and
(f) any other measures the Secretary of State believes are appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop a plan to protect vulnerable customers from the rising cost of energy.
New clause 18—Energy performance regulations relating to existing premises—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations—
(a) to amend the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/962) to require that, subject to subsection (2), all tenancies have an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) of at least Band C by 31 December 2028; and
(b) to amend the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/595) to raise the cost cap to £10,000.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for exemptions to apply where—
(a) the occupier of any premises whose permission is needed to carry out works refuses to give such permission;
(b) it is not technically feasible to improve the energy performance of the premises to the level of EPC Band C; or
(c) another exemption specified in the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 has been registered in the Private Rented Sector (PRS) Exemptions Register.
(3) Within six months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations—
(a) to amend the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 to enable local authorities to give notice to landlords that they wish to inspect a property in relation to those Regulations, requesting permissions from landlords and any tenants in situ at the time to carry out an inspection at an agreed time;
(b) to expand the scope of the current PRS Exemptions Register and redesign it as a database covering properties’ compliance with or exemptions from EPCs;
(c) to require a post-improvement EPC to be undertaken to demonstrate compliance;
(d) to require a valid EPC be in place at all times while a property is let; and
(e) to raise the maximum total of financial penalties to be imposed by a local authority on a landlord of a domestic private rented sector property in relation to the same breach and for the same property to £30,000 per property and per breach of the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a) to enable tenants in the private rented sector to request that energy performance improvements are carried out where a property is in breach of the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015; and
(b) to make provision for a compensation mechanism where a tenant is paying higher energy bills as a result of a property not meeting the required standard.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause seeks to improve the energy efficiency of private rental properties for tenants and gives powers to local authorities to conduct assessments of the energy efficiency of private rental properties and increase financial penalties for breaches of energy efficiency standards.
New clause 19—Decarbonisation of capacity market—
“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must introduce measures to reduce the carbon intensity of power supplied by the capacity market by prioritising—
(a) demand side management,
(b) the supply of renewable energy, and
(c) electricity storage and other non-carbon-based energy storage systems.”
This new clause is a probing amendment to explore the potential of decarbonising the capacity market.
New clause 20—Onshore wind and solar power—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a plan to significantly increase the proportion of the energy supply generated by onshore wind power in the United Kingdom.
(2) The plan under subsection (1) must set out measures which may include but are not limited to—
(a) revising national planning guidance on onshore wind and solar to increase the number of onshore wind and solar installations,
(b) improving infrastructure to ensure access to grid connections for existing onshore wind and solar installations, and
(c) increasing access to grants or subsidies to encourage new onshore wind and solar installations.
(3) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament to provide an update on the progress in increasing onshore wind and solar power.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a plan to significantly increase the proportion of the UK energy supply generated by onshore wind and solar power.
New clause 21—Value added tax on energy-saving materials—
“In Schedule 8, Part II, Group 23, note 1 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (meaning of “energy-saving materials”), at the end insert—
“(1) batteries used solely for the purpose of storing electricity generated by solar panels.””
This new clause includes batteries used solely to store energy generated by solar panels in the list of energy saving materials subject to a zero VAT rate.
New clause 22—Increasing grid capacity—
“Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a plan to—
(a) reduce access costs and time frames for grid connections,
(b) reform the energy network to permit local energy grids, and
(c) accelerate the development of an offshore wind energy grid in the North Sea.”
This new clause seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce a plan to increase grid capacity.
New clause 23—Impact of insulation in homes on energy bills—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) an assessment of the average cost of energy bills if homes were properly insulated, and
(b) the impact of improving all homes to the highest possible Energy Performance Contract rating on energy bills and greenhouse gas emissions.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the average cost of energy bills if homes were insulated (a) properly and (b) to the highest possible Energy Performance Contract rating.
New clause 24—Government support for community energy—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out the financial, policy and other support that the Secretary of State plans to make available to widen the ownership of low carbon and renewable energy schemes and increase the number of such schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations.
(2) The report must set out—
(a) all policies, programmes or other initiatives with which the Secretary of State plans to support the development and construction of new low carbon community energy schemes;
(b) the level of financial support which will be made available for—
(i) the Rural Community Energy Fund,
(ii) the Urban Renewable Energy Fund, and
(iii) any other fund or support package designed to support the development of new low carbon community energy schemes;
(c) all policies, programmes or other initiatives the Secretary of State intends will increase community ownership of local low carbon energy schemes through shared ownership schemes;
(d) the steps the Secretary of State is taking to develop new market rules to make it easier for low carbon community energy schemes to sell the energy they generate;
(e) the number and the capacity of the new community energy schemes the Secretary of State expects to be constructed as a result of the measures set out in the report.
(3) Not less than twelve months after the publication of the report, and not later than the end of each subsequent period of twelve months, ending five years after the publication of the report, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish an assessment of the progress made by the policies, programmes and other initiatives set out in the report.
(4) The assessment must set out—
(a) the total amount of financial support provided by the policies in the report;
(b) the number and capacity of low carbon community energy schemes —
(i) completed, and
(ii) in development;
(c) the number and capacity of new shared ownership schemes;
(d) any changes the Secretary of State proposes to make to the policies, programmes and other initiatives included in the original report.”
This new clause would require the Government to report annually for 5 years on the support it is providing to Community Energy schemes and the number and capacity of such schemes that are delivered.
New clause 25—Investment protection agreements and climate change targets—
“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must—
(a) initiate procedures for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty;
(b) lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(i) the list of investment protection agreements to which the UK is a party which offer protections to the energy sector, and
(ii) an assessment of the risks they pose to the Secretary of State fulfilling duties in this Act with regard to the achievement of targets set by the Climate Change Act 2008.”
New clause 26—Prohibition on setting domestic energy prices according to region—
“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit energy companies from setting prices for domestic energy supply according to geographical region.”
This new clause would require the Government to bring forward legislation to end the regional pricing of domestic energy bills.
New clause 27—Report on extending price cap for off grid fuels—
“Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out the consequences of extending the price cap for off grid fuels.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on extending the price cap for off grid fuels.
New clause 28—Prohibition on hydraulic fracturing—
“(1) Associated hydraulic fracturing is prohibited.
(2) “Associated hydraulic fracturing” has the meaning given by section 4B of the Petroleum Act 1998.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make consequential provision in connection with this section.”
This new clause would introduce a permanent ban on fracking.
New clause 29—Prohibition of new oil and gas field developments and issuing of exploration and production licences—
“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations prohibit—
(a) the approval of new oil and gas field developments, and
(b) the release of new oil and gas exploration and production licences.”
This new clause would prohibit the approval of new oil and gas field developments and the issuing of new oil and gas exploration and production licenses.
New clause 30—Duty to phase down UK petroleum—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to amend section 9A of the Petroleum Act 1998.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—
(a) remove the “principal objective” of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum;
(b) define a new “principal objective”.
(3) The new “principal objective” referred to in paragraph (2)(b) must provide for—
(a) delivery of a managed and orderly phase down of UK petroleum;
(b) advancement of the UK’s climate change commitments, including—
(i) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(ii) the commitment given by the Government of the United Kingdom in the Glasgow Climate Pact to pursue policies to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius;
(c) facilitation of a just transition for oil and gas workers and communities.
(4) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must hold a public consultation which must include consultation with—
(a) the devolved administrations,
(b) relevant trade union and worker representatives,
(c) oil and gas workers and communities,
(d) relevant representatives from academia,
(e) relevant climate and environmental organisations and representatives,
(f) relevant industry representatives of petroleum and renewable energy businesses supporting the transition away from fossil fuels, and
(g) offshore energy training bodies.
(5) Relevant climate and environmental organisations and representatives under subsection (4(e)) must include the Climate Change Committee.”
This new clause would amend the Petroleum Act 1998 to remove the principal objective of maximising the economic recovery of UK petroleum and replace it with a new principal objective to deliver a managed and orderly phase down of UK petroleum, advance the UK’s climate targets, and support a just transition for oil and gas workers.
New clause 31—Requiring installation of solar panels on all new homes—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations require—
(a) the installation of solar panels on the roofs of all new homes; and
(b) that new housing developments are planned in order to maximise solar gain.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide for exemptions in cases where the installation of solar panels on the roof of a new home is not appropriate.”
This new clause would mandate the installation of solar panels on the roofs of all new homes and require new housing developments to be planned in order to maximise solar gain.
New clause 32—Capacity market—
“(1) The Secretary of State must exercise the power in section 27 of the Energy Act 2013 to ensure that the capacity adequacy procured through the capacity market has a rising share of zero carbon flexible and dispatchable power that is consistent with achieving a zero carbon power system by 2035.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that all new multi-year capacity market contracts awarded to unabated fossil fuel capacity market units should have a contract end date no later than 31 December 2034.
(3) In exercising functions under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of maintaining security of supply.
(4) Draft regulations under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause probes the potential of decarbonising the capacity market.
New clause 33—Energy Demand Reduction Delivery Plan—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish an Energy Demand Reduction Delivery Plan.
(2) In preparing the Energy Demand Reduction Delivery Plan under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Climate Change Committee.
(3) The Energy Demand Reduction Delivery Plan under subsection (1) must include but is not limited to—
(a) a quantitative assessment on the role of energy demand reduction in meeting the United Kingdom's carbon budgets and the 2050 net zero target;
(b) energy demand reduction targets for—
(i) aviation
(ii) surface transport,
(iii) shipping,
(iv) manufacturing and construction,
(v) buildings, and
(vi) agriculture,
in line with the UK’s carbon budgets and the 2050 net zero target; and
(4) an assessment of the role in achieving those targets of—
(a) energy efficiency improvements and technologies, and
(b) avoiding unnecessary energy use through infrastructure and behaviour change
(5) The Climate Change Committee must evaluate, monitor and report annually on the implementation of the Energy Demand Reduction Delivery Plan.”
This new clause would introduce a requirement to produce an Energy Demand Reduction Delivery Plan quantifying sectoral energy demand reduction targets and assessing how these can be achieved, and to review progress towards achieving them.
New clause 34—Production of sustainable aviation fuel—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a price stability mechanism to incentivise the production of sustainable aviation fuel in the United Kingdom.
(2) A draft of regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within twelve months of the passage of this Act.
(3) A Minister must make a motion in each House of Parliament to approve the regulations laid before Parliament under subsection (2) within fifteen sitting days of the date on which they were laid.
(4) If both Houses of Parliament approve the regulations, they must be made in the form in which they were laid before Parliament.
(5) If either House of Parliament does not approve the regulations, the Secretary of State must lay a revised draft of the regulations before Parliament, and subsections (3) to (5) of this section apply to those regulations as they do to regulations laid under subsection (2).
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“price stability mechanism” is a mechanism under which a producer may enter into a private law contract with a Government-backed counterparty for the purposes of receiving a guaranteed price for a product or service;
“sitting day” is—
(a) in the case of the House of Commons, a day on which the House of Commons sits;
(b) in the case of the House of Lords, a day on which the House of Lords sits.”
New clause 35—Energy decarbonisation for homes: local authority funding—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, carry out and publish an assessment of the benefits of providing long-term predictable funding to local authorities for the purpose of energy decarbonisation for homes in their local authority area.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the likely impact of decarbonisation funding on—
(a) energy demand,
(b) fuel poverty, and
(c) installations of low-carbon heating systems.”
New clause 36—Introduction of a National Energy Guarantee—
“(1) Within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a plan to replace the existing energy price guarantee with a National Energy Guarantee in the form of a rising block tariff including a free or low-cost energy allowance to cover essential needs.
(2) When preparing the plan under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult independent bodies working on fuel poverty before determining the pricing of the allowance and the threshold above which the higher tariff should apply.
(3) Once the plan under subsection (1) has been laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State may by notice in writing require the regulator to introduce a rising block tariff, provided it satisfies the following conditions—
(a) that an allocation of energy set at no less than 50% of a defined minimum essential level is provided free of charge to all households;
(b) that the tariff incentivises energy-saving measures, particularly among higher income households;
(c) that households not connected to a mains gas supply will be given an increased electricity allowance, such that they are not disadvantaged;
(d) that the tariff is accompanied by additional allowances for disabled people and others who require high levels of energy usage to fulfil their essential needs; and
(e) that the tariff does not undermine the ability of energy suppliers to offer innovative tariffs through higher energy bands.”
This new clause would introduce a National Energy Guarantee in the form of a rising block tariff: an allowance for low-cost energy to cover essential needs, with a premium tariff to incentivise energy saving measures in households with high energy use, and additional allowances for those with unavoidably high energy needs.
New clause 37—Industrial lithium-ion battery storage facilities—
“(1) Within 12 months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations about the building of industrial lithium-ion battery storage facilities.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include—
(a) a requirement for a relevant environmental permit to be issued by the Environment Agency, and
(b) a requirement for the relevant fire authority to be a statutory consultee in all planning applications for such facilities.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations for the building of industrial lithium-ion storage facilities which must include requiring an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency and for the Fire Authority to be a statutory consultee in planning applications.
New clause 39—Duties of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority in respect of off-grid fuels—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulation extend the duties of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to the distribution and supply of fuels utilised for off-grid home heating.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for GEMA to apply a cap on the price of fuel supplied for off-grid home heating proportionate to the cap applied in respect of on-grid homes.”
This new clause seeks to extend the duty of Ofgem to regulate off-grid fuels utilised for off-grid home heating and to ensure that a cap is applied for off-grid home fuels that is proportionate to the cap applied for on-grid homes.
New clause 40—Renewable liquid fuels for low-carbon heating—
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulation introduce a Renewable Liquid Heating Fuel Obligation, setting annual obligations on fuel suppliers to ensure the supply of recognised low-carbon renewable liquid fuels for domestic and commercial heating.”
This new clause would require the Government to introduce a Renewable Liquid Heating Fuel Obligation for home and commercial building heating purposes, which would create a scheme that mirrors the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007. This would offer the option to off-gas-grid properties to switch to renewable liquid fuels.
New clause 41—Duty to ensure the lowest possible cost of energy to businesses and households—
“In exercising any function under or in connection with this Act, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure the lowest possible cost of energy to businesses and households.”
This new clause is designed to be placed as Clause 1 of the Bill and would give the Secretary of State the duty to exercise functions under the Act which will result from the Bill in a way which would ensure the lowest possible costs of energy to businesses and households.
New clause 42—Restriction on energy company obligations—
“(1) In section 33BC of the Gas Act 1986 (promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: gas transporters and gas suppliers), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA)) An order under subsection (1) may not impose an obligation on a gas transporter or gas supplier with fewer than 1,000 employees.”
(2) In section 33BD of the Gas Act 1986 (promotion of reductions in home-heating costs: gas transporters and gas suppliers), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A)) An order under subsection (1) may not impose an obligation on a gas transporter or gas supplier with fewer than 1,000 employees.”
(3) In section 41A of the Electricity Act 1989 (promotion of reductions in carbon emissions: electricity distributors and electricity suppliers), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA)) An order under subsection (1) may not impose an obligation on an electricity distributor or electricity supplier with fewer than 1,000 employees.”
(4) In section 41B of the Electricity Act 1989 (promotion of reductions in home-heating costs: electricity distributors and electricity suppliers), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A)) An order under subsection (1) may not impose an obligation on an electricity distributor or electricity supplier with fewer than 1,000 employees.””
This new clause would restrict the Energy Company Obligation, which places an obligation on energy suppliers to install energy efficiency and heating measures, to large companies (those with over 1000 employees).
New clause 43—Planning applications for onshore wind energy developments—
“(1) Within three months of the date on which the Act is passed, the Secretary of State must—
(a) remove from the National Planning Policy Framework the restrictions placed by footnote 54 on the circumstances in which proposed wind energy developments involving one or more turbines should be considered acceptable, and
(b) publish guidance for wind developers on how they can engage communities, demonstrate local consent to local planning authorities, and provide financial benefits to local residents.
(2) Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended by the insertion, after subsection (3), of the following new subsection—
“(3A) An appeal under this section may not be brought or continued against the refusal of an application for planning permission if the development is for the purposes of installing new onshore wind sites not previously used for generating wind energy.””
This new clause aims to remove the current planning restriction that a single objection to an onshore wind development is sufficient to block the development, to ensure that local communities willing to take onshore wind developments will receive some community benefit, and to provide that local decisions made on onshore wind cannot be overturned on appeal.
New clause 44—Independent review of the generation of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the generation of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
(2) The review must report on the potential impact of BECCS on—
(a) household energy bills,
(b) lifecycle carbon emissions in the generation of energy,
(c) biodiversity,
(d) land use, and
(e) any other matter the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) the report of the review, and
(b) the Government’s response to the review.
(4) No subsidy may be given for BECCS until the report of the review and the Government’s response have been laid before Parliament in accordance with subsection (3).
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if an agreement for the giving of subsidy was concluded before the passage of this Act.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“bioenergy” means energy from biomass;
“biomass” has the meaning given by paragraph 3 of the Renewables Obligation Order 2015 (SI 2015/1947);
“subsidy” has the meaning given by section 2 of the Subsidy Control Act 2022.”
This new clause would prohibit new government subsidies for generating bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) until the Secretary of State commissions and publishes an independent review of BECCS to establish its impact on household energy bills, lifecycle carbon emissions, biodiversity and land use, and the Government’s response.
New clause 45—Modelling of the UK’s energy needs—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission—
(a) a report on the most energy efficient, most economic and least carbon-intensive means to fulfil the UK’s current energy needs, and
(b) a report on comprehensive future energy modelling for the UK on the most energy efficient, most economic and least carbon-intensive means to meet the UK’s future energy needs.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the reports required under subsection (1) within six months of the day on which this section comes into force.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish reports on the most energy efficient, most economic and least carbon-intensive means of satisfying the UK’s energy needs.
New clause 46—Review of Contract for Difference strike prices—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of Contract for Difference strike prices, and make a report to Parliament on the review.
(2) The review must—
(a) include an assessment of the viability of existing projects that have already been allocated,
(b) include an assessment of the UK-based supply chain for each project awarded Contracts for Difference, and
(c) re-evaluate the parameters for—
(i) the allocation for round five of Contracts for Difference funding, and
(ii) future allocation rounds.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the viability of projects that have been awarded Contracts for Difference, and to undertake a review of the existing parameters for Contracts for Difference allocation.
New clause 47—Nationally significant infrastructure projects and forced labour—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide that existing and new applicants for nationally significant infrastructure projects (within the meaning given by sections 14 and 15 of the Planning Act 2008) of over 50mw must demonstrate that their goods were not manufactured in, or produced with materials using forced labour.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must require all existing and new NSIP energy applicants to submit a report to the Planning Inspectorate to demonstrate clear and convincing evidence that the goods, or materials in the goods, were not mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced labour.
(3) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must create and publish a guide on interpreting reports for the Planning Inspectorate to consult when determining whether goods, or materials in the goods, were mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced labour.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that any nationally significant infrastructure project of over 50mw unable to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that its goods, or materials in the goods, were not mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part by forced labour must be recommended for rejection by the Planning Inspectorate upon the submission of the Inspection to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for any company found to be circumnavigating the requirements of the regulations through third parties, subcontractors or third countries to be permanently barred from operating in the United Kingdom.”
This new clause will require the developers of new NSIP energy projects to demonstrate that their projects do not use, benefit from, or contribute to the forced labour.
New clause 48—Development of solar energy plants on agricultural land—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations prevent the development of solar energy projects on sites of over 500 acres where over 20% of the land is Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.
(2) For the purposes of this section “Best and Most Versatile agricultural land” means land classed as grade 1, grade 2 or subgrade 3a under the agricultural land classification published by Natural England.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must—
(a) include provision for the prevention of the development of solar energy projects for which permission has already been sought, but not granted, and
(b) apply both to applications determined by local planning authorities and to those determined by the Planning Inspectorate.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend primary legislation.
(5) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish plans and incentives for the development of solar energy on rooftops, commercial and residential sites, and brownfield sites composed of ungraded land.”
This new clause would end the development of large-scale solar plants on BMV land and require the Secretary of State to publish plans to incentivise the building of solar on rooftops and brownfield sites.
New clause 49—Electricity Storage Capacity—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a strategy for an increase in the provision of electricity storage facilities to enhance the resilience and flexibility of electricity supply and ensure fair pricing for electricity users.
(2) The strategy referred to in subsection (1) must cover all forms of electricity storage, including—
(a) battery,
(b) hydrogen,
(c) ammonia,
(d) adiabatic compressed air energy storage systems, and
(e) hydroelectric storage.
(3) The strategy referred to in subsection (1) must address considerations relating to—
(a) licensing,
(b) planning,
(c) regulation,
(d) subsidy, and
(e) taxation.
(4) The strategy referred to in subsection (1) must set out—
(a) proposed pricing mechanisms for stored electricity, and
(b) provisions ensuring consumers pay a fair price for electricity.”
This new clause seeks to ensure the UK Government sets out a report to Parliament that demonstrates how it plans to meet the increased storage capacity that will be required with a future electricity network that is heavily reliant on renewable sources.
New clause 50—Renewable Liquid Heating Fuel Obligation—
“(1) Within twelve months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation means requiring fuel suppliers to meet annual targets to ensure the supply of recognised low-carbon renewable liquid fuels for domestic and commercial heating.
(3) For the purposes of the consultation under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Within three months of the conclusion of the consultation under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the consultation.
(5) Following publication of the report under subsection (4) the Secretary of State may by regulations set out a scheme requiring fuel suppliers to meet annual targets to ensure the supply of recognised low-carbon renewable liquid fuels for domestic and commercial heating.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may provide for—
(a) a scheme for the imposition of low-carbon renewable liquid fuel obligations on fuel suppliers;
(b) the appointment of an Administrator to run the scheme;
(c) matters in relation to the functions of the Administrator;
(d) the method by which amounts of low-carbon renewable liquid fuel are to be counted or determined for the purposes of provision made by or under the regulations;
(e) the Administrator to issue certificates to suppliers setting out the amounts of low-carbon renewable liquid fuel supplied, the time period in which they were supplied and other relevant facts;
(f) a supplier which does not wholly discharge its low-carbon renewable liquid fuel obligation for a given period to pay the Administrator a specified sum within a specified period, and further provision for connected purposes;
(g) the imposition of civil penalties, and objections to and appeals against civil penalties;
(h) the disclosure of relevant information by relevant persons; and
(i) such other provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on a scheme for renewable liquid heating fuel obligations for home and commercial building heating purposes, and to publish a report on the consultation. The new clause would further allow the Secretary of State make regulations to set up a scheme for renewable liquid heating fuel obligations for home and commercial building heating purposes.
New clause 51—Tidal Range power—
(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a Tidal Range Assessment Grant for the purposes of funding an independent evidence-led review of the potential contribution to be made by tidal range energy generation to the future energy generating capacity of the United Kingdom.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include—
(a) pre-feasibility assessments of proposed tidal range projects and their potential both individually and together to contribute to the future energy generating capacity of the United Kingdom;
(b) whole life-cycle analysis and financial modelling to identify the optimum framework for the financing of tidal range projects as ultra-long lifecycle infrastructure assets, including an assessment of the potential merits of a Regulated Asset Base funding model for tidal range projects;
(c) a whole energy market analysis to establish and quantify the potential contribution of tidal range power to the decarbonisation of the United Kingdom’s energy system with particular reference to the value of predictable, flexible energy generation near centres of increasing demand and the potential of operational tidal range projects to bypass major grid barrier issues and enable a stable, operable, and secure decarbonised energy grid;
(d) an assessment of the current and planned innovations in sectors related to the development of operational tidal range projects, including in the broader supply chain, digital twins, power handling and distribution, and energy storage, and how these can be used to drive a reduction in cost and maximise the contribution of materials and components produced in the United Kingdom to tidal range projects;
(e) environmental baseline research and monitoring programmes of the proposed locations of selected tidal range projects for the purposes of establishing an enhanced understanding of the possible impacts on biodiversity and local ecosystems of operational tidal range projects; and
(f) whole-system analysis to evaluate other potential benefits of operational tidal range projects, such as coastal and flooding protection, the stimulation of related industries, and contributions to local economies.”
New clause 53—Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Services Scheme—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations require licensed energy suppliers with more than 150,000 customers (“eligible licensed suppliers”) to offer a Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Service agreement to any Community or Smaller-scale Energy site registered under section [Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Export Guarantee Scheme (No. 2)] for the purposes of allowing that site to sell electricity to local consumers.
(2) A Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Service agreement is an agreement which requires licensed suppliers to make a community or smaller-scale energy tariff available to consumers local to the exporting site that has regard to the export price paid or that would be paid to that site under section [Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Export Guarantee Scheme (No. 2)].
(3) The eligible licensed supplier may limit the total number of consumers the community or smaller-scale energy tariff is available to such that the total annual energy under the tariff is broadly equivalent to the total annual energy generated by the site.
(4) The eligible licensed supplier is the registrant for the meters of any local consumer purchasing energy under the community or smaller-scale energy tariff.
(5) The eligible licensed supplier may charge a reasonable fee for the provision of services under this section provided that it has regard to distribution, licensing and regulatory costs and any guidance provided by GEMA.
(6) The eligible licensed supplier must return any money raised through the sale of energy under a tariff set up under this section to the Community or Smaller-scale Energy site, save for the fee allowed under subsection (5).
(7) Eligible licensed suppliers must report annually to GEMA on—
(a) the number and capacity of community energy groups or smaller-scale sites offered Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Service agreements and the number who have contracted to use them,
(b) the total amount of electricity purchased under these agreements, and
(c) the tariffs for each agreement.
(8) GEMA must—
(a) produce guidance on the level of community or smaller-scale energy tariffs and on the reasonable charges that eligible suppliers may charge for Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Service agreements,
(b) make and publish a report annually on the operation of the export purchase agreements, setting out—
(i) the number of community energy projects or smaller-scale sites contracted with licensed energy suppliers under this section and the total amount of electricity purchased,
(ii) the licensed suppliers contracting with community energy groups or smaller-scale sites and the amount of electricity each has purchased,
(iii) an assessment of how the mechanism is performing and the contribution it is making to delivering secure and low carbon electricity supplies, and
(iv) recommendations for how Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Supplier Service agreements could be improved.
(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 56—Delinking of renewable and gas prices in the retail market—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must publish a plan to ensure the delinking of gas and renewable and low carbon energy prices as they appear in the retail market.
(2) The plan may take into account—
(a) the establishment of a “green pool” for the direct sale of renewable and low carbon power into the retail market;
(b) the incorporation of low carbon and renewable power plants not possessing a Contract for Difference into Contract for Difference arrangements suitable for inclusion in a green power pool after it is established.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to produce a plan to end the linkage between renewable and low carbon energy and gas prices at retail level which results in most renewable power being priced in the retail market as if it were gas.
New clause 57—Onshore wind—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that onshore wind installations are treated for the purpose of planning and development as local infrastructure and will be permitted or otherwise as if they were.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend any primary legislation passed before the passage of this Act.”
This new clause ensures that onshore wind development proposals in England and Wales are permitted to proceed on the same basis as other local infrastructure projects.
New clause 58—Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Export Guarantee Scheme (No. 2)—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations require licensed energy suppliers with more than 150,000 customers (“eligible licensed suppliers”) to purchase electricity exports from sites, including those operated by community groups, which generate low carbon electricity with a capacity below 5MW.
(2) The requirement imposed by regulations under subsection (1) is to be known as the Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Export Guarantee Scheme.
(3) Fossil fuelled local power plants with a capacity of less than 5MW are not eligible for participation in the Community and Smaller-scale Electricity Export Guarantee Scheme, with the exception of a local combined heat and power plant that generates electricity ancillary to its purpose of providing heat for local heat networks.
(4) “Fossil fuel” has the meaning given in section 104(4).
(5) Licensed energy suppliers with fewer than 150,000 customers may also purchase electricity exports from the sites specified in subsection (1) provided that they do so on the terms set out by the regulations.
(6) The regulations must require that eligible licensed suppliers—
(a) offer to the sites specified in subsection (1) a minimum export price set annually by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (“GEMA”),
(b) offer to those sites a minimum contract period of five years, and
(c) allow the exporting site to end the contract after no more than one year.
(7) Within six months of the passage of this Act, GEMA must—
(a) set an annual minimum export price for those sites that has regard to current wholesale energy prices and inflation in energy prices and the wider economy,
(b) introduce a registration system for exporting sites meeting the requirements set out in subsection (1) and wanting to access these export purchases,
(c) define specifications for the smart export meters required by such sites,
(d) define “low carbon electricity” in such a way that it includes renewable generation technology and may include other technology with extremely low carbon dioxide emissions,
(e) define requirements for an exporting site generating low carbon electricity with a capacity of less than 5MW to be registered as a Community or Smaller-scale Energy site, and maintain a register of such sites.
(8) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that to access export purchase agreements exporters must—
(a) register their site with GEMA,
(b) install a smart export meter that meets specifications defined by GEMA, and
(c) notify GEMA if they are a community group.
(9) All licensed suppliers providing purchase agreements for sites specified in subsection (1) must report annually to GEMA—
(a) the number and capacity of Community or Smaller-scale Energy sites that have been offered contracts to purchase electricity and the number of such sites which agreed those contracts,
(b) the total amount of electricity purchased under those agreements, and
(c) the price paid for that electricity.
(10) OFGEM must make and publish a report annually on the operation of the export purchase agreements, setting out—
(a) the number of Community or Smaller scale Energy sites contracted with licensed energy suppliers under this section and the total amount of electricity purchased,
(b) the licensed suppliers contracting with Community or Smaller-scale Energy sites and the amount of electricity each has purchased,
(c) an assessment of how the mechanism is performing and the contribution it is making to delivering secure and low carbon electricity supplies, and
(d) recommendations on how the mechanism could be improved.
(11) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 59—Decarbonised electricity supply by 2030—
“(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the supply of electricity in the UK is decarbonised by 2030.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, produce and publish a plan which will set out how the duty in subsection (1) is to be achieved.”
This new clause is intended to provide for the UK’s electricity supply to be decarbonised by 2030.
New clause 60—Planning consent for new electricity pylons—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a fast-track planning process for electricity pylons along motorways and rail lines.
(2) Regulations under this section may amend primary legislation.”
New clause 61—National Warmer Homes and Businesses Action Plan (No. 2)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish an action plan entitled the Warmer Homes and Businesses Action Plan, to set out proposals for delivery of—
(a) an Energy Performance Certificate at band C by 2035 in all UK homes where practical, cost effective and affordable, and
(b) an Energy Performance Certificate at band B by 2030 in all privately rented non-domestic properties, and
(c) the Future Homes Standard for all new builds in England by 2025.
(2) The Secretary of State must, in developing the Warmer Homes and Businesses Action Plan, consult the Climate Change Committee and its sub-committee on adaptation.”
New clause 62—Energy performance regulations relating to existing premises (No. 2)—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations—
(a) amending the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/962) to require that, subject to subsection (2), all tenancies have an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) of at least Band C by 31 December 2028; and
(b) amending the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/595) to raise the cost cap to £10,000.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for exemptions to apply where—
(a) the occupier of any premises whose permission is needed to carry out works refuses to give such permission;
(b) it is not technically feasible to improve the energy performance of the premises to the level of EPC Band C; or
(c) another exemption specified in the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 has been registered in the Private Rented Sector (PRS) Exemptions Register.
(3) Within six months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations—
(a) amending the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015 to enable local authorities to give notice to landlords that they wish to inspect a property in relation to those Regulations, requesting permissions from landlords and any tenants in situ at the time to carry out an inspection at an agreed time;
(b) expanding the scope of the current PRS Exemptions Register and redesigning it as a database covering properties’ compliance with or exemptions from EPCs;
(c) requiring a post-improvement EPC to be undertaken to demonstrate compliance;
(d) requiring a valid EPC to be in place at all times while a property is let; and
(e) raising the maximum total of financial penalties to be imposed by a local authority on a landlord of a domestic private rented sector property in relation to the same breach and for the same property to £30,000 per property and per breach of the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
New clause 67—Local supply rights—
“(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on and consult on the introduction of local supply rights for community energy schemes, which would enable these schemes to sell their power to local customers.
(2) The report must set out—
(a) the potential benefits of community energy,
(b) the estimated additional costs to consumer bills that would be incurred in order for community energy schemes to account for 10% of energy generation by 2033, and
(c) an estimate of typical cost/benefit ratios for local communities and consumers.”
This new clause seeks to require the Government to publish a consultation on the introduction of local supply rights for community energy schemes within 6 months of the Act being passed.
New clause 68—Reports on the functioning of the energy price support framework—
“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament reports assessing—
(a) the potential benefits of a social tariff would have on levels of fuel poverty across the UK,
(b) the adequacy of the current system for individuals who have higher energy needs due to a medical condition, and
(c) the potential benefits of a strategy that rewards households who use less energy by guaranteeing them a lower price through a tiered electricity plan.”
This new clause will require the Secretary of State to report on the functioning of the current framework as it relates to certain groups.
Government amendment 180.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 30, at end insert
“issued by the economic regulator or other competent authority”.
This amendment allows persons with a CO2 storage licence from the North Sea Transition Authority to operate a geological storage site for CO2 disposal, as per current legislation in the Energy Act 2010.
Amendment 4, page 3, line 34, leave out “a service” and insert
“a monopoly service to multiple users”.
This amendment would exclude from the requirement to have an economic licence, all forms of transportation where competitive markets are more likely to develop than monopolies e.g. shipping, rail or road. It would also enable investment in private spur connections to the regulated CO2 network.
Government amendments 131, 198, 181, 132, 199 to 209, 144 to 147, 139 and 140.
Amendment 175, in clause 65, page 58, line 13, leave out
“in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.
This amendment would remove the role of the Secretary of State in determining who qualifies as a “low carbon hydrogen producer.”
Government amendments 141 and 142.
Amendment 9, page 60, line 22, leave out clause 69.
This amendment, together with Amendments 10 to 12, would leave out the clauses of the Bill which provide for a hydrogen levy.
Amendment 10, page 61, line 1, leave out clause 70.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 9.
Amendment 170, in clause 70, page 61, line 2, leave out
“relevant market participants (see subsection (8))” and insert “the Secretary of State”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 171 to174, is intended to provide that the Secretary of State, rather than relevant market participants, should fund the hydrogen levy administrator.
Amendment 171, page 61, line 19, leave out “relevant market participants” and insert “the Secretary of State”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 170.
Amendment 172, page 61, line 34, leave out “relevant market participants” and insert “the Secretary of State”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 170.
Amendment 173, page 61, line 37, leave out subsection (5).
See explanatory statement to Amendment 170.
Government amendment 148.
Amendment 174, page 62, line 9, leave out subsection (9).
See explanatory statement to Amendment 170.
Amendment 11, page 62, line 12, leave out clause 71.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 9.
Amendment 12, page 63, line 11, leave out clause 72.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 9.
Amendment 13, in clause 73, page 64, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 14, page 64, line 26, leave out “each paragraph of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 15, page 64, line 27, leave out “under that paragraph”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Government amendment 121.
Amendment 16, page 65, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 17, page 65, line 10, leave out
“a hydrogen production revenue support contract or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 18, page 65, line 15, leave out
“a hydrogen production allocation body or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 19, in clause 74, page 65, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 20, page 65, line 31, leave out
“hydrogen production revenue support contract or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 21, in clause 75, page 65, line 35, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 6, page 66, line 2, after “that” insert “eligible”.
This amendment clarifies that the low carbon hydrogen producer must be eligible to receive support, which other amendments ensure means that they are compliant with the Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard.
Amendment 22, page 66, line 10, leave out “(1) or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 23, in clause 76, page 66, line 23, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 24, page 66, line 30, leave out
“hydrogen production revenue support contracts or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 25, page 66, line 33, leave out
“hydrogen production revenue support contracts or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 26, page 67, line 10, leave out
“hydrogen production revenue support contracts or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 27, page 67, line 15, leave out “for producing hydrogen or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 28, page 67, line 17, leave out
“(whether in respect of hydrogen production or capture of carbon dioxide)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Government amendment 143.
Amendment 29, in clause 77, page 67, line 40, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 30, page 68, line 19, leave out “hydrogen production counterparty or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 31, page 68, line 24, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) how the eligible carbon capture entity to whom the offer is made may enter into a carbon capture revenue support contract as a result of the offer;”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 32, page 68, line 28, leave out
“eligible low carbon hydrogen producer or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 33, in clause 78, page 68, line 36, leave out
“an eligible low carbon hydrogen producer, or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 34, page 68, line 39, leave out
“hydrogen production counterparty or (as the case requires)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 35, page 69, line 1, leave out “hydrogen production counterparty or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 36, page 69, line 16, leave out “hydrogen production counterparty or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 37, page 69, line 35, leave out clause 80.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 38, in clause 81, page 70, line 33, leave out
“hydrogen transport counterparty, hydrogen storage counterparty, hydrogen production counterparty”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 39, in clause 82, page 71, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 40, in clause 83, page 71, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 41, page 71, line 40, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Government amendment 149.
Amendment 42, page 72, line 9, leave out
“hydrogen production revenue support contract or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Government amendments 150 to 152.
Amendment 43, in clause 84, page 73, line 7, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Government amendments 210 to 213.
Amendment 44, in clause 86, page 74, line 9, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 45, page 74, line 22, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 46, age 74, line 28, leave out “a hydrogen levy administrator”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Amendment 47, in clause 88, page 77, line 2, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Government amendments 153 to 162.
Amendment 48, page 78, line 37, leave out clause 90.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Government amendment 163.
Amendment 49, in clause 91, page 79, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 9 to 12.
Government amendments 164, 70, 165, 122 to 124 and 214 to 216.
Amendment 7, in clause 128, page 115, line 6, after “transportation” insert
“by pipeline, ship or other means,”.
Carbon dioxide transport by ship is almost certain to be a part of the Scottish Cluster and subsequent phases of other CCUS clusters and this amendment makes explicit that transportation by ship or other means would be included in the financial assistance available under clause 103.
Government amendments 125 to 129, 71, 72, 133 and 134.
Amendment 8, in clause 142, page 127, line 2, leave out from “heat” to the end of line 18 and insert “from a renewable source.”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make provision for the establishment of a low-carbon heat scheme which encouraged the use of heating appliances that generate heat from a renewable source but which might previously have burnt a fossil fuel.
Government amendments 217 and 218.
Amendment 50, in clause 152, page 133, line 30, at end insert
“, except that that power is not exercisable without a warrant issued by a justice of the peace.”
This amendment would require a warrant for the exercise of the power to enter premises in a hydrogen grid conversion trial.
Amendment 130, page 136, line 3, leave out clause 155.
This amendment would remove clause 155 and therefore ensure that fusion energy facilities are still required to secure a nuclear site licence.
Amendment 1, in clause 159, page 137, line 31, at end insert—
“(1A) The person designated under subsection (1) must be a public body with no other roles or interests in the energy sector.”
This amendment ensures that the ISOP is a public body, not an individual or a private company, and has no conflicting interests.
Amendment 51, in clause 160, page 138, line 9, at beginning insert—
“(A1) The ISOP must carry out its functions in the way that it considers is best calculated to ensure the lowest possible cost of energy to businesses and households.”
This amendment, together with Amendment 52, would introduce a new primary objective for the Independent System Operator and Planner (ISOP), to which the existing objectives for the ISOP in the Bill would become secondary.
Amendment 52, page 138, line 9, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (A1),”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 51.
Government amendments 73 to 76.
Amendment 2, in clause 162, page 140, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) The ISOP must have regard to the strategic priorities set out in the current strategy and policy statement but will otherwise carry out its functions independently of the Secretary of the State.”
This amendment ensures that the Independent System Operator and Planner (ISOP) is independent.
Government amendments 166 and 77 to 79.
Amendment 53, page 178, line 25, leave out clause 212.
This amendment would remove the clause granting the Secretary of State an extension of time for the extension of powers relating to smart meters.
Government amendments 103 and 219 to 224.
Amendment 54, in clause 227, page 188, line 31, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would ensure that it was not possible to impose a penalty on a person for not complying with a request for information relating to a heat network zone.
Amendment 55, in clause 228, page 189, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (10) and insert—
“(2) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1) may not impose a requirement on any person.”
This amendment would prevent regulations about heat networks within heat network zones from imposing mandatory requirements.
Amendment 56, page 192, line 30, leave out clause 230.
This amendment would leave out the clause which provides for the enforcement of heat network zone requirements.
Amendment 57, page 193, line 12, leave out clause 231.
This amendment would leave out the clause which provides for penalties to be imposed by regulations about heat network zones.
Amendment 58, page 196, line 3, leave out clause 235.
This amendment, together with Amendments 59 to 63, would remove Chapter 2 of Part 9 of the Bill, on energy smart appliances.
Amendment 59, page 197, line 13, leave out clause 236.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 58.
Amendment 60, page 198, line 4, leave out clause 237.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 58.
Amendment 61, page 199, line 39, leave out clause 238.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 58.
Amendment 62, page 200, line 22, leave out clause 239.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 58.
Amendment 63, page 201, line 14, leave out clause 240.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 58.
Amendment 64, page 205, line 14, leave out clause 246.
This amendment, together with Amendments 65 to 67, would leave out Part 10 of the Bill, on the energy performance of premises.
Government amendments 182 to 184.
Amendment 65, page 206, line 29, leave out clause 247.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 64.
Amendment 66, page 207, line 1, leave out clause 248.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 64. This amendment would remove a clause which would enable the creation of criminal offences by regulations.
Government amendment 185.
Amendment 67, page 208, line 6, leave out clause 249.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 64. This amendment would remove a clause which would enable the amendment, repeal or revocation of primary legislation by regulations.
Government amendments 186 to 193.
Amendment 68, page 214, line 1, leave out clause 255.
This amendment would leave out the clause which provides for requirements to be imposed by energy savings opportunity scheme regulations.
Amendment 69, page 216, line 16, leave out clause 257.
This amendment would leave out the clause which provides for the enforcement of energy savings opportunity scheme regulations and the creation of connected penalties and offences.
Government amendments 225 to 229, 80, 81, 230 to 238, 82, 194, 239, 195, 240, 241, 83, 242, 84 to 94, 243, 176, 177, 196, 178, 244, 104 to 110, 169, 179, 111 to 120, 95 to 100, 197, 101, 135 to 138, 167, 168 and 102.
Andrew Bowie
I am delighted to rise today to bring before the House our landmark Energy Bill for its consideration. This world-leading, historic Bill—a Conservative Bill—will deliver for this country cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy. It will level up this country, while contributing to levelling down bills for the British people. It will unleash new technology, liberate private investment in clean technologies, modernise and future-proof our energy network, and deliver for this country and for future generations.
The United Kingdom already has a great story to tell on reducing our carbon emissions. We have reduced our emissions faster than any other G7 nation. We were the first European nation to legislate for net zero. We have the first oil and gas basin dedicated to going net zero and the first, second, third and fourth-largest offshore wind farms in the world operating and generating power off the coast of Great Britain right now. We have eliminated our reliance on coal. We have grown to more than 40% of energy being generated by renewables. We have announced further investment in carbon capture, usage and storage, and we are pressing ahead with Great British Nuclear, which I launched two months ago with an exciting programme for small modular reactors. We are on track to deliver 24 GW of nuclear power on the grid by 2025.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Can the Minister confirm that at the weekend, agreements were made that have removed Northern Ireland from benefiting from the renewable liquid fuel agreements? Is that the case, and if so, why?
Andrew Bowie
If the hon. Gentleman will have patience, I will come to the renewable liquid heating fuel amendments later in my speech, where I am happy to direct any questions to which he is seeking answers.
We have done all the things I have mentioned while growing our economy. We have cut our emissions by 40% while growing our economy by 60%. It is an inherently Conservative value—a value close to the hearts of all on the Government Benches—to pass on what we inherit in a better state to the next generation. That includes the state of our environment and our climate. There is also no more Conservative value than to ensure the security of our nation and its people, and that includes our energy supply.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
On that very point—security—what provision is being made for days when there is no wind, given that we will see the closure of most of our nuclear power stations this decade and will have little else to rely on, other than fossil fuel? How are we going to get through?
Andrew Bowie
My right hon. Friend knows that I am a great champion of supporting our oil and gas industry, which continues to supply a large amount of our energy baseload and will do for a significant amount of time to come. As he also knows, we are investing a lot of time and money into ensuring that we deliver the next generation of nuclear power plants, including small modular reactors, so that we have the energy baseload that this country needs so that, as he rightly suggests, when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, people can still be assured that the lights will come on. The Conservative principles that I have spoken about are at the very heart of the Bill, which I am pleased to bring before the House today.
It is true that some time has passed since the Bill was introduced in July last year. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), was but a boy when this Bill was introduced last year. A huge amount of constructive dialogue and dedicated work has taken place during that time. I thank all the Secretaries of State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Ministers and the Prime Ministers who have been involved since the Bill was introduced.
Since the Bill came to this House from the other place, I have met and engaged with colleagues from all sides of House. We debated the Bill in a lively Second Reading and spent 72 long hours in Committee, so I start by thanking everyone across the House, especially the shadow ministerial team, the former Scottish National party energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and all on the Government side, for their constructive engagement in ensuring that we got the Bill to these final stages in a state that, I hope, will be broadly welcomed by most, if not all, Members.
Richard Graham
The Minister referred to base energy load, which is crucial in respect of nuclear energy, but is also relevant to marine energy, which, as he knows, we have huge potential for around our coast, particularly in Scotland. Will he confirm that that will play an important part in the next contracts for difference round and in his thinking?
Andrew Bowie
I am delighted to confirm that that will play an important part. Indeed, we have ringfenced £10 million to support marine energy in the country. We believe it has a huge role to play in delivering our energy baseload. Indeed, the innovations being made in that technology are incredibly exciting and will play a huge part in our energy baseload moving forward.
Jamie Stone
The Minister is incredibly well-mannered. The irony is that we generate an enormous amount of power from onshore wind in the highlands, yet we face the highest levels of fuel poverty. New clause 1, tabled in my name, talks about increasing the community benefit in some way and widening the number of communities who could benefit. I am aware that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) has tabled a similar amendment, and I would like to voice my support and that of the Liberal Democrats for it.
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive intervention. The Government recently launched a consultation on community benefits, because we do understand that those communities being asked to host pieces of critical national infrastructure should be recompensed for that, and that the community benefits that the individuals, communities and groups in those areas receive should be enough to recompense them for what they are doing in the national interest.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)
On infrastructure of national scale, in order to keep people on side, is it not also vital that such projects are in the right place—unlike the Sunnica development near my constituency—so that those of us who care about the agenda can support it wholeheartedly and ensure that the Conservative values that the Minister talks about are rightly behind the green energy revolution?
Andrew Bowie
Absolutely. It is incumbent on all involved, from the transmission operators to the developers, National Grid, the electricity system operator and indeed the Department and those across Government, to ensure that where such pieces of critical national infrastructure are being built, developed and planned, plans are proceeded with and laid in a way that is conducive to local sentiment and local support and will provide for that local community for many years to come.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
Will the Minister give way?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I am grateful to the very polite Minister, as was said by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). I am sure the Minister is aware that heat pumps will produce about 2.5 times the energy of the electricity put into them, or four times for ground source heat pumps—they are multipliers of the power put into them. The Government have a plan for 600,000 to be installed by 2028. Will we see those? How many will we see next year? Does he have intervening targets for that? At the moment, they are at only a 10th of where the target would have them.
Secondly, a point asked in my constituency is about the new £10 million community energy fund, which relates only to England, despite energy being reserved. Will he enlighten Euan Scott, my constituent, please?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. There is so much pressure on time, so it is really important that interventions are short.
Andrew Bowie
On the hon. Member’s first point, absolutely, we remain committed to delivering, developing and rolling out heat pumps across the country, and we remain committed to the targets we have set out. On the community energy fund, there is already an equivalent Scottish community energy fund up and running and delivering for communities across Scotland. That is a competency of the Scottish Government at Holyrood. I would be delighted to direct any questions that he or his constituent have on that to the Scottish Government in Edinburgh. [Interruption.] He makes the case from a sedentary position that energy is reserved. Yes, but the Scottish Government have their own community energy fund. We will base a lot of what we are doing on that fund as it is rolled out in Scotland.
With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will take some time to explain the not insubstantial number of Government amendments to the House. I turn first to Government amendment 148 and the subsequent consequential amendments. I think it is fair to say that considerable concern was raised about the initial proposals for a hydrogen levy. The Government have carefully considered those concerns. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for his amendments on the issue, and indeed the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for his amendments relating to those clauses. It is right that we take these considerations seriously and, where appropriate, seek to make changes.
Alec Shelbrooke
May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for reflecting on what I said in Committee and for the commitments given to me by the Government to bring about an amendment to the Bill? I thank him for listening to Back Benchers’ concerns in Committee.
Andrew Bowie
I was very pleased to take that intervention. I thank my right hon. Friend for it. If he is patient, I will explain to the rest of the House—I think Committee members are aware—what we seek to do with the hydrogen levy as it stands.
The Government’s amendments will remove provisions that enabled the levy to be imposed on energy suppliers in Great Britain, ensuring that within Great Britain the levy can be placed only on gas shippers. In the case of Northern Ireland, the amendments seek to ensure that only gas supply licence holders who engage with gas shipping can be subject to that levy. That reflects the different approach to the licensing of gas shipping across Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The revised provisions will provide a fairer approach to funding hydrogen, placing the charge higher up the supply chain, with the potential for costs to be spread to the sectors expected to benefit most from early hydrogen development, not the wider British public. I remind the House that the Bill will also enable the option of funding hydrogen through the Exchequer. By providing two robust and reliable options for hydrogen funding, we will help bolster industry confidence in the viability of the UK hydrogen economy and boost private investment, with the potential to unlock significant energy security and economic benefits. The hydrogen sector could support over 12,000 jobs and generate up to £11 billion in private investment by 2030.
I must be clear, and the House should understand, that the Bill will not actually introduce a levy on gas shippers. Instead, it will enable the Government to introduce the levy through secondary legislation.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
It is very welcome that the levy will not be applied on households as a direct cost they will see in their bills, but it is something of a sleight of hand just to push it further up the supply chain, because it will be an energy-related cost somewhere in the supply chain that will feed down to every business and household in another way through an additional charge they will face, much like VAT. I welcome it as far as I can, but I would rather see it removed in its entirety.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. As we have spoken about before, I understand his position on the levy. It is our belief that in ensuring that the levy is placed higher up the chain, the sectors that will benefit most from the early development of hydrogen will bear the brunt of the cost, not the wider British public. That is the aim and intention of what we seek to achieve.
As I was saying, the Bill will not introduce the levy on to shippers; instead, it will enable the Government to introduce the levy through secondary legislation. I am sure we will continue to have this debate in the months and years ahead.
I turn to Government new clause 63, amendment 8 and new clauses 40 and 50 on renewable liquid heating fuel. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for his work and amendments relating to renewable liquid fuels for low-carbon heating. His constructive work with the Government has been incredibly helpful and positive. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who has been championing the use of renewable liquid fuels for low-carbon heating for many years.
As the recent biomass strategy made clear, such fuels will have a critical role to play in decarbonising our economy. We recognise that they have the potential to play an important role in decarbonising heat, especially as not all off-grid properties will be suitable for electrification. We will explore the potential of these fuels for heat by issuing a consultation within 12 months. We want to take the powers now to support the use of these fuels in heat in the future, should they be needed. That is why we tabled Government new clause 63, taking powers to impose obligations on heating fuel suppliers to increase the supply of renewable liquid heating fuels.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
In my constituency we have a particular issue with commercial and domestic use, because residents are often in the same building as commercial properties. It would be helpful for the Minister to look at the definition of heat network systems, so that Ofgem can understand what systems qualify as heat networks in domestic properties, which are a real issue in my constituency.
Andrew Bowie
The measures in the Bill will provide the Government with powers to implement heat network zoning in England. Those include powers to develop a nationwide methodology for identifying and designating areas as heat network zones, and to establish a new zoning co-ordinator role—which we generally expect will be filled by local government, though my hon. Friend is free to apply—with responsibility for designating areas as heat network zones and enforcing requirements in them. They also include powers requiring heat networks developed in zones to meet a low-carbon requirement, and to ensure that certain buildings and heat sources connect to a heat network in a zone within a specific timeframe. The relevant Minister in the Department and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how that will be relevant to her urban constituency as we move forward and seek to implement these proposals.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I join the Minister in thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) for leading on the measures included in new clause 63. On the renewable liquid heating fuel obligation, the Minister said that he would do a consultation within the next 12 months. Many of my constituents who are off-grid also want secondary legislation to come through in the next 12 months. Can he assure the House that that is his intention?
Andrew Bowie
I can confirm that we will move to a consultation in the next few months. Indeed, we will use the powers to support the use of those fuels in heat in future, should they be needed. Again, as we move through the consultation period, other Ministers in the Department and I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and all Members concerned. I understand that this issue affects many constituencies across the country and, rightly, interests many right hon. and hon. Members. As we move forward with the consultation and towards implementing the powers, we will be delighted to meet Members.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I welcome Government new clauses 52 and 63, which are of particular value to those living in certain parts of the country, such as north-east Scotland, as the Minister is very much aware. Will he join me in reinforcing and emphasising the benefit of developments in sustainable aviation fuel and renewable liquid heating fuel respectively, particularly in Aberdeenshire?
Andrew Bowie
Yes, I am very pleased to welcome developments in renewable liquid heating fuel. The consultation, which will be UK-wide, will benefit those living in rural constituencies such as Banff and Buchan, and those across north-east Scotland and rural Britain. I welcome the support for the sustainable aviation fuel amendment, to which I will refer shortly.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
To back up the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), standard consultation and the legislation being in place in 12 months do not show the necessary urgency. That is the point that unites many people. The Minister, with his Thompson gun approach to spitting things out, got that one out very quickly, but we need it done an awful lot more quickly than starting within 12 months. This Government will probably be gone in 12 months.
Andrew Bowie
I am determined to work very hard to ensure that this Government will not be gone in 12 months. However, we are taking the powers now to ensure support for the use of these fuels in heat in future, if needed. I should make clear that we are starting the consultation within the next 12 months, not in 12 months. It will be within the next year.
Ian Paisley
There is a vast rural housing network in Northern Ireland of so many households, and there is overreliance on heating oil. What is the arrangement for using renewable liquid fuels in Northern Ireland?
Andrew Bowie
Once again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I was just about to answer his original question: I can confirm that officials from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in London have been in discussion with Northern Ireland officials, who are broadly content with the Government’s approach on this issue. However, conversations will continue with Northern Ireland officials on what we can do to support renewable liquid heating fuels in Northern Ireland. Once again, as on the other issues I have specified, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and colleagues from across Northern Ireland to discuss how this Government can ensure that the support delivered in Great Britain can be replicated in Northern Ireland.
I turn back to my comments on renewable liquid heating fuels. With regard to amendment 8, the powers in clause 142 relate only to the planned clean heat market mechanism, for which the Government’s focus is on supporting the development of the market for electric heat pumps. We do not believe that expanding the power set out here is necessary to allow for boilers burning renewable liquid fuels to be installed or used. In the light of those steps, I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth is reassured by the Government’s action and will feel able not to press the amendment.
I turn to Government new clauses 52 and 169 and new clause 35 on sustainable aviation fuel. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for his constructive engagement with me and colleagues at the Department for Transport. This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK sustainable aviation fuel programme is one of the most comprehensive in the world. That is why in the Bill we are committing to publish a consultation on the options for designing and implementing a revenue certainty scheme within six months of it being passed.
We will also update Parliament within 18 months on the development of a sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty scheme. As the Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), set out in a written ministerial statement yesterday, that builds on our commitment to deliver a revenue certainty scheme for domestic sustainable aviation fuel production by the end of 2026. The intention is that the scheme will be industry-funded. Alongside that, we have published a plan for delivering the scheme, which contains a timeline of key milestones such as a public consultation on options, an associated Government response, design phases, and delivery and legislative steps.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive approach on this issue. Could I seek one more assurance? When the consultation is finished, will the Government review the likelihood of securing the investment we want? If there is still doubt, will he ensure that discussion takes place about whether the Government should play a part in that, potentially at a future fiscal event?
Andrew Bowie
I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance and go further. That commitment, alongside our £165 million advanced fuels fund and the world-leading SAF mandate, will help to provide strong market signals and incentives to drive the demand and supply of SAF from sustainable sources. Future funding decisions on SAF will be considered as part of the next spending review.
I would like to turn briefly to community energy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) for his continued engagement on the Bill, particularly his championing of community energy, alongside many others in this House. The Government recognise that community energy projects can have real benefits for the communities in which they are based, and are keen to ensure that they deliver value for money for consumers. That is why we have launched a new £10 million community energy fund, which expands on the success of the previous rural community energy fund, to enable both rural and urban communities across England to access grant funding to develop local renewable energy projects for investment.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
It is fantastic that the Government have announced the new fund to help community energy schemes get off the ground. That is a very welcome step. Could my hon. Friend outline what steps he will take to remove the barriers that prevent community energy schemes from accessing local markets?
Andrew Bowie
I can indeed. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that alongside our proposed fund, we are committing to publishing an annual report to Parliament and to consulting on the barriers the sector faces when developing projects.
I am also very pleased to announce that His Majesty’s Government have reached an agreement with the Scottish Government to amend the Bill to secure their support for a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament. The comprehensive set of amendments agreed with the Administration in Edinburgh will strengthen the Bill’s consultation provisions and require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of devolved Ministers before exercising powers under clauses 2, 3 and 293.
I would also like to take this opportunity to confirm to the House and to the Scottish Government that by virtue of clause 218(2)(a)(ii), the regulatory cost the GEMA can recover from gas and electricity licence holders from across Great Britain includes any costs it occurs performing the Scottish licensing function. The Government are disappointed that the Welsh Government have decided not to support the legislative consent motion for the Bill in the Senedd. However, as a sign of good faith the Government will extend the amendments agreed with the Scottish Government to apply in Wales and Northern Ireland where appropriate.
A number of Government amendments for consideration on Report relate to commencement. They ensure that clauses, such as those relating to the smart meter roll-out and low carbon heat schemes, will come into force as soon as the Bill gains Royal Assent. The remaining Government amendments are technical in nature and, as such, I do not propose to discuss any of them in great detail—I am sure Madam Deputy Speaker is delighted.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way, but I notice that I cannot see any mention in the amendments of standing charges. I know that is a very difficult thing, but in my constituency there is a great deal of concern about the fact that there is no uniformity in the United Kingdom on standing charges. My constituents can pay around £100 a year more than people elsewhere in the country. Do the Government have any intention to address that issue, along with issues such as domestic insulation?
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her intervention and her question. I am engaging with Ofgem on that very issue and am looking to convene a meeting in Edinburgh with all the significant players involved in energy transmission and production in Scotland at the earliest available opportunity, so we can discuss the issues regarding standing charges and other issues that affect Scottish bill payers. I would be very delighted to engage with her as we move towards that meeting taking place.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The Minister may have heard on “The World at One” on Radio 4 last week the head of OVO Energy talking about the movement for the cost of transmission from the unit price to the standing charge price, which has ramped up standing charges and is very concerning to many people because that disproportionately impacts poorer bill payers. Will he look at that issue and discuss it with Ofgem at his meeting?
Andrew Bowie
Yes, I can confirm that I will raise that issue with Ofgem at my next meeting, and at the next available opportunity I have to meet the Chairman of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, I will certainly have an answer for him on that question.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
In 2013, the then coalition Government cut all the energy efficiency programmes, plunging millions of people into debt. What plans does he have to ensure there is an insulation programme to provide desperately needed energy efficiency right across homes and households?
Andrew Bowie
This is the biggest piece of energy legislation ever passed by the British Parliament. We are driving forward with schemes to help insulate houses, drive down bills, and deliver cleaner and more secure energy, and all we can get from the Opposition is criticism. We have ramped up our renewable energy production to over 40%. We have eliminated coal. We are developing new nuclear, which the Opposition failed to do over 13 years in government. Rather than carping from the sidelines, it would be useful if Opposition Back Benchers got on board, supported the Bill and supported our great British companies developing the technology to take this country forward, creating the new jobs, ensuring security of supply and driving towards net zero, which means we will leave this country and the planet in a better place for the next generation, instead of trying to score political points at the expense of this Government who are seeking to deliver for the British people. As such, I am immensely proud of the Bill. It was strong before and it is even stronger now. It is, as I have just said, the single biggest piece of energy legislation ever to be brought before the House.
Andrew Bowie
I am afraid I will not give way.
The Bill is a revolution in community energy: restarting our nuclear sector; regulating for fusion; developing carbon capture, usage and storage; supporting the technology of the future; liberating private finance; developing our own oil and gas reserves; building an energy network of the future to secure our energy supply; securing our energy base so we are powering Britain from Britain; growing our economy; investing to ensure lower bills; and driving towards a cleaner future. That is what the Bill achieves. It was brought here and delivered today by the Conservative Government, moving the country forward into a brighter, more secure and cleaner future. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, with great pleasure, I commend the new clauses and amendments to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As Members can see, there is great interest in this debate. I am therefore pondering exactly what the time limit will be. Members will be informed just before Dave Doogan speaks, I believe. [Interruption.] It will not apply to the Labour Front Bencher; the hon. Gentleman can be relieved.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
The Minister is quite right: the Bill has been with us for rather a long time. I am personally delighted that it is before us this afternoon, but we need to remember that Second Reading was over a year ago, in July 2022, in another place. The Bill has survived four Secretaries of State and two Departments in its passage through the House, so it certainly should be an improved Bill by now. I am concerned, however, that the long passage of the Bill to the statute book has had a real effect on investors and various other people seeking to invest in the low-carbon economy. We should not forget that.
What is this Bill about? As the Minister has said, it is essentially about the decarbonisation of the energy system and making that system fit for net zero. It is, overwhelmingly, a Bill that enables that decarbonisation to take place, and it has been described in a number of instances as a “green plumbing” Bill, which I think is not a bad description. It provides the necessary mechanisms and the details of how we will reach our targets in a variety of areas, as the Minister said: on hydrogen, on carbon capture and storage, on licensing, on the introduction of an independent system operator—which is very important to good construction—on low-carbon heat schemes, on district heating, on energy-saving appliances, and on fusion power. It also makes a number of regulation changes in relation to civil nuclear decommissioning and oil and gas management. It is, moreover, a Bill that the Opposition have welcomed, both for its extent and for its “green plumbing” activities. We were supportive of its measures in Committee, while also tabling amendments that we thought would strengthen its approach. Indeed, the Government have inserted some of them in the Bill, with very slight changes, and we welcome that as well.
However, in my view the Bill is incomplete and unsatisfactory, given its ambition as a green decarbonisation Bill, in that it fails to complete the three tests, or tasks, that are necessary to provide the clarity and consistency that would ensure that the policy will deliver what is claimed. Those tests are these. First, what are the targets for a policy, and how firm are they? Secondly, what are the technical means whereby the proposed targets can be actioned? Thirdly, what is the plan, both financially and procedurally, to make the targets real and not just hot-air aspirations? It is essential to the process of energy decarbonisation for all three of those tests to be in the Bill as we proceed against very tight timescales and immense challenges of implementation.
In some instances, the Bill has succeeded in that regard. The Government’s targets were set out in a number of documents on clean energy, such as the energy security strategy and the 2020 Energy White Paper. Indeed, in a number of instances, the targets contained in those documents have been substantially added to in the Bill. For example, the target of 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production by 2030 has been underpinned by the clauses relating to such matters as hydrogen levy management procedures. I applaud the Government’s change of heart on the hydrogen levy. Although a number of Committee members knowingly voted the wrong way, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), the Government have put that right now. We would have liked to see them go a little further with a clear statement that the money would come from the Consolidated Fund, but we will live with the change that they have undertaken to make. I think we can count that as both a win for our pressure on the Bill and a win for the Bill itself.
Caroline Lucas
I agree that those three tests for decarbonisation make a lot of sense, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as targets for some of the good stuff, we need to see the Government stop doing the bad stuff? In this case, the bad stuff is more and more new licences for oil and gas in the North sea. Would Labour support my amendment, which would see an end to the MER rule on maximising the economic recovery of petroleum and replace it with a just transition to a greener economy? As long as we have a statutory duty to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas, it does not matter how many targets we have on renewables, because we will not meet the targets that we need to meet.
Dr Whitehead
I do not think it would be appropriate for me to indicate exactly which amendments from various Members we might or might not support, and it would take a great deal of time for me to do so, but the hon. Member will recall that we tabled an amendment on maximum economic recovery in Committee. I think she can take from that that, broadly speaking, we support the principle of “stop doing the bad things and start doing the good things”. Whether the detail of her new clause fits exactly with that picture is another matter, but I hope she can take some encouragement from that.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, while the Government may have set out the high-level ambitions and targets, they have failed to highlight the cost of this Bill to ordinary constituents? I think, for example, of the cost of bringing properties up to certain energy efficiency levels, the size of the hydrogen levy and who will pay it when it is introduced, the cost of sustainable aviation fuel to the aviation industry and the cost of flying—I could go on. That has not been spelled out, because there is a dishonesty here, and the burden will fall on ordinary people.
Dr Whitehead
It is not for me to defend how the Government have managed their arrangements as far as the costs of these measures are concerned, but I would say more generally that we have to cast this Bill in terms of how much it would cost us as consumers and others if we did not do these things over the next period. We need to consider the cost to people’s bills, people’s lives and people’s welfare if we simply stood aside and ignored doing the things that are necessary for decarbonisation. I can honestly say that in the longer term the overall cost of doing these things would be far more on the saving side for customers and the general public than the issues that are before us at the moment.
The Government have done a number of things in this Bill. I mentioned the measures on hydrogen, which I welcome in terms of meeting hon. Members’ concerns. We are also pleased to see that the Government have tabled amendments on other issues of concern to Members such as sustainable aviation fuel, and new clause 34 on liquid fuel.
Chris Grayling
I am keen to see a process start now that leads to our securing the investment we need to ensure that sustainable aviation fuel is available for our industry, and given the timeframe I am keen to see both parties making a commitment to that in their manifestos. Can the hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that the Opposition also support this move towards developing a sustainable aviation fuel industry in this country?
Dr Whitehead
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about what the shortly-to-appear Labour Government will be doing on these matters, although I hope that he will not go about spreading defeatism on his own side. As a future Labour Government, we are very concerned about the need to develop sustainable aviation fuel in a cost-effective and timely manner. We understand that this is a substantial element of the transition that will be undertaken in aviation, but we have to be careful that we do not procure all the resources that might go to other things for use in making sustainable aviation fuel, because there are many other things that can be done with those fuels. We need a balance between the various possible candidates for what would go into sustainable aviation fuel for the future.
I am pleased that the Government have also made a concession on liquid fuel heating obligations. In other areas, despite having ample opportunity and time to put additional material in the Bill—indeed, the Government have put substantial amounts of additional material in the Bill with our support—they have not taken the opportunity to place in legislation the three tests that I mentioned, which is why our amendments concentrate on those emissions.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman mentions boilers, and a number of organisations, including Green Alliance, Action for Warm Homes, Power for People and Energy UK, have produced briefs that point to how infrequently such Bills come around. There are great changes in energy technology and in world events, but they are not mirrored in Parliament. Both sides of the House should commit to not cramming everything into one energy Bill every decade. Given how things are changing in this sphere, Parliament should address it far more frequently than every decade.
Dr Whitehead
If the hon. Gentleman contains himself, he will see that we have tabled an amendment on low-carbon energy in homes. I agree that we cannot put everything in a Bill but, because of the urgency of the commitment we are making with this Bill, it is important that we get as much clarity as possible on what we are doing in the Bill now, so we know where we are going and the ways we are doing so.
Having discussed those other amendments, I will now draw attention to Labour’s amendments. I hope the House will understand why we have drafted them in this way and how that relates to the tests I mentioned. On our new clause 53, the Government say they support community and local energy. Indeed, as the Minister said, the Government have put a modest amount of funding into supporting community energy but, as the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), who is not in her place now, said, we still do not have an understanding of how community energy can actually work. We think community energy will be an important part of the decarbonisation process. It is not one of the large, shiny things upon which money will be lavished in large amounts but, in aggregate, it will have a huge impact on decarbonising energy in this country.
The Government still have not introduced arrangements that will enable local power producers to trade locally and get the proper value of their trade, which is vital to the success and certainty of these projects. Labour wants to support local energy projects practically, particularly through the “valley of death” period where the pockets of community energy are usually shallower than needed for all the planning permissions to run their course. With support from Great British Energy and local authorities, we propose that £400 million a year will eventually support the important role of community and local energy in decarbonising power.
John Redwood
If this electrical revolution is to take off, many more people will need to buy electric cars and heat pumps. Does the hon. Gentleman have any advice for the Government on how those items can be made more popular and more affordable?
Dr Whitehead
The Government and I have been in considerable discussion about precisely that point. We need to make sure we change the model of ownership of those devices. We perhaps need to have a longer debate about that on another occasion.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about new clause 53, which stands in his name and those of his Front-Bench colleagues. Is not it the case at the moment that the grids—the national grid and the local distribution networks—do not have a duty to positively engage with small-scale and community electricity suppliers to encourage them on to the grid and instead just put them at the bottom of a list that is first come, first served? The new clause will start to change that approach, which is supportive and nurturing in its essence.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The campaign that he may be referring to was signed up to by the Minister when he was not a Minister; he may have some other views on that these days, but the new clause is not too far from the original document that he signed a while ago. I am going to have to make some rapid progress, so I am sorry to say that I will not be able to take any further interventions. However, I will try to get through the measures we are proposing as quickly as possible, in order to allow other Members who are bursting to get into the debate the time to do that.
Our new clause 56 deals with delinking renewables and gas prices. A mechanism should be in place to ensure that the dividend from renewable power costs and prices can come through to customers. However, as we have seen in the recent power crisis, that is not the case at the moment. Gas prices surged to nine times the price of renewable power at some stages during the energy crisis and are still substantially more expensive than those of renewables, but they rule the roost as far as energy prices for the retail market are concerned, through marginal cost pricing. We think that needs to change through delinking the process and we wish to put an amendment in that would ensure that that happened, so that the benefit of renewable power can come to customers in the way that the whole House would intend to happen.
New clause 57 deals with onshore wind. Three minutes before the Bill came to the Floor of the House, a written statement on onshore wind was made by the Minister. I have had a chance to read it quickly and it seems to me as though it still treats onshore wind as a special case and not as an ordinary case of a local infrastructure project, which should receive no better and no worse consideration than any other such project. Onshore wind is essential to the decarbonisation of our energy system, but we have just let it collapse over a considerable period by, in effect, banning it. The Government are taking grandmother’s footsteps back from the ban, but this is still not good enough.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I was one of the architects of what the hon. Gentleman described as a ban. He will understand that, when onshore wind was no longer permitted across the UK, this catalysed the offshore industry and we became a world leader in offshore wind precisely because developers then chose to go offshore. Offshore wind has many advantages, not least its scale, the size of the turbines and the single point of connection to the grid. Onshore wind has none of those virtues.
Dr Whitehead
That is remarkably like saying I am encouraging you to use your second car because I shot the tyres out of your first car. The right hon. Member makes a quite ridiculous statement.
First, onshore wind is the cheapest form of power available. Secondly, it can be available for community and local energy, in the way described earlier. Thirdly, through CfDs, it can systemically provide a cheaper power environment for the population as a whole. It is a disgrace that only two turbines have been commissioned in this country since February 2022. It is a golden opportunity for decarbonisation that we are missing completely.
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is being very generous. Does he agree that the failure to roll out onshore wind is costing families £182 a year because of lack of investment?
Dr Whitehead
Lack of investment does indeed have a direct impact. If we go back and look at what could have been the case and look at what is the case now, there is a direct link between energy prices now and the lack of development of onshore wind. Our amendment, which we hope to push to a vote, would make the way that onshore wind was treated simple and straightforward: it should be treated no differently from any other local infrastructure project. There should be the same protections, safeguards and concerns for people who have that local infrastructure coming their way. It should not be a special case, over and above other projects, which I think will produce an explosion of investment in onshore wind in future.
Dr Whitehead
No. I have to make progress.
New clause 61—
“National Warmer Homes and Businesses Action Plan (No. 2)”—
addresses another area in which the Government have set out their aspirations. The Minister has said that the Government are making progress on their aspirations to retrofit homes, as set out in their national energy plans and the White Paper, “Powering our net zero future”. Those aspirations include having all homes at an EPC band C standard by 2035 and all private rented properties at band B by 2030. However, nowhere are there any plans about how we are actually going to do that or how homes that are among the worst insulated in Europe can be lifted to the levels needed by 2035. The Government are stuck with aspirations but no plan.
Our new clause puts a plan in place. It puts those aspirations into legislation and requires a Government plan to bring them about, which would be another enormous win for decarbonisation. People’s energy bills will fall, fuel poverty will be tackled and gas supply in retrofitted properties will reduce by perhaps 25%. It would be a win all round.
The Government have no plan. Labour has a substantial plan, which has already been put forward, including a 10-year programme to uprate and retrofit 19 million homes, costing £6 billion per annum by the second part of the next Labour Government, with a local authority and community base getting it done. That will transform the present, pretty paltry progress that has been made. Admittedly, there has been good progress in some areas, including the energy company obligation, the local authority delivery scheme, the home upgrade grant and other schemes, but who can forget the spectacular failure of the Government’s green homes grant a little while ago? Our new clause will transform the way that works and we want it to be added to the Bill.
New clause 62 is closely associated with new clause 61, but addresses the private rented sector.
New clause 59 is very important. We want to see the decarbonisation of our energy, power and electricity systems by 2030. The Government’s ambition at the moment is mostly to decarbonise the power system by 2035, but, again, they have no plan as to how that will actually happen. They have given no indication as to what steps they will take to achieve this, and they are certainly beginning to fail in the implementation of carbon budgets. Bringing forward the decarbonisation of the power system would greatly enhance that and allow us to meet our targets. Labour wants to see the complete decarbonisation of the system by 2030. That does involve massive uplifts in the rate of progress—for example, in offshore wind by five, in solar by three, and in onshore by two—and, indeed, the development of other renewables. In that regard, I recommend that hon. Members have a look at new clause 51.
Dr Whitehead
No, I will not give way again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) has a particularly interesting new clause on tidal range. With the right effort and the right investment, a huge acceleration of build-out can be achieved. Indeed, we have set out our plans on how to do that over the next period. What we need is for that ambition and those plans to be in legislation and in the Bill now.
The Minister did not give any indication in his contribution of whether the Government will move towards any of these amendments, but we hope to press some of them to a vote this afternoon. However, I have to say that we do so within the general setting that we are supportive of the Bill. We want it to succeed, but we want it to succeed with our bits added on, not least because this is the Bill that we will inherit when we are in government shortly. We will then have to do all the work that the Government have set out in the Bill.
Finally, let me say to those hon. Members who are thinking of voting against our amendments that they contain the Government’s own ambitions. What we are trying to do is to put the Government’s own ambition into legislation and provide ways by which it can be achieved. If hon. Members decide to vote against these changes this afternoon, they will, at least in some measure, be voting against their own Government. I hope that they will have sufficient sense to make sure that they do not do so as far as this Bill is concerned.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As Members can see, there are many people who wish to take part in this debate. I know that Alok Sharma will show self-restraint, but we will be imposing a time limit to ensure that we get in as many people as we can. The debate is very time limited. The multiple votes will come at 6 o’clock, so I ask people to show restraint even on the time limit that I impose.
Sir Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I do support the overall aim of the Bill, but, in the interests of brevity, I will limit my comments to new clause 43 on onshore wind. I thank all colleagues who have co-signed this new clause, which of course builds on the excellent work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) led last year when trying to put in place a more permissive planning regime for onshore wind.
Onshore wind is one of the cheapest sources of energy available. It is also one of the quickest to deploy. Getting more home-grown clean energy deployed is about enhancing our energy security, our climate security and our national security, all of which are totally interlinked. It is also ultimately about bringing down bills. That is why onshore wind needs to be a meaningful part of a diversified energy mix.
We currently have 14 GW of installed onshore wind capacity across the UK with the ability to power around 12 million homes. However, as we all know, due to planning rule changes, since 2015 we have had a de facto ban on onshore wind. Just one objection is able to defeat a planning application. Frankly, that is not a sensible way for a planning process to operate. As a result, in England planning permissions have been granted for just 15 wind turbines over the past five years. It is also worth pointing out that, had onshore wind annual build-out rates stayed at the average pre-ban level, an extra 1.7 GW would have been added by last winter. That is the equivalent of powering 1.5 million homes for the entire winter, and it would have avoided between 2% and 3% of the UK’s annual net gas imports being burned in our power stations.
John Redwood
Does my right hon. Friend accept, on the cost argument, that we also need to build a new gas turbine station as back-up for when the wind does not blow?
Sir Alok Sharma
We do need a diversified energy system, and I think the Minister set out all the work that is going on on nuclear, for example. However, as we drive forward for greater energy security, we need to change the planning rules to allow more onshore wind. The objectives of new clause 43 are to ensure a more permissive planning regime. The new clause seeks to lift the current planning restriction that in effect means that a single objection can block a development. It also seeks to ensure that local communities willing to take onshore wind developments will receive direct community benefits.
The Government have today responded to new clause 43 by bringing forward a written ministerial statement on onshore wind. I thank the Government for the constructive dialogue we have had over the past days on this issue. I acknowledge that that written ministerial statement, and indeed the accompanying changes to the national planning policy framework, move things forward and will help to deliver a more permissive planning regime for onshore wind.
The de facto ban is lifted. The statement clarifies that the policy intent is not to allow very limited objections or even a single objection to ban a planning application, and it is explicit that local communities willing to host onshore wind farms should directly benefit, including potentially through energy discounts. That is positive, but we do need to see the Government’s formal response to their consultation on this issue to understand the detail of the precise mechanism by which the benefits regime will work.
I also welcome the fact that local plans will not be the only route to delivering more onshore wind, with more agile and targeted routes available. Of course it is now a requirement for local planning authorities to support community-led initiatives for renewable and low-carbon energy. Vitally, those policy changes are effective today.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman talks about bill payers, but for the previous wind that was built under renewables obligation certificates, there were big profits because the prices were denominated in gas. Under the CfDs, money is not going to the bill payers, but to the Government—it was creamed off the top. The mechanism has to change; I applaud what he is trying to say and do, but there is a missing link on how the bill payer will see a benefit, as they should.
Sir Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman will know that onshore wind has been back as part of the CfD process in the last couple of years. I am very happy at a future date to have a detailed discussion on that but, in the interest of time, I will move on.
I understand that some people would like the planning regime for onshore wind to be even more permissive and for onshore wind to be treated like any other infrastructure. I get that, but we also have to recognise that it has been a contentious issue in the past, and it is important that we take communities with us on this journey. That is why the community benefits mechanism will be so vital. Frankly, people respond better to a carrot than to a stick.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talks about the importance of taking people with us. More wind power will need more energy storage so that we can smooth out for the times when the wind is not blowing. Does he agree that the sort of lithium ion battery storage plants that are proliferating in our country are in need of proper permitting? My new clause 37, which I have been discussing with my hon. Friend the Minister, will help to bring in that sort of permitting and ensure that lithium ion battery storage facilities are sited in the right places.
Sir Alok Sharma
I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that we need more battery storage. That is being rolled out and I am pleased that she has had a discussion with the Minister.
In conclusion, I welcome the written ministerial statement because it moves us forward. It is for that reason that we will not seek to press new clause 43 to a Division.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I start by paying tribute to my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), whose work on energy, particularly on access to clean and affordable energy, was exceptional. I base my ambitions in this role on his record. I also note the Minister’s kind remarks about my hon. Friend and thank him for them.
I want to highlight the abject abandonment of community-owned energy projects in this Bill. It is patently obvious that any just transition to net zero is simply not possible if local communities cannot sell the energy they produce to local customers. Local energy trading provides manifold improvements, including lower prices, protections against price shocks, enhanced energy security, network redundancy and a return on investment back to communities.
The UK Government kicking this can down the road is a hammer blow to efforts to achieve a just transition, and they are doing so without even trying to disguise the fact. Worse still, they have instead provided a paltry £10 million over two years—the Minister left out the “over two years” bit—to fund feasibility studies in England. That is not seedcorn funding; it is chicken feed served up with extra disdain for Scotland and Wales, as the UK Government have steadfastly refused to apply Barnett consequential to this admittedly pitiful sum.
Fundamentally, this sop to Tory Back Benchers does not—as one of the Minister’s Back Benchers said—remove the barriers preventing community energy schemes from selling their power locally. The Local Electricity Bill would have done that, as would amendments made to the Energy Bill had they not been removed by Ministers in Committee in July. Why is this Tory Government so loth to put power in the hands of the people?
Turning to nuclear, English MPs maintain an enduring obsession with nuclear. Their total failure to concede or even rationally acknowledge the catastrophic decommissioning and clean-up costs of that energy source is, by any measure, incredible. As they drag Scotland and Wales along with them for the ride, it is almost as if those English MPs, and indeed the Government, can foresee a time in the not-too-distant future when they will need to buy Scotland’s energy rather than just taking it, as they have got used to doing over recent decades. Nuclear is their insurance policy against Scotland’s independent future.
New nuclear is a millstone around the neck of our net zero future, consuming disproportionate costs per megawatt-hour. If we contrast nuclear with offshore wind, we see that although construction costs for nuclear continue to spiral out of control, and SMR nuclear continues not to get off the ground, the cost of offshore wind has fallen by 80% in a decade. New offshore wind projects coming online within the next two years will be paid about £45 per MWh, which is half the wholesale power price of £90 per MWh forecast until at least the end of the decade, and 60% less than the £115 per MWh of electricity from Hinkley C nuclear power plant.
Tories and Labour Members alike will cry, “This is all about baseload for when the wind does not blow”—I am surprised they have not done so already. Of course, that is correct; we do need baseload, but it does not have to be nuclear. If successive Westminster Governments had invested nearly as much rhetoric and taxpayers’ money creating a renewable energy mix as they have done for nuclear, we would be in a very different place. It would be a place where tidal flow and barrage schemes complement widespread impoundment, pump storage and run-of-river hydro schemes, together with green hydrogen production, battery storage, solar on every appropriate elevation of a domestic or commercial property, and timely delivery of carbon capture, usage and storage.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman makes a point that must be recognised and understood for the future. Before Hinkley Point was commissioned, the question was of providing 6 GW of nuclear baseload rather than just 6 GW of baseload, and of seeing whether there could be a mix of green energy, as he argues, or if it would have to be nuclear energy. By prescribing the way the Government have in the past while sticking to 2012 index-linked CfD prices, nuclear is a way to make and print money very quickly.
Dave Doogan
My hon. Friend is correct. Over and above the self-evident environmental consequences of nuclear, the way in which this and successive Westminster Governments have fiscally mismanaged the pursuit of nuclear leaves nothing to the imagination.
To continue my remarks, we do not live in that place. We live here in broke, broken Britain. The Bill fails the people on energy once again because it is bereft of strategy and completely loses control of costs. If we want to evidence such calamitous incompetence, we need look no further than auction round 5, or, more specifically, the strike price therein. That price threatens to kill off construction-ready projects from that auction round. At the very best, it will mean even less of the additional supply chain value landing in domestic companies and local workers’ bank accounts, further deepening the cost of living crisis. Penny wise, pound foolish.
Contrast that with the strategic ambition of the Scottish Government, who are investing in communities by maximising the economic, supply chain and employment opportunities of onshore and offshore wind, with up to £1.4 billion of developer supply chain commitments on average across Scotland. I have seen the extraordinary investment and opportunity at Montrose port in my Angus constituency with Seagreen, but we need sustained investment to win those crucial multiplier effects and make the just transition a systemic reality for our communities.
David Duguid
I welcome the hon. Member to his new role and pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).
The hon. Member gave a whole list of reasons why there would be an absence of baseload in Scotland, but I think I may have missed the point where he suggested how that baseload would be supplemented in the absence of nuclear. Could he clarify that? Does it include a new gas-fired power station in Peterhead with carbon capture, usage and storage?
Dave Doogan
The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct: he did miss me highlighting what would replace that baseload, and I refer him to Hansard after today’s debate.
The challenges of inflation and interest rates have altered the parameters to such an extent that this Government’s pretence that it is business as usual is breathtaking. Have they not seen what happened in the recent auction round in Spain or, conversely, what happened in Ireland when the Irish Government intervened to protect investment in renewables and reaped the benefit and reward for their economy?
If projects do slip from allocation round 5 as a result of an unrealistic strike price, where do Ministers think the supply chain capacity, the skilled workers and the specialist vessels will go? They will not wait around here, waiting for the Department to get its sums right—they will be off to the US and the EU to access commercially cogent incentive packages such as those found in the Inflation Reduction Act or the EU’s Net-Zero Industry Act. The stakes could not be higher for both net zero commitments and UK energy prices.
I am proud that the SNP has worked to protect people from the worst effects of the Westminster cost of living crisis with our amendments to the Bill, with steps that would protect the next phase of contracts for difference projects within AR5, properly provide for a comprehensive and complementary mix of energy storage solutions, advance local supply rights and work towards supporting our most vulnerable with the development of a social tariff, especially for those with higher energy use caused by medical conditions. I am pleased that the SNP’s new clause 39 will be put to a vote this evening, and I urge all Members to support that provision, which, while modest in scope, would have profoundly positive effects on many in our rural constituencies who live off the grid and have to heat their homes through liquid fuel.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman makes his intervention, I inform the House that there will be a four-minute time limit on Back Benchers introduced from the start.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a small issue that makes a big difference. The energy bills support scheme, which was very harsh, ended far too soon and has caused an awful lot of problems. This has been covered by Radio 4, and people have written letters about it—I have a letter here from Stourport, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who is a member of my Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. People the length and breadth of the UK are feeling the harshness of the Government’s penny-pinching and tight deadlines, and those who live in caravan parks or on boats are being especially hammered by this. This Government should listen and make a difference. One of the big things affecting people watching this debate today is that they are not getting that £400 for the last year.
Dave Doogan
I agree entirely, and I echo the calls from my Scottish National party Westminster leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), who wants to see the £400 support package reintroduced. The idea that the pressure on household budgets from energy prices has somehow gone away is for the birds.
Energy security is not some abstract area of Government policy, nor is the purchase of energy a discretionary one for homes and businesses in our constituencies. Failing to legislate and plan strategically in this area, as Westminster has done in perpetuity, is the very reason people are facing the choice between heating and eating. It is the same reason that businesses across these islands have closed their doors due to energy costs. The exorbitant cost of energy in the UK is a function of supply-side constraint, and this Government have compounded that through incompetence, inaction, lack of ambition, penny-wise, pound-foolish misadventure and their obsession with nuclear.
Just imagine how much more perilous the situation for energy consumers in England would be if they never had Scotland’s energy powerhouse to shore up this Government’s incompetence and spaffing money on nuclear left, right and centre. This Bill was an opportunity to make up lost ground and catch up with functioning unions—the United States and the European Union—but as usual, the dysfunctional United Kingdom gets it wrong again, and it is ordinary taxpayers and bill payers who will pick up the pieces and pay the cost. There is one reason why households in energy-rich Scotland are facing fuel poverty and haemorrhaging household budgets on energy costs, and it is sitting in this Chamber: the UK Government.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind Members of the four-minute limit.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
A core pillar of this Bill is the delivery of a safe, secure and resilient UK energy system, but no energy system can be safe and secure when it risks undermining our food security and contravenes our values by using forced labour throughout its supply chains. We live in a contested world, and there is no doubt that energy security is one of the greatest challenges of our time, but we can have no security when our energy system is riddled with forced labour from a hostile state. The use of forced labour—specifically, Uyghur forced labour—in supply chains not only contradicts our ethical and moral values, but undermines our fight for human rights across the globe. We cannot go green on Uyghur blood-red labour.
Beyond the morals, there are serious commercial and security risks. British and international manufacturers that do not use slave labour—that abide by our modern slavery laws—are being priced out and undercut by Chinese suppliers that do not care. That contravenes all notions of fair market competition and punishes those who play by the rules, supporting only the communist People’s Republic of China state-backed enterprises. We are unnecessarily undermining our security when we do not tackle this problem.
Turning to the two new clauses that I tabled, I will not move new clause 48, but I will make the point that it is about moving to a rooftop-first strategy. We must make sure that we stop targeting the best and most versatile land. At my last count, 77 solar plants are currently proposed in Lincolnshire and bordering counties, totalling 38,000 acres of good arable land. That is wrong, but as I say, I will not move the new clause.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
My hon. Friend is entirely right in her argument, but this is not just about the overall number of sites. Individual projects take up over 3,500 acres in my constituency, industrialising a piece of beautiful English countryside and destroying the lives of five villages. In fact, if anything, my hon. Friend’s clause does not go far enough.
Alicia Kearns
I thank my right hon. Friend, who as always makes very valid points. In my own constituency, one village will be 95% encircled by solar that will be 13 feet high, in one of the areas that produces the greatest food in our country.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
These solar farms make absolutely no sense to people when we are in a food security crisis, but also, tenant farmers are being ousted. The landowners often live miles and miles away and could not give two hoots about the land they are selling off, and it does not work. We need a really strong steer from Government, which we were promised in our prime ministerial leadership campaigns last year.
Alicia Kearns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: farmers want to conserve and to grow the food of this nation. They do not want to turn to solar, which landowners are often doing.
Sir John Hayes
Further to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), meanwhile, solar on buildings is absent. One drives around the country and sees huge warehouses, commercial buildings and office blocks with not a solar panel to be seen. Those panels are going on to land that should be growing food to produce the food security that this country needs. Food security and energy security combined means national resilience.
Alicia Kearns
I absolutely agree. That is why I still urge the Government to bring forward a strategy on rooftop solar—they can do so.
Turning to new clause 47, the UK has tough modern slavery laws. It is evident that we want to do something about that issue, but we cannot outsource the protection of human rights. There are developers who utilise forced labour in their supply chains—who not only violate our ethical and moral values but, as I say, pose a commercial risk. We cannot be reliant on Uyghur slave labour. Alan Crawford and Laura Murphy recently released landmark reports into the use of Uyghur forced labour in solar supply chains. They have made very clear that across the UK, there is just too much. Some 40% of all solar that is built in the UK is affected, and 45% of all polysilicon and solar panels around the world come from Xinjiang—they are made with slave labour. It is shocking to see that five pages of the recent report from Sheffield Hallam were dedicated to just one supplier, Canadian Solar, which is planning to build in this country and is a serial applicant. These same companies are tariff dodging repeatedly and trying to hide the reality of what they are doing.
My new clause 47 is very straightforward: it seeks to increase transparency. When a Minister makes a decision on a proposal of this magnitude, they should have full sight of whether there is forced slave labour within the application. Currently, a Minister making a decision on a nationally significant infrastructure project has no idea if the vast majority of the product to be put on British soil will be made with slave labour. I hope this will deter these companies and force them to finally choose to produce polysilicon without slave labour. There is no onus on the Government, there is no cost implication for them and I am not forcing their; I am asking for transparency, not least given that the US and the EU have both brought forward enormous Bills that deal with forced Uyghur labour in their countries or their areas of influence.
We have done nothing, and the reality is that we never walk the walk, but just talk the talk when it comes to the Uyghur. I cannot think of one piece of legislation that this Government have brought forward since my election that deals with Uyghur slave labour, yet we go to Beijing and then claim that we have raised it, based on no reality. Unfortunately, I have heard absolutely nothing today to reassure me that we genuinely want to deal with this, and that we recognise that it is not just in solar but across the energy footprint and is not just in China but in other places where components are made with slave labour. Therefore, at the moment I am minded to press the new clause to make sure that we finally deal with the reality of what we are facing and get some transparency within the system for our Ministers.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Member will have our full support if she does press the new clause. We should add another argument, which is that the countries that use forced labour, especially China, have a commercial advantage, and we are going to find ourselves dependent upon them for energy sources in the future.
Alicia Kearns
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. That is the exactly the point I would make.
The new clause speaks for itself: this is about transparency and finally dealing with the forced labour being imposed on our countryside. The path we choose today will define not just define our values but the legacy that we leave for future generations and for our children. I hope the House will make the right choice.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 51, tabled in my name, concerning tidal range power. In 1966, the world’s first ever tidal power station became operational on the Rance river in Brittany. More than 50 years later, the station is less than halfway through its predicted lifespan of 120 years, and is continuing to generate an annual output of approximately 600 GWh of clean energy. Since then, the station has been surpassed in scale and generating capacity by the Sihwa Lake tidal power station in South Korea. The proven success of these schemes over many decades demonstrates the enormous potential of tidal range generation as a renewable, indigenous source of net zero energy. When confronted by the existential challenge of climate collapse and the necessity of decarbonising our energy system, as well as the need to guarantee our energy security in an increasingly volatile global energy market, I believe we now need to be looking with new urgency at the role that tidal range generation has to play in the United Kingdom’s future energy mix.
The UK, more than any other country in the world, is uniquely positioned to harness the power of our tides. We have the second highest tidal range in the world, and half of all of Europe’s tidal energy capacity is found in Britain. Already well developed plans for tidal range projects across the west coast promise to mobilise and deliver 10 GW of net zero energy, with the potential for 10 GW of additional capacity. In Merseyside alone, the much anticipated Mersey tidal power project could generate enough energy to power 1 million homes, yet we have consistently failed to harness the awesome power of our tides.
While there has been some welcome progress in the development of smaller tidal stream technologies in recent years, leading to tidal stream’s inclusion in the fourth allocation of the contracts for difference scheme, the possibilities of large-scale tidal range generation have been largely ignored by the Government since the decision in 2018 by the then Business Secretary to deny funding for the Swansea tidal lagoon. There was only passing mention of tidal in last year’s energy security strategy, and tidal range is not covered by this Bill. It has been excluded entirely from the national policy statements on energy infrastructure projects. I am assured that this situation will be rectified when the revised NPS for energy, EN-1, is published later this year.
The aim of my amendment is simple: it seeks to establish funding for an independent and evidence-led study into the opportunities and risks of tidal range generation as the vital first step towards establishing investor and Government confidence in this technology. This study is a central task of the British Hydropower Association, which represents the interests of the UK hydropower community. The study would consider the role of tidal range generation in the UK’s future energy mix and the role that tidal range, as a predictable and reliable energy source, has to play in meeting our energy needs at times when seasonal factors and weather systems interrupt supply from solar and wind.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I support Government new clause 63 and welcome their bringing it forward. I had tabled amendment 8 and new clauses 40 and 50, each of which in different ways sought to give the Government the powers they needed to extend the existing renewable transport fuel obligation so that it might cover domestic heating fuels for off-grid properties. Government new clause 63 achieves that, creating the same power by replicating section 124 of the Energy Act 2004, and therefore I will not press my amendment or new clauses to a Division. I thank the Minister for the work he has put in on this; we have discussed it many times and I know he has worked hard to get a cross-Government consensus.
I also welcome the Minister’s commitment to a consultation. Some Members have questioned the timing of it, but we all have to be realistic about how long these things can take and the fact that a consultation needs to be done properly, and we should therefore accept in good faith the undertaking he has given at the Dispatch Box today. So I support that.
I want to address a point raised earlier by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and reassure him that I did not hang him out to dry. I am very conscious of the fact that Northern Ireland has 400,000 homes that are off the gas grid, and when discussing the Government new clause proposal last week, I highlighted the fact that Northern Ireland was a special case. The Minister has given an undertaking that conversations are continuing with officials in Northern Ireland, and I hope we can find a resolution to that issue.
My final point is not really a matter for today’s Bill: the associated issue of the proposed ban on replacement boilers for off-grid homes currently proposed for 2026. I know that the Government will be looking at that—it is a consequential consideration following an amendment they have put forward today—and I look forward to hearing what Ministers will have to say about it in due course.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 35. My amendment is about funding for decarbonising homes and I hope Members across the House will agree that it is badly needed. Our homes are among the least energy-efficient in Europe and heating them accounts for 14% of all UK carbon emissions. If we do not retrofit around 29 million existing homes in the UK we will not be able to reach net zero by 2050. This is a mammoth task, so we must act now.
However, decarbonising housing is not just about tackling the climate crisis: millions of people are living in freezing homes that are expensive to heat, left at the mercy of the volatile gas market. Poor-quality housing is costing people their health and even their lives. Retrofitting homes would reduce bills, make homes safer and improve people’s quality of life. It would also create new jobs in every part of the country, helping build the green economy we so desperately need.
The Climate Change Committee has found that people accept the need to make changes to their homes, but they need well-designed policies to help them to act. The biggest barrier for many will be the up-front cost. The Government have funding to retrofit the homes of people on low incomes, and that is available through the social housing decarbonisation fund and the sustainable warmth fund, but the amount on offer just is not enough, particularly given the rising labour and material costs. In fact, last year, the number of Government-funded energy efficiency measures installed in UK homes dropped by half, year on year. It is now a shocking 97% below 2012 levels.
If the Government had not cut energy efficiency support in 2013, just imagine how many more people might have spent last winter in a comfortable home and how many fewer families would have had to choose between heating and eating. Short-sighted Tory cuts have cost us a decade in a fight we cannot afford to lose. We need long-term consistent funding and a clear road map of how the decarbonisation of housing will be achieved. Local authorities are uniquely placed to understand the needs of their area and to target schemes where they can provide the most benefits. In Nottingham, against the odds, more than 4,000 homes have been retrofitted by the city council in the past decade. Just imagine what more could be achieved by councils across the country with long-term predictable funding for decarbonising homes. The amendment is calling for the Government to undertake an assessment of the benefits of providing this funding to local authorities. I hope the House will invest in our future by supporting new clause 35.
Craig Mackinlay
I suppose that the volume of my amendments probably speaks for itself, but I have a great interest in this Bill. I am aware of the limitation of time this afternoon, so I will keep my observations to the two areas that I think are fundamentally important.
I absolutely despise this Bill. I have been in this House for eight years, and I have rarely seen a Bill of such nature. It is 426 pages, and it has attracted 146 pages of amendments. That means it has a lot of interest, but I want to discuss two of the amendments that I have tabled.
First, amendment 50 relates to clause 152(4) and the hydrogen grid conversion trials. The clause seeks to amend the Gas Act 1986, and I am particularly concerned by subsection (4), which increases the rights and powers available to unknown new inspectors. It includes the
“power to enter premises in the trial location for the purpose of inspecting anything on the premises, or carrying out any tests on the premises, in preparation for or otherwise in connection with the trial.”
My amendment, which I tabled with others, would interpose at least a magistrate—a justice of the peace—in that proposal before we start entering people’s premises. We accept that in other energy matters. For example, to have a meter changed, it has to go through a magistrates court. I know that well, as I used to sit as one.
Clause 248 causes me the most gross concern. It is the reason that I hope an amendment can be accepted, although I know it was not selected by Mr Speaker. The clause is titled “Sanctions”, and I suppose it does what it says on the tin. Subsection (4) states: “Energy performance regulations”—which are unknown and may be put into place in this House in the future by statutory instrument—
“may provide for the imposition of civil penalties by enforcement authorities”
for a penalty of up to £15,000 for not complying with those regulations. Were that not bad enough, all in this House should sit up and take notice of subsection (3) —I know it is a big Bill. It states that energy performance regulations, which are as yet unknown, but are available to be put on the statute book in the future by statutory instrument,
“may provide for the creation of criminal offences”
in relation to various cases, with imprisonment for a term of up to 12 months.
I do not know about other Members in the House, but I rather like “The Shawshank Redemption”. It is a great film. I can imagine the old lags in the future having a chat about why they are in prison. One might say, “I’ve done benefit fraud—£50,000-worth—and I got six months.” Another might say, “I had dangerous driving causing an injury—8 months.” The businessman talking to them will say, “I had a very good business with 20 people working for me in a factory. They have all been put out of work. My business has closed and my family are on the street.” The others will say, “What on earth did you do, sir?” and he will say, “I infringed an energy performance certificate, and I got 12 months.”
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Member agree that that could be for something as simple as renting out premises without having shown the EPC for them? It is a ridiculous situation.
Craig Mackinlay
My right hon. Friend has it exactly right. Hence I feel that when we in this place are creating criminal penalties that could put our fellow citizens in prison for 12 months for an unknown offence of the future relating to net zero, we have a duty to discuss them properly. This must be the first time we are potentially criminalising people in this country for not adhering to the new code of net zero. We should not be doing it lightly. We should be doing it carefully and with consideration. It should not be done by statutory instrument.
John Redwood
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this issue to all in the House. I hope that the Government will take urgent action to get rid of it, because it is completely unacceptable. It also shows how little time we have to discuss fundamental issues.
Craig Mackinlay
My right hon. Friend has put his finger exactly on the pulse. This is a substantial Bill. I say to the Minister that I hope the Government will strip out criminal penalties for not adhering to unknown net zero certification, EPCs and all the rest of it in the future for something as simple as not complying with some of these net zero regulations. This is really serious. I hope that when the Bill returns to the other end of the Palace, consideration can be given to strip out such proposals.
I could have gone on at huge length this afternoon. I tabled many amendments because these are overweening powers trying to push and nudge us and to ban things. All I can imagine is that the Chinese embassy will be looking at the Bill with great enthusiasm, as it will drive even more of our high-energy businesses offshore. China will be pleased that it will be able to sell us more solar panels and wind turbines based on its steel, produced on the back of very cheap coal power. That is what we are doing here: driving our high-energy businesses offshore. This is not a recipe for energy security; this is a recipe for energy disaster.
I could talk at length about what is wrong with the net zero proposals banning cars, banning oil boilers, banning this and banning that. That is not what we do as Conservatives. We actually allow freedoms. We allow the market to decide. The Bill goes in the wrong direction.
Caroline Lucas
There are some elements of the Bill to commend, not least the net zero duty on Ofgem, but overall it fails to deliver the scale of ambition we need or to set out a vision of an energy system free not just from Putin’s influence but from expensive and polluting oil and gas in their entirety. My amendments would address that failing.
New clause 29 would prohibit the approval of new oil and gas field developments and the issuing of new oil and gas exploration and production licences. I am sure that the Minister will seek to paint the new clause as somehow incredibly radical and the policy of Just Stop Oil, pretending that it would recklessly turn off the taps tomorrow. He will no doubt trot out the same tired lines about a quarter of the UK’s energy continuing to come from oil and gas in 2050. In reality, the new clause is far from radical. It would simply do what the science tells us is necessary if we are to secure a liveable future for ourselves and our children and rule out any new oil and gas licences. In doing so, it would follow the advice of experts including the Climate Change Committee, which in its latest report was clear:
“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero.”
It acknowledges that while the UK will continue to need some oil and gas until the target is met,
“this does not in itself justify the development of…North Sea fields.”
Yet rather than heeding that warning, just one month later we had the former Secretary of State vowing to max out the North sea’s remaining oil and gas reserves. The Government re-announced 100 new licences and it was not ruling out the prospect of Rosebank.
However hard they try to obfuscate and evade, Ministers cannot deny the fact that, without additional abatement, the projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure would already exceed the remaining carbon budget for a safe climate. Any oil and gas extracted from the North sea belongs not to us but to multinational companies, which will sell it to the highest bidder on the global market. The majority of fossil fuel projects in the pipeline are for oil, not gas, and will do nothing to boost energy security, given we currently export 80% of the oil that we extract.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The rest of the world has woken up to the reality that the energy transition is here to stay. Investment in fossil fuels is reducing at such a rate that, while 10 years ago capital investment in oil was six times that of solar power, this year for the first time solar received more investment than oil. Last year, UK renewable power generated more electricity than fossil fuels. The cost of those technologies fell faster than ever predicted, with electricity production from renewables nine times cheaper than from gas.
Markets and investors across the world recognise that net zero is the future. Today we can only help or hinder that future, but we cannot stop it. The energy transition is an economic reality that, as legislators, we can either speed up, ensuring that the UK benefits from the economic opportunities and investments that can be ours if we so choose, or we can slow it down. To do so—to delay and hinder the transition—would merely cause the UK catastrophic economic self-harm. Investments will go elsewhere. Companies will locate elsewhere. Jobs will be created not here, but elsewhere.
As legislators, this is the choice we face: net zero and our economic future, or not zero with increasing costs and a loss of growth that will never come this way again. For that reason, I support the Bill, which seeks to maintain progress in the energy transition. However, we can and should go further. Yes, we must expand our use of renewable and clean energy, but the reality is that the UK should commit to phasing out fossil fuels. We do not need new oil and gas fields, which will only become stranded assets far sooner than we think. We do not need new oil and gas exploration licences for fossil fuels that are not ours to keep—as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made clear—but are sold on international markets and are rapidly losing market share and demand.
The truth is that, if we are truly serious about tackling climate change and delivering a green industrial revolution in the UK, focusing our finite investments, workforce and time on the energy transition, there is no place for new oil and gas fields or new coalmines. None of my amendments can be considered radical. Legislating to prevent the opening of new companies simply maintains a commitment that the UK sought to make to the rest of the world at COP26. Legislation to remove coal-fired electricity production from the grid simply puts into law a commitment that the Government have made to the ending of coal-fired generation by the end of 2024. Legislating to leave the energy charter treaty, which penalises nations for not maintaining investments in fossil fuels, simply ensures the UK follows the rest of Europe in doing so. Legislating to ban gas flaring and venting by 2025, which is responsible for methane emissions that are 54 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, simply brings forward a commitment from 2030, and is something that Norway has had in place since 1971. And legislating to establish an independent body to advise on when to end new oil and gas licensing in the UK seeks to depoliticise an issue on which we need to find a responsible consensus that can be supported cross-party, for it is too important to seek to divide and play politics with.
Tonight, in that spirit of cross-party collaboration and knowing that this is too important to get wrong or to fall short, I too am willing to back any amendments that I believe will deliver the energy transition more effectively. I hope all Members across this House will consider doing the same.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I would like to speak briefly to new clause 36, tabled in my name. New clause 36 asks—no, implores—this House to consider a national energy guarantee, which is also known as a rising block tariff combined with a social tariff. It is a system of energy pricing that shows that social and environmental goals can be advanced together. It really does embody a green new deal in action.
There are some in this House who claim that tackling the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis is a zero-sum game; that we can only do one or the other. The amendment blows a hole right through that falsehood. The reality of the current system in use by the Government is that too many people—millions of them and growing—are falling into fuel poverty. It is a system that simply is not fit for purpose. Let us be clear. Higher energy prices are not a blip. They are here to stay. Research from Cornwall Insight shows that energy prices will remain
“significantly above the five year pre-2021 historic average”
until at least the end of the decade. Even though Ofgem’s price cap will come down in October, the average bill will still be nearly double what it was in 2021, before prices soared. Millions of households will pay more this winter, given the Government’s energy assistance schemes have ended for most.
Up and down the UK, energy debt is soaring. Citizens Advice reports that nearly 8 million people borrowed to pay their bills in the first six months of this year. A quarter of people say that their energy bill is the cost they are most worried about. In my own city of Norwich, the rate of reporting fuel debts has increased by a staggering 300%. Yet by subsidising the unit price, the Government’s energy price guarantee disproportionately benefited well-off households and did nothing to incentivise energy demand reduction and decarbonisation.
The national energy guarantee will ensure that everyone can afford the essential energy they need, while cutting carbon. Here is how it works. Everyone gets a free energy allowance that covers 50% of essential needs. Households with higher needs, such as those with children or disabled residents, would get a larger allowance. The next 50% of energy used is charged at a reduced rate, matched to 2021 prices. Beyond that, a carbon-busting premium tariff kicks in. The result is that around 80% of us will have lower bills, while wealthier high-energy users will pay more but can reduce their bills by installing energy-saving measures such as insulation.
In one fell swoop, we will have protected essential energy needs, reduced bills and incentivised a ramping up of decarbonisation of our housing sector—crucial if we are to meet our net zero commitments. I urge and implore the House to support new clause 36.
David Duguid
In the interests of time, I will limit my remarks to carbon capture and storage, and the impact of offshore wind on other commercial activities at sea, specifically fishing. If I have time at the end, I will talk about hydrogen and maybe even the future of oil and gas.
I welcome the announcement on 31 July by the Prime Minister in my constituency confirming the Acorn CCS and hydrogen project; that will mean that four CCUS clusters will be operational by the end of the decade. The Scottish cluster is particularly crucial for my constituency of Banff and Buchan, as well as the whole of Scotland, not just for the estimated 21,000 jobs the project is predicted to support but to enable the construction of a new CCS power station at Peterhead. That power station will replace the existing one, which is currently the only dispatchable thermal power station north of Leeds. It will be critical is providing stable baseload in support of intermittent renewable sources of energy, and will do so in a way that is 95% emission-free.
Again in the interests of time, I am not going to speak about every single amendment that I tabled, but I hope the Minister will bear with me and perhaps respond to the following questions. In respect of clause 2, which deals with licensable activities and their prohibition, can he clarify whether, or why, an economic licence would be required specifically over and above the geological storage licence that would be granted under the existing regulatory regime, namely the Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010? Will private operators be able to develop merchant models in competitive transport and/or storage markets in the longer term?
As the Minister will know, the UK has about a third of Europe’s entire offshore carbon dioxide storage potential undersea, roughly equal to that of all the other EU states combined. Only Norway has slightly more than the UK in the North sea. This enormous potential to offer CO2 storage services to European and other countries presents an opportunity for the UK to become a global leader in CCUS, and accelerate the global efforts to prevent CO2 emissions. How will cross-border transport and geological storage of carbon dioxide be enabled to develop in time, without having to rely on the granting of exemptions to allow private networks to develop? Can the Minister also confirm that it will be possible to facilitate transportation by ship, and any other means of transport other than pipeline, through regulation, and that that is covered adequately by clause 128(1)(a)? I see him nodding.
Finally, may I raise the subject of offshore wind? The fishing industry understands that energy security matters, and that offshore wind has an important part to play in the overall energy mix, but food security matters too. The Minister will be aware of studies which have shown that up to half our seas could be lost to fishing owing to other activities, including offshore wind. Academic studies carried out by Heriot-Watt University, among others, have shown the impact that electromagnetic fields from subsea cables have had on the migration, growth and development—including abnormalities—of crabs and lobsters. The Energy Bill already makes provision for the principle of a levy to address the environmental impact of these new wind farms, which is absolutely right and proper, so what consideration—including engagement with devolved Administrations, as required—has been given, or could be given, to the businesses, industries and coastal communities that will inevitably be impacted by offshore wind operations?
Last month, the think-tank Onward published a compelling paper arguing for statutory payments, from developers, to be made to communities where—if and when—onshore wind was developed. If that principle is fair, payments for actual loss of earnings to other marine business from offshore developments are even more compelling as a principle. I am aware of the various voluntary codes and guidance that are available, but they have so far proved to be insufficient. If the Minister is unable to respond to that last question today, will he agree to meet me, and representatives from the fishing industry, to discuss how best to embed a fair and equitable principle in Government action, that would come at no cost to His Majesty’s Treasury?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The UK has a responsibility to deliver an effective net zero strategy. This Energy Bill provided a chance to ensure that the Government’s own climate commitments could be met. Some parts of the Bill are welcome, but as it stands, it presents us with many missed opportunities. The Liberal Democrats fully support the establishment of the independent systems operator, and I am pleased that the Government have finally listened and given Ofgem a net zero duty. However, I am disappointed that the Government removed sensible amendments in Committee, such as the amendment to ban new coalmines, and I strongly support new clause 2.
Let me now focus on the Liberal Democrats’ new clauses 11, 12, 15, 24 and 28. The aim of new clause 28 is to ban fracking permanently. Fracked fuel is a fossil fuel; it hardens our reliance on expensive gas, and it flies in the face of our net zero commitments. The Government’s own experts have said that the seismic activity caused by hydraulic fracking is not safe. It is incomprehensible that the Government ever considered lifting the ban, and it caused huge anxiety among communities across the country. That must never happen again.
Last year, Shell forcibly installed prepayment meters in more than 4,000 homes, while making £32 billion in profits. Those on prepayment meters typically spent about £130 a year more than direct debit customers. Why are so many vulnerable people forced into this? The Government must support my new clause 15 to prohibit the installation of new prepayment meters unless consumers explicitly request them.
Solar is one of the cheapest forms of energy, and again it is incomprehensible that this Government do not give it the support that it deserves. The Climate Change Committee says that UK solar power deployment is significantly behind the Government’s target of 70 GW by 2035. The smart export guarantee should incentivise households to invest in solar panels by allowing them to sell the excess electricity produced back to the grid. However, under the current system it will take householders decades to break even and this will not incentivise solar investment. Our Liberal Democrat new clause 11 aims to enhance the reward under the smart export guarantee.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
In the short time I have, may I introduce a slight note of caution? I was impressed by the almost Tiggerish performance by the Minister—he is very persuasive on this Bill—but what concerns me is what is guiding Government policy and, dare I say it, the policy of many in this House. The Climate Change Act 2008, and the further legislation in 2019 when our Government increased the cut in carbon emissions to 100% by 2050, introduced targets that in my humble opinion were not really thought through. The practical consequences have not been thought through, and they are becoming more and more evident today as we discuss these difficult issues.
Do not let me mislead people in the House. I, like everyone here, want to break away from fossil fuel and have cleaner air. The green revolution is coming, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said, but we have to be careful not to bring it in so quickly that it is not available, it is not affordable and, when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, it does not work. Strategically, we are an island nation and we have to keep the lights on. Our duty as MPs is to say to our constituents, “I can guarantee that when you go to your light switch or to make a cup of tea or cook a meal, the power will be there to do all that, and to drive your car from A to B.”
At the moment there is a great drive for electric cars, but they are expensive and the plug-in points and investment are nowhere near ready for that revolution. There are also many questions about where the batteries and the resources for them will come from. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) about the slave labour that applies to many parts of the battery industry.
We are now on our fourth carbon budget—I do not know whether people know that—running from 2023 to 2027, and the Government are being guided by that. The Climate Change Committee advises on the carbon budget, and the Government can be legally challenged once it is in place. The budget is set for five years, so the question now is: what about our democracy? In my humble opinion, we are debating these crucial issues for probably the first time. It was pushed through in 2008 and 2018, and we are now facing the consequences of those decisions. If we have to fall back on the courts to decide on the policies we make in this place, we can recall the anxiety and grief that that caused on the Brexit issue. In my view, that is completely unacceptable.
There are three consequences: in 18 months’ time, no new house will be fitted with a gas boiler; in seven years’ time, petrol cars will be illegal; and in 12 years’ time, people will not be able to replace their boiler like for like.
Ian Paisley
Is it not the case that, after car batteries expire, most of them end up in landfill? This is another significant problem we need to take stock of when these issues are considered.
Richard Drax
It is. I have read many articles, not least by Mr Bean who, as we know, is a car expert. He wrote a very good article in The Guardian about why we are not quite ready for battery cars. If my wife or daughter is travelling from A to B, I want her to get there safely, as she can in a petrol or diesel car, without having to wait in a petrol section for some minutes to recharge her car, which then takes half an hour or so.
Our actions have consequences, and I urge the Government to think this through very carefully. We cannot impoverish our country to meet what I would call, in some cases, an almost cultish policy to turn this country into something we cannot afford. When we can afford it, and when it works, that is when we should adopt all these policies. I urge caution as the Government go forward.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as my husband is the company secretary of Sheffield Renewables, a community benefit society that funds, develops, owns and operates renewable energy systems in Sheffield.
I rise to speak in support of a number of amendments that would be vital additions to the Bill. It was a pleasure to sit on the Public Bill Committee to debate, at great length, many of the issues that have been raised today. I still feel the Bill is missing its intended purpose, as the Government put it, to
“deliver a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system for the long term.”
We are in a climate and nature emergency, and we are now seeing its effects. We are also facing the worst cost of living crisis in decades. Although I am pleased the Minister has listened to Members on both sides of the House on the hydrogen levy, there is still a lot more to do.
The Bill could have been our opportunity to tackle these issues head on, transitioning away from climate-wrecking fossil fuels while making energy affordable for everyone. Sadly, in its current form, it fails on those fronts. First and foremost, the Bill will fail to make energy more affordable for my constituents. National Energy Action has warned that 6.3 million households could be trapped in fuel poverty this winter, and by 2024 some households will face spending up to a quarter of their income on energy bills.
We need to overhaul our broken energy pricing system, not have more tinkering around the edges. I am proud to support new clause 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), which would introduce a national energy guarantee. This idea needs to be considered, as we need to make sure that the burden of the transition does not fall on those who are least able to meet it.
Secondly and shockingly, the Bill fails to deliver any energy efficiency measures. There is nothing about how we will achieve the targets that have been set. The latest CCC report is clear that the Government need to rapidly scale up and accelerate energy efficiency to stand any hope of meeting legally binding decarbonisation targets. Obviously, the greenest energy is energy that is not used, and the more we can do to reduce the need for energy in poor-quality housing the better.
New clauses 33 and 35 aim to correct the current position by making it a legal requirement for the Government to produce an energy demand reduction plan and providing local authorities with funding for the decarbonisation of homes. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for tabling those new clauses, and I urge the Government to support them.
Finally, the Bill fails to decarbonise at speed and scale. Again, the latest CCC report could not be clearer:
“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero”.
New clauses 2 and 29 would prohibit coalmines and new oil and gas respectively. New clause 30 would phase down UK petroleum, and new clause 59 would decarbonise electricity supply by 2030. They could and should have been central pillars of the Bill. They are about how we can transform our energy system and meet Labour’s ambitious plans to be a green energy superpower by 2030. However, the Government have removed many new clauses that were won in the Lords—for example, the one on banning new coalmines—and Ministers are refusing to support any such measures today. Instead, they waited until MPs went home over the summer to give the green light to hundreds of new North sea oil and gas licences, without proper scrutiny, in a damning indictment of this Government’s record on climate action. Those are not the only amendments that would help to raise the ambition in this Bill that the Government have removed.
Finally, I wish to mention the importance of new clause 7. The treaty that has been outlined is holding us back and we need to be on the front foot with this. I hope that Ministers will reconsider whether or not we should be part of this treaty in the future.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
This is a great Bill and I congratulate the Government as it takes us a huge step forward. Back in 2015, when I believe the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) was the shadow Energy Minister, I was Energy Minister and we announced we were taking coal off the system by 2025. I recall that at that time the whole world was up in arms, saying, “Oh no, the lights will go out. This will never happen.” Yet by 2020 coal was almost off the system and today there is hardly ever any use of coal. That demonstrates what can happen when a Government set a direction of travel, put the funding behind it and let businesses and investors get on with it. It is a huge accolade for a Conservative Government, who then stand aside and let private investment come in. It is time that we committed ourselves to building new nuclear baseload, as that is vital. We can be proud of our achievements on offshore wind and the commitment now to carbon capture, usage and storage—that has been too long in coming but I am pleased to see it.
Time is tight, but I wish to refer to my new clause 60, which calls for a specific problem to be tackled in a specific way. We all have major concerns in our constituencies, where communities do not wish to see huge electricity pylons, great big wind turbines and great big industrial sites related to energy in their area. Yet we know that we need new onshore wind, lots of solar and lots of electricity pylons. My new clause proposes to make it much easier to build the 600 km of new electricity cabling and pylons that we need by 2030 to meet our power decarbonisation targets alongside major road and rail routes. As things stand, communities understandably object to these huge pieces of kit going through their areas, and then these things get delayed and delayed. In the past eight or so years, we have built only about 30 km of new pylons but we need about 600 km by 2030. We need to get our skates on. The Government can help by making it much easier for planning—
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I completely agree with the point the right hon. Lady is making. Does she agree that Governments across the UK—transmission infrastructure is a matter where the Welsh Government have competence—should be looking at cable ploughing technology as a way forward? It enables “undergrounding” at a far cheaper cost and in a far more environmental way than traditional undergrounding.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but he will know that over their lifetime it costs over five times as much to put cables underground as overground. While I agree that burying them is better in sensitive areas, that will not offer the faster and cheaper solution that overground cables, alongside major roads and rail tracks, would offer.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
We all want to cut emissions and tackle climate change, but people continue to suffer from the cost of living crisis. It is important that the cost of transitioning to lower carbon alternatives is not left to individuals to shoulder on their own.
The Government propose phasing out the use of high-carbon fossil fuel heating from the gas grid by banning the installation of new gas-fuelled boilers from 2026, and they advocate the alternative of heat pumps. While heat pumps have an important role to play in the decarbonisation of home heating, a heat pump only approach risks unfairly burdening off-grid rural homeowners with expensive installation costs. My constituents are rightly concerned at the prospect of being made to install very costly alternative heating systems that are not fit for purpose.
Some 11 million people live in rural areas across the UK, with 15% in off-grid homes. The cost of installing a low-carbon heat pump is around four times more expensive than a replacement boiler. What is more, while a heat pump can technically be installed in all homes across the UK, and it should be in new build housing, in certain property types, such as those in rural and coastal communities like Gower, they will not run efficiently and risk increasing energy bills to unnecessarily high levels for homeowners, above those they currently pay. In some cases, that could increase the overall cost of installation to £25,000, according to the Government’s own calculator.
I welcome the fact that the Government are consulting on increasing the grants available for heat pumps in certain homes, as announced last week. However, for some, those increased grants will not go far enough in making the cost of heat pump installation workable. My constituents in Gower, many of whom are off-grid homeowners, want to play their part in reducing emissions. In fact, the majority of people who came to my summer surgeries, while concerned about the cost, wanted to do their bit to reduce carbon emissions.
As has been said in the Chamber today, renewable liquid fuels, such as renewable diesel made from hydrotreated vegetable oil, offer a cheaper alternative. They can reduce net carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions from source to end user by up to 90%. At a small cost, existing off-grid boilers can be modified to run renewable liquid fuels, such as HVO, saving the homeowner the extortionate cost of a heat pump replacement.
However, renewable liquid fuels are more expensive than their high-carbon competitor, kerosene. In order to aid swift uptake, the Energy Bill must enable the use of renewable liquid fuels, as well as introducing measures to explore reducing their cost and making them more accessible, such as a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation, mirroring what already exists in transport and aviation. That would help my constituents transition to lower-carbon alternatives and incentivise faster and wider transition, more broadly, among off-grid households. There is some consensus across the House on those measures. An effective transition to cleaner energy must ensure that rural off-grid communities, such as mine in Gower, are not left with an expensive cost burden as we transition to net zero.
To conclude, in light of the consultation on renewable liquid fuels, the Government must review their oil boiler ban. The Minister must ensure that the consultation is expedited so that all our off-grid constituents can benefit before he leaves Government.
John Redwood
The wish to carry through a great electrical revolution will require a lot of good will from the British people. My worry about this legislation is that it may antagonise them by being unduly restrictive, particularly with the threat of civil and even criminal penalties on some of their conduct. We need to persuade people that the green products will be cheaper, better, more acceptable and make a more general contribution, and not try to bamboozle them. I hope that there will be an opportunity to vote on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) to get rid of the threat of criminal and civil penalties over the issue of a proper transition.
For things to take off, the products—the heat pumps and the electric cars—will have to be much more popular. More people will have to believe in their specifications and adequacy, and they will have to be more affordable. I, for example, would be very happy to have a heat pump to heat my rather small London flat, but I am told that there is not one available because I am not allowed to adorn the outside of the block of flats with any of the things that a person would need to make a heat pump system work. There must be practical solutions to these problems. We cannot force the pace by legislation; the markets and the investment have to catch up.
My second worry about this legislation is that energy policy has to achieve three things at the same time. Yes, we have to take considerable environmental issues into account, but we also need affordable energy and we need available energy. In recent years, all main parties have put so much emphasis in their policy making on the environmental that we are missing the obvious, which is that we are no longer guaranteeing security of supply. We cannot guarantee security of supply if we are mainly relying on wind farms. We cannot rely on solar on a dark winter evening when people want to cook their meal and turn the heating up, because there is no solar. We have to look at the relative costs. The unit cost of energy generated by a wind farm that is already built is very cheap on one costing system, but if we have a gas turbine system that is non-operational for most of the time, only kicking in occasionally when the wind does not blow, that is part of the cost of the delivery of the wind power and it is a far more expensive way of running gas turbines than if we use them all the time.
Craig Mackinlay
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the extra energy provision that we need to make renewables work. Has he considered the true environmental cost of the batteries, the digging up of cobalt by children in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the smelting and all the rest of it? That is the real cost of relying on renewables, and we hear very little about the real cost of the batteries.
John Redwood
I am greatly in favour of doing proper, whole-life carbon accounting, taking into account all the CO2 generated by making the green product—its lifetime use, on which it may be better, and its disposal, on which it may be worse. It is certainly the case that if we acquire an electric vehicle that has generated a lot of CO2 in its production and then we do not drive it very much, we will have not a CO2 gain but a CO2 loss, so there must be realistic carbon accounting. We also should not fall nationally for the fallacy that is built into the international system. For example, we could say that we have brought our CO2 down because we are importing things, but that actually generates a lot more CO2 than had we done it for ourselves.
This is the essence of the argument about our own gas. If we get more of our own gas down a pipe, it produces a fraction of the CO2 for the total process than if we import liquefied natural gas having had to use a lot of energy compressing and liquefying the gas, a lot of energy switching it back, and a lot of energy on long-distance sea transport. Therefore, we must be realistic in the CO2 accounting.
Finally, I do not think that the Bill is giving us much guidance. For example, if the electrical revolution does take off, because the really popular products arrive and people find them affordable, how will they get the power delivered to their homes? We are already told that many wind farms cannot be started or cannot be connected to the grid any time soon. There needs to be a massive expansion of green capacity and a big digging-up of roads and re-cabling of Britain. If my constituents are all to adopt an electric car and a heat pump, we need a massive expansion both of electricity generation and of grid capacity. I do not see that happening at the moment. There need to be market reactions and proper investment plans, and this legislation is not helping.
I fear that this Bill adds to the costs. It adds targets that could turn out to be unrealistic and that could be self-defeating, because quite often the actions taken to abate CO2 end up generating more CO2 at the world level and mean that we have exported an awful lot of crucial business that we would be better off doing here.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are going to a three-minute limit immediately. The wind-ups will start at 5.50 pm and then there will be multiple votes from 6 pm onwards. I am afraid some people may not get in.
Ian Paisley
Thank you for calling me in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has not been all jolly hockey sticks, despite the fact that this Bill has taken up quite a considerable amount of the House’s time over the last number of years and Sessions.
Northern Ireland has more than 60%, maybe approaching 70%, of its houses heated by solid fuel. As a representative of a constituency with a vast rural section that relies on coal and heating oil, I cannot put my name to something that will say to my constituents, “I don’t know what this is going to cost you, but this decision will actually inflict a higher cost on you when there is a suitable and available product there that you can use to heat your home or to drive your car.” That presses heavily on me, and it has pressed heavily, I notice, on some other Members across the House, because there are significant cost implications in going down the proposed route.
Northern Ireland is not behind in making change. It is actually front and centre in the hydrogen revolution. It has been making hydrogen products and will be part of the hydrogen hub and the most significant hydrogen manufacturer in the entire island of Ireland. I listened carefully to the points made from the Government Front Bench about the hydro levy, and it will be interesting to see how that follows through.
I was delighted by the comments made by the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). I know he was not trying to hang anyone out to dry today, but it was important that we got from the Minister a clear indication of what is happening, not just in Northern Ireland, with regard to liquid renewables. It is important that the Government must support a variety of heating technologies to give the UK the best chance of hitting the 2050 carbon reduction target, if that is what they wish to do. They must reflect the diverse types of houses that people live in across the entirety of the United Kingdom and do something that is fundamentally fair to people. We cannot inflict this massive cost on people when we have an overreliance on solid fuels, especially in a country such as mine.
We heard some comments from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) on the issue of battery disposal. It concerns me considerably that whenever a battery car has finished its life cycle, the battery largely ends up in landfill. What benefit is that, when there are other technologies out there being explored, utilised and developed that could give us a much better and more user-friendly experience?
A ban on new replacement fossil fuel appliances in homes from 2026 will put a substantial cost on people. I also agree thoroughly with the points made about the disruption to many people and about heat pumps. This Bill needs to have even more thought given to it.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
In my point of order earlier I said that this was a 328-page Bill. That was what it was when it came from the House of Lords; it is now a 427-page Bill, which we are expected to debate in detail in three hours, on a day when we had two relatively lightweight statements. That really seems to me not the proper way to have scrutiny in this House. It does not allow this House to do its proper job of looking at the detail of legislation—it is as if we had abdicated it entirely to their lordships.
I have supported my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) in a number of amendments, every single one of which has basically the same aim: to ameliorate the burden this Bill will place on all our constituents. Throughout the Bill, we are creating cost, regulation, penalties and obligations. New clause 42 is there to say that the lowest possible cost should be at the forefront of the mind of the Government in everything that they do, irrespective of how the energy is generated. If that means fossil fuels, let it be fossil fuels. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, we need to keep people with us, and we risk losing them if we put undue burdens on them.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The issue of flaring and venting emissions highlighted in new clause 12 is an extremely important one. Any unplanned hydrocarbon releases must be done safely. I know the tremendous concerns of the trade unions, including the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, and of the 49,000 offshore workers, about the Bill’s failure to address safety-critical maintenance work on oil and gas installations. I very much agree with the sentiments in the new clause and welcome the fact that flaring and venting emissions have been reduced, but according to industry body Offshore Energies UK, the average safety-critical maintenance backlog on UK offshore oil and gas installations increased by 50% during the pandemic. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and perhaps meet the unions.
Turning to new clause 22, I see tremendous merit in and need for timely and cost-effective connections to the grid, and for an acceleration of the development of an offshore wind energy grid, both of which are critical for Teesside and the Teesworks site. Given the promise of many more jobs in the industry, connectivity to the electricity grid for the Teesworks site could not be more important. I would be obliged if the Minister updated me on power supplies, which I understand do not currently exist for the site, and on how he will use the new legislation to ensure that Teesside gets the power it needs.
The Government say that the purpose of new clause 52 is to give greater certainty to producers of sustainable aviation fuel. That is undoubtedly necessary, but I take issue with the long lead time. The new clause specifies that
“The Secretary of State must open the consultation within the period of 6 months”
and report to Parliament on progress
“within the period of 18 months”.
The industry needs certainty now. I know from talks that I have had with industrialists that the Government’s dilly-dallying is already impacting on investment decisions, and not in a positive way.
New clause 34 calls for a price stability mechanism to support the development of a UK sustainable aviation fuel industry. That is what those in the industry want, and they want it now. Alfanar is developing a £1.5 billion waste-to-sustainable aviation fuel facility on Teesside—the largest in the world and the most advanced in Europe. It also plans two more SAF plants in the UK, but—and this is a big but—it needs certainty from the UK Government that they are serious about the industry and will take the brakes off and get on with creating a business environment that will instil confidence.
I very much welcome new clause 56. It beggars belief that the existing linking of renewable and gas prices in the retail market has delivered billions’ worth of extra cash to energy companies while our hard-pressed constituents pick up the bill. I hope that Ministers will accept that that is unfair on consumers, and that the new clause will help them to correct that. I would have loved to have talked at length about carbon capture and storage, but suffice it to say that the Government should take on board the amendments tabled by others.
Chris Grayling
I have pushed my new clause 34 to a point where the Government have responded in a sensible way and started what I hope and believe will be a process. It was not for no reason that around 70 Members of Parliament signed that new clause; it was because of a recognition that this transition is going to happen in one of our most important industries, and it is going to happen around the world.
The migration to sustainable aviation fuel is vital as the world decarbonises, not only because it is an essential first step towards decarbonisation, but in the long term—not for short-haul flights, which I think will be powered by hydrogen; by the 2030s, we will start to see short-haul hydrogen planes in operation. However, there is no technological approach yet that will take us to Australia or North America using anything other than sustainable aviation fuel, so it is a vital industry for the future of this country.
There are investors out there waiting to invest in developing plants here, but they need the confidence to know that there is a Government committed to creating a framework that will enable that investment to take place and be sustained. One of the reasons I intervened on the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), is that over the next 12 months, as we prepare for a general election, investors are looking for confidence on both sides of the House. It is not about a lack of confidence in our ability to win the next general election; it is about delivering confidence to investors right now.
That is why it is important that both the Government and the Labour party are committed to the development of sustainable aviation fuel in the United Kingdom. We want investors to be taking decisions about the deployment of their capital in this country now, preparing to invest and preparing for the end of the process that the Government have started through their new clauses, so that by 2026 they are ready to build plants, develop sustainable aviation fuel and provide an important part of the future of the aviation industry in this country.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has done and the assurances he has given today, but I say to him and his colleagues in Government that I and others will be holding their feet to the fire in the next 12 months, to ensure that the consultation starts as quickly as possible and that the response to it comes as quickly as possible. By the time we get to the general election, I want there to be a clear route map forward for the development of SAF in this country that has given investors confidence, so that they know as we go into the election campaign that both sides will take this forward and that we have an industry that will be vital to the future of aviation in Britain, which is a crucial industry for all of us.
Alec Shelbrooke
It has been a pleasure to speak on the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) that it is a great pity we cannot have a long debate on Report or Third Reading, to expand on issues further.
One of the issues that I wanted to expand on is about some of the alternatives. We keep talking about electric vehicles moving down, but hydrogen combustion vehicles offer a real opportunity to move forward. We also talk about net zero, but this has now moved to zero-emission vehicles. That rules out hydrogen combustion, so again, we are going down a rabbit hole of just having electric vehicles, but an electric vehicle is not a zero-emission vehicle. If it was, the underground would have the cleanest air in London, and it does not, because there are a lot of particulates around it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) makes it clear through new clause 47 that we have to look at the sources, and new clause 37 relates to where batteries go. We keep talking about the rare earth metals that are needed. Indeed, the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) talked about being able to maintain baseload by using various aspects of energy storage. We keep coming back to the need for rare earth metals and materials to enable that, and they come from areas of the world that we do not have an influence over. In the past 18 months, there has been a huge debate about the fact that we cannot be reliant on Russian energy, and yet few Members in today’s debate have recognised the fact that we are wholeheartedly moving towards becoming reliant on China to supply our energy needs.
This is a huge Bill. It is a fundamental Bill that we have brought forward as we look to the future, but it is far too big, with far too many aspects to it. It has become a bit of a hodgepodge, saying, “We want electric vehicles. We want electric heating in homes. We want to have arc blast furnaces rather than coal furnaces, so we will ban new coalmines.” I promise this House that if we move to just arc furnaces, we will destroy steel manufacturing in this country, because we do not have the ability now to produce the electricity that is needed. We are not going to switch off the lights in people’s homes before we switch off an arc furnace, and once it has been switched off, we cannot switch it back on.
That is the big mismatch in the Bill, which is why I regret that we will not have a Third Reading debate to discuss these issues on a slightly wider basis. The rush to renewables is happening quicker than the timeline for making sure we have enough turbines, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) made very important points as well. Although the aims are there, and I think we all want to follow those aims—not being reliant on foreign energy is highly important—at the moment there does not appear to be a connection between these things as they come online. As such, although the aims of the Bill are good, we have to make sure that we implement them over a consistent timeframe so that we take the public with us.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The beautiful food-producing farmland in my constituency is a particular target for industrial-scale solar farms, often backed by prospectors who have no personal connection to our area. This raises huge concerns among my constituents about the scale of the projects and the lack of thorough consultation. With the imperative of food security on our minds, we must explore alternatives to covering vast expanses of our productive land with solar panels.
Many people do not appreciate the scale of the issue, so to illustrate the magnitude of this challenge, I will highlight one proposal for a solar farm in my constituency. It aims to engulf a staggering 587 hectares of land, just under half of which is grade 1 to grade 3A farmland—the very best and most versatile agricultural land, the best land for food production. In fact, almost 10,000 acres of my constituency are currently open to planning for solar farms. Those farms will dwarf villages such as Witham St Hughs, Thorpe on the Hill, Bassingham and Holdingham, and will almost encircle villages such as Scopwick, Digby and Ashby de la Launde.
I do not stand against solar panels in principle; I have previously spoken about the unexplored potential of utilising industrial roof spaces for them. However, I do not believe that covering our farmland in solar panels is the right thing to do, and I vehemently object to the lack of food security it could produce. I therefore support new clause 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), which seeks to solve this injustice and put an end to these large-scale projects. Furthermore, I appreciate that that clause also encourages future developments on brownfield sites, which are far better suited to such endeavours. Let us work together to protect our precious farmland, maintain our food security, heed the concerns of our constituents, and chart a more sustainable path for our energy future.
I was also shocked to hear that more than 90% of solar panels may be made by, or have elements that come from, slave labour. As we discuss the slavery of the past, let us do all we can to prevent the slavery of the here and now. I therefore also support new clause 47, which should be pushed to a Division later.
Lincolnshire as a whole produces a vast amount of this country’s food, yet 22,500 acres—1.3% of its land area—are currently open to applications for solar panels. As such, I ask the Minister to answer two questions in his summing up. First, what will we eat when our best and most versatile farmland is covered by solar panels? Secondly, what is his assessment of the impact on the environment of growing energy from solar panels instead of food, then importing food from elsewhere?
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Bill has an important role to play in ensuring that we meet our 2050 net zero targets, enhancing our energy security and creating new jobs, particularly in coastal communities such as the constituency I represent. In driving forward the measures in the Bill, I urge the Government to have in mind the following parameters.
First, we need to pursue a strategic approach to the provision of infrastructure while maximising the leveraging-in of the enormous amount of much-needed private sector investment that will be required. Secondly, the Bill’s framework needs to be sufficiently flexible to allow all regions of the UK to play their full role in the transition. It has been estimated that by 2035, East Anglia’s renewable and low-carbon energy supply portfolio could power the equivalent of 90% of the UK’s homes. In our area, we need a recognition of the role we will play.
Finally, the Government need to rural-proof their policies, as articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi).
Community energy has an important contribution to make in boosting clean energy generation and in offering people the opportunity to benefit from agreeing to host new energy infrastructure. Therefore, the announcement of the new £10 million community energy fund is to be welcomed. However, it is important that the Government monitor very closely the fund’s impact and whether it is successful in unblocking more community-owned projects. If it is not, they need to bring forward further measures, such as the amendments that were proposed in the other place.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I rise to support the principle of the Government lifting the ban on new onshore wind farms. I have every sympathy with new clause 43, but I want to bring some context as to why and mention the fact that public support on this topic has completely and utterly changed 180° in the last 10 or 15 years.
In 2009, which feels like a long time ago now, I was first elected as a local councillor and, in the very village I grew up in, one of the most controversial and contentious planning applications I have ever seen was put in front of us. It was for a 66-metre—you’ve guessed it—wind turbine; it was not a very big one, but it was to be built on the Cromer glacial ridge in North Norfolk. The backlash against that proposal was enormous, with 1,500—1,500—objections, genuine protests and councillors elected on the back of the stop the turbine campaign. The applicant went through three planning appeals, two High Court hearings and an application to the Court of Appeal. Finally, the planning inspector granted permission in February 2020, after over a decade of fighting. That turbine went up just a few months ago.
I am telling hon. Members this because the Mack family that went through that process for over a decade must have spent tens and tens of thousands of pounds, but now it has been built, public perception has changed and the complaints against it have been absolutely negligible. What that says, above all, is that people have now changed the general consensus on onshore wind. It has totally changed and, as parliamentarians, we should reflect public opinion. When the mood changes, we should change with it sometimes. People get it now: people get that that one turbine will power 700 homes in the local area. Of course, new applications must be designed to be sympathetic to the surrounding landscape, but people recognise that we need our own energy security, sustainable, clean and green forms of energy to decarbonise and an energy mix that will give us security as well.
Things have clearly changed, and I think this is a very sensible, pragmatic and low-cost way of the Government moving to give us more clean and green energy. That one single application I mentioned shows how public sentiment has changed, which is why I support the Bill today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. This will have to be the final two minutes from the Back Benches. I call Jerome Mayhew.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just going to talk about one new clause, new clause 29, which I oppose. It seeks to prevent further licences of North sea oil and gas. The reason I oppose it is that we have a plan for the decarbonisation of our economy and it is policed, if I can put it that way, by the Committee on Climate Change. In the path to net zero by 2050, we recognise that we have a continuing need for oil and gas at least until 2035, when more than 50% of our energy needs will still come from fossil fuels, and actually up to 2050 included, because it is net zero, not absolute zero. We have to have oil and gas, so let’s get it from the most efficient and environmentally friendly source. The most environmentally friendly source is Norway, but that is not an unlimited resource; the CO2 equivalent per barrel of oil there is about 7 kg. The additional oil and gas we use comes not from Norway but from Qatar; it is liquid natural gas and the CO2 equivalent per barrel there is 79 kg, whereas the figure for the North sea is 21 kg—a quarter the level of environmental damage per kilogram of CO2 equivalent. The consequence of closing down the North sea prematurely would be to increase emissions and make our carbon footprint worse. It would be the triumph of virtue signalling over the practicalities of decarbonisation.
Jerome Mayhew
I will not; I am sorry, but I only have one and a half minutes.
It is logical on environmental grounds, therefore, to support new licences in oil and gas. But there are other arguments. There is the balance of payments—we used to talk about the balance of payments. In 2022, our trade in goods deficit was £63.9 billion. I would rather have our imports of oil and gas coming from the UK and not being imports at all, supporting our balance of payments.
There is the tax income. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that in 2023-24 we are going to get £10.4 billion of tax revenue from North sea oil. That pays for a lot of public goods. We should be supporting that, and we should be supporting business profitability and jobs, because that supports our communities. It also gives time for the phasing of what is described as the just transition to renewable jobs. There is an irony in that the proponents of new clause 30, led by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), talk about just transitions, but it is this longer process away from North sea oil and gas, managing decline, that provides the space for a truly just transition to new renewables employment in this country. I do not support new clause 29 as a result.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I apologise to those Members who have not been called; a note will be made and a count taken. I call the Minister, Andrew Bowie.
Andrew Bowie
I am delighted to rise. I must apologise in advance of my closing remarks: given the time available, I will not be able to address every single point, question, statement and amendment raised today. [Interruption.] That is the first time I have ever been told to speed up my speaking style. However, I will commit to write to every Member who has raised a question, and certainly questions that are pertinent to how we implement some of the regulations that we are presenting here today and which will be subject to discussion in the Lords next week.
On new clause 47, presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), we keep all sanctions under review and she knows that we cannot comment on any potential future designations. We have a global rights sanctions regime, which allows us to take action when the necessary legislative criteria are met and we assess sanctions are appropriate. I can confirm to her that we take an interest in the concerns she set out and will continue to act. We have introduced new guidance on the risks of doing business in Xinjiang, enhanced export controls and announced the introduction of financial penalties under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Alicia Kearns
I know the Minister has historically been very strong on this point. I am interested in the fact that the Government have raised that point about sanctions and the possibility of sanctions, because we have not heard that before. Both the US and EU have sanctioned those who use slave labour within their supply chains. If the Government—I hope they are saying this today; I know they cannot comment on sanctions designations—are saying that they will bring forward sanctions against companies that are completely complicit in slave labour—we have the evidence both from the US and our own work—that will be incredibly positive because it would send a strong deterrent message across the industry that we will not accept slave labour in our supply chains.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and constructive engagement over the past couple of days and months. As I said, I commit to working with her and other interested parties on this matter as we continue to do what we can to combat the existence of slave labour in that market.
The energy efficiency amendments were raised a number of times. I want to be absolutely clear: we are simply seeking to replace the power to amend the energy performance of premises regime, which was lost as we departed the EU. Brexit gives us the power to do that. I can categorically guarantee before the House that we are not creating new offences. In any case, any new offences on anything—as is always the case—would have to be subject to debate, scrutiny and vote in this place, which Brexit has allowed us to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) raised the issue of a warrant for exercising power of entry with his amendment 50. I assure him that clause 152 modifies the Gas Act 1986 by building on existing provisions concerning the powers of entry. As such, the existing rules on powers of entry will continue to apply, whereby gas transporters must obtain a warrant from the magistrates court before use. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friend.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for her amendment today. I pay tribute to her for her outstanding work, her support for this Bill during her time as Secretary of State in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and her continued work when she was chair of the departmental Back-Bench committee. I am delighted to be able to confirm that we will continue to work towards what her amendment seeks to do, and I am happy to continue to work with her in pursuance of that, alongside the industry and the Department.
It would be remiss of me not to mention and thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) for their close work with the Government over recent weeks. Onshore wind is an important part of our energy mix, and the Government have always maintained that it should be built where there is local support, ensuring that the voices of local communities are heard. In December last year, the Government consulted on changes to national planning policy for onshore wind in England. Through that consultation, the Government have heard the strength of feeling and the range of views on this topic. We continue to believe that decisions on onshore wind are best made by local representatives who know their areas. Nevertheless, the feedback was clear that we need to strike the right balance, and that is why the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities published a written ministerial statement, as was described earlier, and we look forward to working with colleagues to implement that as we move forward.
I would also be remiss not to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) and her comments today and constructive engagement over the past few months. Lithium-ion battery storage systems are a concern for many in this House. The Government acknowledge the concerns surrounding the potential safety and environmental impact of battery energy storage at grid scale. It is a priority for this Government to ensure the existence of an appropriate, robust and future-proofed regulatory framework that protects people and the environment. That is why I am pleased to confirm today that we have sought to provide further clarity through both the planning system and environmental permitting regulations.
The Government have recently updated planning practice guidance, which encourages battery storage developers to engage with local fire and rescue and local planning authorities to refer to the guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council. The Government intend to consult on including battery storage systems in the environmental permitting regulations at the earliest opportunity.
The main mechanisms for controlling emissions to air, land and water from industrial installations is through complying with an industrial installations permit. These permits set out mandatory conditions that operators must comply with to protect the health of local communities and the local environment. Installations are then inspected at a frequency according to their level of risk, and regulators have enforcement powers available to them if operators are not complying with their permit conditions. I hope that my right hon. Friend and other hon. and right hon. Members for whom this is an issue of great concern are reassured by those commitments today.
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their engagement in this debate, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who is a real champion of the UK’s thriving CCUS industry. I thank him for his comments today. The licences issued by different authorities are designed to serve different purposes. The new requirement for an economic licence recognises the monopolistic nature of carbon dioxide pipelines and storage and is designed to protect users of the networks from anti-competitive behaviours, including monopolistic pricing. This is complementary, rather than duplicative of the existing carbon storage licensing framework. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the provision in clause 128(1)(a) is sufficiently broad to cover all methods of CO2 transportation.
Finally, my hon. Friend spoke about offshore wind. As part of the development consent process, applicants are required to consult with stakeholders, including devolved Administrations where relevant, and consider the impacts of their development on other sea users. However, I am also happy to confirm that I will meet him at any time, as well as representatives of the fishing industry, for whom this is a big issue.
I thank Members across the House for their considered contributions. For the reasons that I have set out, I respectfully ask them not to press their amendments to any votes.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 52 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am advised that the bells at No. 1 Parliament Street are not working. I shall extend the Division time by two minutes.
Business without Debate
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Wilby Way Roundabout
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Wilby Way roundabout separates the village of Wilby from Wellingborough and the large Sainsbury’s. It is an extremely dangerous roundabout on a dual carriageway. With more cars coming down it because of the increased housing in my constituency, it needs a proper crossing. If someone was killed, we would have a crossing the next day. Let us have the crossing before someone is killed.
Councillor Lora Lawman has got together a petition with nearly 1,000 signatures on it. It is also supported by Councillor Stephen Borrett and Councillor George Thompson. The petition states:
The Humble Petition of the residents of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas, Sheweth, that the Wilby Way roundabout, between the A509, A5400 and the A5128 is extremely dangerous to cross for pedestrians and cyclists; further that the increased volume of traffic due to the housing developments in and around Wellingborough has caused crossing this roundabout to become increasingly difficult and dangerous.
The petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Government to work with North Northamptonshire Council to consider the concerns of the petitioners and ensure that measures are implemented which will make crossing the Wilby Way roundabout safe for pedestrians and cyclists.
And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
[P002849]
Local Bank Branch Closures
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
For being the party of the bank and the bankers, the Tories have a shocking record of keeping banks on our local high streets. It speaks to a pattern of this Government prioritising profit over people. This being my first Adjournment debate, I am proud to hold it on a topic important to my constituents, given the state of local bank branch closures in East Dunbartonshire, but I am frustrated and disappointed that this issue is on all our minds.
Despite the severity of the topic, I am very much looking forward to an intervention from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the highlight of every Adjournment debate, as you will be only too familiar with, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this subject forward. The Scottish National party has been at the fore in headlining the issue of bank closures, and I wish to add my support.
It is an increasing problem back home—Northern Ireland has lost 27% of bank branches in the last three years, according to statistics from the Consumer Council. One of those was a Barclays bank branch in Newtownards, where I have my office. For rural constituents, it means they have to drive up to 40 minutes to the nearest Barclays in the neighbouring constituency, or take a taxi or a bus. Does the hon. Lady agree that bank branches are crucial to the economy, especially the rural economy, and that the frequent closures of local branches are doing more harm than good for customers? The hon. Lady is to be congratulated on bringing this issue forward.
Amy Callaghan
I could not agree more. I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention—I kicked him into gear, didn’t I? It was much appreciated.
Local bank branches are closing right across Scotland, and at a higher rate than in the rest of the UK.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
While avoiding the hon. Lady’s rhetoric in the opening of her speech, I agree that the closing of banks in localities—particularly in Dewsbury, Mirfield and Ossett in the area I represent—is a big issue. The banking sector is bringing forward a number of initiatives, one of which is a banking hub, which brings banks together in a town centre building. Has she considered that as an option, and would she be in favour of it?
Amy Callaghan
I will answer the hon. Member’s question in a second, but it is certainly not rhetoric to say that the Tory Government have not stepped up anywhere near enough to support our communities and people who are struggling through the cost of living crisis. We need local bank branches. Hubs are an alternative, though they are not good enough, but I welcome his point of view.
We would be lucky to have as many bank branches open in our constituencies as have closed in the recent years. At least 265 local branches are set to close this year alone, and 62 parliamentary constituencies are down to one or no local banks. The UK has lost over half its bank network since 2015, which speaks volumes after 13 years of Tory rule. How many more banks do we have to lose before the Minister kicks into gear?
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
On the point about having lost over half the banks in the UK since 2015, I would like to go over the figures. Does the hon. Lady recognise that over 5,700 branches have closed since 2015 or are set to close, leaving only 4,000, at a time when banks are pulling in record profits?
Amy Callaghan
What is most despicable about this situation is that banks have record profits, but are not investing them in our communities. Our constituents, particularly those who are vulnerable, need banks to maintain their presence on our local high streets. It is incumbent on Government to act and to incentivise banks to have a high street presence.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The support she is getting from across the House is quite telling.
Rural Scotland has been battered by bank and post office closures in recent years. The Bank of Scotland plans to close its Dunoon branch on 5 December. We have seen how this works: the banks close a branch, they advise us to use the post office and, all too often, the post office closes. I have made my feelings very clear about that particular closure, but will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the people of Dunoon, particularly Dinah McDonald, who from her shop Bookpoint is leading the community fightback by gathering 1,000 local signatures to petition Lloyds to reverse this ill thought out and ill conceived idea and decision?
Amy Callaghan
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention and throw my full weight behind the campaign of the people of Dunoon. We know good folk come from Argyll and Bute, so I am very happy to support that campaign.
My constituents in East Dunbartonshire have suffered from this trend, watching bank after bank close its doors. Seven local banks have closed since 2020, most recently Barclays in Kirkintilloch and the Bank of Scotland in Bearsden—similar to my hon. Friend’s experience. Fortunately, a Bank of Scotland branch remains in Milngavie, but for how long? I will continue to set out the need for action and Government intervention as I progress my case for the continued need for high street banks, but I will start with a couple of questions for the Minister. I would appreciate some comment from him on them when he gives his response.
What are the Government doing to incentivise banks to maintain a high street presence? Do the Government recognise why that is important and necessary, and if they do, why the hesitance to intervene? That hesitancy is to the detriment of our constituents, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is about eight weeks since I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, the Banking and Postal Services (Rural Areas) Bill, to Parliament and the Government have done nothing. They talk about banking hubs as some kind of solution, but there are a handful of them only and delivery is absolutely glacial. The point my hon. Friend is making in her excellent speech is that these facilities for local people will be closed down, especially in rural areas, before there is any substitute for them to provide the services that people need. Does she not agree?
Amy Callaghan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I welcome that intervention. It is to the detriment of our constituents, because the banks and the Government are not stepping up quickly enough or at all to support those who need these vital services.
Many constituents have been in touch with me in the run-up to this debate flagging up the particular impact local bank branch closures have on those who are vulnerable. Elderly people and those with physical or mental disabilities may struggle with online banking, and will be particularly affected by having to travel greater distances to access in-person banking services.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way when she is making such an excellent speech. On vulnerable people and their access to cash, does she believe that Government inaction is in part to blame for the hiatus that happens when the last bank closes, like the Bank of Scotland did in Brechin last year? The entire community then has to wait not to see when but if they will get a banking hub.
Amy Callaghan
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is the hesitancy and uncertainty that has such a detrimental impact on communities such as Brechin.
For vulnerable people, the internet often feels like an unfamiliar and unsafe place to handle their money. For them, the advice and reassurance they can only get from an in-person bank teller is vital. For them, the extra miles to the next nearest bank branch might be too far to travel.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
On the question of the additional distance to travel, may I flag up the experience of my constituents in Buckhaven when TSB closed a branch there a few years ago? It very kindly produced a wee map showing the location of the nearest TSB bank in High Street, Methil. The only problem was that it was not in High Street, Methil; it was in High Street, Leven—not only a different town, but a different constituency. The address it gave in High Street, Methil was part of the old high street that was demolished 40 years ago to make way for housing. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is just an insult to constituents and to communities when a bank that has taken the decision to close a service is so ignorant that it cannot even be bothered to send somebody to walk the distance to make sure the bank it is directing people to actually exists?
Amy Callaghan
I thank my hon. Friend for that. That is a frustration we share. The maps sent out by many a bank branch are complicated and sometimes not relevant to the communities that they are being sent to, so I completely agree.
Just last night it was flagged to me that an elderly constituent of mine living in Kirkintilloch with a brain injury has been struggling to access banking services since the closure of Barclays in the town centre. The shift to centralised bank hubs like Barclays in Glasgow brings with it a litany of issues, such as the confusion and accessibility issues my constituent is experiencing.
With every local bank branch closure I am assured of two things upon meeting with the bank in question: there will be no forced redundancies, and all vulnerable customers have been contacted and bank staff will work with them to have a seamless transition to their next closest bank. But my constituency casework is proof that for far too many people, that is just not enough.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and is being extremely generous with her time.
The closure of local bank branches has an impact on Members in all parts of the House, as we have heard this evening and as I said when I spoke about the subject in my first Adjournment debate last year. On that day, HSBC had announced that it was closing 69 branches across the four nations. Since then the Government have introduced what is now the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, but it has failed to address the issue of bank branch closures. I receive numerous complaints from my constituents about the fact there are no banks left, and about the limited access to free-to-use ATMs. In fact, just this afternoon I received an email about that from a constituent. Does my hon. Friend agree that more action must be taken to ensure that our high streets do not become banking ghost towns?
Amy Callaghan
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There are cash deserts across Scotland now, and the Government should reflect on that and take new action.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend will know, the Bank of Scotland wants to close its branch in Glasgow’s Govan ward, which means that 30,000 people will be without a bank; but there is another problem. When a bank closes, its ATM closes as well, and in my experience when a bank closes its ATM, the other ATMs that were free start charging. That is another attack on vulnerable customers, is it not?
Amy Callaghan
It is as if my hon. Friend had read my mind. That is exactly what I was about to mention. People on low incomes often use cash to budget, and more and more of our constituents will be doing so as the cost of living crisis worsens. Evidence from Which? indicates that there are 130 of those cash deserts in Scotland—places where there is no access to either a branch or an ATM within a reasonable distance.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene, and for initiating this important debate. It is clear that online banking is not for everyone, and that we must have physical banking services in towns. I am delighted that Stapleford, in my constituency, is to have a new banking hub, which is on track for delivery in January 2024, but there is concern about towns in Broxtowe such as Beeston losing these vital services. Does the hon. Lady agree that we must continue to ensure that communities have access to physical cash and banking services?
Amy Callaghan
I agree that it is vital for communities to have access to cash and localised banking services. It is hardly surprising that a Tory MP has a banking hub coming to his constituency, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for flagging that up, because it is part of the problem that we are experiencing in Scotland.
Depriving people, many of whom may already be near the end of their financial tether, of access to cash heaps one more thoroughly unwelcome stress on their lives. It is entirely unreasonable to expect the entire population to bank online. There is also an argument to be made about fundraising charities and organisations, which often rely heavily on cash donations and payments. The lack of a local bank for cash deposits places an additional security risk on volunteers, causing extra pressure for both charities and individuals.
Given the finding of Citizens Advice that 90% of the population use a bank branch at some point and 40% use a local bank branch at least once a month, keeping banks on high streets should not be in question. With each closure come the expected platitudes and reassurances from the bank concerned. We, as constituency Members, engage in good faith and fight for our constituents to have access to local banking facilities, but the fact is that there is no incentive for banks to maintain a high street presence, and without that incentive, banks are gradually shifting to a far less localised business model.
I return to my earlier point that in the absence of a Government incentive, the number of local bank branches will continue to erode. Given that banks, and local bank branches in particular, provide an invaluable service for our communities, it is incumbent on the Government to act and ensure that banks do not entirely withdraw from our high streets. I have even heard from constituents across East Dunbartonshire who have switched banks so they can continue to have a local bank branch, only to find that their new bank has closed its doors months later.
The point that I and others make with each of these bank branch closures is that the banks’ suggestion of post offices and banking hubs replacing local bank branches does not stand up to scrutiny, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) said in his intervention. Local post offices are under considerable pressure and are also exiting high streets and town centres at an increased pace, including the closure of our local post office in Milngavie precinct. Post offices are not banks; nor are they a suitable alternative to a bank. It is time the Government recognised that. Our constituents are going to great lengths to access local banking facilities, so why are the Government not helping them? Another issue relating to the closure of local banks is the notable decline in the provision of free-to-use ATMs. There are more than 14,000 fewer than there were five years ago—a steep decline of 27%—which again particularly impacts those who are vulnerable.
We all know the arguments that banks make for the closures. They say that cash use is down by 65% since 2015 and that that decline makes their cash access networks, including local branches and ATMs, less profitable. But I think we all understand that banks are not charities; they are extremely profitable corporations whose profits have increased by 87%, or £17.4 billion, since 2015. With that massive windfall they can easily afford to maintain a basic cash access network—a service that our vulnerable constituents cannot afford to lose—but that is exactly what we are seeing and the Government are doing nothing to stop it.
This is yet another in a long list of examples of how this Union is failing Scotland. We on these Benches look forward to Scotland regaining her independence—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank Members for their support. Independence, when we will no longer have an unkind, uncaring Westminster Government, who we have not voted for, eroding our living standards and our high streets. Scotland’s streets and Scotland’s banks are safe in Scotland’s hands. The time has come for Scotland’s people to take back our self-government and build a brighter future.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
I thank the contributors on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) and for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), and of course the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) for securing this debate, which has rightly given her constituents a voice on something that they feel very strongly about. I know there is real strength of feeling across the House about this subject, but it falls to me to be clear that the nature of banking is changing.
As in so many other areas of the modern world, the long-term trend, whether we like it or not, is towards greater use of digital or telephone services. According to UK Finance, last year only a third of UK adults had carried out any banking activities face to face in a branch. The hon. Lady talked about Kirkintilloch, but 94% of those who use that branch also use the app, mobile or telephone services. The bank asserts—whether this is right or not I do not know—that fewer than 10 people were regularly using the branch. In the same period of time last year, nine out of 10 UK adults banked online or through a mobile app. More than nine in 10 of us are now using contactless payment methods, including throughout this House, and only 6% of people are now solely using cash. That is not limited to any particular demographic: 80% of adults aged between 65 and 74 use online and mobile banking as well, and less than a third of that age group regularly use a branch.
Peter Grant
Given that the Minister and most of his ministerial colleagues are so fond of online services everywhere else, can he explain why in these first two days back in Parliament Members have spent about three hours doing nothing while trooping through the Lobbies to vote when we could have on voted online in about two minutes flat? Why is doing things in person the right thing to do here but the wrong thing to do everywhere else?
Andrew Griffith
In the interest of time I will stick to the topic, but I am delighted that the hon. Member is here in person, as indeed are you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Change is not comfortable, but it does happen. Let us consider payphones. It would not surprise me if Hansard had records of similar debates about the decline of payphones. At one point, at their peak in the 1990s, there were almost 100,000 payphones in this country. Today there is just a fraction of that number. Technology has moved on, and nearly everybody has access to either a landline or a mobile phone.
By the same token, it would make little sense to force a business to keep a physical branch open when developments in the market mean that eyeballs and footfall have moved elsewhere. Nor would our high streets be particularly well served by bank branches gathering dust and lying essentially unused. We need to find new uses for them—perhaps the aspiration of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire for independence will produce new uses for these bank branches—in the same way that so many of our communities and villages today have a Blacksmith’s Arms public house.
Brendan O’Hara
What responsibility, if any, does the Minister think the Government have for these closures? This idea that we can all be digital by default might work well in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh or wherever, but digital by default does not work in rural communities. There needs to be a solution for those who cannot access these systems, as he would have us all do.
Andrew Griffith
This Government take responsibility, and I was just about to explain how, for the first time, we have taken the statutory right to protect the use of cash. That has been on the statute book for a number of weeks after the House passed the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. It is also why we support the very rigorous guidance given by the Financial Conduct Authority in cases where bank branches are closing.
Andrew Griffith
I will take an intervention. We are on the Adjournment and should be mindful of time.
Jim Shannon
Rural communities are probably the larger part of my constituency, and I have lost 12 or 13 rural banks. Every one of them was a focal point for customers, which hits on the important point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). At the same time, every one of those banks has made extra profit and extra fees, which just does not add up. Why not keep them open and share some of that dividend with all the customers who need the banks?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Gentleman is working his way towards one of the potential answers. Colleagues have mentioned the banking hubs. When a bank seeks to close a branch, the FCA process normally includes consultation with the local Member of Parliament. The financial sector now has a consumer duty to think about putting customers’ needs first, which is one of their weighty duties. As we deal with this significant change, a number of alternatives are in place. One is the local post office, and I believe there are still nine post offices in East Dunbartonshire. As the banks’ business traffic coalesces, they can help to support the economics of a post office in a particular area. That is one opportunity. Some 99% of personal banking customers can transact in their local post office, and there are over 11,000 post offices across the United Kingdom.
Drew Hendry
A few moments ago, the Minister mentioned the Government’s move to protect the right to use cash. What is the point of that right if people cannot access cash in their community?
Andrew Griffith
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is deliberately failing to understand, but the protection of access to cash and the ability to deposit cash—that is important if we want businesses to continue to use and accept cash—has a requirement that people will have easy, convenient access to a free ATM within 3 miles in rural areas and within 1 mile in urban areas. That is the guidance we issued a matter of weeks ago.
Andrew Griffith
I will take one final intervention, but hon. Members would learn more if they allowed me to make some progress.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for being most generous; as he knows, I have been trying to intervene for a while. There is an important issue about free ATMs and those that charge. Is he monitoring that? When a branch closes, there is clear behaviour whereby the ATMs around and about start charging.
Andrew Griffith
I would be interested to see evidence of that. The paid-for ATMs simply do not count in any way towards the provision of free access to cash. In the constituency of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, there are 51 free-to-use ATMs. Only those, not the ones that charge for withdrawals, will count towards that condition of making sure our communities have decent and continued access to cash.
I understand that access to cash is just one thing and that an ATM does not provide the full range of banking services—the post offices do—but we have started to talk about banking hubs and more than 80 have been announced to date. I know that relatively few have been delivered but they are a relatively novel feature. If hon. Members who are to have a banking hub would like to see that delivery, they should work with their local planning authorities, as the biggest single impediment to opening these new banking hubs is getting through the planning process. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) is looking forward to a banking hub in his constituency. I made it a priority earlier this year to visit London’s first banking hub, in Acton, and I recently visited the Brixham hub. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) is certainly not a Conservative, but I will be happy to work with colleagues to put in place these state-of-the-art hubs, which allow people not just to withdraw and deposit cash, but to carry out a much wider range of community banking services. That is very important.
Amy Callaghan
If the Minister wants to grow the frustration, that is fine; it feels as though that is becoming a common pattern. It feels as though the Government and the Minister are trying to place this into the hands of everyone else to deal with and that there is a lack of Government intervention to try to solve this problem.
Andrew Griffith
Nothing could be further from the truth. This Government have, for the first time in history, legislated for citizens of this country, including our good friends in Scotland, to have a legal, statutory right to access to cash. Moreover, we have brought forward the practical, sustainable alternative of banking hubs, to protect the ability of communities to access a wider range of banking services. We have conducted agreements for almost every bank in the country and in Scotland to be able to conduct their business through the post office network, thereby helping and saving the post offices in the communities too.
I think I have been clear. I understand that change is happening and people are not always comfortable with change. We are in the middle of a big technological shift. We all agree that people should have access to good-quality banking services. I contend that the Government are taking the appropriate action and taking this matter extremely seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I would like to say that, as the eagle-eyed will have spotted, Members may remove their jackets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to have you in the Chair, Mr Davies. The regulations were laid in draft before this House on 28 June and amend schedule 9, part 2, to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The Government committed to amending those regulations in the response to the 2021 consultation on the extended producer responsibility for packaging, or EPR, scheme to obtain enhanced packaging waste data from materials facilities. The EPR scheme will move the cost of dealing with waste generated by households from local taxpayers and councils to businesses that handle and use packaging, making producers responsible for the packaging they place on the market.
In 2020, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs undertook a post-implementation review of schedule 9, part 2, to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The review included a recommendation to explore the connections between materials facilities data reporting and the EPR scheme. In many cases, those facilities are where the material ends up. The review concluded that DEFRA would consider amending the regulations. These amendments will improve the quantity and quality of packaging waste data that materials facilities are required to collect, record and report. That in turn will support fair and accurate cost assessments and payments through the EPR scheme.
I turn to the details of this instrument. These amendments to the regulations will introduce enhanced sampling, recording and reporting requirements for materials facilities and increase the scope of the regulations to include more types of facilities. Materials facilities will be in scope of the amended regulations if they receive and manage at least 1,000 tonnes of household or household-type material a year for the purpose of reuse and recycling. The sampling requirements will include a higher input sampling frequency—in other words, sampling will be conducted more often—and more material categories for facilities to sample and report against. There will be an increase in the number of categories from four to 10, and new categories including a requirement to record data on fibre composites such as Tetra Paks and coffee cups that have a layer of aluminium or plastic inside. Facilities will also need to separately record and report against packaging and deposit return scheme material proportions, to support packaging composition calculations or exemptions under EPR.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It seems that these regulations are necessary, but I am concerned that the Government’s approach will drive behaviour change far too slowly and that the scale of non-recyclable packaging usage will still have an impact on the environment. What is the Minister doing not only to recycle and to reuse, but to reduce the amount of packaging used?
Rebecca Pow
I share the hon. Lady’s views entirely. That is the whole purpose of this: to drive the change we need to reduce the overall amount going on the market, because our hierarchy is reduce, reuse, recycle. The reason why the data is so important is that it helps to inform how much is in fact going on to the market; it will then be used by the scheme administrator, in setting up the extended producer responsibility scheme, to work out what the fees will be.
The less recyclable a company’s product is, the more that company will pay—so it will say, “Hold on a minute. Could we make this recyclable?” Loads of companies are probably already reducing the amount of packaging that they use ahead of this system; they know that if they do not, it will cost them. All the schemes that we will be rolling out will work in tandem to achieve what the hon. Lady is asking for.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
To pick up on that point, the Minister referred to companies paying according to how much of their product is recycled. What consideration has she given to producers that already have closed loop recycling schemes in place? Wiltshire Farm Foods in my constituency is an example. It has a scheme that is more effective for recycling its own products than what the Government propose here.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady. I have met representatives of the company—as have many colleagues, I believe. It has a really interesting model. In fairness, it was ahead of the game in having effective closed loop models. We are working with it to come up with a solution for all. Obviously, we do not want to penalise people who are already doing the right thing.
The enhanced recording and reporting requirements will require materials facilities to provide more information on waste suppliers and samples taken, and to report all raw data to regulators to support the improved analysis. To give an example of that in practice, I should say that in my constituency of Taunton Deane the council contracts Suez, a waste management company, to perform our waste collection. When a Suez truck picks up household waste—I hope my son has put ours out this morning; I forgot to leave him a note—and delivers it to a materials facility for reuse and recycling, that facility will sample the waste so that we know how much is EPR packaging material and how much is newspapers, magazines, deposit return containers, contamination or other non-packaging materials. The waste collected by Suez from neighbouring councils, or from its own commercial contracts with business, would be sampled separately.
The process will help to ensure that the EPR payments to my local council reflect the quality and quantity of packaging materials collected from my constituents’ homes. That will provide valuable new information to help my council to optimise waste collection operations, and, through EPR payments, to provide a new means to incentivise councils to improve performance and ensure that producers get good value for money.
These amending regulations apply to England and Wales only. Scotland and Northern Ireland are aligned to our policy intent when it comes to bringing in enhanced materials facility sampling requirements and waste data reporting to support EPR.
Rachael Maskell
I am very conscious that local authorities are tied into waste disposal contracts that will not deliver on the Minister’s objectives. What is she doing to enable local authorities to renegotiate those contracts to meet these environmental standards?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. My officials have close and continuing engagement with local authorities. We understand that there are a whole lot of different models. We are engaging with local authorities on how they can work through the new systems to deliver what we need, without creating hardship for those authorities. Some councils are clearly tied into contracts, and all that is being worked through with them. However, as I said, the general direction of travel is to reduce, recycle and reuse and to get to our targets for cutting down the overall amount of waste that we create as a society.
As I was saying, these amending regulations apply to England and Wales only. Scotland and Northern Ireland are aligned with our policy intent to bring in the enhanced materials facility sampling requirements and the waste data reporting to support EPR. My officials and I are working closely with the relevant Departments in the devolved Administrations to develop that legislation. The measures will be crucial for providing a mechanism to obtain enhanced data on packaging and the waste management services needed to achieve the effective implementation of EPR, and realise the associated environmental benefits.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. Also as ever, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction. When we have two sets of acronyms that are both EPR—environmental permitting regulations and extended producer responsibility—there is always a danger of getting slightly confused, so I am grateful for her introduction.
I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), who stood down yesterday as shadow Secretary of State, and welcome the new shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). I know that the Minister and other Government Members will join me in sending good wishes to both of them.
I also bring to the Committee the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who is away on parliamentary business today, so cannot attend this sitting as she normally would. I will not detain Members for too long. Normally, I would start by reassuring the Whips as to whether we will support the SI—I can immediately reassure them that we will not be pressing this to a Division—but should say that the decision has been more difficult than usual. I will explain why.
We support the basic principles of what the Government are trying to do with the regulations. It is clearly important that we as a nation go as far as we can to avoid unnecessary waste and all the negative impact it creates for the environment and through costs to the consumer. We agree with the regulations: more data and information about the waste that we as a society generate will help us with our ultimate aim to protect the environment and minimise waste in all areas of our lives.
I have some concerns, however, about the details, which I will come to, and more widely. I think it is fair to say that it has perhaps not been a tremendously good summer for the Minister and her Secretary of State, whether because of poor water quality in our rivers, continuing poor air quality, the debacle about deposit return schemes, the chaos around nutrient neutrality or—specifically relating to the regulations—yet more delays on extended producer responsibility. Frankly, the Government’s environment policies are in tatters, which makes it hard to support extra regulation for businesses in a scheme that I am not convinced the Government will ever be able to enact. I remain, however, an eternal optimist. Despite the shambles, let us hope a way forward can be found.
There are some issues of detail about the planning, implementation and costs associated with these proposals. I am not fully persuaded that they have been properly thought through. There is a lack of clarity about how the scheme will work; indeed, I have talked to stakeholders, and they seem perplexed at the lack of detail. Businesses need to be able to plan for the future, not left in the dark, worrying about how many additional staff they might need to recruit or how much they need to set aside to invest in new equipment. Certainly, the sense I get is that there has been insufficient consultation and engagement.
One of the key questions is understandably about cost. The Government claim that minimal costs will be incurred for the recycling facilities and other stakeholders by the additional regulatory burdens, including the requirement to conduct more sampling and report considerably more data. There has not been a full impact assessment, which would have provided a much clearer picture of precisely how the changes will affect recycling centres, food and drink producers, local authorities and, ultimately, consumers and taxpayers.
I find it extremely hard to believe that, in the first instance, materials facilities that recycle waste and have to comply with the additional regulation will not incur significant additional costs. I am told that one waste company claims that it will have to recruit an additional 80 staff to fulfil the testing requirements at new sites. Employing those 80 new staff alone will run to more than £1 million a year for just one company, and that is before the new equipment and reconfigurations are taken into account.
The Environmental Services Association has undertaken a detailed analysis of the logistical and financial impact of the additional obligations presented by this statutory instrument and has concluded that the costs would significantly exceed the £2.65 million threshold for an impact assessment. The association noted that, in a quarter of cases, the SI could require investment of £50 million for each facility and that some facilities would need to close for up to 12 months to be able to reconfigure their operations and comply with new testing requirements.
An extensive survey of stakeholders that the association carried out found that just over half of all recycling facilities lack the space for the enhanced sampling requirements. Many, including waste transfer stations, will require reconfiguration and reduced throughput to accommodate the requirements. Those sites will also incur significant additional logistical challenges, such as additional staff traffic and a move to off-site sample analysis.
If that is the case, it seems that the implications have not been properly thought through. The Government have too readily dismissed the analysis of the Environmental Services Association. Can the Minister explain how she is so sure that the association is wrong, and the costs will not exceed the £2.65 million threshold required for a proper impact assessment? If she is wrong, will she carry out that assessment and think again? Why is she so reluctant to submit the policy to proper scrutiny?
The question is: who is going to end up paying for all this, either directly or indirectly? Will it be the facilities, manufacturers or local authorities, or will it ultimately be the consumers and council tax payers? I draw Members’ attention to the Government’s response to the question posed by the Green Alliance, which, for those with a sharp eye, can be found in the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Government responded that they expect the costs will be covered by the extended producer responsibility disposal cost fees borne by the packaging producers and payable to local authorities. However, that was their answer when they were arguing that the costs were minimal. As I have argued, like many of the stakeholders in this sector and beyond, I am not convinced that they will be minimal. Therefore, I am concerned about the wider consequences. Can the Minister tell us who she thinks will bear those costs, and over what timescale? Can she also tell us what meetings have taken place between her Department and the sector? How often and when? I understand that she might not know today, but perhaps she could write to me.
In recent years, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West has pressed the point about enforcement on a range of issues. There is a lack of clarity about how the new regime will be enforced, not least based on what happened when the original legislation was introduced. Will the Minister outline how much money her Department has allocated to enforcement? As we all know, there is no point introducing new rules unless they are going to be enforced. We can also see from the legislation that the proposals will have a limited impact on the resources sector as that is more aimed at the producers. I suspect that any impact will depend on the type of business and where it is in the value chain. Can the Minister outline what engagement she has had with producers and the producers sector?
Overshadowing all this is the wider extended producer responsibility regime. Will the Minister confirm that the Government remain committed to it? It is important, because the “polluter pays” principle was once a driving principle of this Government. We agree, because for too long producers, brands and retailers have not had to take full accountability for the products they place on the market. I am sure the Minister agrees that EPR can be a crucial step towards a more sustainable resource management system.
We have a real opportunity to be world leaders abroad and innovators at home, but that requires boldness, ambition and commitment. I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment, but it seems to many of us that the wider Government are on the run when it comes to environmental policy. We will not force the issue to a vote today, but the wider world knows the truth. The Government have lost the plot when it comes to the big environmental challenges that we face.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister. Although he is a stand-in, it is always good to see him. I also welcome the new shadow DEFRA Minister; I know we will be meeting very soon.
The shadow Minister suggested that it had been a bad summer for me, but in fact it has been a good summer. I went on my water walkabout around the country. Contrary to what one might read in the press, I saw an awful lot of excellent work going on in the water space, across a whole range of facilities, including a great many sewage treatment works, where I looked at the monitoring kit. I analysed in great detail how the whole system works, as well as the new schemes we are bringing forward to get duration monitoring, and extra monitoring upstream and downstream.
Similarly, I saw some of the excellent work going on with chalk stream restoration, particularly in the consistency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and other counties. It gave me great heart that what we are doing on chalk stream restoration in particular is game changing. We absolutely will be committed to that.
While we are talking about our record, let me say that, far from people overseas looking at us and thinking that we are downgrading what we are doing and that what we are doing is not good enough, we are actually revered across the world. I did go to see another piece of DEFRA work, which was overseas, that was working on waste recycling and ocean protection regarding plastics. I can tell hon. Members that the schemes that we are bringing in—the way they all knit together—and our collection system, from household to recycling facility and onwards, are really revered by other countries.
Yes, we still have a long way to go to knit this all together in a completely circular economy, but I will not allow the shadow Minister to berate us for what we are doing, because I know that it is the right thing to do. We will continue with it—we are absolutely committed to it, as he knows—and it will make the difference that we need; we are already well on track. That was slightly out of the box, but while we are at it, I will point out that 93% of bathing waters are good or excellent—I have seen a lot of that, too.
To answer the shadow Minister’s questions, yes, there has been a great deal of local authority consultation. It has been ongoing with officials and ongoing with me. As I explained earlier, it is very important, and it will continue. On the impact assessment, as I said earlier, as part of the Government response to the consultation on the EPR scheme, we produced an EPR impact assessment, which included the expected costs to materials facilities in meeting the proposed regulatory requirements. Assumptions about the estimated number of materials facilities in scope were then revised with regulators, following clarification on the definition and the types of facilities in scope of these amending regulations, further reducing the burden on facilities where possible. Originally, 739 facilities were estimated to be in scope in England. That was revised down to 159, following our receiving the updated data and the assumptions of the Environment Agency. As a result, the threshold required for producing a full impact assessment for this SI was not reached. The shadow Minister asked about that, so I hope that what I have said answers his question. A lot of the facilities that were in there were moved out, because they will be assessed in a different way—they are mostly the household recycling centres, where material goes to. That material will be captured, but in relation to what we are dealing with today, the facility numbers have been revised right down.
This will be a new recording requirement for local authorities, but they have known that it has been coming down the track, because we consulted a while ago, and it does not actually come in for 12 months, so they have more time to gear themselves up to it. They will also get their first invoices when all this data and other data has been used to calculate the expected fees—they will get their first invoices for EPR in October 2025.
Daniel Zeichner
On the costs, will the Minister clarify something? Many of these organisations seem to think that there will be a significant extra cost. Does she think they are wrong?
Rebecca Pow
Well, we carried out the impact assessment. One of the purposes of the entire scheme, when it is correctly functioning, is that the amount of waste going into the system will overall be reduced. Of course, that is why we are asking the organisations to collect data, for example on what later will be in the deposit return scheme. Most of that will not be in this waste once this gets working properly. A lot of it will not even be there. It will, just to start with, and that is why gathering the data is so important, because the whole system will be functioning as one, so that the costs will not be prohibitive, according to our calculations and working with them, when they have to start doing this extra sampling.
The shadow Minister also asked about enforcement. The EA is already starting work with the permitted facilities to talk to them about what is expected of them, what they will have to do, and how they will bring that in. I hope that answers his question; we can write to him with more detail on the funding if he would like. We are also constantly working with the producers. They are the ones who put the packaging on the market and they will be the ones who have to pay the fees. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we moved the date for the start of the EPR, which, along with current impacts around the cost of living and inflation, was largely to give industry members more time. Work with them is ongoing to make sure we get this right. It is new and complicated, but I am engaged with the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and so on, as are my officials. That is important.
That covers the questions. The shadow Minister asked about the overall schemes for the circular economy and the “polluter pays” principle. All the schemes are linked to the whole “polluter pays” principle, and that is what underpins them. Although there have been some delays, we are still doing all the work to make sure they are introduced within the timescales we have set. We are looking all the time at feedback from industry, hence the delay on the EPR scheme by 12 months, and I also remind the shadow Minister that it was a joint decision with the devolved Administrations. The additional year gives everyone more time to prepare for the systems when they come in. The materials facilities will need to meet the requirements introduced by this statutory instrument in advance of the EPR in 2025. We want all those requirements implemented before then to ensure that the data can be used by the scheme administrator, as I said earlier, to continue developing their fees and payment mechanisms.
Consistent collections in England for households will introduce a simpler system for recycling waste material. That will not be introduced until after the implementation of the EPR for packaging scheme in 2025. Councils are still waiting for the absolute detail on that, and that is why we are working with them to make sure that everything is streamlined and they know what will be required. I hope I have covered most, if not all, of the shadow Minister’s questions. I will write to him about the detail of the sums.
In summary, this statutory instrument will make crucial changes to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. Those amendments will introduce a new sampling requirement on materials facilities and bring more facilities in scope. That in turn will enhance the quality and quantity of waste data, strengthening the original objective of the regulations in response to the post-implementation review, and support fair and accurate payment calculations in the EPR scheme. I trust that I have made it clear about what the SI brings in; once again, I thank all hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment Relating to Original Pack Dispensing) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I just want to confirm that if gentlemen wish to remove their jackets, they are free to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendment Relating to Original Pack Dispensing) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I will set out the purpose of the draft statutory instrument. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 set out when medicines need to be prescription only and the requirements of pharmacists selling or supplying prescription-only medicines. This draft statutory instrument makes two amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations. First, it enables original pack dispensing of medicine when original packaging is required. Secondly, it requires whole-pack dispensing of medicines containing valproate.
The first amendment, under proposed new regulation 217B, will enable the pharmacist to dispense 10% more or less of the medicines compared with the quantity prescribed if they can dispense them with the manufacturer’s original packaging. Dispensing in the manufacturer’s original packaging brings a number of benefits. First, it improves patient safety because original packaging contains clear instructions and information about the medicines. Secondly, it frees up pharmacy time by reducing the amount of time spent splitting packs and counting packs and strips. However, the responsible pharmacist will need to make a judgment as to whether to use this 10% discretion. For example, the flexibility should not be applied to some medicines, such as courses of steroids or antibiotics, and the exact quantity prescribed should be the quantity supplied.
Original pack dispensing will not apply to controlled drugs, where the exact quantity prescribed will continue to need to be dispensed. Nor will it apply where a medicine is already dispensed in a full pack, for example because it is in a form that is not practical to dispense in the exact quantity ordered.
While the flexibility of 10% will not enable all prescriptions to be dispensed in the manufacturer’s original packs, it will deal with the issues of whether a month’s supply is for 28 or 30 days, and with multiples. For example, if a prescription is for 28 days but the pack has 30 tablets, currently the pharmacist has to remove those two extra tablets. The new flexibility will enable the full pack to be supplied and vice versa. The amendments for original pack dispensing will apply across Great Britain and they are enabling, so pharmacists can decide whether to utilise the original pack dispensing with the flexibility of plus or minus 10%.
A transitional provision has been included, so pharmaceutical services in England will need to further negotiate with Community Pharmacy England on pricing arrangements following the draft regulations. I understand that in Scotland, however, they are ready to move forward with this, so it will apply immediately.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Minister gave the example of 28 days or 30 days. Will pharmacists be able to explain to patients that they will not necessarily have to take them for 30 days?
Maria Caulfield
Absolutely, and pharmacists are very keen to do this. This will often be used for repeat medication. A GP may prescribe a month’s pack—which, depending on the supplier, will be for either 28 days or 30 days—but when dispensing the packs the pharmacist will be able to give advice to patients so that they are absolutely clear on the instructions, which will also be written on the pack.
That goes to my point that by ensuring that patients receive the necessary information that is included in the original manufacturer’s packaging, they will be supported in taking their medicines more safely and effectively. The amendments will lead to a reduction in the use of plain dispensing packaging—those little white boxes—so that patients can stop getting lots of small snips from blister strips. When they get full strips, that will make it easier for them to manage the supply and support compliance, because they will be able to identify more easily whether they have taken their tablet that day and how many they have left.
Original pack dispensing also helps pharmacists and their staff to become more efficient, as the number of times they have to snip blisters, repackage medicines and source extra patient information leaflets is reduced, freeing up time for other tasks such as providing clinical services to patients. The benefits of original pack dispensing will be synergistic with the benefits of expanding hub and spoke arrangements, which we are rolling out across the pharmacy sector. The use of hub and spoke dispensing arrangements has been consulted on, and we will publish that consultation in due course. Both today’s measures and the expansion of hub and spoke dispensing are a commitment to the community pharmacy contractual framework and are important foundations in transforming community pharmacy.
The second regulation, proposed new regulation 217C, is about the whole-pack dispensing of valproate. “Valproate” is a term for medicines containing sodium valproate, valproic acid and valproate semisodium; it includes various brands such as Epilim. Valproate is an effective medicine prescribed for the treatment of epilepsy and bipolar disorders, but it is associated with birth defects and neurological disabilities in babies exposed to it during pregnancy. The risk to children of mothers who have taken valproate during pregnancy of having neurodevelopmental disorders is estimated at 30% to 40%, in addition to an 11% risk of congenital abnormalities.
A number of measures are already in place to try to prevent pregnancies while women are taking valproate, such as the pregnancy prevention programme, which has already reduced the number of pregnancies exposed to valproate. But the latest data suggests that in England at least three pregnancies a month are still being exposed to medicines containing valproate. More needs to be done.
The regulations will require that patients receive only the manufacturer’s complete original packs, with limited exceptions in specific circumstances. The manufacturer’s original packs contain specific warnings and pictograms. There is a patient card along with statutory patient information leaflets, which outline the risks of taking the medicine. If patients are concerned about taking valproate, they should talk to their healthcare provider and should not stop taking their medicines without medical supervision.
The provision will be mandatory across Great Britain. There is no transition period and it will apply as soon as the regulations come into force. I hope I have set out the rationale for original pack dispensing for the majority of medicines and using the specific manufacturer’s complete original pack when dispensing valproate medicine. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. The Opposition are supporting the regulations because they clearly represent the right thing to do for patients and constituents. Not only do they improve patient safety, which must be our priority, but they increase flexibility for pharmacists and patients alike. I am also pleased that valproate has been given due attention in this SI, following the important work by Baroness Cumberlege in the independent medicines and medical devices safety review; it is just a shame that it has taken two years following the Government’s own consultation on this matter to introduce this legislation.
Campaigners have long argued that it is key that medicines containing sodium valproate should be dispensed in the original manufacturer’s packaging to ensure that women and girls, particularly those of child-bearing age, always receive patient information about taking the medicine while pregnant. As we know from the many tragic impacts of foetal valproate spectrum disorder on our constituents and people around the country, this SI is long overdue. I pay tribute to those campaigners.
As the Minister would expect, I have some questions. The Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 requires that, when assessing whether regulations would contribute to the objective of safeguarding public health, the appropriate authority must have regard to three factors, one of which is the availability of medicines. It appears to me that the SI misses the opportunity to address the current shortage of medicines, including of those involved in hormone replacement therapy—something that has affected many women across the country.
Section 64(5) of the Medicines Act 1968 prohibits the sale or supply of a medicinal product where that product is not of the nature or quality specified in a prescription—for example, if a pharmacist dispenses two 50 microgram tablets against a prescription calling for a 100 microgram tablet, when the 100 microgram product is in short supply. The SI allows the dispensing of 10% more or less than the quantity prescribed of a medicine. Given that the SI is about flexibility, and given the campaigning on this issue, particularly by women, this could have been an opportunity to look again at packaging; women could then get the drugs that they are prescribed.
The professional judgment of pharmacists will remain a critical part of the dispensing process for all medicines. I am pleased that guidance on whole-pack dispensing of medicines containing valproate will be provided by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency before the instrument comes into force. What other support and guidance will be given to pharmacists to ensure that the SI is implemented effectively? Will the Minister give an indication of the timeline for the consultation on Pharmacy First, given that it is due to be implemented by the end of this year? Can she tell us about the contractual restrictions relating to NHS prescriptions? As I understand it, reimbursement is based on the exact product prescribed. Forgive me if I missed it, but I do not think that she addressed that issue.
Finally, I appreciate the publication of an impact assessment alongside this SI, but the section on reimbursement gives two alternative scenarios: either reimbursement based on the quantity written on the prescription, or reimbursement based on what was dispensed, rather than what was written on the prescription. Those necessarily have different impacts on the cost to pharmacies and the wider NHS. If the Minister could provide clarity on those issues, I would be grateful.
Maria Caulfield
I thank the Opposition for their support; it is very welcome and appreciated. I, too, pay tribute to Baroness Cumberlege for her work in this area, and to groups including In-FACT—the Independent Fetal Anti-convulsant Trust—which have been campaigning for a long time for better protection and support for women taking valproate.
Let me answer the hon. Lady’s questions. On greater flexibility, that is being looked at as a wider piece in community pharmacy by the pharmacy Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien). There can be flexibility when there is a shortage of medicine; the hon. Lady brought up the example of HRT. When there is a shortage of a product, we issue a serious shortage protocol, which gives pharmacists flexibility when they have a pack on their shelf that is not quite what the prescription says. As she says, the prescription may be for 10 micrograms; if the pharmacist has two packs of 5 micrograms, or a different form of the medicine, there is flexibility under the SSP to dispense that, rather than sticking to the prescription. We are looking at whether that needs to be part of a wider piece of work on medicines overall.
The hon. Lady touched on Pharmacy First. The pharmacy Minister will update the House shortly on that; there is work going on around Pharmacy First and its roll-out. The hon. Lady touched on reimbursement. She is absolutely right: there are cost issues that community pharmacies will rightly want to iron out. That is why we have put a transitional arrangement in the SI: so that discussions with Community Pharmacy England on funding and reimbursement of costs can be hammered out before the SI is put into practice. That is the next stage. Once we have agreed to the SI, we will go into negotiations on pricing and reimbursement, so that the measures meet pharmacy’s needs when it comes to costs; the aim is not to put costs on pharmacy by introducing these measures.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that we are looking at the issues she mentioned. In particular, we issue serious shortage protocols quite regularly when we have a shortage of medicine, and that gives pharmacists a degree of flexibility in dispensing, without the need for further regulation. I thank Members on both sides of the Committee for their support today. I hope that I have reassured them that we are acting with urgency on valproate, and that original pack dispensing will give pharmacists flexibility, which will free up their time, so that they can focus more on clinical activity.
Question put and agreed to.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 View all Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 September 2023 - (5 Sep 2023)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Date Time Witness Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 9.55 am Local Government Association; Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 10.25 am Jewish Leadership Council; Board of Deputies of British Jews Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 10.55 am Councillor Bob Deering; Councillor James Jamieson Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 11.10 am Yachad Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 11.25 am Conservative Friends of Israel Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 2.30 pm Henry Jackson Society; Free Speech Union Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 2.45 pm World Uyghur Congress Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 3.00 pm Stephen Cragg KC Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 3.45 pm Francis Hoar; Professor Andrew Tettenborn; Professor Adam Tomkins Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Balfour Project Tuesday 5 September Until no later than 4.30 pm UNISON; Scottish Trades Union Congress Thursday 7 September Until no later than 12.00 pm UK Lawyers for Israel; Steven Barrett Thursday 7 September Until no later than 12.30 pm Human Rights Watch; Friends of the Earth; Amnesty International Thursday 7 September Until no later than 12.45 pm Richard Hermer KC Thursday 7 September Until no later than 1.00 pm Melanie Phillips
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally, without debate.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 5 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 September;
(b) at 11.30 am on Thursday 7 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2 pm on Tuesday 12 September;
(d) at 11:30am and 2 pm on Thursday 14 September;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3; the Schedule; Clauses 4 to 17; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 14 September.—(Felicity Buchan.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Felicity Buchan.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Felicity Buchan.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and circulated to Members by email. We will now go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we hear from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I have been to Israel on a trip paid for by the Conservative Friends of Israel, and I have a personal friendship with James Gurd, who will give evidence.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I declare my membership of Unison. I understand that an individual from Unison will give evidence at this session.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I recently visited the occupied territories. The visit was paid for by Amnesty, who will join us later this week.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I have been on a Conservative Friends of Israel trip, and James Gurd is a personal friend of mine.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I have also been on a Conservative Friends of Israel trip, James Gurd is a friend of mine, and I used to work at the Jewish Leadership Council.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am the parliamentary chair of Labour Friends of Israel. It is a non-pecuniary position, but I have also been to Israel with Labour Friends of Israel.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I have been on a trip to Israel funded by Conservative Friends of Israel, and James Gurd is personally known to me.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
As per my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I have been on a trip to Israel funded by Conservative Friends of Israel, and James Gurd is personally known to me.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I have been to Israel on a visit funded by Labour Friends of Israel, but that was many years ago.
The Chair
I suppose, for the sake of completeness, that I should say I too have been on a trip to Israel with Labour Friends of Israel. However, as with Wayne David, that was many years ago.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I have also been on a trip funded by Conservative Friends of Israel, and I am also a friend of James Gurd.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I have been on a trip funded by Caabu, who are not giving evidence this morning, but I believe they are later on.
The Chair
Are there any more? I do not think there are any more Members!
We will first hear oral evidence from Jo Donnelly, who is the head of pensions at the Local Government Association, and Jon Richards, who is vice-chair of the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and we must stick to the timings in the programme order the Committee has agreed. For this panel, we have until 9.55 am. To begin with, could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Jo Donnelly: I am Jo Donnelly, head of pensions at the Local Government Association.
Jon Richards: I am Jon Richards, vice-chair of the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board. In my day job, I am assistant general secretary for Unison, the public services union, although I am here specifically in my role as vice-chair.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Q
There have been instances where local government pension schemes have come under pressure from civil society groups to divest from a particular country or territory. Is that something you are aware of? What kind of pressure have you faced? Do you think that the Bill will allow pension schemes to focus on delivering value for their members, rather than being distracted by political campaigns?
Jon Richards: Perhaps I can start. Thank you very much for the question and for inviting us here. There have been limited incidents where there have been local attempts to push forward BDS at local levels. As a pension scheme, we are clear that this is a scheme about delivering pensions. Its fiduciary duty is on members to deliver what members want and expect. If, at any time, there are questions raised, we remind people of the fiduciary duty, which is the most important thing that drives matters.
Unfortunately, in recent years, we have seen a number of attempts by Governments and even suggestions by both the main parties that we should invest in various things—private equity and all the rest. That interferes with our duty to deliver pensions, and that is what drives us. So there have been a few small attempts, but they have not taken place. We have also seen some global investment managers making separate decisions, which our pension funds do not have any control over. Those are outwith our ability—we cannot do anything about it if they make those decisions, because it is a global investment association.
What we are fundamentally saying is that our primary duty is our fiduciary duty. Unfortunately, this Bill will interfere in that, and that is what our concern is. It has the potential to increase our administrative costs, as we have to monitor whatever we are asked to do, but also potential legal challenges, which we expect, because we know this is a very difficult minefield. So we have real concerns about the administrative governance and financial costs that this will put on us.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jon Richards: Our primary aim is our fiduciary duty to deliver pensions, and you will hear us say that probably 10 more times throughout this session.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jo Donnelly: It is not a technical matter. My role here today is to assist you on the technical pension side of things.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jo Donnelly: I think there are concerns around the clarity of a number of the provisions in the Bill and around how that will be dealt with in practice by pension committees, who are primarily making the decisions in the LGPS around investments and around strategy.
On the procurement side of things, I have taken some advice from my procurement colleagues in the LGA—obviously, I am not a procurement expert—and they have told me that, on the procurement side of things, there is nothing here that would cause any problems. The thing that is asked for is some more clarity around how the provisions on procurement in this Bill would interact with the Procurement Bill, which is currently going through Parliament as well. I think there is the potential for some confusion about how the provisions of each Bill interact with each other. So there is a request for some clarity and for clear communications to local authorities, and the LGA is happy to assist with that clarity on the procurement side of things.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jo Donnelly: On the procurement side, yes.
Felicity Buchan
Absolutely, yes.
Jon Richards: But not on the pension side. That is the difference: with procurement and pensions, this Bill will have a different impact on the ability in procurement, as opposed to the fiduciary duty, as I will say many times, versus pensions trustees.
The Chair
Before the Minister proceeds, could I just remind her that we have a fairly tight timetable? Perhaps she could take that into account in future questioning.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Jo Donnelly: There are not that many options in the pensions space for the LGPS. The Pensions Regulator already has a role in relation to the administration and governance of the LGPS, but it does not have a role in the investment side of the LGPS—it does with other, private sector pension schemes, but not the LGPS. So the provisions in the Bill would expand TPR’s powers over some investment-type decisions in the LGPS. Our main concern around the regulator’s role is that they ensure that they limit their oversight of investment decisions to the provisions of the Bill and that they are properly resourced and trained to do that role, because it is quite different to what they are used to doing already.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Jon Richards: I do not think we do. I think we think that the level of regulation of the LGPS is also already very high. You will have seen that the Government have just introduced a whole series of additional pension consultations, which we have to do—which poor Jo has to deal with and spend a long time on. Again, we think there is significant regulation. We have a regulator and we have a clear fiduciary duty. Trustees have clear responsibilities, including training responsibilities. They have a clear understanding of what should be done. There is a need for improving governance, and we have been doing a lot of work on that, including training. We have also tried to issue guidance on the need to be clear that, if there are challenges, or attempts to move people away from the fiduciary duty, we need to drag people back to that, and they should not be diverted by some of the political games that are potentially out there.
Alex Norris
Q
Jon Richards: There is some wording in some bits of the Bill. For instance, it talks about being substantially “influenced”, a “reasonable observer” and “moral disapproval”. There is a series of phrases. These are very open, vague phrases. It is a lawyers’ charter. It really makes it difficult for us. We have already seen an increase in the number of legal challenges around this issue. You can see the pressures around a whole series of environmental issues. We face a whole series of pressures. Every new regulation, particularly if it is as openly worded as this, potentially makes it more difficult for us to deliver our fiduciary duty.
Jo Donnelly: Could I add something to that? The concerns about the judicial review and the court processes, in particular, are quite key for us, because it does appear that there could be dual running, effectively—enforcement action from the regulator alongside an interested party potentially bringing a judicial review or a High Court claim. The definition of an interested party is something that we would like to be clearer—for example, whether they need to be a scheme member or a local taxpayer. Some kind of clarity around the definition of who that could be would be helpful.
There is a real concern about the possibility of a local authority having to deal with a regulator investigation as well as a High Court claim. If a High Court claim was brought, that would be the first point of action. Normally, a High Court claim would be the end point; it would be the last resort. In this case, it could potentially be the first part of action, so the courts would be undertaking an investigation that we do not think would be helpful for them or the local authorities that are the subject of the action. That is a key concern for us as well.
Jon Richards: Can I add one thing, please, Chair? There is another issue about statements being made by particular people. If someone makes a statement, say, during a pensions committee meeting, and it is minuted, it is not clear whether the challenge is against the pensions committee, or the individual or whatever. There is some wording about the dangers of someone expressing themselves in a pensions committee meeting, and the potential impact of someone taking a challenge against the whole committee. Again, there is very loose and worrying wording for us.
The Chair
Q
Jo Donnelly: What we would like to see is a change in the Bill that would lead to the judicial review option or the High Court claim being possible only against the decision of the enforcement authority. Effectively, the decision that the regulator makes is what can be then challenged in court, rather than the decision—the alleged breach of the law—by the authority in the first place. Ideally, it would proceed as relatively normal, which is that a decision of an enforcement authority is what is challenged in law, rather than the original decision.
Chris Stephens
Q
Talking about green pensions, Lloyds Banking Group says:
“UK adults believe the biggest benefit of investing in a ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ pension is the improvement that it would make to the lives of future generations...followed by the fact it could help save the planet”.
Are there any parallels between ethical investments in the environment and ethical investments in international human rights?
Jon Richards: It is a very tricky area. It is a difficult tightrope that we walk as pensions trustees and pensions administrators. Let us just say that there are no pensioners on a dead planet, so you can see a clear long-term approach to understanding how you need to deal with potential investments, knowing the potential issues. I should admit that many years ago, I trained as a geologist and I was somewhat sceptical of climate change. I see humanity as a very small part of the overall 4.5 billion years that the Earth has been going. I looked at the different overall increases in temperature, and I think it is now quite difficult to argue against the scientific evidence in that context. That is my view; I understand others have not, but I have changed my view over the years.
Clearly, there is a logic behind environmental and a wish on the part of members to do that. I go back to what we said before: we are there to deliver on behalf of the members. That is our fundamental requirement. Clearly, we can see a desire among the membership to do something about ESG, so there is an understanding and a need to deal with that, because it deals with the wider investment and member issue. This is not the same type of political issue, and we wish to avoid, as much as possible as a pension scheme, getting tied into political issues. Unfortunately, this Bill does that to us.
Chris Stephens
Q
Jon Richards: Again, I do not want to get too dragged into this, because whenever you get involved in these, you always end up arguing about the extremes, as opposed to the thing. As I have said, there have been a very small number of attempts where this has happened. We are aware of one attempt where an external councillor sought to intervene. As I have said, there are some areas where investment managers have made decisions that have had an impact on the problem. Members have sought to do so, and some Unison branches and members have also made some attempts, but whenever they get through to the fiduciary duty, that is fundamentally where the decision is taken, and they have not been anywhere near meeting those requests at this time. They may do; people and members may change their minds. At the moment, we have not reached that threshold of decision making.
The Chair
Thank you. I have registered two other Members as signalling that they would like to ask questions. Have I missed anybody? No. In which case, I call Steve McCabe.
Steve McCabe
Q
Jo Donnelly: I think it is just a feature of how the law has to be drafted in order to exclude all pension schemes except the local government pension scheme, because the law applies to bodies under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, which includes education institutions such as universities, and obviously there is a pension scheme associated with universities. The law needs to exclude those pension schemes but specifically include the LGPS. I just read this as the best way that the drafters have found to make that clear, so I do not see it as a problem; it is just that the way in which the drafting has to work is sometimes a little clunky.
Steve McCabe
Q
Jon Richards: This is one for me, isn’t it? We would prefer it if the local government pension scheme was not subject to this Bill, as that interferes with our fiduciary duties.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Jo Donnelly: It depends on the terminology. I would interpret “fund managers” as the asset managers: the investment professionals who manage the money in the pension scheme. They are tasked and given a mandate by the administering authority, by the pensions committee, which makes the decision as a collective. There is no individual decision making in the LGPS; it is all done as a collective by committee, which is one reason why there is some confusion for us about who the decision maker is, because that is never an individual in the LGPS.
In terms of fund managers as investment managers, they will continue to operate in line with the mandate that they are given by their client, which is the local authority or, in some cases, the investment pool, if it is one of the eight LGPS pools that exist in England and Wales. As long as those mandates do not breach the law, they will continue to operate as they do now. They make day-to-day commercial decisions about investments, taking into account all the relevant risk factors. If asset managers feel that there needs to be a change in an investment profile because of risk factors, they will make those decisions, normally without having to check that with the client—the authority that has invested the money.
Jon Richards: Can I just add that we have a series of oversight bodies that take those decisions? Obviously there is a pension fund committee in the council, which has the administerial authority. We also have separate pension boards which have half representatives of employers and half of employees, which again matches what we have at national level, where our board is six councillors and six member representatives. The chair is a Conservative councillor, the chair of the employers’ side is a Conservative councillor and I am a trade union official.
We have never had to vote at the national level. We have voting powers, but we have never used them because we have never needed to: we understand that we have a fiduciary duty. That is where we agree with Conservative councillors. We disagree very heavily on politics and all sorts of things, but when it comes to the committee we are pretty clear about what it is we need to do, and also about the need to improve governance to ensure that members’ representatives and members’ views are taken into account when people make those investment decisions.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Jon Richards: I do not think so. I think there are wider problems with this legislation. There are ways of dealing with governance and how members can feed in and put their views forward at local and national level. The Bill has a series of other difficulties that will cause us significant administrative, governance and legal problems.
Jo Donnelly: I think there are some concerns about the exceptions and how they work. In the schedule, there are exceptions to permit considerations around environmental, social and governance factors, which are obviously now standard practice to consider when looking at investments. But there are some concerns about the wording of those provisions, whether they will allow things to continue to operate, and whether committees will be able to consider specific concerns brought by scheme members.
The Chair
I am afraid we have reached the end of the time allotted to the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses, who have been very clear and helpful in drawing our attention to some of the dilemmas and difficulties faced. I am sure when we come to deliberate on amendments and alterations to the Bill we will take very seriously the advice that has been given.
Examination of witnesses
Russell Langer and Daniel Sugarman gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Russell Langer, head of policy and research at the Jewish Leadership Council, and Daniel Sugarman, director of public affairs for the Board of Deputies of British Jews. For this session, we have until 10.25 am. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Russell Langer: I am Russell Langer: I am the head of policy and research at the Jewish Leadership Council.
Daniel Sugarman: I am Daniel Sugarman: I am a director of public affairs at the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Wayne David
Q
Russell Langer: I judge the legislation based on whether or not it adequately prohibits BDS in public bodies, and I believe it does; whether or not it covers the correct public bodies within its scope, and it does; and whether or not it has the appropriate enforcement powers to ensure that the Bill will have the intended effect, and it does. I did not draft the legislation—I saw the legislation at probably a similar time to you—but on those bases, it is something that I am very comfortable in supporting.
Daniel Sugarman: Similarly, we had no role in drafting the legislation, of course; we saw it at probably around the same time as many of you did. This is a policy area that we have been very interested in for quite a while now, and I think that the Bill as it stands addresses the concerns that we have, although of course if amendments are raised, we will watch them with interest, as will other people.
Wayne David
Q
Russell Langer: If we had amendments that we were proposing, we would have included them in our written submission, and I do not believe either organisation has. I look forward with interest to seeing amendments as they come forward, and we will consider them on their merits, but we are happy, as it stands, with the Bill.
Wayne David
Q
Daniel Sugarman: I think that we have to accept the circumstances as they currently are, and the circumstances currently are that there are hundreds of thousands of Jewish people living beyond what one might call the green line. There has been already a firm understanding among different parties to peace negotiations that there will have to be land swaps in terms of the future two-state solution that we hope and pray for. Given that that is the case, to penalise people who are living, essentially—there is a difference between hilltop settlements and towns, essentially, connected to Jerusalem where tens of thousands of people live. I think that the way things have worked up until now has led to everything being tarred with the same brush, and I am not sure that that is particularly helpful.
Russell Langer: If I can add this, I disagree with your assessment that the legislation paints it all in the same way. First, very clearly, Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan heights are listed separately in the Bill, and I am pretty sure that if you were to ask the Israeli Government, they would see that as them being listed separately. But more importantly, the UK Government have been clear that this does not change UK policy. UK policy on Israel and the settlements is something that is a reserved matter for the national Government and something that gets debated in this place on a regular basis. What we do not require is for that debate to happen in every public body around this country, especially when it is usually—it tends to be—the only foreign policy debate that happens in public bodies around the country. I think that is the really key—important—part here. To me, this is not a discussion about settlements. That is a legitimate conversation to happen in Parliament; we do not need to be having that conversation in every public body around this country.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Russell Langer: Sure. The boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign—BDS—against Israel is a pernicious campaign, which seeks to single out the world’s only Jewish state for unique treatment. As I just said in the previous answer, when we look at the picture in public bodies around this country when it comes to foreign policy discussions, Israel is the only country that is singled out in this way. That was something that was made clear in the House of Commons Library briefing, prepared ahead of Second Reading, as well. I therefore believe that the legislation is necessary to end the practice of Israel being singled out in that way by public bodies around the country.
On the links to antisemitism, the link between antisemitism here in the UK and the situation in Israel is clear—it is clear in the statistics, in the months with the highest levels of antisemitism on record, which all correspond to the months in which conflicts have happened in Israel. That link is clear.
When the Jewish community is most vulnerable in this country and when antisemitism is at its highest, we tend to see public bodies under intense pressure from campaign groups to get involved by boycotting Israel. That comes back to the point that I made about it being the only time that they are usually asked to get involved in such foreign policy. The legislation will therefore allow public bodies such as local authorities, higher education institutions and cultural organisations to focus on improving community cohesion at a time when it is at its most threatened. The legislation is helpful to that.
Daniel Sugarman: If I might add to that, on the links to antisemitism, there are a few points to consider, the first of which is the somewhat questionable double standards. People who take an extreme interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and call for a full boycott of Israel seem rarely, if ever, to call for boycotts of any other country. It appears to be just the world’s only Jewish state that gets that sort of treatment.
The history of boycotts against Jews is a painful one, linking directly back to Nazi Germany, and it is clear that at least for a significant percentage of the community, when we hear about boycotts against Israel, that is a link that is raised. We have also had cases, unfortunately, where people participating in BDS campaigns have gone beyond Israel. For example, in a supermarket, a bunch of BDS campaigners went in and started defacing products that they felt were Israeli-linked, but of course they went straight for the kosher food section, not appearing to distinguish. That sent a clear signal.
I will make two more quick points, if I may. First, polling suggests that more than 80% of British Jews see Israel as either central or important to their Jewish identity. There is a very strong link between the Jewish community and Israel. When Israel and Israel alone is targeted in such a manner, that really has a strong impact on the Jewish community.
The other thing to consider is that the co-founder of the BDS campaign has been very clear about what he sees as the end goal, which is not a two-state solution, but the destruction of Israel as a state and its replacement with a state in which Jews are a minority. Given that in the past 50 or 60 years we have seen exactly what has happened to every single other Jewish community in the Middle East that was a minority, I think that the Jewish community here and elsewhere is right to be profoundly concerned.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Russell Langer: On clause 4, as I said, with BDS in public bodies, that is something we have seen over the course of several years. Often, while the results have an impact on the Jewish community, that impact is not limited to the implementation of BDS; it is part of the febrile nature of the debate, bringing it into our public bodies. Once again, the specific point is that that tends to be the only foreign policy with such debate in our public bodies in this country. Therefore, I understand the purpose of the clause, and to that extent definitely see the need for something.
In terms of the enforcement powers, absolutely—this Bill would have little merit without having adequate enforcement powers. Without them, it would lean towards a situation that we have now, whereby it is up to individual campaigners to raise these issues through judicial review and so on. Therefore, one of the key parts of this Bill is having proper enforcement powers to ensure that it is enforced.
The Chair
Q
Russell Langer: Absolutely—I am tempted to give you that one-word answer. There is absolutely no issue here in the Bill in terms of criticising Israel. The UK should have robust foreign policy on all issues, including Israel, and I do not think that anything should get in the way of that. However, what we have seen is a problematic picture, whereby the only country that any public body seeks to wish to criticise tends to be the one Jewish state in the world, and that I have an issue with. Nevertheless, I am not getting in the way of anyone here criticising Israel should they wish to do so.
Chris Stephens
Q
Daniel Sugarman: First, I would say that we do not believe that the Bill prevents freedom of expression, in that any individual and any private organisation will still have the absolute right to adopt a BDS motion or to carry forward the idea of BDS. We are essentially concerned that public bodies, which receive public funding, are being used to promote a foreign policy agenda that is different from that of His Majesty’s Government. We find that extremely troubling and the idea that it is a freedom of speech issue is—I think for both of us, although I cannot speak for Russell—appears to be extremely misleading.
Russell Langer: Exactly. I will just add something to that. Neither of us would claim that the Jewish community is a homogenous community that will agree a single position on any piece of legislation, let alone this one, but we both sit here as representatives of national representative bodies, and this is the position that we have considered and come to.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Russell Langer: I have heard this argument and it is really important that it gets a clear answer, which is that antisemitism is not a response to Government legislation. It is not a criticism of the Israeli Government; antisemitism is the hatred of Jews. And I am really cautious about any argument that this piece of legislation would increase antisemitism. I think that it is an argument that we really need to steer clear of.
Daniel Sugarman: I would add that, from our point of view, the reason why it is right that Israel is singled out here is because, as far as I am aware, Israel is the only country that is regularly targeted for such boycotts via public bodies. No other country is targeted in such a manner. Therefore, it seems correct that there is some acknowledgement of that and some way to ensure that it does not happen.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Russell Langer: I think it will have a positive impact on communities here in the UK. Unfortunately, what we see here in the UK—it happens with other foreign issues, but it happens specifically with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—is that we see a foreign conflict affecting intercommunity relations here in the UK. Worst of all, we then see public bodies—it is a minority, but some public bodies—seeking to then get involved in that debate and make those tensions worse, when I think they should be getting involved to improve the situation. I completely agree with you, but I think I come to a different point.
Daniel Sugarman: It will certainly make things better for Jewish communities—particularly small Jewish communities—who have been in positions where they sometimes feel that, unless they vocally criticise Israel, as Jews, they will not get a hearing. I admit, I do not have a huge amount of sympathy for people who might feel that they no longer have the means to make such Jewish communities feel uncomfortable.
Steve McCabe
Q
Daniel Sugarman: That is an excellent point, but I think that, had the Government focused specifically on Israel, and not on anything else, we would have seen some of the same people who are raising questions in general—well-meaning questions as to why Israel is singled out specifically in the Bill—and I think that the questions as to why only Israel was being focused on would have been 1,000 times louder. I think it makes sense that the Government have widened the scope for this, while singling out Israel within the wider Bill.
Russell Langer: I would add that part of our reasoning to believe that public bodies should not be boycotting Israel is that it contravenes UK Government policy, and that it is a foreign-policy issue being taken up by public bodies. Therefore, I can understand the wider scope to tie that in to that national picture of public bodies not taking foreign-policy decisions contrary to national Government.
The Chair
Are there any further lines of questioning? We have time available if anybody wishes to pursue anything. In that case, although we did not take up a lot of your time, I think it gave members of the Committee an opportunity to air some of the points of principle as they presented, and to look at alternative points of view on. That has been really helpful, and, of course, you bring a perspective to this that is very focused on one specific community, but that is as it should be. We are very grateful for the light you have been able to shine on some of those difficult issues, which I know people are trying to cope with by being even-handed but also by operating on good, solid principles. Thank you very much indeed.
Russell Langer: Thank you very much for inviting us.
The Chair
Given that we are a little ahead of time, and one of the witnesses for the next session is not currently available, we will pause the proceedings.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Councillor Bob Deering, the executive member for resources and performance at Hertfordshire County Council, and Councillor James Jamieson, the immediate past chair of the Local Government Association, who joins us via Zoom. We have until 10.55 am for this session. Can the witnesses kindly introduce themselves, so that we have it on the record?
Councillor Deering: My name is Bob Deering. As you have just said, I am the cabinet member for resources and performance at Hertfordshire County Council, which essentially means money.
Councillor Jamieson: Good morning. I am James Jamieson. I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. As noted earlier, I was the chairman of the Local Government Association until July, when my four-year term expired. Previously, I have been the leader of Central Bedfordshire Council.
The Chair
Just before we get into the questions, I think Bob Blackman would like to make a declaration of interest.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Thank you, Chair; apologies for being late at the beginning. I want to put on record that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association; obviously, we have witnesses here from the LGA. I am also the secretary to the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, and I chair the all-party Britain-Israel parliamentary group. I am an officer of Conservative Friends of Israel, and I have been on trips to Israel sponsored by the Conservative Friends of Israel. I have also been on trips to the west bank and on others sponsored by other groups.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Councillor Deering: I do not know whether it will disappoint you, but in Hertfordshire we have had very little agitation—if I can use the word—of this type. Ahead of me coming here today, we did the best that we could to check our records, and we think that there may have been some form of question or petition that may have come through in 2022 related to Israel. We then had something post the Ukrainian issue that related to Russia. We think that that is just about the limit of our experience in recent times, so maybe we do not have a lot of experience to draw on. We would say that that is a good thing, because in Hertfordshire we are trying to manage our finances in an objective and hopefully sensible way for the benefit of the residents of Hertfordshire, not for any particular lobby group, whichever it may be. My answer to your question is yes: what you are looking at here probably would be helpful.
If I may just add a rider, there is some crossover between what you are looking at here and procurement. I think we would be keen that no grey area emerges across those two areas of interest.
The Chair
Q
Councillor Jamieson: I would also reflect that my personal experience in Central Bedfordshire is that we have not had motions of this nature relating to countries. Interestingly, we have had, on occasion, motions that would not be covered by this Bill, but which I would say were of a broader political nature and did not focus on what local government should be doing, which is delivering for our residents locally. My own personal view is that that is what councils should be focused on. Foreign policy really should be a matter for Government.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Councillor Deering: That is quite a big question. I am conscious that you will be taking evidence from all sorts of people. I might provide you with a neutral answer, if I may. We can see why they are there. Again, I do not wish to be repetitious or boring, but really we simply try to run our finances as best we can. In principle, we do not want awkward issues to come up that make it difficult for us to run our finances in the way that we think is best for our residents.
Councillor Jamieson: I do think that it is important that pension funds—as is currently the regulation for pension funds—can take into account issues that would be of concern to their pension holders. That is right, and that is a carve-out, albeit it also has the carve-out—I cannot remember the exact wording— that effectively it must not have a significant financial impact. I think that is right. For instance, with things around the environment, people might have concerns when investing in certain companies. Local government has a public health duty and I could completely understand if certain councillors wanted to avoid investments in businesses that they deemed were harmful for public health. A classic example would potentially be the tobacco industry. I think it is important that we can still make those decisions.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Councillor Deering: I think we are. I think we would support it for the central reason, which is that this country’s foreign policy, it seems to us, should be made by Government and should therefore be a coherent, unified foreign policy, rather than being fragmented across goodness alone knows how many organisations across the country, thereby becoming disparate. So yes, we are supportive.
May I come back on something the previous witness has just said in relation to pensions? Our experience is that if we find that there is some degree of pressure, it is more likely to come in relation to pensions. Our pension fund is valued currently at about £6 billion, which is a lot of money. We have 115,000 members and 400 employers. We take our responsibilities for our pension extremely seriously and I have been on our pension committee for a number of years. We have from time to time had situations where people, exactly as has just been said, come along and say that we should not be investing in x or we should not be investing in y because. There is a degree of difficulty with that because we understand always where people are coming from, but clearly, in the pension world, we have a fiduciary duty to deliver—to put it loosely but broadly—the best pension we can for all the prospective beneficiaries of our pension scheme. That comes up from time to time.
At Hertfordshire, we have an extremely good pensions committee. It is cross-party, as you would expect, but it is not party political. The reason I have come back to this is because, of course, environmental, social and governance is an issue in all investment these days. All the advisers that advise us in relation to our pension investments have some facility to advise on ESG. It might be thought that that strays into that area—tobacco, coal or whatever it is—but ESG works its way through to value and you start to realise that, actually, it is an investment criterion because it affects the value of what you are investing. I thought I should just say that because that is probably our biggest experience in this area.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Councillor Jamieson: I am speaking personally here. This is not an LGA view, just to be clear. I think the principle of this legislation is absolutely fine and, in many ways, helpful because it enables people on a pension committee to be very clear that they cannot consider countries when looking at this. However, my caveat is that there are some details in the regulations that need clarifying and those are quite concerning. It is not the principle but some of the details and we just want to make sure that some of those are right.
Alex Norris
Q
We speak a lot in this Parliament about transferring power from here to local communities, namely our local councils. The Bill very much transfers power from our local councils to this place. How do colleagues in the local government family feel about that?
Councillor Jamieson: Thank you very much for your kind words. As I should have mentioned in my little statement a moment ago, I am very vexed—and was very vexed as chairman of the Local Government Association—by the underlying trend of giving powers to local government with one hand and taking them away with multiple hands. I can genuinely understand why it is being done, but I do not like the fact that it is another example of central Government just eating away at the freedoms and devolution of local government, but there are far more contentious areas than this one in which I would argue that the Government have taken back powers.
Councillor Deering: My view is very similar. I do not know that in Hertfordshire we feel particularly that this is a power grab from us; I think we understand the rationale of the Bill, or the proposal. If we had more experience of problems in the area, maybe we would feel differently, but I think we would say that we are fairly relaxed about this.
Alex Norris
Q
Councillor Deering: My answer is very similar. Again, it could be because our experience of problems arising is quite limited, but we are broadly relaxed about the point that you are making. We can see the overarching objective of the proposed legislation.
Councillor Jamieson: This was one of the areas of detail about which I had a concern, because I think it only right that in a committee meeting people should be free to express views. The key question is what the decision of that committee is. That is what should be held to account, rather than the views that are expressed and rightly debated in the meeting.
We have two concerns. One is about the freedom to express those views in an appropriate manner during the meeting. The second concern is that we publish minutes of meetings. If those minutes faithfully record what somebody has said, would that breach the rules on expression of views? Those are two details that need to be sorted out, because we do want debate in a meeting. People should be able to express their view; the point is that when they come to make a decision, it is the decision that should be held to account, not what people said in the meeting.
The Chair
Six members of the Committee have indicated that they want to ask a question, so I will initially confine them to one question each. I am sure that members of the Committee have enough intellectual flexibility to be able to get everything they want to find out into a single question.
Bob Blackman
Q
Councillor Jamieson: I think the key question is the one that I have just spoken about. I am not particularly aware of any decisions, but I am aware that there have been debates. The key point that I am worried about is that I do not want those debates to be caught out, because it is right to debate things.
Bob Blackman
Q
The Chair
I did say that I was not going to allow second questions, but can somebody give a quick answer?
Councillor Jamieson: I will have to come back to you on that, Bob. I do not have the details of the Leicester discussion.
Steve McCabe
Q
Councillor Deering: I think it is my turn to go first, isn’t it? Do I think it is fair? That is a very good question. I think ultimately it is the decision that Parliament will make on this on this Bill. As a broad matter of principle, I do not think it is inappropriate that if a standard is set and there is a failure to meet the standard, some consequence will follow, but it is for Parliament to determine quite what that standard will be and quite what the consequence will be. As a principle, I do not think we would have any difficulty with that. On the second part of your one question, I would not think that this issue would deter people from coming into public life in local government. That would be my personal view.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Q
Councillor Deering: Well, I do not quite go back 10 years in local government, so I cannot quite answer for that period. I became a county councillor in 2017, I think, but I have been involved in the finance and performance side more or less ever since day one. I would say that the answer to your question is: a bit. Not only is there slightly more of this discussion because of general issues and political issues, but also in part because all councils are under financial pressure and every now and again there is a view expressed by someone—from wherever they might be on the political spectrum—that, “There seems to be an awful lot of money in the pension fund, and can’t that somehow be used?” Obviously that is inappropriate. In our council, everybody understands that, but it is a frustration that is expressed from time to time. Coming back to your question, yes, there is a little bit more of what you asked about, but maybe that is because there are an increasing number of events in the world that might lead to the thought being ventilated.
Councillor Jamieson: The modern world—with the increase in social media, the ability for electronic petitions and so forth—has meant that councils are subject to more petitioning and more demand from groups of the public. It is easier to put these things on the agenda than it was in the past, so I think it is inevitable that we are seeing more of whatever it is that we are talking about compared with 10 years ago; in fact, I can go back 14 years, so compared with 14 years ago.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Councillor Deering: Personally, I am a very big believer in freedom of speech, and just freedom. If I might make a huge point, it is one of the things that this country is pretty good at, actually. I am very strongly in favour of it and would not want to see it impinged, but we all need to find a way to work together and achieve objectives. I repeat that our institution is not particularly vexed about the issue that underlies your question; we can see it, but I do not know that we are vexed by it.
Councillor Jamieson: If I can come back to this—I am in danger of repeating myself—I do think it is important that there are some tweaks to the legislation. One is that writing the minutes of a meeting that reflect a view expressed in the meeting should not be a reason to be referred to the Pensions Regulator or for judicial review. Also, if the reference to a decision having been “influenced” was changed to “substantially influenced”, that would make life a lot easier.
I also have a big concern with judicial reviews. My biggest area of experience with judicial reviews is in the planning system, where they can be hugely expensive and time-consuming. I really do not like the fact that councils will be subject to judicial reviews, which will make vexatious JRs and so forth much easier. We are covered by the Pensions Regulator, and if the legislation were changed to say that it is the Pensions Regulator that makes the decision, and the Pensions Regulator could then be judicially reviewed if somebody felt it had not made its decision correctly, that would reduce the risk of vexatious JRs. That should also be linked to who can claim that they have been impacted. At the moment, pretty much anybody in the UK is in a household where there is a ratepayer; does that mean that anybody can mount a challenge just on the basis that they are potentially influenced or potentially a taxpayer?
The definition of who can mount a JR should be tightened, then, but ideally we should remove the ability to JR councils for the decisions. We should be monitored by the regulator and complaints should be made to the regulator, which should make that decision. If the regulator makes a decision and a member of the public is not happy with that decision, they should JR the regulator, not the council. I think that would make people feel a lot more comfortable about expressing their views and not having a vexatious JR or worrying about whether a minute in a meeting might contravene the rules or whatever.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
Q
Councillor Deering: If I may say so, I thought that Councillor Jamieson’s response to the previous question was very good, because the question went to freedom of speech but Councillor Jamieson talked about judicial review, and in effect you are talking about enforcement through judicial review.
I substantially endorse what Councillor Jamieson just said. From the practical point of view of a councillor—forgive me: no doubt some of you in the room have this experience, but perhaps some of you do not—JRs may very well not be vexatious but my goodness me they give rise to a huge amount of work. They involve huge cost exposures and they are very, very demanding on a council’s capacity. If there is to be a JR backdrop to this, it needs to be put together in a thoughtful and careful way.
Subject to that, of course, if you are creating a regime that requires application, there does need to be some enforcement mechanism. Yes, I agree with that.
Councillor Jamieson: There does need to be an enforcement mechanism, which is the whole point of the Pensions Regulator. That should have sufficient teeth. It covers a whole range of issues—not just this but other things—and in general it works reasonably well.
Chris Stephens
Q
“make it almost impossible for public bodies to use their procurement and investment policies to incentivise ethical business conduct that is human rights compliant”?
Councillor Deering: I did not quite catch the very first part of your question—
Chris Stephens
I can say it again.
Councillor Deering: It is okay; I think I got the gist of it. In a way, that goes perhaps not to the heart of the Bill but somewhere reasonably close to its heart, doesn’t it? In effect, it goes to the question of whether local authorities or public bodies should be campaigning bodies. There are some interesting questions there, aren’t there? Of course, in the case of local authorities, their funding is all taxpayer funding, so there needs to be some balance to make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent in an appropriate manner. It seems to me, essentially, that that is one of the things that your Committee will be considering when you consider the Bill.
Personally, I would come back to the objective of the Bill, and I would say, as I have already said in this session, that it seems to me and us that the objective of the Bill is understandable: in so far as the country has foreign policy, that policy should be made centrally, and it should not be fractured into all sorts of different variations across the country.
The Chair
Q
Councillor Jamieson: I think that, as with all these things, there are grey areas in this, but as a broad principle, national Government set foreign policy. I think that is appropriate and right. Local government provides services for its residents, and we want them to be the best that they possibly can be within the financial envelope, but we do have a wider responsibility, as Councillor Deering said earlier. ESG is a key part of some of our procurement and investment decisions, and procuring to support local businesses is also something that is really important. We need to be clear that those things are still allowed, but speaking personally, I would not support every local council having its own foreign policy. That would be inappropriate.
The Chair
We have a couple of minutes left in this session, if anybody has a question that they have not had the opportunity to ask. I call the Minister.
Felicity Buchan
Q
The Chair
Before I bring in the witnesses to answer that question, Bob Blackman has a very quick point.
Bob Blackman
It was a very quick point to Councillor Jamieson: could you clarify exactly what changes might be made to the Bill to clarify the regulations that you spoke about earlier?
The Chair
Thank you. Over to our witnesses.
Councillor Jamieson: First, I will write formally, Bob, so that there is no ambiguity on any of those changes, if that helps.
Minister, on the point about being able to speak freely, the question is, if someone is speaking in a debate and it is minuted, what does that mean? There needs to be clarity about what represents speaking as a councillor or speaking on behalf of a council. Minutes of a meeting are one area where, at the moment, it is ambiguous, so we need to be very clear that minutes of a meeting and opinions expressed in those minutes do not represent the views of the council; they are the views of the councillors, if that makes sense. That just needs clarifying.
On the couple of points I was making to you earlier, Bob, in order for a decision that has been made to be called into the Pensions Regulator, or whatever, it needs to have been substantially influenced, not just influenced. My third key point is that we should be regulated by the Pensions Regulator. You should not be able to JR a council on this matter. If you do not like the decision of the Pensions Regulator, you should JR the Pensions Regulator. That would save an awful lot of potentially vexatious JRs.
The Chair
Councillor Deering, is there anything that you briefly want to add?
Councillor Deering: I am sorry to embarrass Councillor Jamieson, but I think the points he has just made are very sound and sensible. Coming back to the question that led to that answer, yes, there is clearly a distinction between a council and councillors. Quite clearly, they are not the same thing.
The Chair
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank both the witnesses, on behalf of the Committee, for steering an important path between freedom of speech and the responsibilities that pension funds have to pension fund holders past, present and future. It has been a really useful and informative session and I would like to thank you both very much for your contributions.
Councillor Deering: Thank you very much indeed.
Councillor Jamieson: Thank you.
Examination of witness
Hannah Weisfeld gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Hannah Weisfeld, director of Yachad. For this session we have until 11.10. Could the witness introduce herself, for the record?
Hannah Weisfeld: I am Hannah Weisfeld, the executive director of Yachad.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Hannah Weisfeld: I guess I should start by clarifying who we are and what we do. We are a British Jewish organisation that works within the mainstream of Anglo-Jewry to build support for a political resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
We do not support or advocate for the BDS movement, because we believe that putting pressure on one side does not necessarily bring about a resolution to the conflict. However, we are very clear that we support the right to non-violent protest. While we do not support or advocate for the BDS movement, we support the rights of individuals to adopt methods of non-violent resistance to Israeli Government policy—and in fact to the policy of any Government anywhere in the world. So, we would not advocate for the movement, but we would absolutely advocate for the right of people to express their opinions and to apply pressure in a non-violent way.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Hannah Weisfeld: Well, I know that one of the motivations for this piece of legislation has been around community cohesion and the idea that debating issues that are contentious at a local level creates community dissonance and disagreement. There is a reverse to that, which is that when you crack down on the ability of people to express their opinion and to express it in local democracies, you can do the exact opposite, which is that rather than bring people together, you can create real disharmony among communities. That has been mentioned already in the Committee this morning. There has been a tiny number of examples of there being what we would refer to as BDS motions at a local government level and in public bodies. I would not be overstating the reality if I said that if this legislation passes in its current form, there will be BDS motions in public bodies all across the country where people try to test this legislation because they are so frustrated that their right to express an opinion has been clamped down on. If the motivation here is to create community cohesion, there is a very real worry that this is going to do the exact opposite.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Felicity Buchan
I am sorry; I was just about to say, do you agree?
Hannah Weisfeld: I do not think we have evidence, and the Committee has not just heard that the people representing local government have been particularly distracted. To me, the Bill is not really about that issue; it is about creating what I think will become quite a nasty debate around Israel-Palestine, and I do not think that that is going to benefit the Jewish community particularly.
The Chair
This is a very short session and three people have signified that they want to ask questions. I will bring in Wayne David. Again, I ask Members to be concise in their questions and our witness to be equally concise in her answers.
Wayne David
Q
Hannah Weisfeld: Yes. This has been mentioned by colleagues, but there is obviously not a homogeneous opinion about anything inside the Jewish community, as there is not in any faith or minority community. I think it is important to mention, though, that Yachad is a member of the Board of Deputies, and there are a number of other organisations that are members of the Board of Deputies, or whose parent organisations are members of the Jewish Leadership Council, that have been very publicly opposed to this legislation.
I want to draw your attention particularly to the Union of Jewish Students, which is the main Jewish student body in the UK. It represents more than 9,000 students and more than 70 Jewish societies. At its last conference, which I think was in April, it passed a unanimous motion—among all 400 students, there was not one dissenting voice—that said:
“UJS reaffirms its support for the democratic right to non-violently protest and opposes the government’s proposed Boycott Bill which is a curtailment of that right, as well as presenting a risk to British Jewish communities and a setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace.”
One thing that has often been expressed is a concern about what is happening to young Jewish students on campus and the way that BDS affects them and interacts with their student experience. I do not think that there is a clearer expression of concern against this legislation than the one that I have just read to you. That has been echoed by four of the major Jewish youth organisations.
I should say that Jewish youth provision is very organised in the Jewish community. It is where Jewish youth groups produce the future leadership of the Jewish community; I think that if you were to speak to many people running Jewish communal organisations today, that is where they grew up inside the Jewish community. Four of the seven or eight major mainstream ones have come out very publicly against this legislation. Of those, three are the youth organisations of the major religious denominations within our community—the Reform movement, the Liberal movement and the Masorti movement, which are three of the four major strands of Jewish denominations.
So there is not unanimous support for this legislation. We are, obviously, also against it. There is a very ferocious debate, I would say, about the merits of whether the way in which you protect Jewish life in this country is by legislating against opinions that we do not agree with.
Chris Stephens
Q
Hannah Weisfeld: I am not sure whether that is a direct quote—I am not sure whether those were our words or the words of the Union of Jewish Students—but our sense is that the Bill will severely limit freedom of speech, as has been mentioned a lot this morning. Clause 4 already gags the ability of local democracies to express their opinions. That is very troubling in a democratic society—the idea that we legislate against free speech. As Jews, we don’t do well in societies that clamp down on free speech, and I think that there is a really big debate in the community about that. There is a very big debate inside Israel about that, and inside Jewish communities in America, where there has been similar legislation.
I think it is worth drawing your attention to anti-boycott legislation that the Israeli Government passed in the Knesset in 2011. Some very mainstream Israeli political figures—people you will know—came out very strongly against it, such as Ruvi Rivlin, who was the last President of Israel, and Tzipi Livni and Dan Meridor. They were all very clear that clamping down on boycotts and doing so in a legislative way does not help Israel and does not solve questions of antisemitism. Dan Meridor, who was the Likud Deputy Prime Minister, said:
“This law helps in delegitimising Israel, and makes Israel look like a country that prohibits free speech. It is useless. Those who boycott are a small group of people. I oppose boycotts, but they should not be illegal.”
That is the kind of sentiment that we echo.
Going back to the Minister’s question about why we do not support BDS, it is possible to say that we do not support something but that we protect the rights of other people to have that opinion. That is a very important principle in a democratic country, and it is one that we—as an organisation that is committed to Israel, committed to Jewish life in Britain and committed to democracy—want to see being upheld, which is why we have an issue with this legislation.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Hannah Weisfeld: I do not know whether people have seen it, but a letter was sent by 14 human rights and civil society organisations in Israel that went both to the Opposition and to the Government. They were very clear—I think this is very important—that the current political climate in Israel, which people may or may not be following closely, is extremely dangerous. It is very, very problematic. There are hundreds of thousands of people protesting on a weekly basis. I read yesterday that the police estimate is that there have been 7 million attendees at protests for 35 weeks—not 7 million individuals, but 7 million appearances at protests—and there are very severe clampdowns on free speech.
In the last year, civil society organisations in Israel have already faced two attempts, I think, to severely curtail their funding and to shut down dissent against the Israeli Government. What our partners in Israel wrote to the Government here and to the Opposition is worth quoting from: “We know all too well the consequences of shutting down dissent and disagreement. Today in Israel, there is significant civil unrest involving weekly protests of hundreds of thousands of people, reservists refusing to show up for military service and companies divesting their funds out of Israel. This legislation is giving in to Israel’s far-right Government’s desire to shut down debate, protest and dissent.” Certainly on the ground in Israel, civil society organisations involved in protests see this legislation as a gift to the Benjamin Netanyahu Government.
I should add that there is huge concern in the Jewish community here about the ascendancy of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Government and the far right. Today, literally about two minutes ago, the Government Minister for Diaspora Affairs was just uninvited from JW3, the main Jewish community centre in London, because of his opinions and because of his far-right position. He was due to have a tour there at, I think, 5 or 6 o’clock this afternoon, but about five minutes ago he was uninvited. That is the depth of feeling in this community: 79% of people who were polled in July said that they disapprove of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
We have a community here and partners on the ground in Israel who are deeply worried about the direction of travel. What this Bill will do is say, “It is business as usual—not only business as usual, but we will give you a gift, which is forever to put Israel and the occupied territories beyond public scrutiny.” By keeping the clause that specifically lists Israel, the OPTs and the Golan Heights, we are saying that despite the fact that there are now Israelis divesting and dissolving companies and moving them outside Israel, there can never be any circumstances in which it is OK for public bodies in Britain to do that. I think that that is very, very troubling, given that I think everybody here is committed to Israel’s existence as a democratic and Jewish state.
The Chair
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, may I thank the witness for taking a position that does not necessarily conform to some of the other views that we have heard but that makes it absolutely clear what you stand for? We are very grateful for that.
Hannah Weisfeld: Thank you for inviting me.
Examination of witness
James Gurd gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from James Gurd, executive director of Conservative Friends of Israel. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Could the witness please introduce himself for the record?
James Gurd: With pleasure. Good morning. My name is James Gurd, and I am the executive director of Conservative Friends of Israel, which works to promote a strong bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and Israel.
Felicity Buchan
Q
James Gurd: I think this Bill is a very welcome piece of legislation and will go a long way towards reasserting the UK Government’s reserved foreign policy powers. In recent years—over the past decade, really—we have seen that being challenged by an increasing number of public bodies pursuing very divisive BDS activities in the UK. Indeed, the Government have made repeated efforts through the issuance of guidance to try to challenge that; I think the Government have now finally, rightly, reached the decision that legislative action is required.
Those BDS activities, as we have heard from a number of other witnesses this morning, have led to community division. I do not see it as the place of public bodies to be, effectively, picking one side in a dispute over a foreign policy matter that is several thousand miles away. The Jewish community—I believe, as a non-Jew—has felt increasingly isolated in the United Kingdom throughout this process. It is probably worth stating that no UK political party is on the record as supporting BDS, so I would hope that there will be broad support for this.
I believe that this legislation will also have a positive effect for the UK. The UK has very strong economic relations with Israel. Israel makes a very important contribution to this country’s national health service, for example, and BDS has had a chilling effect on those relations and on the prospect of further improved relations over recent years. I know that that is something that CFI certainly welcomes in the Government’s efforts to secure a free trade deal with Israel.
I believe that the Bill would also support the UK Government’s belief in a two-state solution. That is something that I believe is undermined by BDS. It is a movement that is, I believe, associated more with extremists. Certainly you can look at the Palestinian BDS National Committee, which is the organising body over in the Palestinian territories. That body includes organisations such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which are terror groups proscribed here in the United Kingdom. Within the UK context, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign is seen as one of the most prominent organisers of the BDS activities here in the United Kingdom. It is an organisation that until a few years ago—I feel this is probably worth putting on the record—had a logo presenting a future Palestinian state on top of a state of Israel. So I believe that the Bill will have a number of positive implications.
Felicity Buchan
Q
James Gurd: I believe that that is a reasonable approach that the Government have decided to take, and I believe it is a reaction to the fact that BDS is unique in its singular focus on the state of Israel. We have seen, as a number of others have referred to this morning, a House of Commons briefing note that pointed out that of all recorded examples of boycott activity pursued by public bodies in the United Kingdom, they are targeting exclusively Israel, so there is clearly a unique problem here.
When you look at the Bill in a broader sense, it is a Bill that has universal application. Foreign policy is a reserved matter for the UK Government; it is not, I believe, the place of public bodies to be pursuing that. They are there to represent all their diverse communities equally and to ensure that they are fiduciarily responsible in how they deliver that.
Nicola Richards
Q
James Gurd: We have seen a growth in BDS activities in public bodies over the last decade. As I have referred to before, BDS is uniquely discriminatory in nature, as it only targets Israel.
I first encountered BDS while I was at university. I was at King’s College in ’09, which coincided—as is so often the case when there is conflict in Israel and the Palestinian territories—with a spike in BDS interest. That led to a series of BDS activities, which students were perfectly entitled to do and which they will be able to continue to do under the Bill, but it led to a series of antisemitic incidents on campus. The head of the university had to send around a communication to all members of the student body to call it out. It has since gone mainstream, in the sense that it has left the student body politic and entered public bodies here in the UK, so it has grown as a challenge.
Having said that, it is worth putting it on the record that the Bill will in no way challenge the right of a private individual or a private company to pursue BDS. They are perfectly entitled to do so if they wish.
Wayne David
Q
Do you see it as a difficulty that there is a lack of clarity in the legislation, because the assumption is that Britain is Britain? Well, Britain is not Britain; Britain is a number of nations. There is a concern, certainly among the Welsh Senedd, that that factor has not been taken into account with regard to the legislation.
I will give a specific example of a concern from Northern Ireland, where public service pension schemes are devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. For this legislation to be introduced in Northern Ireland requires a legislative consent motion. The trouble is that there is not a Northern Ireland Assembly sitting to give it. I therefore presume that this legislation would not apply to Northern Ireland. Is that your understanding? Do you think that the issue of devolution and the nations of the United Kingdom is not fully taken into account in the Bill?
James Gurd: I am not sure that I am perfectly placed to comment on Stormont not sitting or on devolution, but I believe that the UK Government are right in taking a UK-wide approach on this. It was a manifesto commitment made in 2019 to all citizens of the United Kingdom.
If we look at the evidence, it is in Wales and Scotland that we have seen perhaps the most BDS activities by public bodies. That includes anything from West Dunbartonshire banning the inclusion of the books of Israeli authors in its libraries in 2009, through to the Labour Welsh Government two years ago, I believe, announcing their intention to release a procurement advice note in relation to economic activities in procurement practices with Israeli settlements, the sole thing identified as a problem within that process. That was subsequently dropped following a backlash from organisations including the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies. The First Minister of Wales met them to hear their concerns. This is clearly a very live problem, but it is a UK-wide problem. I would support the UK Government in whatever approach they deemed best to tackle it.
The Chair
Before you do, is there anybody else? [Interruption.] I will bring in Chris Stephens and come back to you if there is time.
Wayne David
Q
James Gurd: My understanding is that foreign policy is still a reserved matter for His Majesty’s Government in those situations. It is only right and proper that the democratically elected Government of this country get to determine what those foreign policy positions are. To repeat what I said earlier, this will have a very significant effect in countering the divisive nature of BDS in all corners of the United Kingdom.
We have seen the Jewish community on the receiving end of repeated efforts to pursue boycotts of Israel or indeed companies operating within the contested territories—the Occupied Palestinian Territories—but that has often led to the targeting of the Jewish community directly. This is not just an Israel-Palestine issue; it feeds into the persecution of and discrimination against the UK’s Jewish community. The Tricycle Theatre in London cancelled its hosting of the UK Jewish Film Festival one year. As was cited earlier, there was the case of Sainsbury’s in Holborn removing kosher goods from its shelves due to pressure from BDS activities. This is a problem that has been left unaddressed for too long. There is a clear problem, and I believe that this is the right approach to respond to it.
Chris Stephens
Q
The Chair
I am going to close the session in two minutes, so it would be good to have a concise answer, please.
James Gurd: Understood, Chair, but that is a big old question. I do believe that the Bill will contribute to wider efforts to promote peace. The UK Government are committed to a two-state solution. I believe that BDS is inherently divisive. As I have said already, the organisations affiliated with it within the Palestinian territories include the likes of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which are proscribed terror groups here in the UK.
To cite a personal experience, I visited SodaStream, which is an Israeli company that makes products that have the ability to make fizzy drinks. It was based in the west bank, but following pressure from BDS activities over a sustained period, it had to move. The factory employed 600 Palestinian workers, who would have received greater work benefits and salaries than anywhere in the Palestinian economy. It had to be moved to Israel, where only 100 of those Palestinian workers were able to continue working. I spoke to some of those Palestinian workers myself on a CFI visit to Israel, and they were deeply unhappy about the fact that so many of their family and friends had lost their jobs as a result of that BDS activity.
Indeed, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority President, is on record as having said that he is also opposed to BDS. This is not some sort of peace movement. It is a deeply divisive movement that seeks to delegitimise the state of Israel. The UK and the UK Government should have absolutely no truck with it.
Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 View all Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 September 2023 - (5 Sep 2023)
The Chair
Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the second sitting of evidence on the Bill. We will hear from six panels of witnesses this afternoon. Gentlemen are more than welcome to remove their jackets; it is quite warm in here.
First we will hear from Dr Bryn Harris, chief legal counsel at the Free Speech Union, and Dr Alan Mendoza, the executive director of the Henry Jackson Society. Presumably Dr Bryn Harris will be brought in when he arrives, but meanwhile, Dr Mendoza, if you are happy for us to do so, we will start by directing our questioning to you. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Could you please introduce yourself for the record?
Dr Mendoza: Yes, I am Dr Alan Mendoza, the executive director and a founder of the Henry Jackson Society, which is a foreign and security policy think-tank.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)
Q
Dr Mendoza: Thank you, Minister. The answer is very simple: yes. I think it is quite obvious that the Bill does not preclude any individual councillor, or indeed anyone working for a public body, from expressing their personal opinion on a boycott or something similar. It merely prevents bodies that really have no jurisdiction in such areas from passing formal motions on them. That is quite clearly laid out in the legislation, and the ECHR would agree.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Dr Mendoza: Yes, again, I agree. First, if you are stopping the ability to boycott, there is no point having the ability to talk about those issues collectively. Secondly, if you have a debate about that, it can inflame community tensions. We have seen lots of examples in the past few years where even discussing these matters—alleging or suggesting that one country might be responsible for x, y or z—lends itself to an increase in community tensions on the ground; people take it as an excuse to go into worse forms of hatred. There is evidence that that has happened. If we are saying that public bodies that are not the UK Parliament or UK Government should not have control over foreign policy decisions, it makes sense to stop them having the ability to talk about the intent to do something that they will not be allowed to do.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Dr Harris: If you could repeat the questions, that would be helpful.
Felicity Buchan
The first question was about the Government’s assessment that the Bill does not breach article 10 of the ECHR because it applies only to public authorities while they are carrying out public functions, and private individuals can express views, and choose to boycott and divest. The second question was on clause 4, and on whether stating an intent to boycott has similar impacts on community cohesion to boycotting.
Dr Harris: Thank you. To state my position generally, the goal in clause 1 is broadly okay and compatible with free speech; clause 4 is not. I disagree with some of the Government’s analysis. The explanatory notes state that public bodies do not have article 10 rights. That is certainly true of core public bodies—the police, the NHS, Whitehall—but my understanding is that that is not true of hybrid public bodies, which may well include universities. Certainly, the European Court has held that boycott is, or can be, an exercise of the right to freedom of expression, as in the 2020 case of Baldassi and France, and so free speech rights are certainly engaged. This Bill very clearly targets expressions of political and moral conscience, which is to say the form of expression that is most highly protected by article 10. I think there are some very real problems, and perhaps there will be time to develop my view on what those issues are.
Regarding clause 1, as I say, I think it is acceptable, first, that Parliament sets out the relevant considerations that a public authority may have in mind in making a decision. The public law—the common law—already does that, so I think that is perfectly acceptable in principle. I think it is right as well that the UK should not be embarrassed by perhaps rather adolescent campaigning issues, rather overstated campaigns that perhaps unfairly denigrate friendly countries; I think that is completely understandable.
The problem I have with clause 1 is the justification, and that would go to any assessment by a court were there to be a compatibility challenge. On that justification—that the UK should have a single front or a single, agreed foreign policy—I am not sure that the full range of public authorities owe, or should owe, any duty of fidelity to central Government’s foreign policy. In fact, I think the opposite: that our public debate is likely to be enriched and informed by greater diversity. I think that that justification is questionable and would go into the article 10 assessment were there a challenge.
I very much agree that the second justification—of preserving community cohesion—is a legitimate aim. I think it is entirely foreseeable, and probably has occurred, that some BDS campaigns have been informed by malice against Jewish people. However, it is to be noted that this Bill will do far more than merely target and limit those divestment campaigns that are malicious. It would cover, for instance—and I draw no parallel here with BDS—the anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s.
I will move on to clause 4 because you did raise that. My position is that clause 4 really needs to go in its entirety. To take clause 4(1)(a), which is the prohibition on statements of intent, there is no need—I think it is not necessary either politically or perhaps even legally—to prohibit statements. The mischief that is to be prohibited is the threatened act. The law will already help there. If a local authority were to resolve that it is going to divest the goods of a certain country, there would be the option of a prohibiting order by way of judicial review, and that targets the act. The court would be able to say, “You may not carry out this act that you threaten to carry out.” It is not clear to me that the law needs to go further in prohibiting statements. That is not to say that the law could not go a bit further, but I think there is a question regarding the necessity of this measure and the necessity of interfering with the freedom to make political and moral statements.
Clause 4(1)(b), as you can probably imagine, is the most problematic. I do not think the Government, from what I have seen, have put forward any rationale for why hypothetical statements are a mischief. It seems to me a huge overreach concerning political speech. I see very little harm that it would do, and I think it is going to cause serious defensiveness and caution in debates on the governance of universities and local authorities, which perhaps may be well worth having, but I will leave it there for now.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Dr Harris: Correct.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Just a few quick follow-up questions. The Bill contains the power to exempt certain countries as time goes on so that foreign policy can be adaptive. Do you agree with that? Secondly, briefly, do you think that the BDS movement has been successful in pressurising Israel?
Dr Harris: Sorry, can you repeat the first question? I am so sorry; it skipped my mind.
Felicity Buchan
The first question was about the Bill containing the power to exempt certain countries as time goes on, so it can be adaptive to foreign policy.
Dr Harris: I see. I accept that. Again, I will go to the example of the anti-apartheid movement. I want to make it clear that I think it is entirely wrong to compare the only democracy in the middle east, Israel, to apartheid South Africa, but for the purposes of the Bill, the anti-apartheid movement in the ’80s is relevant. In the debate that occurred there, there was a broad disagreement between central Government and their foreign policy, and a wider civil society movement of churches, trade unions and, eventually, a large number of local authorities —about 120. It was eventually curbed in 1988 with the Local Government Act, but the question is: was that debate and that tension productive? Did it inform the public debate? Did it aid the global movement against apartheid? I think it surely did.
It is beyond doubt that the British anti-apartheid movement led the world outside South Africa. For me, that is a great victory of British decency—of British soft power and, of course, British free speech. Going back to the power that you mentioned, whereby the Minister can, by regulation, add countries to the list, that debate and that soft power would be considerably diminished, especially in their legitimacy, if they were essentially licensed by the imprimatur of the Minister saying, “These are debates you can have.” For me, that would really reduce the power of that bottom-up movement.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Dr Mendoza: Yes. I disagree a bit with Dr Harris. I am not for a moment saying that the anti-apartheid movement in civil society was not valuable or successful—it hugely was—but let us focus on what we are talking about: a tiny sliver of institutions looking at the question of boycotts, as opposed to forbidding the discussion of boycotts in public, which sounds like where Dr Harris is heading in this sort of discussion. That is not what the Bill prevents. In fact, you can talk about any foreign policy aspect and any country, even in areas where a local authority or university has no power or authority to particularly affect a policy, and that will not be stopped. We need to focus very much on the narrowness of the Bill, which relates purely to boycotts and the sanctions policy.
Casting our minds back to the 1980s, had that been forbidden, would it have had any effect on the effectiveness of the anti-apartheid movement? I think absolutely not. There was enough out there that would have driven it anyway in terms of foreign policy; there would have been that debate. We are not talking about having any curbs on the freedom of speech of individuals.
I can guarantee that, in today’s society, with the 24/7 focus on social media and with so many outlets to talk about things, all the Bill is trying to do is, essentially, keep authorities that have no particular purpose in looking at specific foreign policy issues in the form of boycotts from wasting their time and public money in doing so. Again, privately, they will be perfectly able to do it: publicly, there is no call for it and there is no need for it, given that it will be covered elsewhere. This House is where you should be debating foreign policy—not in local councils, not in devolved Assemblies. I speak as a local councillor in that regard. I can assure you that were I to be speaking on my area of expertise—foreign policy—in the council chamber of my local authority, my residents would rightly ask, “What on earth are you doing wasting council time like this?”
Let us get back to the focus of what we are trying to do, which is something very narrow, to reflect the proper place of foreign policy in this country and the proper people entitled to make decisions on it, without compromising anyone’s ability to talk about, argue and discuss it, and tear it apart if necessary, in a private capacity.
Dr Harris: If I can briefly follow up, I defer entirely to Dr Mendoza on the effectiveness of the BDS movement: I do not know.
I omitted to say that I accept that the clause 4 prohibition is on a person who is subject to clause 1. The difficulty—and this is perhaps a drafting point—is that clause 1 concerns decisions, and therefore it squarely fits within section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Then, in clause 4, we go to persons who are subject to clause 1. What is unclear to me—and I trust this is not my misreading of the Bill—is when the clause 4 duty bites on that person. Does it only bite on them when they are exercising the decision-making power in clause 1, or does it bite on them if they hold that power? If they generally have that power by statute, are they therefore constantly under that clause 4 duty? The scope of clause 4 is unclear at the moment and, as with any restriction on liberty, it should be narrowly stated and certainly be narrowly construed by the courts.
Dr Mendoza: Dr Harris has reminded me that I did not answer the BDS effectiveness question. It has been entirely ineffective as a campaign globally, so much so of course that it is not shared formally by the Palestinian Authority itself as a policy. That should tell you that this is a fringe movement that has no purchase even with the elected authority within the PA.
Dr Harris: If I could quickly come back—there is a bit of a double act going on with Dr Mendoza—
The Chair
Just a reminder that this panel is due to conclude at 2.30 pm and I have three more Members who have indicated that they wish to contribute. If anyone wishes to contribute, please waggle your fingers at me. Do you want to add anything further, Dr Harris?
Dr Harris: Briefly, I agree with Dr Mendoza. The justification here should be the limitation of vires—of the powers—of these bodies. That is the way to justify clause 1 for me. The justification is not, “Get behind Government policy” or “Do not make these moral or political statements”: it is vires and powers. We can come back to that in further questions.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I have just one question, about clause 7, which governs the information notices—the mechanism by which the Government can compel information from public bodies to find out if they have made, or are about to make, a decision that would contravene clause 1. In clause 7(8), those notices override any obligation of confidence, so if it is a conversation between someone and their lawyer, the Government can compel that information. That seems to me to be a very strong power. What is your opinion?
Dr Harris: My reading of that, on its face, is that it would be something like the whistleblowing protection, whereby a whistleblower is exempted from duties of confidence to their employer. Without more, it would strike me as extremely unlikely that this would override the privilege between a lawyer and client.
Alex Norris
Even though it says “any obligation” on the face of the Bill?
Dr Harris: Yes.
Dr Mendoza: I have a slightly different response. I am slightly perplexed by the question. What were you thinking that was so secretive and furtive in nature that would even require a lawyer/client confidentiality level? We are talking about a simple foreign policy discussion, not about someone’s secret actions.
Alex Norris
Q
Dr Harris: It is important to note that it does not say that the enforcer can demand information that is confidential. All that happens is that the person disclosing will not be liable if they breach a right of confidence. It is not a right to extract the information, or a power of the Government; it is simply a freeing from liability of the discloser.
Dr Mendoza: I would agree with that reading. It says:
“A person providing information in compliance”,
so I think that is the correct reading of that clause.
Dr Harris: There is one, perhaps related, problem for me. Clause 4 states:
“A person who is subject to section 1 must not publish a statement”,
and that can include statements of intent or hypothetical intent. Consider, for instance, a university governing body—senate or council—making a decision about divestment. Let us say that there is a meeting, there are minutes and they are kicking ideas around. They may well benefit from a degree of those deliberations not being public.
The problem I have is that my understanding is that an FOI disclosure would constitute publication. If you look at section 79 of FOIA, it is explicitly called “publication”. This body would be in a position whereby it would say, “Well, we have to comply with FOIA, because we have to disclose, and if we do disclose, we may be breaching the law by publishing a statement whereby we say that we intend to act in a certain way.” It is a drafting point, I think, but that needs to be cleared up. We do not want over-defensiveness in these deliberations by public authorities.
Dr Mendoza: I agree. That is an interesting technicality that probably should be taken note of by the Committee.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Q
“focused primarily on supporting global democracy in the face of threats from China and Russia”.
Does your organisation in any way support divestment in China, particularly regarding the treatment of Uyghur Muslims?
Dr Mendoza: I would say, on that point, absolutely. The position that we adopt with China is very simple. I believe that you have a witness who will be able to tell you about the experiences of her family, her relatives and, indeed, her people in what are effectively modern-day concentration camps, to the point that many among us believe that the Chinese Government are practising genocide against this particular group in Xinjiang. If we look at what is actually happening there—the eradication of their culture, the imprisonment of people for forced labour and that sort of activity—on that basis, we are essentially talking about modern-day slavery. You will be aware that the Bill will be superseded by modern slavery actions and the UK’s sanctions regime on this. Yes, we do believe that there ought to be accountability from the Chinese Government on this score, and I personally would not be buying things from Xinjiang province.
Chris Stephens
Q
Dr Harris, you mentioned the anti-apartheid movement. Obviously, Glasgow has a history around that: Glasgow District Council renamed a street, gave Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city and, like many other local authorities, boycotted South African goods and services. If this Bill had been in operation then, it would have prohibited Glasgow District Council from taking such actions, wouldn’t it?
Dr Harris: Yes, that is my understanding. As you say, Strathclyde local authority was one of the first in the UK, along with Sheffield, to divest from South African goods. My understanding is that it certainly would have prevented the divestments, and also the discussion around them. There is a debate to be had, on which I have no expertise, as to how effective the anti-apartheid movement was in terms of pure efficacy—in terms of pure pressure on the South African Government—but my understanding is that, were the Bill in place during the ’80s, had the Government not added South Africa to the roster, as it were, by way of regulations, you would be correct. While it would also prohibit perhaps slightly more—forgive me—adolescent campaigns, or ones that are perhaps less well-reasoned, it would also prohibit those that have greater moral force behind them.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Q
Dr Mendoza: I would go back to the question that Dr Harris posed. It is really a question of vires; it is about what a public body collectively should or should not be doing. A public body should not be making decisions in contrast to UK foreign policy on something like a boycott, basically. Individual members—individual fellows or whatever it might be—have every ability and right, still, to say what they like on the subject, but they cannot speak on behalf of their institution or their authority to do that. However, when it comes to opposing a boycott, there are rights and abilities there. That is something that public bodies are not allowed to do, so that would be in keeping with that.
I think there is a clear distinction between the two things. One is something that the body is not competent, or does not have the jurisdiction, to legally carry out; on that basis, what is the purpose of speaking on it? The other—opposing a boycott—is something it can do, because that is the norm and the effective position, in law, for that authority. I therefore see no problem, or indeed contradiction between the two things.
Dr Harris: Again, as I have said, it certainly conflicts with the spirit of free speech, and I suspect also with the law regarding freedom of expression. As I said, the European Court of Human Rights, at least in one case—that of Baldassi in France, which I hope the GLD will have taken on board—certainly does say that a boycott is a protected act of protest. The very interesting thing about that case is that the court said that justification for the restriction of political speech is key; there needs to be a tight justification for it. That is entirely in keeping with the common law in this country, and the political philosophy of this country, that political speech, especially, must merit the utmost protection in law.
I think that there is a point on which the Government are on safer ground. Let us say that they want to avoid the embarrassment of legal challenge—they might reasonably wish to, and I am sure that they do. I would certainly say that the community cohesion point is a stronger justification, and the European court makes that distinction very clearly too. As I have said, BDS, especially in the light of recent events, clearly goes to community cohesion, but it is entirely foreseeable that there may be future foreign policy controversies where that is not an issue and the Bill will still apply to them. That raises the question of proportionality: because it will cover even cases where community cohesion is not in play, is there overreach?
Let me quickly say on vires, because I think it is quite important, that it is entirely right for the law and Parliament to say to subordinate bodies, “This is the extent of your power; you serve the public interest in this way, to this extent, and you use your resources for this purpose.” I think it is entirely right for Parliament to say, as it already does, “If you’re a local government authority, foreign policy isn’t really what you should be spending your money on.” I think it is right to say that to other bodies. However, I think it is extremely provocative for Parliament to say that to universities. This Government and Parliament have done excellent work protecting academic freedom, but there is a second limb to academic freedom, which is the autonomy of academic institutions, and I think it is extremely questionable to challenge that.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Dr Harris: It is a good question. I am not entirely sure. It is obvious that in some areas, where perhaps there is a certain degree of activism in the local authority, it could lead to some members of the community—I mean Jewish members of the community specifically—feeling like there is less pressure, and feeling less victimised and targeted. But as I say, there is going to be a significant number of cases where this justification will not apply because there is not an issue of community cohesion. Take the Ethiopian and Eritrean war: how likely is that to raise questions in this country of community cohesion?
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions—I apologise. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Rahima Mahmut gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome. We will now hear from Rahima Mahmut, the UK director of the World Uyghur Congress. We have until 2.45 pm for this session. Would the witness introduce herself for the record?
Rahima Mahmut: I am Rahima Mahmut. I am Uyghur. I have been living in the UK since 2000, and I am a human rights activist. I have not been able to return home for the last 23 years. Since the implementation of the genocidal policy in my country in 2016, I have been heavily involved in leading the campaign in this country. I am the UK director of the World Uyghur Congress and the executive director of Stop Uyghur Genocide. That is all I can tell you about me, but if you want to know more I am happy to continue.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Rahima Mahmut: All my life, I have been fighting for freedom of speech and the freedom to make decisions. I do believe that foreign policy is not necessarily fair. For example, since 2016 and especially since 2017, mass arrests have started in my country. The UN said that up to 1 million people are in concentration camps but we believe that it could be up to 3 million people. I have lost contact entirely with family members since January 2017. In April, I learned that my sister had died in March—one month earlier—and I was told not to contact anyone in case I put their life in danger. I learned that my brother was in a camp for over two years and released because he was almost dying.
I have been campaigning in Parliament, and it has passed a motion declaring that genocide is happening. The independent UK Uyghur tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, also found evidence of genocide based on the forced sterilisation, forced abortion, and prevention of future births of Uyghur children. There is also forced labour, family separation, children being taken away, cultural destruction, and so on. We have a huge amount of evidence gathered by the Uyghur tribunal, yet we have not really seen the UK take active policy decisions on trade or anything else.
It really pains me to see this kind of inactivity from the politicians because of the UK’s economic dependency on China and its diplomatic relationship. Our Foreign Secretary visited China only last week, after which I penned two op-eds: one was in The Spectator, in which I said that this is a betrayal of the Uyghurs; the other was in The Guardian. I recommend that you read them if you have time. I laid out the reasons why this is so unfair and why it just does not really align with the human rights that we believe the UK upholds.
In this kind of situation, I do believe that local authorities and other bodies should have those powers. We campaign, for example, about solar panels, an area that is heavily tainted by Uyghur slave labour. We know that local authorities make decisions on buying those products, and we believe that if we can convince the local authorities, they can decide not to buy solar panels tainted by slave labour.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Rahima Mahmut: No. For example, we are also campaigning against Hikvision cameras, which are made in China. Hikvision is one of the biggest CCTV companies, and its cameras cover internment camps and the entire Uyghur region. I always call this genocide against my people the first high-tech genocide. We are campaigning against Hikvision because it is complicit in this genocide, but we cannot necessarily prove that Hikvision cameras are made using slave labour. If the Government do not recognise this as genocide, then local governments and public bodies cannot make the decision to boycott or to stop such products coming into this country.
Felicity Buchan
There will be the ability to exclude on modern slavery and labour misconduct grounds under the Procurement Bill and in this Bill, but perhaps, in the interest of time, I should allow colleagues to come in.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Q
Rahima Mahmut: First, thank you for that question. I thank the Jewish community from the bottom of my heart for the support we have received—Stop Uyghur Genocide received its first fund from the Pears Foundation. As people who have experienced this absolute horror in the past, the Jewish community can relate and understand the pain.
When it comes to the legislation, I am not a lawyer. I only look at whether a piece of legislation will benefit my community. So far, from my own understanding of this Bill, I do not see that it will have any kind of positive outcome. As I have explained, this is because of the power that China has due to the economic dependency that this country and many others have on it, which is why we could not really mobilise Governments to recognise it and take any meaningful action. Therefore, I strongly oppose this Bill. This is not just me; I represent the Uyghur community, which also opposes this Bill. We do not want this Bill to one day prevent our campaign from being successful.
The Chair
I am afraid that this will probably have to be the last question to the witness. I call Chris Stephens.
Chris Stephens
Q
I have just got a simple question for you. George Peretz KC observed that the Bill would prohibit public bodies and local authorities from imposing their own bans on, for example, products and services imported from China, based on boycotting unethical production chains that use Uyghur forced labour. Is your opinion the same as that of George Peretz KC? Is there anything else you would like to add before we close?
Rahima Mahmut: We hear a lot about Uyghur forced labour at the moment, from cotton products to solar panels, and much more. But one thing is very clear: no one can go inside the region to carry out any kind of meaningful due diligence. The Chinese Government always have their own ways of manipulating these processes of examination, such as changing goods made in so-called Xinjiang to say, more broadly, “made in China”.
This is a very uphill battle. We have over 300 organisations united as End Uyghur Forced Labour, but we are not really achieving the goal that we would like to achieve. I believe that the most powerful and important outcome would be for the UK Government to bring in a ban on imports from the region, and to spare some resources to control and sanction China. We know that Russia has been sanctioned, and we know the reasons—you can see the bombardment and the people dying. You can see the visual sights. Although you do not see the scenes, my people are dying in camps in large numbers, and there is no investigation or action. I therefore believe that action should not just be limited to certain Bills—we would like to see accountability overall.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions on this. I would like to thank our witness very warmly on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Stephen Cragg KC gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Stephen Cragg KC. We have until 3 pm for this session. Would the witness introduce himself?
Stephen Cragg: I am Stephen Cragg KC. I am a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers specialising in public and human rights law.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Stephen Cragg: First of all, it is unclear whether that is the case or not.
That is something which needs to be clarified—if that is the intention, it should be spelt out. The concern is that the right to freedom of speech of councillors speaking about matters in council chambers, for example, might be affected—that is unclear from the Bill at the moment. In article 10, the right to freedom of speech also involves the right of the public to receive information. It is interesting that local councillors, for example, might feel restrictions on saying things in debates in council chambers because they are afraid of falling foul of some of the provisions in this Bill. Michael Gove said in a statement that it does not apply to individuals—on the face of it, I can see that argument, but I think it is very unclear and needs to be clarified if that is the intention.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Stephen Cragg: I recognise that these are the kinds of powers regulatory authorities often have. There is concern about the fact that there are also judicial and quasi-judicial review remedies in the measure and about the effects of the regulatory provisions, which involve possibly preventing someone from making a statement in advance. There is also concern about the information notices provision in clause 7. I was in the room when the question about legal professional privilege was asked. I cannot see anything in clause 7(8) which provides any protection for legal professional privilege. It was also said that it gives people the power to provide that information, but that is not right either because clause 7 is all about complying with a notice—people do not have any discretion as to whether they disclose the information or not. There are concerns about the provisions in clauses 6 to 10.
I also note that there is no clue at all about the kind of monetary penalty that might be imposed as well—whether it will be something like the Information Commissioner has, which can go to hundreds of thousands of pounds, if it will be £100 or if it will be a rap on the knuckles and being told, “Don’t do it again.” All that needs to be clarified, and it is not clear at the moment.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Stephen Cragg: In my view, those specific words are there in clause 7(8):
“A person providing information in compliance with an information notice does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person in respect of the information, or any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
I do not see how you can get much clearer than that.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Stephen Cragg: If that is the intention—that legal professional privilege is excluded—it needs to say that.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Q
Stephen Cragg: I think the position is that advisory opinions are provided by international courts that say that providing support for settlements etc is something that should not be done. One of the concerns is that this is something that might get fought out in the courts under the Bill—councils thinking that they can take things into account that mean that they are not breaching the UK’s international human rights and law obligations but being unsure about that and seeking clarification from the courts, and individuals and bodies thinking that there will not be a breach of the UK’s international law obligations fighting that case or raising their points of view in the courts and the courts having to resolve those issues. One can see that that is something that might happen quite quickly.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Stephen Cragg: Yes, because there are competing views on that. If there are competing views, local authorities might want to seek a view from the courts on whether their view is correct. It is then all up for grabs in the High Court and beyond after that—something that the courts have tried to avoid getting embroiled in.
Alex Norris
Q
Stephen Cragg: What the Bill does is give very wide powers to the Secretary of State to change lots of aspects of this—which countries are involved, which conditions and the like. The concern when you have secondary legislation powers is always, “All right, this Government might not use them in a way that you would not agree with, but Governments down the line may use the powers they have here to mould a system where countries that they agree with are excluded under the Bill, and countries and issues that they do not agree with are the ones that things will be focused on.” There is always a concern about that. In something as important as this, it seems to me that that should be on the face of the Bill; it would give me a lot more reassurance as a lawyer if it were on the face of the Bill.
Alex Norris
Q
Stephen Cragg: Yes. I read out the terms of clause 7(8) and it seems to say that there is no restriction on the information which can be requested, as far as I can see. If that is not the Government’s intention, it is simple to put that right.
The Chair
Thank you very much. If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Francis Hoar, Professor Andrew Tettenborn and Professor Adam Tomkins gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Francis Hoar, of Field Court Chambers, Professor Andrew Tettenborn of the University of Swansea and Professor Adam Tomkins of Glasgow University, who joins us via Zoom. We have until 3.45 pm for this session. Can the witnesses please introduce themselves, for the record, starting with Mr Hoar?
Francis Hoar: Good afternoon, I am Francis Hoar. I am a barrister from Field Court Chambers and specialise in public law.
Professor Tettenborn: Good afternoon, I am Andrew Tettenborn. I am a professor of law at Swansea University and also a member of the Free Speech Union.
Professor Tomkins: Good afternoon, I am Adam Tomkins. I hold the John Millar chair of public law at the University of Glasgow. I am a specialist in constitutional law with a longstanding interest in the issues of the Bill. I am also a former elected member of the Scottish Parliament.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Professor Tomkins: Yes, absolutely. I agree strongly that the Bill should have UK-wide extent and application and should apply to all public bodies throughout the United Kingdom, including devolved Administrations—arguably, perhaps especially devolved Administrations. The Bill has two fundamentally important policy motivations. One is with regard to community cohesion. Community cohesion is a responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and, indeed, of the United Kingdom Parliament throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The other is of course to safeguard the integrity and singularity of the UK’s established foreign policy, which is set exclusively for the whole of the United Kingdom by the United Kingdom Government, accountable as it is to the United Kingdom Parliament. The devolution settlement sits on top of those constitutional fundamentals and is not an exception to those constitutional fundamentals. For all those reasons, it is vital that the Bill applies and extends to all four nations of the United Kingdom.
Felicity Buchan
Andrew or Francis, do you want to come in?
Professor Tettenborn: I certainly back what Adam Tomkins has said. If we put the boot on the other foot, imagine that we are negotiating with the State Department over something very delicate, and the answer comes back from the State Department, “We will give you support—we will put pressure on this country—but we can’t answer for California or Colorado, who might have a different official view.” I do not think we would be very happy about that. Again, we could ask the German Government and they could say, “We are of this view, but the Government of Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg think differently.” We owe it to our foreign partners to speak with one voice, in the same way as we might expect them to.
Francis Hoar: In principle, I agree with that. I do have concerns about the Bill on which I shall extend later, but in principle yes, the United Kingdom should speak with one voice. I think it is fair for Her Majesty’s Government to deprecate and to attempt to restrict, within their powers and within the devolutionary settlement, as I think they are, the attempt by the Scottish Government in particular to have a separate and independent foreign policy through having missions abroad and making statements and, perhaps, investment decisions.
It is also appropriate to remember that there used to be a convention that when speaking abroad, Her Majesty’s Opposition would not contradict the foreign policy of the day. That is not to say that they did not, as they of course did, object to foreign policy in Parliament, when legislation was proposed and also in the sense of Government decisions. That was something that Clement Attlee and others were extremely keen on furthering. I regret that in the past 20 years in particular, and perhaps particularly since 2016, that has not been something with which Her Majesty’s Opposition have complied. They frequently negotiated with representatives of foreign states in the Brexit process, which I think is regrettable. That goes well beyond the scope of the Bill, but I think the policy objective of ensuring that the UK speaks with one voice is an appropriate one.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Professor Tettenborn: I am probably in the firing line here as I come from a university.
Felicity Buchan
Yes, absolutely.
Professor Tettenborn: I think it probably should, but perhaps for reasons different from those for other public authorities. The issue of free speech in universities is very much an issue of free speech for individual scholars within those universities. It seems to me rather inappropriate that a university should have a corporate view on a particular matter of foreign policy. It should, if you like, hold the ring between individual academics. So when it comes to universities I think there is a specific justification.
When it comes to public authorities, I simply go back to the idea that public authorities should regard it as off limits—ultra vires, if you like—to have their own foreign policy and their own views on what individual foreign Governments should be doing. That is particularly because, as was mentioned earlier, if you have, for example, large numbers of people from India and Pakistan in a particular local authority area, there is nothing that is going to make dissension worse than a public authority that is seen to favour Pakistan, say, over Kashmir.
Felicity Buchan
Francis or Adam, do you want to come in on that point?
Francis Hoar: Maybe I will let Adam conclude on this, and I will be much more brief. I am ambivalent about universities, to be honest, for the reasons that Dr Harris, whose evidence I heard, set out. I appreciate your point, Minister, which is that the legislation applies only when the university is acting as a public body. I appreciate that distinction, which can perhaps be fine. That is the kind of issue that might be teased out in the courts, but I suppose that is part of the nature of such a Bill. I sympathise and agree, to a certain extent, with Professor Tettenborn’s point about it not really being appropriate for universities to have corporate identities, but whether that should be in public legislation is a different matter.
Professor Tomkins: I agree with what Andrew Tettenborn just said. I should probably have said at the beginning that I am also a member of the Free Speech Union; indeed, I am on its Scotland advisory panel. I do not like disagreeing with Bryn Harris, but I am afraid I disagree with quite a lot of what he had to say about the Bill this afternoon, not only with regard to the universities question, but with regard to clause 4 more generally.
In the law of the United Kingdom, we do not have a single definition of the public sector or the public sphere, but we do have a very workable template that has been used for more than 20 years now in the Human Rights Act, which is what the Bill validly seeks to borrow from. That brings within its scope hybrid authorities such as universities when they are acting in a public capacity. It is a way of understanding the scope of the public sphere or public sector that has not caused particularly difficult problems in litigation at the High Court or at a higher level in the more than 20 years during which the Human Rights Act has been in force. That is not to say that it has not been litigated at all—of course it has—but it has not caused particular problems.
I think it eminently sensible that the Bill seeks to use that template in this context. I am very relaxed about universities and other public authorities being captured within the scope of the Bill in the same way as local authorities and devolved Administrations. I do not have any issues or concerns in that regard.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Professor Tomkins: Absolutely, yes.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Professor Tomkins: Perhaps I can address that question, Minister; I have done quite a lot of work on how the Bill would compare with the position in France and in a number of the states of the United States.
The Bill is very modest indeed in comparison with what has been happening in France and in the United States. French authorities, for example, are seeking to criminalise various forms of BDS activity, which the Bill emphatically does not. In the United States, where I think the states that have enacted anti-BDS legislation are now in the majority, that legislation varies from state to state but its general tenor is that public authorities are prevented by force of law from contracting at all with American companies unless those American companies declare that they do not boycott either Israel or the occupied territories. Again, that is going much further than the Bill will go in the UK. When understood comparatively in terms of the way in which our closest friends and allies are taking legal action to clamp down on very counterproductive and unhelpful BDS campaigns, the Bill is very modest, but it is not without importance and is not ineffective.
It is worth remembering—I listened to the exchanges with other witnesses earlier—that of the boycott campaigns that have been targeted against a foreign power by public authorities in the United Kingdom, every single one has been targeted at Israel, so analogies with what happened 30 years ago or more with regard to South Africa are perhaps a little inapt. It is true that the Bill is of general application and is not specifically about Israel, but the facts on the ground are that, as matters stand, every single one of the publicly funded anti-BDS campaigns in the United Kingdom has been targeted at Israel.
The Bill is very important and I unqualifiedly support it, but in comparison with what our closest friends and allies are doing elsewhere in the world, it is a rather modest measure. It could—some would say should—have gone a lot further in clamping down on BDS activities, which have the effect not only of undermining the cohesion of UK foreign policy, but of significantly undermining community relations.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Professor Tettenborn: I might have something to say about ECHR article 10. I am not as much of a human rights expert as the gentleman from Doughty Street Chambers—I give way to him pretty willingly—but I do not think that there is a strong article 10 right in public authorities speaking as public authorities. Public authorities are normally the people who get sued for breaking article 10, rather than the people who sue because somebody has stopped them saying what they want. As I read the Bill, it is very carefully drafted to say that if a councillor or a Scottish Minister says, “I think this is a rotten piece of legislation and I think Israel, in any decent society, ought to be made a pariah,” and makes it clear that they are speaking in a private capacity and not officially on behalf of the council, they are in no danger at all.
Francis Hoar: I defer to Professor Tomkins on the international comparisons. In respect of article 10 of the ECHR, there are three stages: first, whether it is engaged; secondly, whether the Bill contravenes article 10, paragraph 1, which concerns whether or not it is a legally enforceable prohibition; and, thirdly, whether the Bill is proportionate.
In some respects, in my view, the Bill does not engage article 10. I do not believe that the power to make investment decisions is engaged by that. On the other hand, statements clearly are. Clearly, the Bill in itself would prohibit the conduct, and it is sufficiently clear for it to be very unlikely that the courts would be forced to interpret the legislation in such a way that was compatible, even if it strained the usual interpretative norms.
So article 10, paragraph 1 does not apply; the question is whether the Bill is proportionate. Dr Harris referred to one recent Strasbourg court decision, Baldassi, which concerned a non-public body. In that case, it was found that prohibitions by the French state on that non-public body were disproportionate. But in the earlier case of Willem v. France, which concerned a mayor, there was no violation. In other words, the criminalisation—the legislation went much further, as Professor Tomkins said, even back in 2009—was found to be proportionate because of the community cohesion point.
That said, I agree with Dr Harris about clause 4. I do not see the need for it. The mischief the Bill is designed to address is divestment, procurement decisions and so on. I do not see why it is necessary to prohibit councils from saying that they would like to divest if they were lawfully able to do so, and even that they intend to do so. As Dr Harris said, if a council passes a resolution that has effect, that is ultra vires. I agree, as I said at the outset, that it is desirable that the United Kingdom speaks with one voice and that public bodies that do not have foreign policy powers do not contravene that, but I do not see the necessity of clause 4.
I do not think the clause would necessarily be disproportionate. The Willem v. France decision in the Strasbourg court suggests that it would be found to be proportionate, and in any event the background fact speaks against disproportionality—if it were to come to a challenge, the background fact is that this is a public body that has no powers in respect of foreign policy—but I do not see the need for clause 4, and I would advise the House to reject it.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Francis Hoar: Yes, of course they can, but as Professor Tettenborn said, that does not stop councillors making them on the campaign stump, and it does not stop the Mayor making them in a personal capacity. I am afraid I do not find that a convincing argument at all.
Alex Norris
Q
Francis Hoar: I have answered that.
Alex Norris
Yes, I think you have addressed that point, but what about the two professors?
Professor Tettenborn: I must admit that I am a little more friendly to clause 4. I will tell you why. It comes out in the old saying that a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. Sorry, that was a bit flippant, but if you have a statement by a large number of councillors, “We really don’t like it. We’re not saying that we might disinvest from it, and we’re not saying that this is going to influence what we do, but you realise what our views are,” that is going to come across to a lot of other people as being very much the same thing. I gather that that was what this particular clause was getting at. I confess that I am a little less happy about conditional statements, but if a person says, “We would like to do it—okay, it’s illegal, but we would like to do it—but we are not saying we are going to do it,” I think there is a strong case for saying that they should not say that.
One always has to remember that, as Professor Tomkins pointed out, this is not something that criminalises a statement. Basically, something can only happen to you when you make a statement once you have been warned—once you have received a notice: “Oi, don’t say that again.” Now, you might want to challenge the notice or whatever, but that is a relevant feature of the legislation. It is a feature that I find attractive, as against the rather fierce legislation that they have in quite a lot of American states.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Tomkins: I will make two quick points about clause 4, if I may. First, in my career I suppose I have worn two hats: one as an academic lawyer and the second as a practising politician. What you have heard from the other two witnesses on this panel are legal responses to clause 4, and there is nothing wrong with that at all—I do not mean that as anything other than a compliment—but perhaps a political response to it would be to remind this room of politicians that, in these matters, it is not just what happens that matters: it is also about the optics of what happens, particularly with regard to the undermining of community cohesion.
The Jewish community in Scotland—which happens to be a community that I know rather well, for personal reasons—is a very small community. It is a community that is very easily frightened, not necessarily by things that are done, but by things that are said. If we are serious about protecting community cohesion, and I think the Government are serious about that, and they are right to be, and if we are also serious about maintaining the integrity of British foreign policy, we need to be careful about what is said by people in their official capacities—not as private citizens but in their official capacities. For those reasons I am much more enthusiastic about clause 4 than most of your other witnesses have been.
With my legal hat on, I am certain that there is not an article 10 problem here, because clause 4 is targeted at speech that is uttered only by officials in their official capacity and, moreover, is targeted only at a very narrow range of potential statements, which are statements with regard to procurement decisions and/or investment decisions, rather than, as we heard in earlier sessions, statements that are in their generality critical of Israeli policy or, indeed, of British policy with regard to the middle east. For all those reasons, there is not a legal problem with regard to clause 4, but there is a political imperative behind clause 4, and if I had a vote on the matter, which I do not, I would vote for it enthusiastically.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Tomkins: I think I am. It is always a delicate balance between what goes into primary legislation—what goes on the face of the Bill, as we say—and what can be done after an enactment by Secretaries of State or Ministers, using the various powers that are crafted by the Bill. The balance that has been struck in the Bill is appropriate and reasonable—yes, I think it is.
Francis Hoar: I think it goes too far in some respects. Generally speaking, Parliament has been too ready—this goes back over many decades and is certainly not just the case under this Government and in this Parliament—to give the Government powers to give devolved legislation, particularly with Henry VIII powers, which the Government accepts there are in this case. I think Mr Cragg KC mentioned the unlimited power of the Minister to order the maximum financial penalty, and there is good reason for the House of Commons to restrict that to a particular maximum.
The particular concern I had was that although, wisely, the Bill does require advance scrutiny of the regulations, there is an exception in clause 3(2) and (5). The Government have given a good explanation as to why they may wish to add a country or territory to the list—the approved list or the disapproved list, whichever way you want to look at it—because, of course, Russia might invade Ukraine, and that is an obvious example. But they have not provided any explanation—certainly not a credible explanation—as to why we need clause 3(2), which includes adding, removing or amending a description of a type of consideration that can be taken into account by a local authority. There is absolutely no reason why that would ever be so urgent as to be needed without the advance scrutiny of the House of Commons. So clause 3(2), in my view, should not have an emergency provision. In clause 3(5), there is a very good reason for that; if the Bill is passed, one accepts the principle, and if one accepts the principle, these things should be able to happen.
Professor Tettenborn: I am entirely with Francis on that one. Certainly, the power to add countries actually is, again, quite skilfully guarded. I think people around this table will have noticed that it is subject to affirmative resolution—that is, it cannot pass merely by everybody not noticing when it is placed on the Table and not objecting to it; it cannot pass by inertia. I think that is a very sound part of the Bill indeed.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Francis Hoar: I have answered this fairly fully, but I think that that encapsulates why I am not convinced about clause 4, although I agree with both my colleagues on the panel that it is not likely to be disproportionate, because it falls within the earlier Strasbourg/French authority. These are public bodies, and there is a good reason why it would be proportionate to restrict them, but you have encapsulated why the provision is pretty useless: because all the Minister needs to say is, “I’m not going to speak on behalf of the Scottish Government.”
Now, I can absolutely see the logical reason why it is a good prohibition, because it is right, on the view of the Bill on this panel—although not among all your other witnesses—which is that the general objective is a sound objective. If that is right, it is fair enough to prevent Ministers in Scotland or Wales from making those sorts of pronouncements. But, in reality, what is it going to do? It is just going to mean that, basically, I will say that I am going to speak in a personal capacity.
Incidentally, on the drafting of the Bill, I am not entirely clear—I agree, again, with Mr Cragg on this—as to the relationship between clauses 4 and 1. Purely from a drafting point of view, that needs to be made clear. If the Government are suggesting that that should not apply to an individual speaking in an individual capacity, there is no reason why the Bill cannot say so. I am just not clear. The wording of clause 4(1) is that
“the person intends to act in a way that would contravene section 1”.
I am not convinced that it applies only if that person has been given a notice. As Andrew said, I do not read that from the Bill. I am not entirely clear what that means. It needs to be clarified as a matter of drafting if clause 4 is to stay.
Professor Tettenborn: I would like a clarification there as well, I must admit. It seems to me that there may be quite an important difference between someone who makes a pronouncement and someone who says something and adds, “but I am speaking personally.” That concerns how we are viewed abroad. It is very good for the conduct of the foreign relations of this country that people abroad know that they can deal with the UK Government as a UK Government. They obviously know that there will be people who disagree with the Government’s foreign policy, but I see nothing wrong in saying that if an official is going to do that, it might be a good idea if they said, “I am speaking in a private capacity.”
Ms Qaisar
Professor Tomkins, do you want to come in?
Professor Tomkins: Yes, thank you. First, this is not a gagging clause. Anybody who thinks it is does not know what a gagging clause looks like. Nothing in clause 4 prevents the current First Minister of Scotland, or any Minister or councillor, from saying whatever they want about the appropriateness of foreign policy, or indeed the appropriateness of policy in a foreign state. The prohibition is simply and narrowly focused on making statements that proclaim that a Minister or a councillor would have decided to do something unlawful if they had been able to do so, which they cannot do anyway. The idea that this is a gagging clause needs to be firmly scotched, if I can put it that way.
Beyond that, I do not have much more to say, except to repeat a point that was made in an earlier session. Councillors should not be wasting their time opining about foreign policy, because it is not their job. Neither should Ministers of devolved Administrations, because it is not theirs either.
Ms Qaisar
Q
The people of Scotland have a strong history of being at the forefront of political campaigns. As was said earlier, Glasgow proudly stood against South Africa’s apartheid in the 1980s. In 2014, the University of Glasgow became the first university in Europe to divest from the fossil fuel industry. Given that public bodies such as universities would now be prevented from taking such a stance, is the Bill compatible with the free speech protections in the European convention on human rights?
Professor Tettenborn: I am sorry; I did not hear what Glasgow University had divested from.
Ms Qaisar
The fossil fuel industry.
Professor Tettenborn: Well, that would not be affected. That is not what the Bill is about. It is far worse, if I may say so, for a public authority in this country to have a foreign policy than for it to have an environmental policy. I know that it probably will not go down very well north of the border in Shotts, but I do not think it is the business either of the Scottish devolved Government or of Scottish local authorities to engage in foreign policy. I have no enormous objection to any public body saying, “We will not invest in fossil fuels.”
Ms Qaisar
Q
Okay. Professor Tomkins, you have spoken about the fact that you were a Member of the Scottish Parliament, and I understand that you are a former adviser to a Secretary of State for Scotland. Constitutional law is your area of expertise, and you have said that you are keen to see this legislation implemented across all four nations of the UK. I am interested in learning a little bit more about what impact the Bill will have on the independence of Scotland’s Parliament and, by extension, our Government in Holyrood.
Professor Tomkins: I do not think that it will have any impact on that at all. The Scottish Parliament is democratically elected to pursue policy objectives within its legislative competence. That legislative competence is set by the United Kingdom Parliament in the Scotland Acts, as amended. It is absolutely clear that that legislative competence does not extend to foreign policy. The Bill has no impact at all on the powers and competences of the democratically elected Scottish Parliament—none at all.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Q
Professor Tomkins: The states in the United States that have pursued anti-BDS legislation have probably gone further than anybody else I am aware of, although perhaps there are jurisdictions that I am not aware of; my research has been restricted to the United States, France and the UK. There would be, I think, significant human rights implications for the United Kingdom, given its commitments under the ECHR, were the UK to pursue the sort of anti-BDS policy that we see in some of those states. I think some significant article 10 issues would arise in relation to that sort of policy. I cannot speak for the Government, but that might very well be why the UK Government have elected not to proceed with that sort of policy.
The approach that the French authorities have been taking is very different, again, from what the present Bill envisages. The French seem to have seen the issue much more as one of public order and freedom of assembly, and are going directly after those who engage in anti-BDS demonstrations and protests in France. What we have in front of us is a Bill that is much more carefully—certainly much more narrowly—targeted on the two specific areas where public authorities in the UK, unfortunately in my view, have engaged in anti-BDS campaigning targeted at Israel and the occupied territories with regard to investment and procurement decisions.
This is not a general “Let’s ban BDS” Bill, or even a specific one with regard to public authorities. It is specifically and carefully targeted at the two core areas where, historically in the UK, public bodies have engaged in anti-BDS activities with regard to Israel when it comes to procurement and investment. Because it is carefully targeted for the UK, my answer to your question is that for the UK this is the best Bill.
Dr Evans
Q
I have a wider question for the whole panel. This is written in the negative, in the sense that it indicates political or moral disapproval for foreign states. Do the panel have any thoughts about writing it neutrally, so that neither the pro nor the anti side fit in? In other words, a public body should not get involved in these kinds of arguments at all. Is that a position you agree with, Professor Tettenborn?
Professor Tettenborn: That is a very good question. Speaking as a professor in an ivory tower, I would immediately agree with you; speaking as a practical man, I would say that you are making a rod for your back if you start imposing abstract legal obligations of neutrality. I think it makes enforcement far easier and life far more difficult for clever lawyers if you do what is done in this Bill: “Thou shalt not say that you disapprove of a particular regime.” I do not think there is a problem of local authorities saying, “We think Venezuela is the best thing since sliced bread, and we will do whatever.” The Bill does answer the mischief.
Dr Evans
Q
Francis Hoar: There is an argument, and you have made it, but I do not think that it is a good enough argument for legislating, because you need to be very careful when you are legislating in respect of what is enforceable. Adam has given some examples of quite extreme—I think very extreme—classically American approaches that go very far down the line in terms of enforcement in another direction, in respect of companies that have or do not have dealings with Israel. To require and enforce neutrality would go far further than is needed. The mischief that the Bill addresses is the divestment campaign, based on political objectives that are potentially contrary to UK foreign policy, and that is where it should lie.
I just want to put down a marker that—if you will allow me, Dame Caroline—I have something to say about legal professional privilege.
The Chair
Yes, but do keep an eye on the clock, because there are two more Members who have indicated that they want to ask a question, and we have only 10 more minutes.
Francis Hoar: Thank you. On legal professional privilege, the answer is not quite as straightforward as has perhaps been represented. I think that the Government’s line is that the answer is in clause 7(9), which is to defer to the data protection legislation. The Data Protection Act 2018 has various provisions that restrict the requirement to provide legally professionally privileged information. For example, schedule 11 has a tailor-made restrictive provision:
“The listed provisions do not apply to personal data that consists of…information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege…could be maintained”.
I think legal professional privilege is extremely important; I entirely agree with Mr Norris about that. Obviously local authorities and other public bodies will be receiving advice on what could be quite complicated circumstances. I think it would be far more straightforward, though, to mirror that legislation in clause 7: you could just add a provision copied straight from paragraph 9 of schedule 11 to the 2018 Act. That is what I suggest that Parliament should do.
Professor Tettenborn: You will get exactly the same answer from me—he has taken the words out of my mouth.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Professor Tettenborn: That is a very interesting point, if I may say so. There might be a simple way around it: we could have an extra subsection in clause 4 that said, “Nothing in this Act affects the right of any member of a public authority to speak in a private capacity.” Just saying it out loud provides a safe harbour; it means that people do not have to go to a lawyer to look up a law, or at least they do not have to go to so many lawyers. I think that might be helpful.
Professor Tomkins: I share everybody’s concern that we must take freedom of speech very seriously—I think that that is a very important set of concerns to raise—but there are two things to say.
First, what Professor Tettenborn has just described is already the state of the law. The way in which we approach rights under the Human Rights Act is that rights are stated generally, and any exceptions to those rights must be narrowly tailored and stated specifically. If there is doubt or ambiguity, it falls on the side of the right, not on the side of the exception. That is already, in broad terms, the legal position through the United Kingdom—as it should be, in my view. Adding extra words to clause 4 to deliver that effect will not have any effect, because it is already the legal position.
I remind the Committee that clause 4 is very narrow in scope: all it says is that somebody who is subject to section 1 may not say that they would have made a procurement decision or an investment decision different from the procurement decision or investment decision that they have made, by force of this legislation. It seems to me that all the members of this panel are of the view that that is perfectly compatible with article 10 of the ECHR, for all the reasons that we have rehearsed; and if it is compatible with article 10 of the ECHR, it is also compatible, I think, with our domestic standards with regard to free speech. For all those reasons, and notwithstanding the fact that I take free speech incredibly seriously, I genuinely do not think that there is a free speech issue with regard to this Bill.
Wayne David
Q
“the executive competence of devolved ministers”,
and because of that the devolved institutions will need to pass a legislative consent motion. That might be politically contentious; therefore, the Act might not automatically apply to the three parts of the United Kingdom we are talking about. Also, in Northern Ireland, public services pension schemes are exclusively in the hands of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is not currently meeting. How will it agree a legislative competence order? Presumably, unless the Secretary of State takes powers that are not prescribed in the Bill, this legislation will not apply to Northern Ireland. Would you care to comment on that?
Professor Tomkins: With your permission, I will jump in on that. First, I have to say that the question of legislative consent has got a long way out of control. By that I mean this: absolutely, the United Kingdom Parliament should seek and obtain the legislative consent of the devolved Administrations and devolved Parliaments if the United Kingdom is seeking to legislate on matters which it has chosen to devolve to democratically elected legislatures away from Westminster, but that is not what is happening here—
Wayne David
Q
Professor Tomkins: No it doesn’t.
Wayne David
I just read it out.
Professor Tomkins: No, what you said is that this legislation trespasses on executive competence of Ministers, not on legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. There is not a single aspect of devolved competence on which this legislation touches or trespasses. I do not think there is any question of legislative consent—but it is an unfashionable view these days that this has got out of control in that the United Kingdom Parliament now thinks it needs to seek legislative consent on a whole range of issues that are not actually devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. In my view, on a proper understanding of the scope of the Sewel convention—that is to say, as Lord Sewel would have understood it when he introduced the convention in the House of Lords back in 1999—there is no question of legislative consent on this legislation.
The Chair
We do not have time for another question in the time allotted for this panel. Let me say on behalf of the Committee that we are grateful to our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Andrew Whitley gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Andrew Whitley, chair of the Balfour Project. We have until 4 pm. Would you introduce yourself for the record, Mr Whitley?
Andrew Whitley: My name is Andrew Whitley. I am the chair of the Balfour Project, a Scottish registered charity that advocates for peace, justice and equal rights in Israel and Palestine. We have a particular focus on Britain’s responsibility, historically and currently, for the situation Israel and Palestine. I myself have followed the situation for almost 40 years now, in different professional capacities, including living in the region—in Gaza and Jerusalem—for seven years.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Andrew Whitley: Yes, that is the case, but I think it is difficult to draw a distinction between divestment in certain areas and not others. It is possible to have divestment from Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, for example, and we can refer to aspects of boycotts and divestments that go back to the time of the slave trade. There is a long and distinguished record of being able to use these tools. I am not saying that our organisation advocates for BDS to be applied in this particular case, but we do advocate for the right of others to speak and to say that this is a legitimate tool. What concerns us as an organisation is that this Bill singles out Israel and the Palestinian territories as the sole area in which it applies, and our concern relates in particular to the conflation of Israel proper with the occupied territories in the Golan Heights, the west bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Andrew Whitley: I would not advocate in favour of BDS against Israel per se. I would argue that BDS is a legitimate tool to make a distinction between Israel and the occupied territories. I think that is an important distinction that always has to be maintained. In our view, this is the central flaw in the way the Bill is drafted.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Andrew Whitley: I am not sure that I agree that it creates community friction in this country. I recognise fully that there are those who are concerned about anything that could lead to antisemitism, and that is a scourge that must be utterly condemned, but I am not sure that advocating for BDS does that. It is a legitimate tool of non-violent action to influence a Government’s behaviour when they are committing illegal acts, and the occupation of a foreign country or a foreign territory is an illegal act, whether it is in Ukraine or Palestine.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Andrew Whitley: I would not advocate for boycotts against Israel.
Wayne David
Q
Andrew Whitley: Human rights are universal, and they need to be applied even-handedly and in a systematic fashion; there can be no quarrel or disagreement over that. Any attempt to try to make distinctions over how human rights should apply in one territory or another undermines the authority of those who are attempting to enforce them, and it makes a mockery of the application of human rights if they are applied selectively. I believe it is the responsibility of all citizens, as well as public bodies, to be able to apply ethical, moral human rights considerations in their decisions, and those can apply to political matters and they can apply to other matters. Human rights also cover the provision of shelter, the provision of water supplies or adequate education; these are all basic fundamental human rights. I think it is the responsibility of all bodies in this country to take human rights considerations into account and to apply them in a consistent manner.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Andrew Whitley: I think the impact of the Bill will be to hearten the most extreme nationalistic, racist Government that have ever been in place in Israel. I think that it will cheer Bibi Netanyahu and his Ministers and will provoke divisions within Israel. I should put it on the record here that a large number of sensible, middle-of-the-road Israelis are deeply troubled by the situation in the occupied territories and by their own Government’s actions, including the expansion of the settlements. We should be supporting those people, not the extremist Government, who are inflaming hatred in the country. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, I regret to say this, but I am afraid they will see the passage of this Bill as yet another act of betrayal on the part of Britain.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Andrew Whitley: I am sorry; would you mind repeating the question? I am having a little difficulty hearing.
Ms Qaisar
That is fine; I will also speak more slowly, just in case it is my accent. I was asking if you could clarify how the Bill will impact the UK’s long-standing position on illegal settlements. Would the Bill stop a public body from taking a stance of not buying and trading goods from illegal settlements within the OPT, bearing in mind the settlements are legal under international law?
Andrew Whitley: Members of this Committee will be well aware that the United Kingdom played an important role in the passage of UN Security Council resolution 2334 in December 2016. That is the last and most important resolution that refers to the absolute prohibition on the building of settlements in the occupied territories. As the UK supported that law, I would hope that it would take action to be able to continue to defend its implementation, which has been sadly lacking. Certain forms of pressure, I believe, are appropriate to encourage changes of behaviour, because there are many, including many Israeli friends of mine, who would argue that only through the exercise of meaningful pressure by Governments who can have influence over Israel is it likely to rethink its direction. I think that would certainly apply to the continued expansion of settlements, which are making a two-state solution impossible.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Andrew Whitley: It will not have a direct impact on our work. Our focus, as I said at the beginning, is on educating the British public and encouraging the British Government and decision makers in the United Kingdom, including Members of Parliament, to act in a way that upholds Britain’s historical responsibility. We believe that Britain has an important responsibility, not just as a legacy from the past, but today. We think that the passage of the Bill, if it has the effect that many argue it will have—to chill free speech and to prevent arguments that there are legitimate non-violent tools that can be used to encourage a change of behaviour on the part of Israel—would be deleterious to our work.
The Chair
I am mindful of the fact that we have to conclude this part of the session at 4 pm.
Wayne David
Q
Andrew Whitley: The lip service to a two-state solution continues, but I think there is a great deal of make-believe—or perhaps deliberate pretence—on the part of those who say that a two-state solution is still viable. It is looking increasingly impractical. If I can quote the words from the UN resolution—I was a senior UN official in the region for many years—the UN calls for “a sovereign, contiguous” Palestinian state. That is not the case at the moment and it is highly unlikely to be the case. The difficulty is in facing up to the alternatives, which are considered unpalatable. Members of the Elders delegation, Ban Ki-moon and Mary Robinson, who visited two months ago said that, to date, we are living in “a one-state reality”—not a one-state solution, but a one-state reality. That is what needs to be addressed.
It may be that the Government are privately edging away from their commitment while maintaining the rhetoric of support for a two-state solution. There are certainly hard choices to be made. However, from my personal perspective as someone who has followed the spread of these settlements for 40 years and seen the number of settlers grow from 50,000 to 700,000 in that period, it is increasingly difficult to see that it will actually transpire in that way.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. May I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee? We will now move on to the next and final panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Mark Beacon and Rozanne Foyer gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 4.30 pm for this session. Could the witnesses start by introducing themselves for the record?
Mark Beacon: My name is Mark Beacon. I am an international officer at Unison. Unison is the largest trade union in the UK, representing 1.3 million workers working in public services. Although our members are UK-based, we take a very keen interest in and recognise the importance and value of working collectively internationally to uphold human rights and workers’ rights. That is one of the key reasons why the Bill is of interest to us.
Rozanne Foyer: My name is Rozanne Foyer. I am general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. STUC is Scotland’s federation for trade unions. We have over 600,000 members in Scotland.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Mark Beacon: Unison has consistently advocated for a two-state solution—for a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. We support boycott, divestment and sanctions as a method to put pressure on the Israeli Government to bring about peace and a viable two-state solution. In terms of the work we are talking about here around pension fund engagement and investment, we have been calling for the local government pension scheme to begin the process of divestment from companies on the United Nations list of business enterprises involved in and with the illegal settlements, and to begin the process of time-limited engagement with other companies that are contributing to violations of human rights. Of course, our focus is very much on the Occupied Palestinian Territories and upholding human rights and international law within that context.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Mark Beacon: If you look specifically at our work on this, it is very much targeted at the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We are focusing on companies that are contributing to a grave violation of international law and breach of the Geneva conventions. It is also worth adding that BDS is not something we have used exclusively in the context of Palestine and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. You can look to examples such Myanmar and Western Sahara and, historically, countries such as South Africa. It has played a big role. Trade unions throughout the world use it. When it comes to boycott, divestment and sanctions—mainly divestment in this case—what we do is listen to the calls of our trade union partners around the world and ensure that what we are doing is reflecting their demands in these areas.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Rozanne Foyer: The STUC has a long-standing policy of support for a peaceful two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We also have, since 2009, supported BDS as a policy and a campaigning method. Basically that has been part of our international campaigning for decades, not just in relation to Israel. Fifty years ago we supported Rolls-Royce workers who refused to repair the aeroplane engine—[Inaudible.]
The Chair
Rozanne, I do apologise. We are struggling to hear you. Do you have a microphone available that you could plug in?
Rozanne Foyer: No, I do not.
The Chair
It is quite difficult to pick up what you are saying. You do not have a headset?
Rozanne Foyer: No, sorry, I do not.
The Chair
As long as the Committee is content to carry on. Sorry, I apologise for interrupting you; I just wanted to see whether we could improve the sound quality.
Rozanne Foyer: I will try to speak closer to the monitor to use the microphone in there.
The Chair
That is a bit better.
Rozanne Foyer: Through the 1980s, we played a key role in the anti-apartheid movement. Boycott, divestment and sanctions also played a key role in that movement. The trade union movement in Scotland was quite instrumental in encouraging local authorities such as Strathclyde and Glasgow City to take steps to support Nelson Mandela. That was at a time when he was still considered a terrorist by the UK Government. I just want to make the point that, generally, support of that type of activity is something that our movement has been involved in.
In 2009, we sent a factfinding delegation to Palestine. It talked to all parties—Israeli trade unionists and Palestinian trade unionists—and produced a report. On the back of that report, we agreed a policy of boycott, divestments and sanctions against the Israeli state. The aim was to create pressure to end Israel’s illegal occupation and establishment of settlements classed as illegal under international law. It was also to campaign against the violation of the human rights of Palestinians by the Israeli state as defined by the United Nations. We worked with our affiliates to support BDS strategy and we produced guidance on it in 2019. Our BDS policy is fully supported by the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions.
In 2022, the STUC supported a delegation from Dundee Trades Council to Palestine, which met again with both Palestinian and Israeli trade unionists. Following the reports received from that delegation about the situation on the ground for workers, and the continued human rights violations of Palestinian workers, the STUC Congress reaffirmed its policy to support BDS in 2023. We are not formally affiliated with any BDS movement, as you described it, and we do not wish our support for BDS to be interpreted as blanket support for any of the policies or views of other bodies or organisations that might identify with the wider BDS movement.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Mark Beacon: We do not see this as an issue about foreign policy or local authorities having a jurisdiction over any form of foreign policy. What it is about is public bodies upholding internationally recognised norms regarding human rights, labour rights and international law.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Mark Beacon: If you look at the situation now and how it has eroded and if you look at the plans of the current Government—the coalition agreement, for example, has a section in it that focuses on annexation of huge swathes of the west bank—Palestinian society is in a very difficult position at the moment, because the prospects for peace and a viable two-state solution sadly seem to be diminishing. We hope that international pressure and voices from the trade union movement and other civil society organisations will raise that up the international agenda and bring about more realistic prospects of a viable two-state solution.
Felicity Buchan
Q
Mark Beacon: Of course, it takes many small steps. In local authorities, we are talking generally about a response to the requests or concerns of members of pension schemes. Local authorities and pension committees take on those legitimate concerns of members on how investments are made, and act on those. A single local authority will of course not make a massive difference, but if that is taking place across the UK and internationally, it will add to pressure and encourage the UK Government to take a stronger position on some of the issues.
The Chair
Five Members have indicated that they would like to ask questions, and we need to conclude by 4.30 pm—just so everyone is aware.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Rozanne Foyer: It is really concerning. Based on what some of the other expert panellists have said today, I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with some of them, particularly Mr Tomkins’s assessment of devolution. We need to understand the point of view. This is not about local authorities or devolved Government setting foreign policy; this is about procurement policy, democracy and taxpayers’ money. It is arguable that with the anti-apartheid movement, Glasgow City Council started a wave that the UK Government and the rest of the world eventually had to listen to and go with. I believe strongly that democracy starts on the ground with the people and moves up from them. The Bill centralises reserved powers. It does the opposite of devolution and of giving power to the people. That is really concerning. With the Bill, we would certainly not have got to that position, and that important work that happened in the ’80s would not have been able to take place.
My member is a member of the pension scheme, and has a democratic right in workplace democracy to have a say on what happens to their reserved pay. It is their money that sits in the pension scheme. They have a right to have a say in how that money is spent and to ensure that it is spent ethically. My members are citizens of local authorities and pay their taxes to local authorities and to the Government. They have a right to demand that their local authority and Government adhere to human rights policy, and adhere to the best standards of employment policy and of policy on procurement. Procurement is devolved, and so are human rights, so are things like economic development. It is not as simple as saying that these devolved authorities cannot talk about, or make policies that relate to, foreign policy. What we are talking about here is procurement policy and how citizens’ taxes and pension moneys are spent. As far as I am concerned, the Westminster Government and the Secretary of State have no business in telling us how to do that.
The Chair
Just to interrupt very quickly, Rozanne, we are struggling to hear you and Hansard is struggling to pick up what you are saying for the record. Please can you do whatever you can to speak as loudly as possible into the microphone to try to help us?
Rozanne Foyer: I will do what I can.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Mark Beacon: Not really, apart from the fact that I do not think many people would look back now on the actions that local authorities took around the anti-apartheid movement—their involvement in action against apartheid —and the investment and procurement decisions they took and say that that was wrong. Of course, we are now in a situation in which procurement is far greater; in the UK, we are talking about public bodies procuring up to £380 billion of goods and services. It is amazing to think of the positive impact that that procurement could have internationally if public bodies were to utilise it to encourage companies to uphold the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, for example.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Mark Beacon: Yes, it will. If you look at Unison’s international work, we work as a key part of Public Services International, which is the global trade union federation for public service workers, and we campaign on a wide range of international issues. Palestine is one of our priorities at the moment, but there are also Turkey, Brazil, Colombia, and business and human rights. We work on Zimbabwe and a range of other issues. As public service workers, that is really important. Our members will be very concerned about, first, how their pensions are invested and, secondly, procurement decisions and the impact that they have internationally. For example, uniforms and PPE—those kinds of issues—and where resources are acquired are major issues. It is the same for members of the public, who will share some of those concerns. The Bill prevents us from acting on those where there is a potential for political or moral disapproval of the policy or conduct of a public authority in a foreign state. It is extremely far reaching and will infringe on quite a lot of our work.
Ms Qaisar
Q
Rozanne Foyer: Trade unions have been using these policies, as I said, for quite some time in a range of situations. I think that we would want to be able to continue to operate in that way. It is an important part of our democracy that our members and citizens are able to influence public bodies and elected officials at all sorts of levels. It is very important. One of the things for which trade union members in Scotland campaigned for a long time was a Scottish Parliament, and another big concern for us is the way that devolution to that Parliament is being potentially undermined by this piece of legislation. That is another area where we have some key concerns about this Bill.
Wayne David
I apologise if the speakers have already touched on this; I did not pick up everything that was said from Scotland. Mark, you have written a very detailed paper, and I thank you for it. One of the very important points you make in that paper is the fact that public bodies in Wales and Scotland are already obliged to follow ethical practices with regard to employment, for example, and need to take into account human rights considerations. My concern is that the Government have perhaps not fully appreciated that fact. This legislation, which will apply—so they tell us—to all parts of the United Kingdom, does not take into account what already exists, and it might inadvertently cut across or undermine existing regulations. Is that your view? If it is, can you say a bit more?
Mark Beacon: Yes, we share those concerns. Some positive work is taking place in Wales around procurement, primarily focusing on labour rights but branching out into other areas. Again, there is some positive work in Scotland and, I believe, in Northern Ireland. We are deeply concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on that work in devolved nations, particularly considering that both investment and procurement are devolved responsibilities. When we look at areas such as labour rights, which are obviously fundamental to us, and at exceptions in the schedule, they are very narrowly defined. They are primarily focused on areas around modern slavery and so forth, and there are references to the minimum wage as well, but they do not go anywhere near meeting the International Labour Organisation core conventions. Areas such as child labour, equal remuneration, the right to collective bargaining, freedom of association and so forth are not referred to at all in there, so it will undermine that work.
Rozanne Foyer: We have a range of devolved policies in Scotland that relate to our Fair Work First approach to commissioning and contracting. We do not have devolved employment law, but we have an extensive range of guidance and benchmarks that we expect all contractors who want to get public money to adhere to. The Scottish Government also has a vision for trade that sets out fair work indicators as well. Although we cannot implement laws, because employment law is not devolved, we fully use our right to implement and use the money as leverage. I believe that is a very legitimate way to create a landscape of better employment rights and good practice, both domestically and internationally, and that work would be severely undermined by the current proposals.
In terms of the other area I think could be really undermined, we must remember that in Scotland we have a Parliament where just over half of the representatives—the majority of representatives—support full independence. It would be legitimate and in the public interest for citizens and members of the public to know and understand what the Scottish Government might choose to do in the context of independence if they had the power to have particular international procurement policies. It is very disturbing to me that clause 4 of the Bill might well prevent that sort of debate or announcement from taking place. At the moment, the Scottish Government are producing a series of papers that look at the detail of what an independent Scotland might look like. The STUC does not have a policy on independence, but you can bet your bottom dollar that we are looking very closely at what the potential proposals might be and thinking about how they might impact our members. I would not like the Bill to preclude the Scottish Government from making us aware of what their intentions might be.
Chris Stephens
Q
Mark Beacon: Absolutely not. It is phenomenally weak in terms of the exceptions. If we start with international law, there is a requirement in it that basically violates the UK’s obligations under international law rather than considering, for example, that the activity of a company might be contributing to a violation of international law, so that section is extremely weak. There is a total absence of any reference to human rights within the exceptions there, which is of deep concern, particularly as you do not have labour rights without human rights. Then, for the reasons I have mentioned, the section on labour rights is extremely weak—not meeting those ILO core conventions, which are the absolute basic minimum enabling rights for workers.
The Committee might want to look at areas around procurement and the activities of organisations like Electronics Watch, which I believe Crown Commercial Services is affiliated to, that look at areas like electronics and mining and how you can get better practice in procurement in those areas. On environmental concerns, again, we are concerned that there is that double threshold there: not only must it be environmental misconduct, but it has to violate the law as well. There are plenty of exceptions to that, such as in issues around the pollution of watercourses or around logging or deforestation, where the conduct or policy of a public authority permits that to go on.
Rozanne Foyer: I will not say too much on this. I think that the points were very well made there. The ILO conventions missing is the most disturbing feature here for any sort of credible nod to good employment standards. The fact that they are not there is incredibly disturbing. It is not going to help us take forward environmental agendas. It is not going to help us take forward ethical or human rights agendas or labour rights agendas on an international basis. It is a travesty if we cannot use all of our public bodies to help us push that agenda forward.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Q
Mark Beacon: When it comes to workers’ rights or the situation of workers within the illegal settlements, it is an area we have done substantial work on. We support and provide funding for a trade union called Ma’an, an Israeli trade union, to help them organise workers within the illegal industrial zones. It highlights phenomenal challenges there. Workers are paying extraordinary fees to labour brokers. They are being paid beneath the Israeli minimum wage. They are consistently not getting their labour rights under Israeli law. Health and safety is appalling and so forth.
We also support Kav LaOved, the workers hotline—again, an Israeli NGO—to support and educate workers and campaign for them in the illegal agricultural areas in the occupied west bank. Again, we see the same labour problems there, major health and safety problems, particularly involving people picking dates and the injuries they face, being dumped at checkpoints with injuries and so forth, and major problems with child labour.
The quality of that work is not amazing by any means, and there are major problems, but the other issue is the impact that those settlements have on the prospects of a viable—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to cut you off mid-flow, but that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. On the Committee’s behalf, I thank all our witnesses today, particularly the last two, for all their evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jacob Young.)
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Climate Finance: Tackling Loss and Damage
(1 year, 3 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
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered climate finance for tackling loss and damage.
July was the hottest month in global history. In three months the world will gather in one of the hottest regions of the world for COP28. All summer we have heard about and seen the impacts that climate change is having—impacts that will only get worse—and the need for urgent action could not be clearer. Simply put, this is the biggest, most existential threat to humanity and our planet, and I put it on the record that I am utterly disappointed that not one MP from the governing Conservative party is here other than the Minister.
The international community has come together in recent years to recognise the urgent need for financial support to combat climate change. Prominent milestones at various COPs over have established ambitious targets for climate finance. However, a fundamental problem persists. It is crucial to acknowledge that, despite the pledges and commitments, a substantial gap remains between promise and fulfilment, perhaps illustrated most starkly by the collective goal of mobilising $100 billion a year by 2020 for climate action in developing countries, agreed in Copenhagen at COP15 in 2009. This has still not yet been achieved.
To date, climate finance to developing countries has been focused on mitigation—namely, efforts to reduce and prevent the emission of greenhouse gases and adaptation—and adjusting to and building resilience against current and future climate change impacts. However, harms and losses will still be experienced by communities and ecosystems due to climate change that cannot be effectively mitigated or adapted to.
Loss and damage funding refers to the financial assistance provided to countries and communities dealing with the irrevocable consequences of climate change. It encompasses the destruction of infrastructure, the displacement of communities, the erosion of cultural heritage and, heartbreakingly, extensive loss of life.
At COP27 in November 2022 we witnessed a historic turning point in our global commitment to address loss and damage. An agreement was reached to establish a dedicated fund aimed explicitly at supporting vulnerable nations and communities grappling with the irreversible effects of climate change. The agreement underscored the urgency of recognising that climate finance is not solely about reducing emissions and adapting to changing conditions. It is also about providing financial redress to those who bear the brunt of climate impacts, often with the least historical responsibility for causing the crisis.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. When it comes to finance for loss and damage, does he agree with me that that finance has to be new and additional, not redirected from existing budgets? If we are looking for places where we might find such new and additional finance, if we put the polluter pays principle at the heart of this debate, we could, for example, look at the grotesque profits of the oil and gas companies, which amounted to a staggering $134 billion globally last year, or the billions that go into fossil fuel subsidies. Does he agree with me that that would be a good place to start to get the money we need for such a vital fund?
Chris Law
Not only do I completely agree, but I suspect my papers have been leaked because I was about to come on to that point. I completely agree that new and additional finance is key and I look forward to what the Minister will say. I will touch on that topic in more depth shortly.
There is no doubt the UK has contributed significantly to the climate emergency through its historical greenhouse gas emissions. From 1750 to the present day it is the seventh highest CO2 emitter with just over 3% of estimated historical emissions. In contrast, the entire continent of Africa has a 3% share of cumulative CO2 emissions and Oceania only 1%—two of the regions already the most devastated by the climate catastrophe.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this essential debate, because this is a global question. We know that the United Nations framework convention on climate change has recognised that responsibility must lie with developed countries, and finance must therefore come in the form of grants not loans, but I beg the Minister to consider, given that the UK Government lay so much emphasis on addressing immigration, the impact of climate change on the likely future movement of populations. We have a duty to put our money where our mouth is and address some of the causes, the drivers, of migration. That in itself is something that I would expect the Government to respond to in a most serious manner.
Chris Law
I thank the right hon. Member for a really valuable intervention. She reminds me of the startling numbers that I was given in 2017, at the first COP I attended, by a climate scientist called Dirk Messner. He described how, if we continue on the trajectory that we are on now, by 2050 1 billion people will be on the move because of displacement by climate change. A current figure is that more than one third of people on the move right now are on the move as a result, directly or indirectly, of climate change. Therefore the right hon. Member makes a very valuable point.
Not only has the UK made a massive contribution to the destructive impacts of climate change through its emissions, but it has benefited from the competitive advantage that its early adoption of fossil fuels and industrialisation brought and it continues to profit from the extraction of oil and gas from the North sea. The UK therefore has a moral obligation to recognise this historical responsibility and lead by example in addressing loss and damage. That cannot be denied or ignored. As we prepare to embark on the critical climate conference that will be COP28 in Dubai, it is paramount that the UK takes a bold and principled stance in addressing the devastating impacts of climate change, and encourage similar action from others as we collectively tackle the biggest global challenge facing the planet today.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to get this debate on such an important issue. Does he agree that this Government’s credibility on climate finance will continue to be fundamentally undermined until the UK’s official development assistance budget is restored to at least 0.7% of GNI and the cuts are no longer threatening the many projects currently supporting vulnerable communities?
Chris Law
I thank my hon. Friend for a really valuable point. When I go out in the world today and speak to organisations and bodies in both Europe and the US, they are, frankly, disappointed at the UK’s position in recent years on the reduction in relation to GNI. It is a shame—it is our collective shame—and it needs to be altered radically. And for sure, money for loss and damage should not come from existing ODA budgets, which have already been shrunk.
To understand the imperative for loss and damage funding, we need to examine the profound, real-life and often irreversible impacts of climate change. At various COP meetings that I have attended, I have heard harrowing testimonies from citizens of small island states whose homes are disappearing underwater because of climate change. I recently watched devastating footage from the Solomon Islands, where sea level rise rates have been nearly three times the global average. Data shows that sea levels around the islands have risen at the alarming rate of between 7 mm and 10 mm a year—well above the global average of 3 mm a year. As a result, many coastal areas have been inundated, displacing communities and leading to the loss of arable land. Indeed, whole islands have tragically vanished beneath the rising waters.
The disappearance of islands such as Kale, Zollies and Kakatina is not only a stark statistic but a poignant testament to the reality of climate-induced loss and damage. I say this to the Minister: just imagine for a second that it was the United Kingdom that was facing disappearing—the entire nation disappearing under the waters that surround us. We would be acting very differently from how we are now. Those communities in the Solomon Islands have lost their homes, their ancestral lands and their way of life. The impact of climate change in the Solomon Islands extends beyond the numbers and statistics, reaching into the heart of the nation’s communities.
In east Africa, agriculture, reliant on timely and predictable rainfall, is a cornerstone of the economy; the region is highly vulnerable to climate shocks such as droughts and floods. Widespread crop failures and significant loss of livestock have led to vast economic losses that destroy livelihoods and deepen poverty and inequality. One person is likely to be dying every 28 seconds because of acute hunger and famine-like conditions as a result of climate change. This has been accelerated by an unprecedented series of failed rains, causing prolonged droughts, or places being hit by destructive flash floods, devastating people’s crops and livelihoods. Emergency humanitarian aid is simply not enough; the humanitarian system is not appropriate to address the increasing impacts of climate change. A loss and damage fund is needed, and needed now.
In Malawi, floods and droughts are on the increase. Events include Cyclone Ana, which in January 2022 affected almost 1 million people, of whom 190,000 were displaced, and Cyclone Freddy, which displaced more than half a million people, destroyed crops and livelihoods and caused almost 700 deaths. The World Bank estimates that climate change could reduce Malawi’s GDP by up to 9% by 2030, which is only seven years away. That means that, despite continued work and increasing resilience to climate-induced shocks in Malawi, the impacts of climate change continue to erode development gains, particularly for vulnerable populations.
I recently learned of the impact of initial loss and damage funding from the SNP Scottish Government to projects in Malawi to support safe housing construction and provide psychological support for victims. This is a small-scale community-led initiative that needs to go much further and be supported by a global fund. Funding the loss and damage fund is not a matter of charity; it is an act of justice.
The SNP Scottish Government have embedded the concept of climate justice in their international development framework, launching a climate justice fund in 2012, which is due to increase by £24 million over the next three years. That was the first of its kind in the world. Crucially, it paved the way for others when it again became the first in the world to commit funding to loss and damage at COP26 in Glasgow. The whole world was there to listen and the whole world wanted to see that movement forward.
The Scottish Government’s role in providing funding for loss and damage is characterised by deep commitment to climate justice, concrete financial contributions, active participation in global climate efforts and a dedication to innovative and collaborative solutions. Scotland’s global climate leadership credibility is reinforced by its domestic action. It is concerning that the UK’s reputation could be undermined by the current Government’s decision to grant hundreds of new oil and gas licences and, I am afraid, the Labour party’s weakness in watering down its £28 billion green prosperity plan.
Scotland is now seen as a trusted global partner when it comes to climate loss and damage. I hope the Minister will agree with me that the Scottish Government should be empowered to do more on the international stage, rather than be restricted or put back in their box, as some of his Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues have suggested. Because where Scotland has led, others have followed: Denmark, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Ireland, New Zealand and Canada have all now pledged loss and damage funding.
The Scottish Government did not hang about and wait for others to act first. They did not create excuses to give themselves reason to delay making a commitment. They saw the urgent need for this funding and acted upon it. Although these funds are small, they are already making a difference, both in practical terms and in how they have prompted others to follow suit. I sincerely hope the UK Government will see the value in that and act without unnecessary delay.
Although Scotland has contributed to important progress, it is not happening fast enough globally. The UK and other Governments around the world have a responsibility to come together and ensure that the practicalities of the loss and damage fund are agreed at COP 28, and implemented as soon as possible thereafter. At present, there has been no agreement on what the financial size of any loss and damage fund should be and how it should operate through the Transitional Committee agreed at COP 27, which has been tasked with establishing the institutional arrangements and has been working over the past year.
Several areas of contention are still being debated and need to be resolved before the committee’s plan is considered at COP 28. One of those is whether the loss and damage fund should be housed within existing climate finance mechanisms, or operate as an independent entity. The Alliance of Small Island States has called for a
“fit-for-purpose multilateral fund designated as an operating entity of the UNFCCC Financial Mechanism”.
I stumbled across that fairly mighty quote. It has been echoed by other vulnerable states and civil society that wish to see a flagship dedicated fund. Let me make this point clear. This cannot be about relabelling existing money, a point the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made earlier. Loss and damage funding needs to be new money going to new places—the places already experiencing the devastating effects of climate change—now.
Furthermore, if we are to embed the concept of climate justice properly in our approach, the voices of developing and vulnerable states must be listened to and acted upon, equalising power in this currently unequal relationship. Loss and damage funding should be tailored to their needs, rather than a top-down approach from those who do not share their experiences. It is also incumbent on developed countries to ensure that they do not divide consensus on the need for a loss and damage fund.
Existing climate finance arrangements are based on a 1998 list of 155 developing countries and 43 contributors. It has been suggested that not all developing countries should be eligible for support, as not all of them are particularly vulnerable and in need of urgent loss and damage funding. It has also been argued that countries such as China, India and countries in the middle east should be expected to contribute to the fund and that there should be a narrower definition, with recipients restricted to those countries with the least capacity to cope and adapt, alongside their susceptibility to harm and to be adversely affected.
While that does not seem overly unreasonable, many developed countries have not lived up to their climate finance obligations, and it is incumbent on them to ensure that these are met before expecting others to do so. This debate should not be used as a convenient excuse to stall progress on the establishment of the fund. Given that the UK is one of the 24 members of the Transitional Committee, it needs to be a champion for the dedicated fund, for firm commitments from developed countries and for transparent governance ahead of the committee presenting its plans at COP28. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s detailed statement of where he stands on this later in the debate.
Climate finance agreed under the United Nations framework convention on climate change was intended to provide new and additional resources for lower-income countries to tackle the additional challenges brought by climate change. Despite that, the UK has failed to provide climate finance in addition to its ODA budget. The current commitment of £11.6 billion in international climate finance from 2021 to 2026 is welcome. I would like to be absolutely assured that that will continue, but it is under pressure due to the UK Government’s reckless decision to cut their ODA budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI at a time of escalating need—a point that has already been made.
There is concern that the UK will seek to delay climate finance commitments due to these significant aid cuts. Will the Minister confirm that that will not be the case? I am also eager to hear from the Labour Front Bench on this. Back in July, on reports that the commitment was being dropped, the Labour party refused to comment on whether it would commit to the £11.6 billion funding pledge, so I hope to hear whether the Labour party will obediently do as it is told by the Tories and follow every fiscal decision made by them, or will it recognise the severity of the climate crisis and ensure the pledge is met.
The UK Government must ensure that the money attributed to loss and damage is new and additional to existing climate finance commitments, and not diverted from existing ODA budgets. Climate change is a global crisis that requires a global response—one that should not come at the expense of other essential development initiatives. Current estimates place the cost of loss and damage in developing countries alone at approximately half a trillion dollars by 2030. Christian Aid has estimated that the UK’s fair contribution to this fund could be 3.5%, equivalent to between $10 billion and $20 billion. It would simply not be possible to absorb that in the current climate finance commitments or to cut other aid spending further to fund it.
To raise the necessary funds, we must explore innovative financing mechanisms, which must be based on the polluter pays principle, as touched on earlier. Those responsible for a significant share of emissions must bear a corresponding share of responsibility for the damage this is causing. It is not unreasonable to look to the fossil fuel industry to pay a proportionate share of those costs, particularly given the level of profit and excessive profits they are making and the subsidies they receive. The figures required to cover the costs of loss and damage are high, but they are dwarfed by the billions in subsidies that the fossil fuel industry receives and the profits it makes.
To understand that, the excess profits of the five largest oil and gas companies alone amounted to $134 billion last year, and the United Nations Development Programme estimates that global fossil fuel subsidies are now at a staggeringly $423 billion a year. If we put those figures together, we are into more than half a trillion dollars per year, showing that there is no shortage of money, rather it is concentrated in the wrong hands.
Analysis by Christian Aid has shown that £6.5 billion could be raised by a wealth tax to support loss and damage. New forms of wealth taxes that are broad based and that take into account different forms of wealth could help significantly in ensuring that money is available for loss and damage. If both the Conservative and Labour parties are serious about adequately tackling this global climate emergency, they need to take bold action, instead of being hand in hand in timidly ruling these options out.
Will the Minister commit to ensuring that loss and damage finance is provided in the form of grants, not loans? Vulnerable nations and communities should not be burdened with debt or struggle to recover from the ravages of climate change. The UK Government’s contribution to loss and damage funding should not be merely seen as a financial transaction; it should be a declaration of values, a commitment to climate justice and a recognition of the profound responsibility we bear in the face of this global crisis. We are truly in this together, and we cannot walk away now.
To conclude, I have made it clear that we have a moral and historical obligation, as well as an obligation in our own self-interest, to act in the face of this climate emergency. When we talk about loss and damage funding, we are talking about humanity’s response to one of the greatest challenges of our time. The urgency of this crisis demands swift and decisive action, and the financial commitments made by developed nations must reflect the severity of the situation.
It is our duty to ensure that those commitments are translated into tangible support for those vulnerable communities most affected by climate change. Without such support, we will see the climate crisis create resource scarcity and poverty, cause disease and displacement, and lead to conflict and, as we touched on earlier, mass migration. That will affect all of us in this Chamber. It will affect our children and our children’s children’s children to come. It is in our enlightened self-interest to ensure that loss and damage funding is there as an essential lifeline for those who find themselves on the frontlines of a crisis that they did not create.
It is our collective responsibility as good global citizens to ensure that we act boldly and decisively, in order to make sure that the most vulnerable receive the support they need to rebuild their lives and to make sure that by co-operating together we protect all of our futures.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. We have three Members indicating that they wish to speak in the debate. I will start up the wind-ups just before 10.30 am, so that leaves around 10 minutes for each Member who wishes to speak.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Betts, as it always is.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) on securing this much needed debate. He spoke about urgency, and he is absolutely right to focus on that. We continue to see extreme weather events occurring across the globe and the principal polluters—both historically and currently—burying their heads in the sand, pretending that it is not a problem they need to address, and hoping it will go away. It will not go away; it is urgent and it is severe.
Let me give an example. The prolonged drought in east Africa has pushed almost 60 million people into food insecurity, which is a dramatic increase from the 37 million people affected in the middle of last year, when the emergency was first declared. In some areas across the globe, the weather has swung to the other extreme. Last month, excessive rainfall in the Himalayas caused flash floods, landslides and rockfalls, which have killed dozens of people and destroyed homes and buildings. Such events prove that climate change continues to pose an increasing threat to the health of people and indeed the health of the planet.
We are seeing more frequent extreme weather events, such as wildfires and floods, which are destroying economies and infrastructure, with severe consequences for human life across the globe. Slow-onset events, such as increasing temperatures and sea level rises, are not receiving the attention they deserve but are a cause for serious concern.
I chair the International Development Committee, and I am grateful that the hon. Member for Dundee West is such a leading light on the Committee, pushing us to do more on climate change. The Committee has undertaken work on the impact of climate change. Evidence submitted to us has shown clearly that climate change does not have an equal impact on all countries. In our report on debt relief, we found that lower-income countries are more vulnerable to loss and damage from climate change than high-income ones. Lower-income countries are less likely to have the funds to invest in climate change mitigation and adaptation, but without such investment the loss and damage from climate shocks will be more severe. The cost of the response and reconstruction is then higher, reducing the future funding available to invest in climate change adaptation.
As part of the Committee’s inquiry on the effect of climate change on small island developing states, or SIDS, we heard that SIDS are particularly at risk from climate shocks. For example, in 2015 Dominica was hit by Tropical Storm Erika, which caused loss and damage amounting to 90% of its GDP. It then faced Hurricane Maria in 2017, which caused further loss and damage that amounted to 226% of its GDP.
My Committee has also heard about the threat of sea level rises, coastal erosion and, in some cases, the potential submergence of SIDS by climate change. Within this century, two SIDS are likely to disappear because of rising sea levels. Communities in low-lying atoll countries, such as the Maldives and the Marshall Islands, are at most risk. Climate change poses an existential threat for SIDS—one that is largely being overlooked.
Climate change will also put even more pressure on the most vulnerable and marginalised people. The World Bank has estimated that between 68 million and 135 million people will fall back into poverty due to climate change by 2030. Those who are already poor are likely to lose more when faced with climate shocks, even while having less to begin with.
The World Bank states that only one tenth of the world’s greenhouse gases are emitted by the 74 lowest income countries, yet it is those countries that will be the most affected by climate change. Lower-income countries are being forced to pay for damage they did not cause, despite having the least ability to pay for it. That is not just, it is not equitable, and it must be addressed. The UK could and should play a greater role in preventing and treating the suffering caused across the globe from climate change.
Loss and damage finance remains the most underfunded form of climate finance. At COP27, the Sharm el-Sheikh implementation plan was agreed, which included the establishment of the loss and damage fund. It is essential that the UK Government pledges new and additional funding for addressing loss and damage as part of their commitment to the most vulnerable people in the world.
To that end, I welcome the fact that at the first Africa climate summit the Minister for Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to double its international climate finance to £11.6 billion between 2021 and 2026. Ahead of COP26, though, the UK Government also committed to support the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage, which is meant to provide technical assistance to lower-income countries vulnerable to climate change. However, it was only at COP27 that the institutional arrangements to operationalise the network were agreed. As my Committee has previously recommended, the Government must urgently work to support the Santiago Network to be operational and to live up to its prior commitments.
My Committee has also made other core recommendations for meaningful action on climate change. We recommend that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office should work closely with the least developed countries and small island developing states in developing practical measures to address loss and damage. We also recommend that the FCDO hosts a climate and development ministerial with climate-vulnerable countries every year to follow up on its previous work. I was pleased to hear yesterday that the Government will be co-hosting the third climate and development ministerial, but it is vital to hear the voices of lower-income countries and small island developing states on how that finance can be most effectively used.
Without concrete and concerted action, the most vulnerable countries and the most vulnerable people in them will continue to suffer. As a lead contributor to climate change, and as a high-income country, the UK Government have a moral responsibility to act now. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) on securing this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on enabling it. It is a pleasure also to follow two such powerful speeches, including, of course, from the Chair of the International Development Committee.
“We do not own the world, and its riches are not ours to dispose”
were the words that a constituent wrote to me, which were taken from an old Quaker testimony. I only occasionally reference my Quaker faith or background in this place—or indeed on Radio 4, as I did yesterday—but the climate crisis is one area where my faith, and many other faiths, drives that ethos. We have all heard and seen so many moving testimonies about how the climate crisis impacts communities and ecosystems across the world, and we know that this devastation will only accelerate.
There is also the particular concern and worry facing island nations, whether the Maldives or the Solomon Islands. We know that island nations are on the frontline of the climate crisis. It is not academic for them; it is a matter of survival. The establishment of a loss and damage fund at COP27 is a landmark agreement and one that has come only after years and years of the most climate-vulnerable countries pushing for change.
I could talk at length about the particular challenges, but I want to focus on just why it is important for us in the UK to proactively support, and to take leadership on this. First, it is a matter of basic principles and humanity. We have a duty to help those across the world who are at risk. We are already seeing the personal impact of the climate crisis on communities, whether it is those in Africa facing prolonged drought, or those in countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh seeing record floods. We cannot ignore the reality in front of our eyes. All of us have a duty to work to tackle this crisis. Many of my constituents will have close links to those communities through family, friends or shared ancestors.
Secondly, we have seen in the past that global leadership can and does work. One example is when the UK—and yes, Margaret Thatcher—led the way in signing the Montreal protocol, which was a global agreement that regulated and phased out substances that were damaging the ozone layer. This shows that global action works. The regenerated forests that have resulted are the visible testimony to that agreement. But why, when looking for examples, must we go back 40 years? Surely this is an area where the world and the UK should be stepping up again.
Thirdly, the climate emergency causing droughts and floods across the world means that whole communities are losing not only their homes but their food sources and livelihoods. They are having to move in mass migrations that put further pressure on the areas they arrive in, which are also vulnerable themselves.
Finally, it is in the UK’s interests to ensure that we take the lead on global action to fight the climate crisis and protect communities who will be hit the hardest. I was lucky enough to attend COP26 in Glasgow. I still remember the powerful and moving testimonies from world leaders and communities who will be, or already are, on the frontline of the climate crisis. These are the communities whose lives will be changed or ruined, and who will see, or already are seeing, the scars of the climate crisis.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is estimated that there will be 1.2 billion climate refugees in the next 25 years—individuals who are made refugees in their own country, often within a matter of hours. One year ago, as my hon. Friend mentioned, we saw unprecedented floods in Pakistan. Millions were displaced and thousands killed, and the recovery is ongoing. I put on the record my thanks to the British charities for their amazing work. In the coming weeks I will be visiting, together with Islamic Relief, to examine some of that work. My question is: is it vital that the Government make a serious commitment to climate finance for loss and damage at COP28, which is coming up?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend references the crisis—those terrible floods—that we all saw last year in Pakistan, which so many of our community members and charities such as Islamic Relief stepped up and took a lead on. Yes, our Government did help, but it sometimes felt like the charities and volunteers were in there first, and the Government followed. The floods in Pakistan are just one example of the climate crisis.
We have heard much about the support funding for nations because they, and the UK in particular, need to take a lead on this. It is important that we support countries in ensuring that they can access clean and green energy sources for domestic energy. As an example, many island nations are reliant on expensive imports, especially fossil fuel generators, to provide domestic heat and light. Surely one area where the UK can and should be leading is on the export of green, clean energy sources. That will not only help to tackle the crisis, but support well-paid and green jobs both in the UK and around the world.
In conclusion, the UK needs to be a leader in supporting and assisting countries around the world. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what the UK is going to do to ensure that we protect the world’s most vulnerable communities from this crisis.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) on securing this debate and his excellent contribution. I also congratulate the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on their powerful contributions.
This is an important debate. In March this year, I was proud to be elected president of the Forum of Young Parliamentarians of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which is like a United Nations of legislatures. It represents 180 national Parliaments around the world. I vow to use the position to make young people’s voices heard on the world stage. I hope my contribution will be a small part of fulfilling that promise, because young people will be not only the victims of climate change but the greatest contributors to action against it. It is a profound injustice that those least responsible for causing the climate emergency will suffer the worst of its consequences. At the same time, debt burdens and increased food and energy prices mean that many climate-vulnerable countries have less fiscal capacity to deal with those consequences—for adaptation, mitigation, loss and damage, or the resulting harms to health, the environment and ways of life.
I welcome the confirmation, in an answer to my written question, that it remains the Government’s intention to deliver £11.6 billion of UK international climate finance between April 2021 and March 2026. I hope, however, that the Minister will stand up to those in his own party who would like to see the UK abandon that commitment. I urge him to take the opportunity today to clarify how the UK will meet its commitments within the existing timeframe, including front loading climate finance and showing how that climate finance will be new and additional.
To meet our commitments, however, we need to go further. We must properly tax the big polluters; we know that fossil fuel corporations knew the harms their products were causing. They covered up the science for years, funded disinformation and spread doubt, delaying action that could have saved countless lives. Those very same companies are currently raking in obscene, record-breaking profits, predominantly due to the effects of the war in Ukraine. Polluters must begin compensating for the destruction they have caused to our environment and to the lives of the people who have done the very least to cause the climate emergency.
Research from Greenpeace has shown that the fossil fuel industry made enough in profits between 2000 and 2019 to cover the costs of climate-induced economic losses in 55 of the most climate-vulnerable countries nearly 60 times over. It is the responsibility of the richest countries, which set global tax rules, to make that a reality. The importance of doing so could not be clearer. Estimates have shown that the world’s most vulnerable countries can expect to suffer an average GDP hit of 19.6% by 2050 and of 63.9% by the beginning of the next century. Even if global temperature increases are limited to 1.5 °C, vulnerable countries face an average GDP reduction of 13.1% by 2050 and 33% by 2100.
Even if 1.5 is kept alive, a properly functioning loss and damage mechanism is urgently needed. Failure to do that will be felt particularly acutely across the continent of Africa, with eight of the top 10 worst affected countries being there. In the first six months of 2022, there were 119 climate and weather related events in developing countries, causing £26.2 billion worth of losses in the countries affected. That shows the scale of the challenges we face as part of an international community.
My colleagues have made the case for a moral responsibility for loss and damage. It is also in our economic self-interest, however, to take greater action now. We must build on the breakthrough agreements of last year’s COP. Now is the time to operationalise the loss and damage fund—to put the money in and to get it working—in order to direct finance to those communities with the greatest need. I will continue to make those calls, alongside colleagues, and I will be proud to make them at COP28, which I hope to attend in my new role later this year. The Minister should rest assured that young people will continue to make those calls until they are listened to.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We now move on to the Front Benchers. I think they may have worked out that there is more time than their allotted 10 minutes, although they are not required to take longer and I would like the mover to have a bit of time at the end to wind up.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Although Members may not have used all the time available, all the contributions have been substantial and this has been a worthwhile debate, which I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) on securing. I recognise his commitment to, and passion for, climate justice over many years. I think he has the distinction of attending the most UN framework convention on climate change conferences of parties of any serving MP—if not, he is certainly close to the record—so he speaks with an experience and authority to which we all, especially the Minister, ought to listen.
We have just returned from a summer recess during which the UN Secretary-General said:
“The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived”.
Only a very small minority of people anywhere in the world would now be prepared to argue that the extreme weather being experienced across the globe is not evidence of the impact that human-driven carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution have had on the planet’s climate. Sadly, some of that minority still inhabit the Conservative Back Benches—although none of them has been brave enough to come to this debate to articulate that—and that has regrettable consequences for Government policy.
As every Member who has spoken in this debate has said, the reality is that climate change poses an existential threat—not necessarily to all human life, but certainly to the lifestyles to which we in the west have become accustomed and to which we encourage others elsewhere in the world to aspire. In 2015, when my hon. Friends and I were first elected, we would come to Westminster Hall debates and say that climate change threatened to undo the progress that had been made towards meeting the millennium development goals and driving down global poverty. Eight years later, we can say with certainty that climate change is undoing that progress and is in fact driving up hunger, poverty and disease in many parts of the world. That is why addressing the issue of loss and damage is so important.
The concept of loss and damage and the need for additional finances to repair loss and damage caused by climate change is not new; it dates at least to the early 1990s when the Alliance of Small Island States first brought it to the table of the existing UN framework. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) spoke powerfully about the threat that small island states face. They are among the first to experience the impact of climate change and face the prospect of their islands being literally wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels or becoming uninhabitable as marine ecosystems break down. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West asked the Minister to imagine if this country was threatened with being swamped—it is! Not far away, there is a tidal barrier that increasingly cannot cope with the tidal surges and rising sea levels, so this country is going to be affected. Low-lying areas of this island will be affected by climate change.
We all need to act, and that is what loss and damage is about. It recognises that some of the impacts of climate change will be literally beyond repair and certainly beyond prevention and mitigation. That in turn means that support for people and places affected by loss and damage also has to go beyond existing support. If climate change is undoing progress towards the sustainable development goals and poverty reduction, by definition the support to make up for it will have to be additional to what has already been pledged or assessed as required.
In 2022, the Vulnerable Twenty, or V20, which is a group of the Finance Ministers of countries vulnerable to climate change, estimated that
“Climate change has eliminated one fifth of the wealth of the V20 over the last two decades: initial evidence shows that the V20 would have been 20% wealthier today had it not been for climate change and the losses it incurred for poor and vulnerable economies.”
Therefore, there is an important economic argument. Free marketeers and capitalists who see trickle-down economics as the rising tide—ironically—that floats all boats should be paying attention to this. It reminds me of Lord Stern’s description of climate change in 2006—17 years ago—as
“the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.”
So let the free marketeers come up with their solutions if they want to—some of that has been addressed, and we will come back to it. It is crucial to understand that this issue must not be ignored. A price has to be paid to deal with the impact of climate change. The question is, who will pay it and how?
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) made important points about the role of future generations and our responsibility towards them. He was right to say that those who have done the most to cause climate change, and who have benefited from the extraction of the earth’s resources and the pumping of pollution into the atmosphere, now have a moral responsibility to support those who are most affected by climate change. That is the concept of climate justice, which has been adopted by the Scottish Government, and many other Governments and climate campaigners around the world, but the UK Government conspicuously avoid even acknowledging it, let alone accepting or committing to it. We will wait, I suspect again in vain, to hear the Minister say that the UK Government accept that climate justice is an important concept that exists and ought to be lived up to.
The important symbolism around the concept of reparations and reparative justice should not be allowed to get in the way of the urgent need to mobilise new additional funding to support countries and communities experiencing loss and damage from climate change. One key point that everyone has made today is that that funding has to be additional, which is also why we have to consider new and innovative ways of leveraging funding. Private sector companies, particularly those that make vast fortunes from the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels, clearly have to be a source, either through direct contributions to global funds or through taxation or levies at a country or international level. That is the “polluter pays” principle, which was raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and others who have spoken. There have been long-standing calls for a financial transaction tax, or Robin Hood tax, which could raise additional capital for fighting climate change.
It is particularly important that funding is disbursed in the form of grants and not loans; the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) made that point. There might be other ways, including insurance-based models—there is a lot of innovative thinking in this area—but we must not drive developing countries even further into debt.
Deidre Brock
Indeed. Those most likely to be affected by the adverse impact of climate change are already burdened by debt, which cripples their economies. My hon. Friend agrees that loss and damage funding should be additional and in the form of grants, not loans, but does he support the proposal that finance should be mobilised through the cancellation of existing debt? The SNP has spoken about that for a long time.
Patrick Grady
Yes, that is a hugely important concept. We think of all the work done around the Jubilee 2000 campaign, 23 years ago, and the huge global effort and consensus about the need to take action because developing countries were being crippled by the debt they had incurred. That is not good for anyone; it is not good for us either. Progress was made, but again we seem to be going backwards on a lot of that, and the changing climate seems to be a driver. That has to factor into the discussions. The work begun at the most recent COPs, including COP26 in Glasgow and the commitments made last year in Sharm el-Sheikh, must be followed through, and a new governing instrument must be agreed at COP28 this year. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the International Development Committee, made important points about the Santiago Network and some of the other mechanisms that exist.
What is needed above all is political will: decision makers who are prepared to take bold and innovative action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West said, that is exactly what the Scottish Government have done: first, way back in 2012, when they established their climate justice fund in addition to the international development fund; then at COP26, when Nicola Sturgeon pledged £2 million for loss and damage, making the Scottish Government the first western Government to do so; and now just recently when they committed a further £24 million over the next three years to respond to climate change in Rwanda, Malawi and Zambia. Malawi’s President, His Excellency Dr Lazarus Chakwera, said in February that the Scottish Government’s loss and damage fund for projects in his country
“has made huge differences in the people and their livelihoods because they are given a hand up, so the resilience we talk about becomes a practical issue.”
He went on:
“This fight belongs to all of us and I believe that this example will serve as a prototype of what could happen.”
Perhaps now the UK Government will start to play their part. Perhaps they will begin to see, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said in an earlier contribution, that the savage cuts to the aid budget are a false economy. All the evidence that we have heard in this debate shows that more funding is needed, but this Government are determined to spend less. In the end, it will cost more. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and others spoke about population movements. Home Office Ministers themselves stand at the Dispatch Box and say that hundreds of millions of people are on the move and that they all want to come to the United Kingdom, but instead of—
Sarah Champion
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member in full flow. He is making a strong speech and is absolutely right to make this point, because the ODA spend is designed to help people stay safe and prosperous in their own homes, which is what they want. The Minister is taking away the money that would enable people to stay at home and then spending it secondarily when they turn up on our shores.
Patrick Grady
Yes, the hon. Lady is exactly right. Rather than housing people in barges or hotels, or chasing them back into the sea, it would be considerably cheaper if we helped to build resilience in their countries of origin against climate change that we have caused and that our lifestyles are continuing to make worse. That would save money in the long run.
I do have to say that there is also a challenge here for the Labour party. It would be useful to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), commit to the principle of climate justice and a return to the 0.7% target, because voters, particularly in Scotland, will be listening carefully.
The Scottish Government’s actions have already shown that it is possible to make decisions and show leadership in this area and to encourage others to follow suit. In an independent Scotland, 0.7% would be the floor, not the ceiling, for our spending responsibilities to the poorest and most vulnerable people around the world. It would be the morally right thing to do, as others have said, but it is also in our enlightened self-interest.
Normally I would make a point about the spending being preventive, but the whole point of loss and damage is that it is now almost impossible to prevent some of the effects of climate change that we are already experiencing. Even as we speak, it is unseasonably warm; it is the start of September and we are once again experiencing record temperatures outside. But we can prevent loss of life and livelihoods with the right kind of investment and support for those who need it most. If we do not, it will cost more in the long term and we will all pay the price.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship this morning, Mr Betts. I congratulate my friend—I hope he does not mind me calling him that—the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) on securing the debate. We have always got on well and I always like listening to him. He has introduced perhaps one of the most important issues that this Parliament will ever have to contend with, but this is sadly not the first debate that I, nor my hon. Friends in this room, have attended from which Government Members have been absent. I am delighted that the Minister is here, but where are his colleagues? It is really sad. This is not a party political issue. It is a matter for us all, as parliamentarians representing our constituents, to try to stop the greatest catastrophe that faces humanity on this planet. We need to work together.
The hon. Member for Dundee West reminded us that July 2023 was the hottest month in history, and said that there is an urgent need for climate finance to fight climate change and that at COP27 an agreement was made on loss and damage finance. He said that financial redress to countries worst affected must be new and additional finance, not redirected from existing budgets. I do not think anybody can disagree with that. He also reminded us that by 2050 it is estimated that there will be 1 billion migrants looking for somewhere else habitable to live because of climate change—[Interruption.] Will they all, as the hon. Member for Dundee West asks from a sedentary position, be coming to the UK? Some might argue that; I doubt it very much, but they will be travelling across the globe, seeking refuge. It is important that we stop that happening in the first place. That would be at least one answer to the small boats challenge.
If nothing is done to mitigate climate change, it will have a devastating effect on human livelihoods. The hon. Member for Dundee West said that loss and damage funding is needed now. He was followed by an extremely powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the International Development Committee, which I am glad still exists even if the Department has been abolished, because we need to be reminded that development is not just a luxury. It is not something that we cannot afford to do; it is something we have to do, and in the interests not just of the most vulnerable across the world, but of all of us—even in this country. Prolonged drought, she said, in sub-Saharan Africa has put many into further food poverty, and the International Development Committee produced work on the impact of climate change, loss and damage.
We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who also gave a very powerful speech, on an issue that she is passionately committed to. She mentioned her Quaker faith. In my Front-Bench role over these last few years, I have always found the Quakers to be hugely supportive, not just in fighting climate change but in peace and disarmament, the principal role that I currently hold. Sometimes, she said, it seems that charities are ahead of Governments in financing the cost of climate change. She asked what we can do in the United Kingdom to export clean green energy—a very good question, it seems to me.
We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), who has been elected president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s forum of young parliamentarians, which is an incredibly good position from which to campaign for something so vital to all people on earth, but especially younger people. He said that it was a profound injustice that those least responsible for the causes of climate change suffer the greatest damage. It should be the polluters who pay; I do not think anybody could disagree with that.
Ruth Cadbury
Every time I visit a school, the first and most powerful question that I am most frequently asked, as I am sure other Members are—everyone else is nodding—is: “What are you going to do to stop the climate crisis?” Young people are going to inherit the world we leave them. They continuously, repeatedly tell us to do something about it. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) on his election.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because that is exactly the point. I am now privileged to have two grandsons, the youngest of whom is three and a half years old. He is not quite knowledgeable about climate change yet, but the seven-year-old is. It is something they study at school, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. At every primary school that we visit—we all do it—the first thing they raise is: “What are you going to do to stop this planet becoming uninhabitable because of our own actions and history?” We have to answer to them. They will inherit the Earth, not us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton went on to say, as other Members did, that Africa will be the biggest continental victim of climate change globally, and—as others also said—that loss and damage support is in our own self-interest.
I again thank the hon. Member for Dundee West for securing this debate. As we know, the climate emergency is the greatest challenge the world faces. Where are the Government Members, who should also be talking about this? The UN has warned that our planet is on course for a catastrophic 2.8° of warming, in part because the promises made at international climate negotiations have not been fulfilled. As we know, this would have devastating consequences for our natural world, and dangerous and destabilising effects on all countries, not least, as I think the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned, many of the islands of the Caribbean. Indeed, the CARICOM ambassadors have lobbied me as shadow Minister for the Caribbean, which is one reason I am winding up on behalf of the Opposition today.
As we know, 2.8° of warming would usher in an era of cascading risks, as the uncontrolled effects of global heating result in more frequent extreme heat, sea level rises, drought and famine. We have seen devastating examples of extreme weather this summer, as heatwaves and wildfires have caused devastation and loss of life. As has been said this morning, this will end up hitting us in the UK as well. We are seeing its effects already, with floods and heatwaves becoming the norm, not the exception. As the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), said just now: look outside; it is quite unseasonable. I returned from a holiday in Majorca on Friday. It is warmer here today than it was when we left Majorca. That is quite wrong.
This will end up, of course, hitting us in the UK, too. We are seeing the effects already. Global heating will hurt us all. But the truth is that developing countries and people living in poverty are the most exposed to the worst consequences of the climate emergency. At COP27 in Egypt last year, the issue of loss and damage was front and centre of the discussions. Like the UK Government, we supported the recognition of the issue of loss and damage at COP27. The agreement to create a new fund was an important step forward in recognising the consequences of the climate crisis for the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries.
This is a matter of solidarity, and the reality is that those most likely to be affected by climate change are the least able to afford to adapt to it. Every speaker today has made that point. The UK Government already support poorer countries to cut emissions and to adapt to climate change. Loss and damage, however, is about coping with its disastrous effects. This is not about mitigating or preventing; it is about helping the poorest countries to cope with the effects that have already happened.
Supporting poorer countries is not only the right thing to do, but in our self-interest. We need all countries to act on climate and reduce their emissions and the destabilising effects of climate breakdown, which will end up coming over here, including, for example, in the risk of climate refugees, as we said.
But on the necessary actions to keep global warming to 1.5°, yet again we hear the unmistakable sound of the can being kicked down the road. As a result, that is now at grave risk, as the UN has said. It appears that even those on the Government Benches do not trust their Government to act on these issues. On 30 June, the Minister for the International Environment, Zac Goldsmith, resigned, accusing the Prime Minister of being “simply uninterested” in climate action and the environment. We can see why he might think that.
It is now 14 years since a promise of $100 billion of finance was made to developing countries to help them to fight the climate crisis. There is growing recognition of the urgent need to reform how multilateral development banks and the international finance system can support climate action and unlock resources. Earlier this year, there was a major summit of world leaders on a new global financial pact, hosted by President Macron, but the Prime Minister chose not to bother turning up.
We now hear that the Prime Minister is not even planning to attend the UN General Assembly this year, where climate change will be top of the agenda, as it should be. That is a lamentable and short-sighted snub, an illustration of how the Government are squandering Britain’s potential for international leadership. That comes as the Government’s statutory climate advisers warned this month that the Government are missing their targets on almost every front. They said:
“The UK has lost its clear global leadership position on climate action.”
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), has committed to publishing this year how the Government will meet their £11.6 billion climate finance target. During recent FCDO questions in the House, he said that he would do so “probably in September”. I therefore press the Minister present today on whether he is still committed to that and whether he will publish the ODA allocations for international climate finance in 2022-23 and 2023-24.
We need a Government who can step up on climate action, delivering cheap, home-grown zero-carbon power at home so that we have the credibility to pressure other countries to fulfil their obligations and play their part. A Labour Government would put addressing the climate crisis at the heart of our foreign policy—every single foreign policy. Central that will be Labour’s proposed clean power alliance of developed and developing nations committed to 100% clean power by 2030, just over six years away. That will be a positive version of OPEC, positioning the UK at the heart of the single most significant technological challenge and opportunity of the century. Alongside that, we will push for climate action to be recognised as the fourth pillar of the UN, increase our climate diplomacy in key states and work with international partners to press for a new law of ecocide to prosecute those responsible for severe, widespread or long-term damage to the environment.
For the sake of every human being on the planet, all the creatures that live on this planet and all of our children, including my two grandsons, Britain should never be a country that absents itself from the world stage, particularly not when it comes to the climate crisis—the biggest long-term issue we face. A Labour Government would certainly once again lead at home and abroad.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I call the Minister to respond. He has a reasonable amount of time, but would he leave at least a couple of minutes at the end for the mover to respond?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
It is a great pleasure to be here, Mr Betts. I am responding on behalf of the Minister for Development and Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). He would have taken this debate, but he is currently in Kenya attending the Africa climate summit, appropriately enough. It is my pleasure to respond in his place.
We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) for securing this important debate. I pay tribute to him for to his ongoing work on the International Development Committee. We have heard a series of powerful, interesting and passionate speeches this morning, and I am grateful for all of them.
As the debate has highlighted, floods, heat, storms and droughts triggered by climate change are increasingly threatening lives, homes and livelihoods. Poor, vulnerable and marginalised communities around the world, and women, girls and disabled people in particular, are disproportionately affected. The loss and damage are immense. As we discussed, last year’s devastating floods in Pakistan claimed 1,700 lives, put a third of the country underwater and left more than 20 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. That is why, at COP27, the UK and international partners agreed to set up a new funding arrangement for loss and damage, including a new dedicated fund, in response to concerted calls, especially from our colleagues in the small island developing nation states and least developed countries, for greater global action.
There is now widespread recognition of the scale of the need arising from climate impacts, and that new ways of working and new solutions are needed. This debate is very timely: we are only three months away from COP28, where the transitional committee on loss and damage established at COP27 will report its conclusions. As a member of the committee, the UK has been actively and closely engaged in this process, alongside colleagues from developing and developed countries. The third meeting of the committee, in the Dominican Republic, has just wrapped up, and there is one more to go before parties meet in Dubai.
Within and beyond the COP process, the UK has played a leading role in tackling climate change, recognising the absolute necessity of reducing emissions to avert loss and damage. We have decarbonised faster than any other G7 country and signed net zero by 2050 into law. We are supporting international efforts and ambition to decarbonise through key initiatives, including the just energy transition partnerships, and we are funding a broad range of activities that avert, minimise and address loss and damage.
At COP27, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the UK’s £11.6 billion climate finance pledge to vulnerable countries across the world and announced that the UK will triple climate adaptation funding to £1.5 billion in 2025, alongside the £1.5 billion we are investing in protecting the world’s forests and £3 billion to protect and restore nature. This funding will help countries as they build their resilience, prevent biodiversity loss and reduce emissions, all of which are vital as we attempt to prevent and address loss and damage.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining all the pledges that have been made, but is he able to say how much of the money has delivered, and whether it is new money or coming out of the existing ODA budget?
Leo Docherty
It is of course part of the ODA spend.
The UK invested £2.4 billion worth of international climate finance between 2016 and 2020 into adaptation, including investments in areas relevant to loss and damage—the subject of this debate. That included about £196 million on financial protection and risk management, £303 million on humanitarian assistance, and £396 million on social protection. To give a specific example, I mentioned the dreadful floods in Pakistan last year, and the UK offered significant support in the aftermath of that disaster. This included support for water, sanitation and hygiene, to prevent waterborne diseases, nutrition support, and shelter and protection for women and girls. In total, the UK provided £36 million in support following the flooding, on top of the £55 million we had already pledged for climate resilience and adaptation in Pakistan.
The UK is doing what it can to help avert, minimise and address loss and damage from climate change, but given the scale of the challenge, we know we have to be more creative in the ways we support countries to manage the impacts, and that includes developing new financial mechanisms to provide support. An example of this is the Taskforce on Access to Climate Finance, launched by the UK in partnership with Fiji. The taskforce is working to make it easier for the most vulnerable countries to take advantage of the climate finance that already exists.
The taskforce was launched following the UK-hosted climate and development ministerial in 2021. I am pleased to see that there will be a third climate and development ministerial held this year, with the UK, UAE, Vanuatu and Malawi co-hosting an event on how better development and climate actors can work together, which will build on the success of the first two.
On top of that, at the summit for a new global financing pact in Paris in June, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), announced that UK Export Finance had started discussions with 12 partner countries in Africa and the Caribbean to add climate resilient debt clauses to new and existing loan agreements. That builds on the announcement at COP27 that UKEF would be the first credit export agency to offer those clauses, which allow Governments to delay their debt repayments and free up resources to fund disaster response and recovery.
Chris Law
I am listening to an exhaustive list of the things that the Government claim they are doing, but I have not once heard that there is any new additional money for loss and damage outwith the budgets already in existence through ODA. After all, that is what the debate is about. Will the Minister tell us whether there is new finance? Or will he follow the suggestion made by several Members regarding the polluter pays principle, and consider financing it out of the more than half a trillion a year of subsidies and excess profits for fossil fuel companies?
Leo Docherty
I grateful for that question and it is, of course, too early for the UK to say whether or how much we might commit to any dedicated loss and damage fund, because the work of the transitional committee has not yet concluded. We will assess the value of the contribution once the modalities of the fund are set. It is too early to say, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.
The UK also provides significant support to disaster risk finance—prearranged finance that is disbursed automatically to Governments and first responders such as the UN and NGOs if an event exceeds a pre-agreed magnitude. Through disaster risk financing programmes, we have provided over £200 million since 2014. With partners including Germany, the UK has set up regional insurance schemes in Africa, the Caribbean, south-east Asia and the Pacific that help countries get reduced premiums by buying insurance as a group. Those schemes often pay out significant sums that help countries get back on their feet following a disaster. That is just some of the work the UK is doing to avert, minimise and address loss and damage, providing official development assistance and delivering reforms that help countries cope with climate change. The work of the transitional committee and the new loss and damage fund will build on the steps taken so far, and I look forward to their recommendations to parties at COP28.
In conclusion, the UK recognises that the impacts of climate change are leading to loss and damage, and that is likely to get worse. More needs to be done at global, regional and local levels to help countries and communities avert, minimise and address these catastrophes. We are playing our part, with our £11.6 billion ICF commitment, the fastest emissions reduction in the G7 and support for countries across the world as they reduce their emissions and build resilience.
When loss and damage occurs, the UK is regularly one of the first nations stepping up to provide support, enabling countries to bounce back quickly. COP27 was a major milestone for loss and damage. The UK is working with countries across the world to make sure that the new funding arrangements deliver for the most vulnerable, and we look forward to making further progress on that at COP28.
Chris Law
I am not quite sure where to begin, because we covered such a range of points, so let me begin with how I feel. I feel insecure, scared and concerned for the generations of today and tomorrow and for generations to come. I do not feel reassured by what I am hearing from the Minister. There are 352 Conservative MPs in this House and only the Minister is here to talk about the biggest existential threat we have to our planet and humanity. I find that astonishing. I have listened to a lot of the points made about where the UK has done some good work. Zac Goldsmith was mentioned and I would like to credit him; I was at COP27 last year when he asked me to go and talk to Pacific island states and to get an agreement on loss and damages. I deeply regret that he is no longer at the helm, because, frankly, he was really helpful and understood what has been going on.
The Minister with responsibility for international development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who I had hoped would be here today, said recently to the all-party group on extreme poverty, which I chair, that he was losing sleep at night about the realities of climate change. It is disappointing that he is not here today, but the existential threat and crisis is with us now.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) —my hon. Friend, in that we are both on the International Development Committee—said that this issue is not going away. It is utterly disappointing that not a single Member of the UK Government party that is in power and who can steer events at the next COP and all the meetings ahead is here. By the way, the rest of us in the Chamber all want to be with the Government on this. This is not about competition or a political foray; it is about getting it done together. I cannot sleep either when I think about speaking about this to my nieces or in schools in my constituency. What am I supposed to say? I have been to every single COP since 2017 and whenever I go, the issue of time gets more pressing.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) used a fantastic quote from the Quaker faith:
“We do not own the world, and its riches are not ours to dispose of at will.”
That is right; we are responsible. We are all guardians of this one Earth together. Frankly, if the Prime Minister is a billionaire, good luck to him, but he needs to be front and centre on this issue, not avoiding going to the next UN General Assembly.
I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), who I have had the great privilege to work with over the years. As a young parliamentarian, he is the future, along with many other young people here and out there looking at what the future holds. As for the generation behind them, the first thing that I heard from Labour’s Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), is that one of his two grandchildren, the seven-year-old, is learning about climate change now. I do not remember growing up like that. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton probably did not have to grow up like that, but children are today. This issue is utterly, utterly pressing, and the time has run out.
The hon. Member said that fossil fuel companies knew about the harms but spread disinformation. Wake up—smell the CO2 emissions. We need to harness that and realise what has happened. We can correct the wrongs now, because the future will not be protected unless we do this now.
On a slightly lighter note, I studied social anthropology at university and I remind the few of us who are here of Margaret Mead’s very famous quote:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
This is my plea to those in this room, in this Parliament, and to our parliamentarians and those out there in the world: the UK can lead and it will be done through these thoughtful, committed citizens. It is our responsibility to do it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered climate finance for tackling loss and damage.
Turing Scheme
(1 year, 3 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
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Turing Scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Education, exchange of knowledge and empathy for others are vital for young people today as they become our citizens and leaders of tomorrow. That is what the Turing scheme says it aims to provide—as did the Erasmus scheme, sadly lost as a result of the Government’s Brexit deal, which removed the scheme unexpectedly at a late stage in negotiations.
As our world becomes smaller but remains so divided, it is important for our young people and children to look outwards. There is nothing like being immersed in a new country to expand one’s mind. It might be possible to learn Arabic on a computer program, but that is a world away from learning how to use Arabic among its native speakers. We have the technology to chat with people on the other side of the world, but that cannot be compared to what is gained by ordering a coffee every day, picking up the local news and making lasting friendships with others of the same age. I may be over-optimistic, but if we want to tackle the strategic and global issues facing the world, cross-border friendships, knowledge-sharing and cultural ties are an important place to start.
Although I am sad that we are in this position, Mr Betts, you would expect me to be a fan of the Turing scheme, and in principle I am. I want those in education in North East Fife and everywhere else to benefit from it and for it to work as well as possible. As a Scottish MP, I would like the Scottish Government to move beyond their pilot to replace the Erasmus scheme and to just get on with it, as the Welsh Government have done with Taith. However, as a supporter of schemes that allow our young people to travel, I am now, with regret, going to list all the ways that the Turing scheme is not working.
Let me start with the funding cycle. On a very basic level, if a student is going to travel abroad for study or work experience, they expect the funding to be in place before they go, but that does not appear to be happening. I will give the example of one of my constituents, Aria, who is a student at the University of St Andrews, but let me be clear that her case is not an anomaly. This is the experience of pretty much every student.
Aria is a third-year student doing Chinese studies and Spanish. She went through the internal processes to arrange her study abroad programme in autumn last year, and was told to apply for funding in February this year. The application is made to the university, which makes an assessment of all the funding it needs for the year and makes its application to the Turing scheme accordingly. The funding decisions were not made by the Turing scheme and passed back to students until 18 August—the middle of summer, although I would argue, from the Scottish perspective, that that is the end of summer, given that schools go back then. That is the best part of six months later.
The official guidance says that decisions will be made in the summer and payments made in September for the new academic year. I did not think we would need to point this out, but not all countries have academic years that start in September. Indeed, Aria had to be in Uruguay before 1 August for a compulsory in-person orientation at the university. She sensibly flew out a few days before in case of delays and to give herself time to settle into her accommodation. It seems incredibly short-sighted of the Government to assume that all other countries across the world using the Turing scheme would follow the same calendar as the UK.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
This is a really important debate, and the hon. Member has started with the powerful example of her constituent Aria, who sensibly flew out to Uruguay. She will appreciate that, if Aria had not had funds behind her, she would not have been able to do that. This scheme, which is supposed to get rid of disadvantage and be inclusive, supporting all, actually puts a massive barrier in the way of those from disadvantaged backgrounds if funding is not in place.
Wendy Chamberlain
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I entirely agree that it may not be intention of the scheme, but that is how it is happening in practice and impacting on students.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to that point, I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate. It is an important issue, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) also clearly outlined in her intervention. Does the hon. Lady agree that the funding offer needs to take into consideration the massively increased cost of living that we are all experiencing, and the fact that although offers are be being made to more students, the associated necessary costs are putting off low-income households from taking up this incredible opportunity? If low-income households have been affected, the Minister has to respond.
Wendy Chamberlain
As always, the hon. Member anticipates what I will go on to say. When the funding provided under Erasmus and the funding provided under Turing are compared, there can be no doubt that there has been a real-terms cut—and that is before we take the cost of living into account. I will go on to talk about that.
Even if term starts at the beginning of September, it does not follow that students need cost of living funding to arrive in their bank accounts only on day one of classes. Students have to travel to the country, pay up-front rent costs, buy books, get medical checks and, in some circumstances, get visas. Aria told me that she was quite lucky; although she does not come from a particularly well-off family, they were able to help her find the money for her flight. She has been able to find a cheap flat, and she has been living off some savings from a part-time job last year. Uruguay does not require students to have special visas on arrival, although other countries require proof of funds checks, which Aria tells me she probably would not have passed without the Turing funds.
To come back briefly to flights, I am sure that the Minister will point out that the Turing scheme offers some funds to students from less well-off backgrounds. When I asked Aria about that, she said that she did not know about it, but in any case she could not see how it would have helped her, given that she had to travel before the funding decisions were announced. It is a good idea in theory, but it is poor in practice.
I have three other points to make on the funding model. First, there was a decision to make funds available to institutions on a single-year cycle. That means that when universities and colleges are encouraging students to apply for places abroad, they can only tell them what sort of places might have funding, but not what sort of places actually have funding. That leads to the sort of uncertainty that Aria felt as she travelled to the other side of the world on her own, without any knowledge of whether she would in fact receive financial support, and indeed to the uncertainty she continues to have, as she still has no word on whether she will receive funding for next term, which she is due to spend in Taiwan. As a parent, I cannot imagine the stress that her family must have felt. A 24 or 36-month project cycle would allow institutions to plan partnerships, provide certainty to students and, importantly, ensure wider access for all. That is surely the intention of the Turing scheme, right?
Secondly, I would like the Minister to comment on the amount of funds provided. In response to a written question that I tabled earlier this year, the Minister’s Department set out that countries are determined to have a high or low cost of living with reference to data from the World Bank, Erasmus and the OECD, but it did not explain how the references to each of those data sources impacted the groupings. I find some of the groupings totally baffling. Group 1, the highest cost of living group, contains most of North America, New Zealand and Australia, but the only European country is Switzerland. Group 2, on the other hand, contains most of Europe—equating the cost of living in the Czech Republic with that in Denmark, or that in Antarctica with that in Ireland. It feels a bit like a one-size-fits-all category that has not been properly targeted to the reality of the cost of living overseas, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out. Given that the Government are always quick to say that inflationary issues are a global issue and not simply an issue for the UK Government, I find that strange.
Worryingly, the amount allocated per student has fallen regardless of which country a student travels to. Under Erasmus, the maximum a UK student travelling to a European country in 2021 would receive each month was £415, or £600 for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, but the Turing equivalent is £380 and £490. We have simply fallen behind what Erasmus offers, and the Government must review that at the next spending review.
That brings me on nicely to noting that Turing funding is guaranteed only until the 2025 spending review. If institutions are to build long-lasting relationships, and if the Government are serious about offering education to our young people, funding needs to be guaranteed long into the future; it cannot just be a short-term sticking plaster to pacify those of us who saw the benefits of EU membership and did not want to leave. The situation certainly shows how short-sighted it was to decide, late in the Brexit negotiations, to leave Erasmus.
Finally, there are delays in getting funds to institutions and out to students. I have been dipping in and out of Aria’s story. I mentioned that she found out that she would receive funding on 18 August, some six months after applying and weeks after having to travel to her placement. It is now 5 September, and when my team spoke to her yesterday she had still not received the funds. She is getting her usual student funding, which helps with rent, but there is very little left for day-to-day living. Those sorts of delays clearly put students, who ought to be at the heart of the programme, at risk.
To touch on an important but not particularly exciting element of the debate, I have to tell the Minister that the project reporting tool being used by Capita—and presumably approved by the Department—is terrible. To put it in slightly better language, universities are required to provide updates and make requests for funds to be released, but whenever universities do so, the system locks and they cannot use it again until approved by Capita. That creates an administrative headache and is clearly adding to the payment delays I just mentioned. There is no proper audit trail of what funds have been released and when, and universities are being left to make repeat requests. I urge the Government to engage with universities, Universities UK and the Russell Group to see how the process can be streamlined for everyone’s benefit.
The last point I will touch on is the Government’s short-sightedness regarding the scheme. Even if we ignore the benefit to each and every young person of having the chance to live and learn abroad, the Turing scheme is meant to be a core part of global Britain and how we present ourselves on the world stage. The problem is that those relationships are not one sided, yet the Turing scheme decidedly is. It does not offer any element of reciprocity, which has made it incredibly difficult for institutions to set up longer-term partnerships. That is worsened by the exclusion of professional staff from the scheme. Where previously UK education and research was promoted and strengthened through staff exchanges, now we are left in the cold. It is about being at the forefront of cutting-edge research and development, about tackling the next pandemic and responding to the climate crisis.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. She talks about the lack of reciprocity and the inability to form a cohort of students across the world who have connections and then go on in their professional lives to keep in touch. They are what is sorely missing from the Turing scheme. We have heard nothing from this Government about how they are going to address that. The scheme was never just about money, as woeful as that is; it is about making those connections. How are we going to foster them?
Wendy Chamberlain
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. From a reciprocity perspective, for all that we do not necessarily want to talk just about money, there is an economic disbenefit to universities and constituencies such as mine. Students who previously came under the Erasmus scheme may not come under Turing, with a resulting economic loss to both the university and the wider community.
On a more practical level, good working relationships with international institutions are vital to the Turing scheme, given that the decision to apply or waive fees for UK students abroad sits with the host university. There are additional steps the Minister could take to make global Britain a reality and to boost our soft power. It currently costs over £1,000 to sponsor an intern coming to the UK from Europe, and that is now only available to degree students. As Universities UK put it,
“The UK is essentially closed to inbound interns, resulting in a loss of skills to UK business and damage to partnerships, while implicitly expecting other countries to facilitate visas to take in UK outbound interns.”
The relationships between medical, veterinary and health science institutions have been put under immense strain as a result of the Government barring incoming students from treating patients and therefore from taking part in clinical electives. There is no reason for those partnerships to keep going if we cannot provide equal opportunities. An urgent amendment to the visa rules is needed to allow the supervised treatment of patients by visiting students. Coupled with the ongoing uncertainty regarding the future of the Horizon programme, the failings in the strategic intent of Turing means that we continue to retreat from the global stage.
At the other end of the education spectrum, but no less important for our soft power, Brexit has caused a sharp decline in the number of European children who are able to visit the UK on school trips. My party’s policy is to seek to negotiate passport-free travel for UK and EU schoolchildren on a reciprocal basis. I hope that is something the Minister can agree with as a common-sense measure, with a benefit disproportionate to any costs.
I will end by reading something that Aria said to me:
“I never thought I would have the opportunity to study or travel abroad like this and feel incredibly lucky and grateful to be able to do so. However it has been incredibly stressful. I have never travelled outside of the UK before, and don’t have external financial support if anything goes wrong. More communication from the scheme administrators and earlier decision making would make such a difference to students like me.”
Surely we can all agree on that?
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate. I share her passion for international placements. I do not accept completely the picture that she set out. I am not saying the Turing scheme is perfect, but I am proud of it and am working hard in the Department to ensure that it is a success, and I want to set out the good things that it is doing. I will try to answer some of the points she raised, and I will be happy to write to her after the debate about those that I do not answer.
The Turing scheme is a global programme for students to study and work abroad. It provides students, learners and pupils across the UK with the chance to gain vital international experience and to boost their employability. It is worth remembering that the scheme is named after Alan Turing, who taught and studied internationally. Participants can develop a wide range of soft skills, language skills and a better understanding of other cultures.
The hon. Lady may recall that my predecessor announced the second opening of applications for the Turing scheme at the University of St Andrews in her constituency. It is a beautiful university; I went there many years ago on a visit. I am sure that she will be as pleased as I am that St Andrews has been successful in its application to the scheme for the third year running, and that organisations right across Scotland have been awarded funding for almost 4,000 participants, nearly 600 more than last year.
Carol Monaghan
The Minister talks about the funding that has been allocated, but a recent Financial Times report stated that universities that applied to the scheme received only 35% to 45% of the money they felt they required to support their students.
Robert Halfon
I will set this out further, but the hon. Lady, for whom I have huge respect, will know that the Turing scheme is not just for university students; we have expanded it significantly for students in future education and in schools. If we look at it in the round, as I said, organisations across Scotland have had funding for almost 4,000 participants, nearly 600 more than the previous year.
My three objectives for the Turing scheme are, in essence, social justice, enhancing skills and securing value for money. I am sure that the hon. Members for North East Fife and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) will know that the Turing scheme is extending the ladder of opportunity for over 40,000 students and learners across the UK to spend time studying or working abroad, 60% of whom will be from an under-represented or less advantaged background. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is no longer in his place, but there is more money for living costs and additional costs, such as for passports. I have met people in my own constituency from disadvantaged backgrounds who have benefited from the Turing scheme, and they are not from universities; they are from FE.
There is good evidence, as we know, that time spent studying or working abroad can be transformational for students, improving graduate outcomes and employability and building skills and confidence. Universities UK says—the hon. Member for North East Fife will agree with this—that graduates who participated in an international placement are less likely to be unemployed, more likely to have achieved a first or 2:1, and more likely to be in further study. Those in work are more likely to be in a graduate-level job, and on average they earn 5% more than their peers.
I see the Turing scheme as a remarkable vehicle for helping to improve the skills pipeline and helping people into high-quality jobs. Universities, colleges and schools will share almost £105 million of funding to offer placements to their students. No matter what kind of course students are on, whether they are studying for a degree in foreign languages, doing a T-level or an apprenticeship—the scheme was not open to apprentices before—or a school pupil, opportunities made possible through the Turing scheme can have a hugely positive impact on their studies and their skills development.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the Minister give way?
Robert Halfon
I will in a moment; because of the time, I want to get on a bit and try to answer some of the questions from the hon. Member for North East Fife.
This year saw significantly higher interest in the scheme from colleges and schools, including a nearly 50% increase in the number of successful applications in the further education sector. I think that technical education and training routes should have parity of prestige with academic routes, and I want to see even more FE learners and apprentices offered Turing scheme opportunities.
Layla Moran
I do not disagree with anything the Minister says—40,000 students is wonderful—but we cannot help but make a comparison with Erasmus+, from which 55,000 students were able to benefit. We have heard about the impact on the wider economy and, as he says, students’ ability to access better degrees and a better life outcome. Has the Department looked at how much money we have potentially lost as a result of the lower number of students engaging in such activity?
Robert Halfon
Actually, the number of students is comparable, and it is a new scheme. It is also worth remembering that the Erasmus scheme is not value for money. The UK was putting way more taxpayer money into the scheme than we got out of it. The Erasmus+ scheme was also available for teachers to go overseas. We have decided to focus on students, which I think is a very good thing.
Mr Carmichael
On the subject of those who can access study here, I invite the Minister to address the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) in relation to those studying medicine and veterinary medicine. Such is the nature of teaching in modern courses that those are almost entirely clinically based. Does the Minister not understand that—I suspect the problem lies with the Home Office rather than his Department—exclusions around the facility to teach in fact exclude those students from any international exchange of this sort?
Robert Halfon
Obviously, visas are a matter for the Home Office, as the right hon. Gentleman recognises. We are expanding medical places and we have international students in our medical schools. We have expanded hugely, as per recent announcements, the number of nurses, doctors and doctor apprenticeships. That is different from the Turing scheme, which is about ensuring that students from this country—from FE and apprenticeship backgrounds as well as universities—can go abroad and take part in that important scheme. Previously, 50% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds had access to these schemes; I have increased that to 60%, because I want more disadvantaged people to benefit. The scheme provides enhanced funding for students who need it, as I have mentioned.
It is also my aim to ensure that the Turing scheme is value for money. It was introduced because a fair and proportionate deal could not be found for our continued participation in Erasmus+. It was designed from the start to deliver an improved benefit to the UK taxpayer. As I have said, it was right to prioritise funding for students, learners and pupils at UK organisations rather than non-educational placements for staff or inbound placements in the UK for students in other countries. I do not think taxpayers’ money should be taken for granted because of the competitive annual application process of the Turing scheme. High-quality, deliverable and impactful international placements that improve skills and employability are essential to both the learners and the taxpayer.
I know that the Turing scheme draws comparisons with its predecessor, Erasmus. Direct comparison between the Erasmus+ programme and the Turing scheme is not possible, given that European Commission data for Erasmus+ does not specify the number of student participants for education sectors other than higher education. Although Erasmus+ included some staff mobility, the Turing scheme, as I have said, is focused on student placements. We can be confident that the Turing scheme is expanding opportunities for UK students. This goes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). Erasmus+ participant numbers for higher education ranged from just under 16,000 to just over 17,000 each year from 2015 to 2020. The Turing scheme is funding over 22,000 students this year, and it funded more than 23,000 HE placements last year and around 28,000 in 2021-22. The schemes operate very differently.
On the funding delays, I am working hard to ensure that students do not have the difficulties that the hon. Member for North East Fife highlighted. I am happy to look at the individual case that she mentioned. Education providers have had to make some complex changes to their projects within the allocated funding, because we had to reduce their requested allocation in order to manage the high demand in the ’23-24 Turing scheme. There have been issues in navigating the new processes for payment requests. Capita has offered webinars and one-to-one support where needed to help education providers understand the process, and I am working closely with Capita to collect and act on feedback from the sector to ensure the scheme works as it should for all students. Applicants were informed of their application outcomes on 3 July. We are working to bring that date forward in future years, so that there are not the difficulties that the hon. Lady highlighted.
In conclusion, we will of course carry on evolving the scheme and making improvements, including by expanding opportunities for apprentices, which I care about deeply. I cannot confirm funding well in advance—as the hon. Lady will know, funding is always confirmed ahead of the next fiscal event—but the sector should embrace the Turing scheme, as it has done by submitting competitive bids, adapting its approach to delivering international mobility, and maximising opportunities for less advantaged and unrepresented students.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining some of the strategic challenges, but it is very difficult for institutions to think about embracing a scheme when they have no certainty of its long-term future.
Robert Halfon
I guarantee that the Turing scheme has a long-term future. I am not the guy from the Treasury and I cannot say how much it will be funded each year, but it will be funded properly and well, and we are determined that it will be a great success and that we will iron out some of the problems that she rightly highlighted. I am not saying that there have not been difficulties. I want to try to make it work.
The Turing scheme is a relatively new, demand-led scheme that was introduced at considerable pace. It has been shown to be a success and a remarkable skills development and career opportunity for people across the UK. I believe it will increase skills, enhance social justice and ensure good jobs for participants. I am pleased to be here today to champion the scheme and I look forward to working with higher education, further education, apprenticeship bodies and apprentices to realise its potential and enable students around the country to benefit from it regardless of their background. As I said, I have increased from 50% to 60% the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds who will benefit from the Turing scheme. That is right, because we should ensure that the most disadvantaged can benefit from this brilliant opportunity. I sincerely hope that Turing scheme alumni are proud to have participated and recognise that having done so will stand them in good stead for their current studies and their future careers.
Question put and agreed to.
Non-disclosure Agreements in the Workplace
(1 year, 3 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
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of non-disclosure agreements in the workplace.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Ali, for this important debate on the use of non-disclosure agreements in the workplace. I will start by talking about the importance of every one of us—each and every citizen of our country—to the productiveness of our society.
Working to support ourselves creates wealth. For those who are older or younger, it is an essential part of a vibrant and successful economy. We in Parliament agonise over producing laws to remove the barriers that can stand in the way of people going to work. We stop people being made redundant simply because they are pregnant, being fired for being too old, or being denied a job because they have a disability, and we stop employees suffering sexual abuse because of an abuse of power at work.
Yet we know from the evidence collected by organisations such as Pregnant Then Screwed, Maternity Action, WhistleblowersUK, Can’t Buy My Silence and many more that employers routinely use non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements to stop workplace wrongs being talked about, punished and put right. They use NDAs to silence employees who are fired or made redundant unlawfully. They stop them from seeking medical support for the psychological trauma that they have experienced, from taking action through employment tribunals, and in some cases from taking cases of criminal wrongdoing to the police. They remove people from their jobs with an exit agreement that includes a silencing clause, creating fear that talking about even illegal acts might mean they find themselves on the wrong side of the law, with the additional fear of having to pay back any payment they might have received when they departed from their job.
We know that there is a need for confidentiality at work. Routinely when we sign our contracts of employment there is a standard condition of confidentiality in the initial employment agreement. Some people therefore dismiss concerns about non-disclosure agreements because they know that NDAs can be unenforceable if they are put in place at the end of an employment contract. But most people are not legal experts. They cannot take the risk of being on the wrong side of the law and having to pay back any settlement agreement money, and employers know that.
The lawyers are part of the problem. The Solicitors Regulatory Authority has reminded all solicitors of their duty to uphold professional standards when dealing with NDAs. It issued a warning notice in 2018 that was updated in 2020. The SRA has been proactive and is to be applauded, but in reality the questionable usage of NDAs continues, first, because the SRA found that more than a third of law firms were not even aware of the 2018 notice—something that I am sure they are putting right—and secondly, because so many NDAs are drawn up by people who are not regulated by the legal profession, or maybe not regulated at all, and this is set to grow.
When I asked my office manager to ask ChatGPT to write me a standard UK severance contract after discrimination at work, a clause was automatically inserted that reads:
“Confidentiality: Both parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of this Agreement and not to disclose any details related to the discrimination claim or this Agreement to third parties, except as required by law”,
but no further details. How many people are now using these formula contracts as a matter of course? This might be the future of accessing legal expertise for many people, so we cannot rely on professional legal ethics and regulation to ensure that employers act in the right way. We need the law to be clear, too.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and commend her on securing this topical and timely debate. Does she agree with me about the costs? No matter where it occurs in what sector, when we get into the public sector, public moneys are expended by some large employers. The likes of the BBC employs NDAs against employees and then subsequent former employees to try to buy silence over an agreed contract.
Dame Maria Miller
The hon. Member makes an important point about the use of NDAs by large public bodies. He mentioned the BBC, and I could go on to mention other media organisations. Indeed, NDAs have been used routinely in this place in the past. Mr Speaker and others, however, have ensured that that practice has stopped—it is possible to stop such things, if there is a will from the top.
The Government already know the importance of that point. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), with the backing of the Department for Education, put in place a voluntary university pledge to stop the use of NDAs in university settings. It became law under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, through an amendment made on 7 February, so Parliament has had its say and the Government have accepted that say, but only in connection with universities.
The pledge, when it was introduced, protected students, staff and others from the use of NDAs in cases involving sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct and bullying. If such a ban is good enough for universities, I hope that the Minister will agree that we can see no reason why employees in other sectors should not be protected in the same way.
The Government must look at how they could provide the same safeguards as the universities now have across every workplace in Britain against agreements drawn up by lawyers and those not drawn up by lawyers, which I believe to be the vast majority. As part of the pathway that the Government will follow in the coming months to achieve that sort of change, I hope that they will also support my amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which would recognise people who have signed NDAs as victims too, for consistency.
NDAs are of particular concern to Parliament and parliamentarians, because they are disproportionately used to silence women and minority groups, flying in the face of anti-discrimination laws, which have been in place for decades. Women report signing NDAs at six times the rate for men, black women at three times the rate for white women, and, interestingly, at 40% of the rate for people with disabilities. People with disabilities suffer such NDAs far more than anyone else.
A third of the respondents to the Can’t Buy My Silence data collection in the UK are believed to have signed an NDA. Perhaps worse, another third did not go ahead with seeking the justice they were owed, because they anticipated having to sign an NDA and did not want to—for fear of the consequences perhaps. In their 2020 sexual harassment survey, the Government themselves, through the Government Equalities Office, reported that 48% of those who reported workplace sexual harassment were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement about their experience, whether staying at the organisation or exiting it. The Government are aware of the scale of the problem and they have legislated already, as a result of actions taken here in Parliament. We cannot let the status quo stand.
Given the nature of NDAs—their silencing properties and the secrecy that surrounds them—only as a result of the bravery of some who have endured NDAs do we know the damage that they are causing. I pay tribute to all those people—such as those in the Public Gallery and those Members—who have spoken out bravely publicly or privately on this matter. That includes the public reporting of the Independent Television News newsroom incidents, including multiple reports of NDAs by “Channel 4 News” and “Channel 5 News”.
A particular concern—the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has already made the point about media outlets—is that organisations that provide news for millions of viewers are using NDAs to cover up allegations of sexual harassment, disability discrimination, maternity discrimination and much more. Even after public reporting, those are yet to be resolved. The concern is that we rely on such news organisations to expose the truth, and yet all summer we have seen more and more media reports about the toxic environments that have flourished.
I too have been approached by a number of whistleblowers at a number of ITN newsrooms. Why? Because of the lack of transparency and the fear of speaking up created by the use of apparently legal confidentiality clauses or NDAs. I believe that NDAs have no place in British workplaces if they stop people from freely exercising their rights under the law.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I commend the right hon. Lady on an outstanding speech; I have no doubt that the rest will be equally outstanding. Does she agree that it is utterly hypocritical for the owners of news agencies, whether in broadcast or print media, to hide behind secrecy when it comes to how they treat their own employees? They make a living from exposing the things going on in other companies and from getting information from Governments that Governments do not want to disclose.
Dame Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman brings up an important point. How employees are treated goes to the very heart of the culture of an organisation; we can judge an organisation on how it treats the people who work for it.
My strong feeling is that we need to show leadership on the issue of NDAs. We need to make it clear from this place that such agreements have no place in the British workplace. It is regrettable that some organisations appear to be using NDAs to silence their employees. I sometimes wonder how transparent that is to the management of the organisations. Senior managers need to be asking some serious questions of their HR departments about how such agreements are drawn up.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for her initiative in bringing forward this debate; I absolutely agree with every word that she has said and how she has put the case. I say to the Minister that if he does what the right hon. Member is asking, we will give our full support. At this stage in a Government it is sometimes difficult to do good, but if he accedes to the right hon. Member’s proposals he could do a major piece of good.
Non-disclosure agreements are unfair on the individual. As the right hon. Member said, backed up by figures, they double down and are a ratchet on discrimination. As she also said, they are perilous for the organisations, as covering up wrongdoing introduces rot. Whatever words, written by the civil service, are in the Minister’s extremely good brief, he should have a think about doing this. He will get wholehearted support from us. The right hon. Member is putting forward a really sensible case, and I thank her for that.
Dame Maria Miller
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady, the Mother of the House, for those kind words of support. This is not a political issue; that is really important.
I couched my opening statement in terms of productivity because what really offends me to the core is that good people are being put out of employment for the wrong reasons. That often undermines their confidence and career in a way that they find it difficult to come back from, although there are notable examples of when that has not been the case.
I am thinking in particular of the evidence given to the Women and Equalities Committee for our maternity discrimination report, in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) played a part. We heard about people being pushed out of employment simply because they were pregnant. They then found it very difficult to get back into work afterwards. The issue has real consequences for our economy. I know that the Minister feels strongly about the importance of productivity; what we are discussing is part of the piece that we need to get right.
Can’t Buy My Silence, the organisation that brought in the universities pledge, is working on a similar voluntary agreement for businesses to stop using inappropriate NDAs; perhaps that fills a vacuum created by the many consultations going on at the moment, in both Government and other organisations. That business pledge is to be welcomed. The organisation has been shown to be powerful in turning its words into law. The pledge commits a business not to using non-disclosure agreements or clauses to silence people who raise complaints of sexual harassment, abuse or misconduct, discrimination, retaliation, bullying or other harassment, at the point of hiring, at termination or at any other stage. The organisation, very ably led by Zelda Perkins, has secured its first supporters, including a law firm, which I think shows the strength of the way the pledge has been put together and put to businesses.
When the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, in her time as Minister responsible for higher education, brought in the universities pledge, she said of the use of NDAs that she was
“determined to see this shabby practice stamped out on our campuses”.
I hope that the Minister replying today—I know my hon. Friend well—will wish to see this shabby practice stamped out across the whole economy, too.
Most confidentiality agreements are put in place by people other than lawyers. Other regulatory bodies have issued guidance on NDAs, as we would expect. Acas advises that NDAs should not be used
“to cover up inappropriate behaviour or misconduct, especially if there’s a risk of it happening again”.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the body for human resources professionals, recognises that NDAs should not be used to silence people in situations of harassment, discrimination or bullying and organisations should never exert pressure on someone to sign. But the evidence of the scale of the problem shows that the advice is simply not cutting through—it is not enough. Many employers relying on the online model agreements to which I referred earlier are simply perpetuating a cycle in which NDAs, confidentiality clauses, are seen as the norm, to silence victims of wrongdoing. Therefore it is time that we turned advice and encouragement into law—I think there are very clear indications that organisations such as the Bar Council are also seeing that as the way forward and I am sure the Minister will be aware of that—so that apparently legal clauses in legal contracts cannot be used by anyone, lawyer or not, to cover up illegal wrongdoing at work.
My determination to see change on this issue stems in no small part from an interview that I saw with Zelda Perkins on “Newsnight”, which was followed by the 2019 report by the Women and Equalities Committee—I chaired it at the time—on non-disclosure agreements. The evidence given to the Committee during that inquiry left me in absolutely no doubt that this was an issue largely under the radar and urgently in need of legislative solutions. The debate today is to remind the Government of the issue and of the need to act.
I believe in a fair society in which each of us has the opportunity to reach our potential, especially in education and in work; that is the society that we should all be striving for. Equally, I believe that it is the role of Parliament to remove the barriers that people encounter in achieving that aim. Non-disclosure agreements are a barrier to people reaching their full potential at work, a barrier to fairness and a barrier to the laws that we pass in this place working in practice. They must be outlawed where they cover up illegal wrongdoing. I hope that the Minister replying today can agree that the status quo is not an option.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Ms Ali. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) on eloquently opening the debate and making all the pertinent points as to why NDAs should be outlawed. It is very evident from what we have heard so far how they are used to hide discrimination and bad practice in the workplace. That is why I fully support her proposal and all the comments made across the Floor today.
I think we have learned, particularly in the last week, that creating secrecy in the workplace creates closed cultures and they can be incredibly dangerous environments. We heard yesterday in a debate in the main Chamber about seven consultants who blew the whistle. It would have been so easy to have silenced them with an NDA, and we have seen that right across the NHS. I will bring to this debate my experience from the health service, but also as a trade union official for many years, as to how NDAs have been used to silence people who are raising a concern and trying to speak truth to power, because ultimately this is all about power and control, and therefore we need to ensure that justice can be served in every environment and particularly in the workplace. We know that many people forced to sign NDAs are being forced out of organisations because they have had the nerve to raise concerns about what they have seen around them in order to make the work environment safer for themselves and others. They have shared those observations to see improvements in their organisation. It is not vexatious to raise concerns; it is the right thing to do and it should be encouraged. Not having laws to protect those individuals exposes them and brings about further risk.
As the Minister will know, I am bringing forward a Bill about bullying in the workplace and the cultures developed there—cultures of secrecy and of bad conduct and behaviour. There is certainly much to be done. Those people who experience the signing of an NDA are seeing a slamming of the door on not only their career but often their lives, leading to serious mental health challenges for many years. They have to live with the injustice they have been served for what is often a small sum of money to pay them off and buy that silence. We have to create open work places where we can have honesty, and raise concerns and see them resolved. Without that, we will enforce the negative cultures that we see in work practices today.
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests—I should have said that earlier. When I was a union official, I saw many times how compromise agreements were a cheap option to try to buy people off, to move an issue sideways and to protect the perpetrator in the workplace. Even if people brought a case to an employment tribunal, a COT3 agreement would often be signed to bring a case to a conclusion. We have to look at that within the system as well. The purpose of such agreements is merely to shut down debate and move on, leaving a legacy for other people—the discrimination, poor conduct, assaults, harassment or discrimination that have already been experienced.
We should create an open culture so that no one fears raising concerns and people know they are working in a safe environment. A closed environment, as we have known in many contexts, is an unsafe environment. What we are discussing would make workplaces safer for everyone, not least those people who have experienced the most pernicious assaults as a result of the NDA process.
I look at what has happened across University Hospital Birmingham, where silence has been bought off individuals, and at the mental health trusts. There are questions across the piece at the moment about what is going on in those organisations, which are often very closed cultures in themselves. When concern is raised, individuals are invariably on sick leave as a result of the response that they get, and then they are bought—told that they cannot return, or their sickness brings them to that point. When someone is so weak and powerless because of what the organisation has done to their voice and agency, they will take a little scrap to try and rebuild and move forward.
Whether it is in healthcare, local government—we know it happens there—education or the police and justice system, we know that the issue is pretty prevalent. I ask the Minister: where is the data and the scrutiny over what is happening? Do we know the reasons why all those NDAs have been signed? Do we know the numbers in every sector? Do we know which employers are the perpetrators issuing NDAs? We need the data to legislate and to understand, but also to call out those employers using NDAs as part of their suite of employment policies. I also ask the Minister to dig deep into all sectors—not only the private sector, but the charitable sector and what goes on there. Some of the statistics may well surprise him.
We have to understand that the issue is about the impact on individuals as well as organisations. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke made a powerful point about the cost to organisations of being able to mismanage their staff in such a catastrophic way, but we also have to realise that that has an impact on not only the individual but their colleagues as well. Ultimately, it silences them, because they know what is coming next: their job will be on the line, and they will be managed out of the organisation one way or another.
This closed-culture mentality must be prised open by the Government and we must do everything we can. We are in a space where organisations fear the reputational damage and fear what is happening at the moment. Let us get the data and the legislation in place to ensure that we are not only tackling poor conduct but advancing good conduct in the workplace, so that every worker can be safe.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)
Order. I suggest that Members stick to a time limit of roughly six minutes so that everyone can speak.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali, and to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I am so grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for introducing this important and timely debate and for setting out the case, which I hope the Minister has listened to, for ending the practice of using NDAs once and for all.
Non-disclosure agreements, also known as confidentiality agreements and gagging clauses—they have a whole host of names—are legal contracts setting out how and what information can be shared by its signatories. I accept that these clauses can have legitimate purposes in business to manage commercially sensitive information, intellectual property and trade secrets. However, that should surely be the extent of their usage. All too often, the agreements are instead used to prevent people from speaking up about mistreatment, harassment or wrongdoing, particularly in the workplace.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, I have heard first hand from whistleblowers about how organisations use NDAs as part of settlement agreements following an attempt by an employee to do the right thing: raise concerns about wrongdoing. In every case, there is one thing in common: not only did the whistleblowers feel obliged to sign the NDAs, without necessarily fully understanding them in some cases, but their own lawyers reminded them of their legal duty to remain silent once they did.
Some might argue that whistleblowers are protected by law already, but we know that our existing laws are not working and that they are exclusive. The UK’s existing whistleblowing legislation—the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, or PIDA—only protects in law disclosures showing a criminal offence, a failure to comply with legal obligations, a miscarriage of justice, endangerment of health and safety, damage to the environment or the concealment of any information relating to the above. Section 43J of PIDA states:
“Any provision in an agreement to which this section applies is void in so far as it purports to preclude the worker from making a protected disclosure.”
What that means in theory is that a confidentiality clause or an NDA that seeks to prevent employees from blowing the whistle should be void under PIDA because under this law we cannot take away a person’s right to make a protected disclosure. However, the problem is still carrying on and it raises a number of issues. First, PIDA has extremely limited scope and applies only to workers and their employers. It also does not cover all people who may work for organisations, such as contractors, volunteers or trustees, or other people who may reasonably gain information that it is in the public interest to disclose: family members, customers and, in the case of health and social care, patients.
Secondly, we know from the many whistleblowing cases that result in detriment and dismissal that employees who speak out are not sufficiently protected by our existing laws. The cycle of a worker bringing forward allegations of wrongdoing only to be dismissed, and having to fight their dismissal at an employment tribunal, is all too common. When they get to tribunal, they must fight for their own employment—their own rights—not the whistleblowing issue that they first raised. Only 12% of these whistleblowing cases are successful at tribunal, so where is the incentive to do the right thing? For many would-be whistleblowers, this likely outcome may persuade them down the route of agreeing to an NDA—and the cover up is complete.
There is also the issue of people not knowing what constitutes a protected disclosure in the first place. In many cases, PIDA would not clearly apply to the things they report, such as a toxic environment or a moral or ethical wrong, and once an NDA has been signed there begins the constant fear of the consequences of breaking it: fear of the risks of breaking the silence, fear of the cost of prosecution. That means that NDAs are a very effective tool for silencing whistleblowers. As a consequence, the wrong goes unpunished, and the cloak of cover-up allows wrongdoing to continue.
One person who was brave enough to break free of the binds of an NDA and speak out was a whistleblower who defied an agreement signed with Hollywood film-maker Harvey Weinstein. By speaking out, she exposed Weinstein’s predatory behaviour, and his extensive history of sexual harassment and rape soon became public. He is now serving decades in prison, and she continues to fight for an end to the misuse of NDAs, through her campaign Can’t Buy My Silence. She deserves our praise and thanks for that.
Speak Out Revolution, which works with Can’t Buy My Silence as a data partner, is actively collecting workplace bullying and harassment experiences from members of the public, and compiling information and statistics. Based on those submissions, 63% do not formally report their workplace bullying or harassment experiences to their organisation. Of those who do, just 3% reach a full resolution. It is five times more likely that a person’s experience will become worse as a result of a formal report. Further, at least a quarter of respondents had signed an NDA. With statistics such as those, anyone considering speaking up can be forgiven for thinking twice.
Although there are non-profit and charitable organisations that can provide advice and guidance, existing legislation does not encourage or protect whistleblowers. I have been campaigning for a change in our whistleblowing legislation, as the Minister will know. Alongside my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on whistleblowing, I have now proposed a new Bill that would see the creation of an office of the whistleblower that would support and advise whistleblowers and organisations. It would set standards and levy penalties against those who retaliate against or penalise whistleblowers. That would include addressing the misuse of NDAs and gagging orders, which we simply must tackle. Further, it would recognise and support anyone who is blowing the whistle.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke pointed out, NDAs are being used as a tool to cover up wrongdoing, to silence victims and whistleblowers. We have allowed organisations to get away with using intimidation and fear to conceal evidence of wrongdoing, forcing whistleblowers and victims of crime to keep silent for too long. I call on the Minister to heed the calls heard here, and to take action on abusive NDAs and on our outdated whistleblowing legislation, to ensure that the Government are firmly on the side of truth and transparency and of people who do the right thing.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) on securing this important debate. As we have heard, non-disclosure agreements were designed as a legal tool to protect trade secrets, but they have a dark side. There is now overwhelming evidence that they are being used to cover up bad behaviour, and buy victims’ silence. They have become insidious and pervasive. One survivor described it as
“a way of companies and people avoiding accountability”.
NDAs can take many forms. They can be stand-alone agreements or a single clause subtly included at the end of a contract generated by a lawyer or anyone else. The effect is what is important. An NDA for these purposes should be defined as any clause that has the effect of gagging a victim. It is usually in perpetuity, which itself is extraordinary when thought about in legal terms. It stops them speaking about their experiences for ever more.
Many NDAs are not legally enforceable, but the victims I have spoken to would not have a clue. They never have a clue—and I am not sure I would, frankly. I am not a lawyer. If I were given something on official headed paper and told that someone knowledgeable had looked at it and thought it was the best thing for me, and I was at my wits’ end at the end of a discrimination case, I would just want it all to go away, too. That is tempting, and we can understand why people in that moment—when presented with that way out—take the money, sign the NDA and run.
However, we also know that NDAs hold immense power over victims. Often many years later, long after the effects should have been forgotten, they are retraumatised over and over again. Imagine someone facing a discrimination charge at work who has had to leave. They then have a further interview where they are asked about why they left, and they cannot say. Over and over again, forevermore, they are forced to remember. Many are victims of NDAs; I put it in those terms specifically because NDAs themselves cause harm. The point is made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke in her amendment, which I very much support, to the Victims Bill: in these cases, it is the NDA itself—the silencing—that is traumatising.
I was involved in this campaign initially through students. I am delighted that through cross-party support we had an amendment accepted to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023; that is amazing. One of the young women I spoke to was a victim of sexual assault in her college. She was assaulted by another student. She was presented with what looked like an official document—it was not actually a legal document at all, but she did not know any different. There was essentially a gagging clause. Some clauses said that the assailant was not allowed into her accommodation or where she ate, which we absolutely support. However, a final clause said that she could not speak about her experiences publicly at all. When it was discussed at the time, it was sold as a way to protect her reputation. She should not have been talking about it on social media or Lord knows what damage it would cause to her later. Not only is that infantilising to a women—albeit a young woman, but an adult woman none the less who has the right to make her own decisions—but let’s face it: the reputation being protected in this case was that of the university and the college.
Dame Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and for her support today. She talks about the importance of protecting reputations. The reason why employers sometimes say that they want a non-disclosure agreement signed is that it will save an individual leaving a company and starting to talk badly about those left behind. Surely, we already have laws on defamation that cover that, so that is not a very good argument. Does she agree?
Layla Moran
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady. The problem is that the clauses are so wide-ranging; they are often not specific about time or what exactly they are allowed to say. We are not talking about any kind of confidentiality for when people are going through mediation, because that is time-limited; that is obvious. If mediation is going on, there would be a period where both parties would be asked not to talk about it. That is not what we are talking about here. The right hon. Lady and I have had a lot of engagement on this issue, and others have too. We have gone through every argument. There is an answer to every single rebuttal now. We have explored the logic. There is only one thing left to do.
We are falling behind. Other countries are ahead of us now, particularly in North America. Prince Edward Island in Canada has passed legislation that has essentially done what we are discussing. It is new, but it seems to be working. There is also the Speak Out Act in the USA, which was passed in 2022. It prohibits non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses being agreed to in disputes involving specifically sexual misconduct. Other countries are also moving in that direction. We have seen a watershed moment following incredible campaigning by Zelda and others that is now forcing the issue, and we are falling behind as a nation.
We have golden opportunities in front of us. We have the Victims Bill; I urge the Government to look at the right hon. Lady’s amendment. I have also put one down that does the obvious thing of mapping the language in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act on to the Victims Bill. Given that people who sign these types of NDAs are victims, I think it is in scope. Either way they are complementary, but the Government need to do something that is not sector by sector. It should not affect one place or another. There is a bizarre idea that if an academic is living next to someone who works in a shop in my constituency, the academic is covered, but the person who works in the shop is not. Come on!
The Government have to do something—if not what we have suggested, then what? I have tabled a private Member’s Bill and the King’s Speech is coming, so the Government can borrow it if they want—I am sure that they will come up with their own—but doing nothing is not an option.
I will end simply by lending my voice to one of the victims, who signed an NDA and said:
“I relinquished the right to speak my truth; to reach out to and support other employees who were experiencing the same mistreatment that I faced.”
I very much hope that in his closing remarks the Minister will think of those victims and those people who are trying to do good. He will find that many people are willing to have his and the Government’s back if they decide to move, and it would not be before time.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this important debate.
Perhaps the debate should have been titled, “The misuse of non-disclosure agreements”. As has been said, NDAs were originally intended to protect sensitive corporate information, but sadly they have morphed into a disturbing tool that is used to conceal wrongdoing and silence victims. Instead of protecting the innocent, NDAs have been weaponised to shield the guilty.
Although employment tribunals are an option for seeking justice, they often fall short in addressing the underlying issues. Primarily, they focus on whether the employer’s actions were legally justified rather than on tackling the root causes. Whistleblowers have only that route to remedy their losses. With no route to ensure that their concerns are acted on, they no protection from retaliation, as all protection is retrospective.
It is clear that our current legal framework has proven ineffective in protecting whistleblowers and has neglected the very public interest that it was designed to safeguard. However, it does not stop there. The use of NDAs extends beyond workplace harassment; it reaches into the realm of whistleblowing, which is crucial for the protection of our democracy and public interest.
As part of the all-party parliamentary group on whistleblowing, I am very aware that NDAs are all too often used to protect an employer’s reputation and the career of the wrongdoer, rather than the victim. Few signatories of NDAs are offered alternative ways to protect their own privacy without protecting the rights of the guilty party; few signatories of NDAs understand that they are signing away their right to talk about their experiences forever. Most signatories of NDAs profess to feeling guilty and even complicit, and of being unable to warn others as a consequence of their NDA. Often, signatories continue to be victims in the future. For example, when they are looking for new employment, they are unable to explain why they left their previous role. That makes it incredibly difficult to find a new job and many whistleblowers never work again in their chosen profession.
I am sure we all agree that whistleblowers who come forward with evidence of wrongdoing should be celebrated and not silenced. Many non-profit organisations, such as Whistleblowers UK, work hard to advocate for the fact that whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing corruption, safeguarding public funds and ensuring transparency in both the public and private sectors. Shamefully, a third of all universities in England have used NDAs in circumstances relating to student complaints. I am glad that has been addressed recently by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 and I call on the Minister to recognise the support from across the political spectrum for doing what is right and reviewing the flaws in the legal framework.
I turn to a slightly different issue. Imagine a scenario in which serious structural issues appear in a property on a residential development within the 10-year period of a builder’s guarantee. Those issues are likely to have been caused by subsidence linked to inadequate preparation of the entire site prior to building, which is the developer’s responsibility. A homeowner might think that they are doing the right thing by highlighting the situation, believing that truth and justice will prevail. However, to close down any discussion about the wider implications, they may be silenced with a settlement and an NDA. By the time the subsidence becomes visible in the other properties, the developer’s guarantee period has elapsed and they can deny responsibility for the ensuing trauma that is caused to the entire community of people whose properties are blighted. Voices are silenced, stories are buried and grievances are ignored. That is not justice; it is a miscarriage of our values and principles.
Any protections intended by PIDA, which has been in place for 25 years, have failed, because the process incentivises settlements and confidentiality clauses. In 25 years, not a single case has been passed to law enforcement to investigate the allegations or evidence of wrongdoing. The legislation proposed in the Whistleblowing Bill includes provisions to tackle the misuse of NDAs. It goes further by introducing legislation that would ensure that concerns are investigated, that those responsible are held to account, that NDAs are used properly and not to suppress wrongdoing, that a mechanism is put in place for police compliance, and that whistleblowers are protected from the unscrupulous practice of imposing gagging orders on anyone. This is why the Whistleblowing Bill is a crucial part of legislation that can bring about positive change. It represents an opportunity to improve the safety of everyone in our communities and to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to support for our citizens’ army of whistleblowers, who are the first line of defence against crime, corruption and cover-ups. It is our duty to protect those who speak up for what is right and to ensure that no one is silenced in the face of wrongdoing. I call on the Minister to listen to the suggestions made here today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) on setting the scene so well and all those hon. and right hon. Members who have made significant and helpful contributions. I wish to add my support to what the right hon. Lady has put forward and to give, as I always do, a Northern Ireland perspective on what we are discussing. It is good to be in Westminster Hall and back after the summer break, so to speak.
The right hon. Lady has raised this issue with us today and in the past. I have been in attendance to hear many of her comments about the dangers that non-disclosure agreements can pose in the workplace specifically. In theory, the agreements are supposed to be used as a legally binding contract that establishes a confidential relationship—if only that was what they were used for. As everyone knows, they have been misrepresented and used for other purposes, and that is why the debate is taking place. They can ensure secrecy and confidentiality for sensitive information, but have been seen more recently as a weapon to keep people quiet. It is crucial that the agreements are used correctly, so it is great to be here to discuss them and highlight some issues as well.
In May 2023, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 received Royal Assent. It included provisions to prohibit higher education providers and their colleges from entering into non-disclosure agreements with staff members, students and visiting speakers in relation to complaints of sexual misconduct, abuse or harassment. That was backed in 2022 by the then Minister for the Economy in the Northern Ireland Assembly and my party colleague, Gordon Lyons MLA. Queen’s University, Ulster University, Stranmillis University College, St Mary’s University College and the Open University in Northern Ireland have also signed up to the pledge.
I warmly welcome the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign and everything it stands for, which is ensuring that NDAs are only used for their intended purpose of protecting sensitive information in relation to a trade or a company. The idea that NDAs are used to silence those who are victims of bullying or misconduct within a business setting is totally disgraceful. We all have offices and staff, and most importantly we have a duty of care to each other to protect and listen to any concerns that our staff have. I find it implausible and difficult to imagine a situation where using an NDA for dealing with misconduct is a sensible idea for any party ever—I cannot comprehend it.
Some 95% of respondents to a survey carried out by the CBMS campaign stated that signing an abusive NDA had a profound impact on their mental health, so there are side effects as well. I certainly agree with the calls to extend the ban on abusive NDAs to more sectors. They have been used to silence people not only in universities, but in workplaces and other professional settings. There is a complete lack of legal oversight too, where victims do not have representation from a regulated legal professional and abusive NDAs are internal within an organisation or business.
A workplace should be an environment where staff members feel safe and can work to the best of their ability with no fear or worry of advantage being taken that is backed up by unhealthy and ill-thought-out NDAs. Another useful point is that banning the use of abusive NDAs helps to stop repeat offenders, as within the workplace there is no protection against abusive behaviour. A predator or someone who inflicts abuse on someone else has the underlying protection of an NDA, knowing that the information will not be shared. Banning NDAs gives predators no way out and would stop their behaviour, or they would risk being let go or even prosecuted.
Peter Grant
On the question of protecting repeat offenders, does the hon. Member see the massive injustice in this? A victim who speaks out is likely to be denied employment opportunities for the rest of their life, but a rogue employer or director can be protected, get a golden handshake and work on a different board of directors within a week and carry on with their nefarious behaviour. That degree of disparity is a massive injustice that has to be addressed.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no one present who does not understand that. When someone wants to do their best at work and is taken advantage of by an employer, that is unacceptable. I hope that when the Minister responds to our comments, he will grasp what we are trying to say. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke and the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who made a powerful intervention, proposed a legislative way forward and set the scene very well.
I support the points made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke and would be happy to support this matter further. We must ensure that NDAs are used for the correct purpose and not to hide and cover up nasty and disgraceful behaviour in the workplace that would otherwise go unpunished. I have hope that through this campaign we can do better to protect people from such coercion and behaviour and do more to ensure that the workplace is a healthy and happy environment. That is a goal worth trying to achieve. It would be better for everyone at work.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I want to lend my voice to what has already been said by Members, especially by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller). She and I came to the issue of NDAs together in one of the most egregious cases—the case of Zelda Perkins, who has already been mentioned and who suffered for years in silence. In that case and others that I have seen, certainly, around Oxford University colleges, I want to stress how the issue of this process being about power and control should not be undermined— this was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). It is used to victimise people. It is literally the tool of an abuser.
When I met some of the whistleblowers in the Philip Green case, they told me a story about how he had said to them, “Keep on adding zeros. I will pay anything and you will go away.” That was the attitude. That is an abuser standing in front of somebody they know is weaker than they are. This is absolutely classic in all interpersonal violence relationships. They say, “I am more powerful than you. You will do as I say because I am the strong one.” Currently, the laws in our country allow that. The law in our country is written so that that it is completely acceptable for an angry, sexually abusive bully to stand in front of a member of his staff and say, “I am bigger, stronger and better than you.” Currently, we go, “He’s got a point. He is stronger. He has more zeros to add to the end of that cheque. He can shut you up.” That is the situation today. This will be happening to somebody today. Right now, as we speak, somebody who is trying to speak up about something bad happening is being told, “You’re weak. You’re pathetic.” That is a form of coercive control, and a form of violence. It is absolutely a form of victimisation, and I lend my support and voice to the amendments that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke has tabled to the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
The crux of the problem is that we, as lawmakers and policymakers, are saying, “That’s fine. That’s okay. Don’t worry because, you know, trade secrets.” That is the situation today, but let us make it so that tomorrow—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The hon. Lady speaks passionately, and I absolutely accept many of the comments made in the debate, but the law specifically does not allow a non-disclosure agreement to prevent somebody from going to the police about a sexual abuser. That absolutely is not the law.
Jess Phillips
I did not say that the law said that, although incidentally Zelda Perkins’s NDA did say that. I do not know what is written in all the NDAs in the country, although I have quite a lot in my inbox, so I have an idea of some of the things that people get asked for.
Of course what the Minister describes is illegal, but it is not illegal to say, “You can’t speak about this. You can’t tell the woman in the next cubicle along that the man you work for has been groping you, because you’ve been silenced.” That is what we are apparently saying is okay; we are fine with that.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I apologise for not having been here at the start of the debate; I was chairing somewhere else. The hon. Lady used words that I had not yet heard today in this Chamber: “he”, “his”, “him”, and “the woman next to you.” That is really important. There are many women in this Chamber speaking about non-disclosure agreements. Apologies to my colleagues, who are a bunch of male Front Benchers, but does the hon. Lady agree that it is really important to reiterate how often NDAs are gendered? Apologies, Jim.
Jess Phillips
Hear, hear. The data laid out by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke made it very clear not just the gender imbalance in those affected by NDAs, but that black women are much more greatly affected.
Dame Maria Miller
I want to reflect on the hon. Lady’s response to the Minister. Time is very tight, but does the hon. Lady agree that part of the problem is the lack of transparency about whether clauses are legally enforceable? Employers can, maybe unintentionally, mislead their employees into thinking that they cannot speak out. Unfortunately, we are not all lawyers, and sometimes we err on the side of caution; we do not want to break the law.
Jess Phillips
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have met women who said, “I can’t tell the police. I can’t speak to people.” I am, like, “You can.” I had to get the Speaker to write a legal letter saying that people could speak about this to their Member of Parliament.
My time is up, but I think I have made my point. I finish with this: we rely on media organisations to do the work of cleaning up businesses for us. We rely on victims to come forward, and media organisations to report that. From what I know about media organisations, I am not entirely sure that it should not be the Government who lead on this issue.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I was almost tempted to say to the hon. Lady, “Just carry on, and I won’t bother summing up.” I do not think that I have ever seen agreement among so many speakers in a debate, and I certainly do not expect to say anything that will change that.
I am not entirely sure what the comment by the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was about. If her point was about having to keep apologising to Front-Bench males for things that have to be said, she does not ever have to apologise to me for pointing out that I am part of the 49% who have caused most of this problem. Most of the speakers today are part of the 51% who have been on the receiving end of the problem, though they have not always been; there was a time when NDAs were routinely abused between powerful men to cover up each other’s crimes and frauds. Most NDAs now are being used by powerful men to silence and victimise vulnerable women, and that is the abuse of the system that must be dealt with most urgently.
Ms Harman
The hon. Member has demonstrated himself to be a male ally, and we would not underestimate the importance of having male allies on this. There is an opportunity for the Minister to be not a force of resistance but a male ally and to follow the example of the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).
Peter Grant
When I write my memoirs after I retire in a year or so, I will make sure to point out the time I got an honourable mention in dispatches by no less a person than the Mother of the House.
Just to reflect on some of what has been said, there is an absolutely legitimate need for confidentiality between employer and employee. Nobody is questioning that. Even after an employee has left employment, the employer is entitled to expect a degree of confidentiality and respect. The duty of care between an employer and employee in both directions does not just suddenly stop when the employee leaves.
But that duty of care—that right of confidentiality—can never, ever be justified if it is being used to prevent an employee from exercising the rights that this Parliament has given them as a matter of law: their rights to raise a grievance, to claim unfair dismissal and to get a fair hearing through the appropriate channels. It can never be justified if its intention is to cover up criminal conduct or other unlawful behaviour. In a great number of the cases that we have heard of—and no doubt many others that we have not heard of—where NDAs have been used to silence victims of workplace harassments, the behaviour is well above the threshold that constitutes criminal assault, and in almost all the other ones, it is well above the threshold that constitutes unlawful, unacceptable behaviour, so in almost every case we are talking about today, NDAs are being used to pervert the course of justice. We know that the law is being misused in this way; it is time to put that right.
We are not going to, in the next few years, address all the issues about mistreatment at work, or all the ways that mistreatment can be perpetrated and allowed to continue, but we should certainly be carrying on with the progress that has been made already and address as many as possible. Given the degree of agreement across the House, I hope the Minister will be listening and recognise that it this is an issue to be taken on quickly, because it is that will get unanimous—or near-unanimous—support across the whole House.
The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) mentioned the part that some professional societies have played. I think we need to get stronger with them as well. A number of professional regulators or chartered institutes should be told, “We want you to put into the code of professional ethics that knowingly misusing an NDA is gross professional misconduct, and that people will be struck off as a lawyer or banned from using the continuous professional development logo on their headed notepaper if they are found to be behaving in this way.”
I think that deliberately exploiting the fact that an employee probably does not fully understand their rights—that the employee is scared and wants to get away from the situation all together—to cajole them into signing something that is clearly against their interests is serious enough to be a criminal matter, rather than just a matter of employment law or of private civil law. It should not need the employee to find a lawyer who will represent them and take their case through the civil courts. Employers, business managers and company directors who deliberately exploit an employee’s ignorance and fear would be committing a criminal offence. They should be facing criminal sanctions, rather than, as has just been mentioned, a civil settlement that some would not notice if it disappeared out of their pockets every day.
Although I welcome the progress that has been made in the universities sector, and commend those who have brought forward private Members’ Bills to try to address these issues, we have not got time to go through one sector at a time, because while we are dealing with one sector, more and more people will be victimised in others.
I must say to the Minister, although I know that it has not been in his gift for all that long a time, why does it have to be left to private Members’ Bills? When the Government committed four years ago to legislate for this, why has nothing happened yet? It is not because there has not been enough Government time. There have been days when the House has collapsed three, four or five hours early, or days when the Whips have been running around, desperately trying to get people into the Chamber to intervene because the Government had reasons for not wanting the business to collapse before the advertised moment of interruption. If the Government were willing to put as much political determination into this as into other things, we would have it on the statute book already, but we do not. What better opportunity is there for a Minister to make their mark a few weeks before the King’s Speech?
The debate could not have been better timed—it is an opportunity for the Minister to make his mark. Who knows, he might be back as a Minister in the next Parliament. Nothing is guaranteed, although some things could be regarded as surprising, if the same party comes back into office—not the Minister personally, whom I have no doubt does a great job. Elections are never done deals until the votes are counted, so we never know; it might still be him or one of his colleagues after the election.
Mention has been made of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which I remember being a huge fan of when it first came out. Previously, I worked in a finance position at the Fife health board. I had stories that I wanted to tell, but there was no one I could tell them to. Eventually I did; the stories were denied, but a few years later Fife health board ran into a financial black hole of £4 million at the time—in today’s money, probably up to £10 million. I had seen it coming, but I could not get anyone to listen to me.
Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, someone else in such a position now would be able to ensure that the necessary people were made aware of it. That, however, applies only to disclosures by some people of some kinds of information to some recipients in certain circumstances; it is not a free-for-all. At the very least, we need to extend the Act to cover people who are not employed directly or are third parties, for example. We need to amend the law to make it explicit that anything that would be protected where someone is a contractor, supplier, business colleague or whatever continues to be protected afterwards.
We must remember that the Act explicitly does not protect vindictive or malicious disclosures. It does not protect someone who is touting a story around the tabloids to see which will pay them most. It does not protect those kinds of disclosures; it only protects disclosures where there is a genuine belief that the person is acting in the public interest, where there is a need to disclose in order to prevent criminal activity or serious damage to the public interest. Surely the same standard should apply after someone has ceased to be an employee. Surely it is right that an employee—or someone who is in effect an employee, because they work through an agency, on a zero-hours contract or whatever—even after they are no longer being paid by the employer, should still have the right to go to a recognised recipient, which is usually the relevant regulator or statutory body, to say: “This is what is happening in that organisation. I think that you need to take action.”
Before I wind up, I will give one example. Not surprisingly, we have focused on the misuse of NDAs to cover up cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault. I have heard one or two examples where they are used in other circumstances. I want to talk briefly about Rhona Malone, a police officer in Scotland. By all accounts, she was a dedicated and professional police officer, who should have had a bright career in front of her. She did, until she applied to join the Police Scotland firearms unit. She was told that she could not, because women cannot be firearms officers. She raised a grievance, but people tried to silence her: they offered her an NDA with an undisclosed, but frankly insulting, level of compensation. She stood her ground and took Police Scotland to a tribunal. Police Scotland has been ordered to pay the best part of £1 million in damages as a result.
I cannot go too much into the details of the argument, because I understand that one of the officers who testified at the tribunal has now been charged with perjury. The thing has become much more serious, and a number of things have come out. The reason she was not allowed to train as a firearms officer was that, in the eyes of senior people in Police Scotland, women are not capable of dealing with the physical demands of being a firearms officer or women on their period might get irrational so could not be trusted with a firearm.
Surely the person who exposed the fact that those attitudes were accepted in one of the major law enforcement agencies in these islands should be thanked. Surely she should be in line for an honour. Why on earth was she forced to leave the career to which she had dedicated herself? Why is possibly one of the best senior police officers of the future not there any more? What a loss to policing in Scotland and elsewhere. Yes, she had compensation, and yes, it is quite right that it should have been punitive libel, because how she was treated was utterly despicable, but why did no one senior in Police Scotland step in at some point to say, “We should not be trying to buy the silence of this officer. We should be sitting down to speak to this officer and to say thank you, because she has exposed something in our organisation that is utterly unacceptable, whether in a public or a private sector organisation”?
There is nothing that anyone has said in the Chamber today that I would meet with anything other than wholesale agreement. I suspect that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), will also agree with everything that has been said. I sincerely hope that when the Minister speaks he will commit to agreeing in not only his words but his actions. As I have said before, we are coming up to the King’s Speech, and some of us will be listening very carefully to what is in that speech.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) on calling this debate; it is an area that she has worked in for a considerable period of time and she articulated very clearly what the problems are and why they need tackling.
There have been a lot of excellent contributions today. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) brought her vast experience of employee representation to the fore. She talked about having open cultures in the workplace, which is a good way of looking at how this all needs to change. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) made an excellent speech; she made the important point that when someone signs these NDAs, they are not for a month or a year, but for life. As I will go on to explain, that does cause people difficulties later.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) described NDAs as being weaponised, which I thought was a good description. She also said that employment tribunals never tackle the underlying cause of discrimination in the workplace. Of course, tribunals can make recommendations to employers, but we are getting a body of evidence that this is not an effective tool, and that perhaps an enforcement body is needed to look at those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) brought all of her experience to the fore and gave a truly fantastic speech. She was right to say that this issue is fundamentally about power and its imbalance, which I will come to in my speech.
I do not dispute that there is a need for some non-disclosure agreements. There are sometimes appropriate situations, where they are needed, but I think we all agree that they are far more prevalent than they need to be and are being abused to cover up other issues. In the absence of any data on the numbers of agreements in operation, we are reliant on the legal profession and campaigning groups to give us an idea of what is happening.
Evidence collected by the Women and Equalities Committee and a recent study conducted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority found that there is widespread use of NDAs in the workplace, with little regard given to their appropriateness. In 2019, the Committee said:
“Confidentiality and non-derogatory clauses have become commonly used in agreements reached between employers and employees when settling or closing employment complaints or employment tribunal cases about discrimination or harassment. Indeed, they are commonplace when settling any type of employment dispute.”
The Solicitors Regulation Authority said that
“firms often told us that NDAs are included as standard without consideration of the purpose for including such a clause. For example, a firm commented they were used even ‘when not strictly necessary, where everyone knew the ongoing issue.’”
As a former practising lawyer who has handled thousands of those settlement agreements, I can confirm that NDAs are standard and the attitude of most employers, when challenged on the inclusion of them, is that they are a standard clause and the agreement is presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis—whether the NDA is necessary or not. The reason they continue is the imbalance in power in the employment relationship. The SRA found that only six of 25 solicitors it interviewed reported even questioning the need for a confidentiality clause. The fact that those drafting them give no particular weight to them is a trend. It is in direct contradiction to the advice given by ACAS, which says that they should only be used where necessary and not as a matter of course.
There are many workers bound by completely unnecessary NDAs at the moment, and when an important industry regulator, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority, suggests there is a wholesale misuse of a contractual term—one that, as we have heard, can have a profoundly negative impact on workers—there is a good argument to say that the Government need to intervene. It is a good example of where there needs to be more intervention. I echo the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, and ask the Minister what work will be done to understand the extent and misuse of these agreements.
It is easy to see why the agreements are so prevalent. The Employment Lawyers Association said clearly that employers are the driving force behind NDAs, as they enable settlement without admission of liability. The employers’ reasoning is simple: why settle publicly when they can wait for a tribunal that might get them off the hook or award a lower amount? That speaks to a wider, more problematic imbalance of power between employers and employees that is endemic in the labour market. In many ways, the proliferation in use of NDAs is both a symptom of, and a tool used to perpetuate, the imbalance of power in the workplace. The Solicitors Regulation Authority—which, let’s be honest, is not at the vanguard of left-wing workers’ rights—described the imbalance of power in the workplace as “fundamental”.
A witness before the Women and Equalities Committee —I think this evidence is very powerful—said:
“There is this very well-founded fear amongst women that, if they talk about having had problems at work, even if their problem is not of their own making, they will be labelled as a troublemaker and they will find difficulties getting new employment.”
Those comments, although made in the context of harassment, could equally apply to a trade union representative or, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) said, to a whistleblower or, indeed, to anyone who challenges poor practice in the workplace. That power imbalance affects everyone, across the board.
One of the most troubling findings in the Select Committee report was the culture that NDAs perpetuate in some workplaces. This means that dangerous cultures and management failures continue. In relation to the individual, NDAs starve alleged victims of any form of justice, either through internal processes or through tribunals. For the employees who remain, the alleged perpetrator can be left untouched, presenting a danger to the rest of the workforce.
The Committee concluded:
“We are particularly concerned that some employers are using NDAs to avoid investigating unlawful discrimination…and holding perpetrators to account.”
Let us not forget that employers have a duty of care to all their employees and should be looking to tackle these instances, whether or not the person involved is a “rainmaker”—that was another concerning part of the evidence. The Committee report referred to rainmakers being given a degree of latitude when it came to behavioural standards. Those individuals are worth more to the business, which continues to use NDAs to avoid holding them to account. That sends out a clear message that the safety of employees can be ignored if the accused is valuable enough to the company. One worker told the Committee:
“I was told the abuser was indispensable and I was not.”
I think we can all agree that that is completely unacceptable and should not be happening in any workplace in this country.
According to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, NDAs should not impede or deter someone from co-operating with a criminal investigation, reporting an offence to the police or reporting a breach to a regulator, or prevent proper disclosure about the agreement or circumstances surrounding it to professional advisers, including medical professionals and counsellors, or the making of a disclosure under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. However, although there were no cases of solicitors drafting these agreements to deliberately prevent that, the SRA’s recent investigation found
“a number of common trends or practices which inadvertently might contribute to this happening.”
This leaves signatories feeling uncertain as to whom they can speak to or what they are allowed to say. When combined with the threat of clawback or penalty clauses, many will, unsurprisingly, self-censor to prevent them from losing their settlement. It also brings with it a weight to be carried—a significant burden over the long term.
Clearly, questions must be asked of the response to this situation. What I and other hon. Members have described today is not a recent problem that has emerged from nowhere. The implications of the use of NDAs in the workplace have been known for some time, yet we have seen very little action taken. There was a flurry of interest and promises were made back in 2019, but more than four years later the only changes have been updated ACAS guidance and a warning notice sent out by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, both of which are non-binding and appear to have done little to mitigate the problems.
The Legal Services Board offered a damning indictment in a call for evidence earlier this year. It said that
“notwithstanding the usefulness of the standards and guidance summarised above, the evidence of continuing misuse of NDAs suggests that clearer and more effective expectations for the professional conduct of legal professionals may be required.”
This is rather galling given that the Government promised to
“crack down on misuse of non-disclosure agreements”
all those years ago. Legislation was supposed to be in place to compel employers to write the limitations of the confidentiality clause in plain English, extend legislation to ensure that individuals signing NDAs get independent legal advice, and introduce enforcement measures to deal with NDAs that are not compliant and make them void. The updated ACAS guidance has included these elements, but that is not the same as enforceable legislation. As the right hon. Member for Basingstoke said, if it is right for the higher education sector, it is right for everywhere else as well. I feel that this area has fallen victim to the Government’s inertia on employment rights. As the Minister will have heard today, there is a great deal of willingness to see that changed.
Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)
I would be grateful, Minister, if you could leave a little bit of time at the end for Dame Maria Miller to respond to the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this debate and for her long-standing and effective campaigning in the area of non-disclosure agreements—she will remember that I engaged with that as a Back Bencher—and the negative effect they can have when used inappropriately. I thank hon. Members across the House for their very valuable and passionate contributions.
These agreements, which are also known as confidentiality clauses, can be used in a variety of contexts and contracts—for example, to protect commercially sensitive information. However, I will restrict my comments to the area of concern, which, as Members have discussed, is NDAs used in settlement agreements in cases of discrimination or harassment.
The Government have already taken significant steps to prevent the use of NDAs in the higher education sector to protect students, who are in a particularly vulnerable position as they have moved away from family and support networks for the first time. In January 2022, we introduced a world-leading pledge, with the campaign group Can’t Buy My Silence, that commits higher education providers to voluntarily ending the use of NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct. As of 1 September, 84 providers, covering almost two thirds of students, have signed the pledge.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 goes further and bans the use of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and other forms of bullying and harassment in higher education. It is expected to take effect in 2024, and I recognise the important contributions made by Members here today—my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips)—throughout the passage of that Bill.
As a Minister in the Department for Business and Trade, I know that good employers will look to tackle bad behaviour head-on and improve their organisational culture and practice, rather than attempting to cover it up, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) clearly outlined. Organisations that do not treat such complaints in the way that he described are, in my experience, missing an opportunity.
Members of this House and organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence have brought to light examples of where NDAs have been drafted to intimidate employees from making disclosures to anyone, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon).
It is important to note that there are existing legal limits on the use of NDAs in the employment context. Some key ones were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson)—I thank her again for all the work she does on the all-party group on whistleblowing—and by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who talked about the seven NHS staff. An NDA cannot prevent a worker from blowing the whistle. That means that an NDA would be unenforceable if it stopped a worker from making a protected disclosure about wrongdoing, for example, to a lawyer or certain regulatory bodies or other prescribed persons for whistleblowing purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle pointed out that the current whistleblowing regime has limited scope—I think those were her words—and, as she knows, we are now undertaking a review, which will conclude by the end of this year. Indeed, officials involved in that review are in the Chamber today, so they will have heard her points clearly.
Peter Grant
We all understand that an NDA cannot prevent an employee or an ex-employee from making certain kinds of disclosures, but that is no good if the former employee does not know that. Does the Minister agree that we should change the law to require every NDA to say explicitly, on the face of the document, that it does not apply to particular kinds of disclosures, so that the former employee who has a copy of the agreement knows exactly what rights they still have?
Kevin Hollinrake
I will come on to some other points on that issue, including on the guidance that we have given to ACAS in that area.
NDAs cannot prevent workers from reporting a crime to the police or from co-operating in a criminal investigation, because such a clause would be unenforceable—[Interruption.] I may have misheard what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, but it is very important that anybody listening to this debate, who is considering what their rights are, knows very clearly that such an agreement cannot prevent them from reporting a crime in this area.
Furthermore, the use of an NDA by an employer could amount to a criminal offence—for example, if it is an attempt by the employer to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. Independent legal advice is a requirement for settlement agreements to be valid.
In 2019, the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consulted on the misuse of NDAs in an employment context. The consultation followed evidence found by the Women and Equalities Committee that individual workers may not be aware of their existing statutory rights and may be intimidated into pursuing claims even where the NDA is unenforceable—a point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke does very important work in that area.
The consultation also heard evidence that individuals are pressured into signing NDAs without the appropriate legal advice, and therefore do not understand that their NDA is unenforceable. That is why the Government took action in developing extensive guidance, which was published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS. It is clear that NDAs should not prevent individuals from making disclosures to the police and medical or legal professionals.
We have already legislated to prevent higher education providers using NDAs, as I said. We are keen to see how that works in practice, and it will come into force in 2024. The Government held a consultation on the matter in a wider context in 2019. We all agree that these agreements should not be used to intimidate individuals or conceal criminal conduct or illegal wrongdoing, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I point out to him that it is in the capability of the Northern Ireland Administration to implement that in Northern Ireland if they choose, with the matter being devolved to Northern Ireland.
Dame Maria Miller
The Minister wants to do the right thing. He wants to be a role model; he wants to be a good employer; he wants to set the tone. Will he meet me and Can’t Buy My Silence and consider signing its voluntary agreement to stop the use of NDAs? Surely the Government can lead the way on this.
Kevin Hollinrake
Of course I will meet my right hon. Friend, and I am very happy to meet the campaigning organisation as well. The consultation found some support for NDAs when they helped victims to make a clean break and move on—I think that point was also raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). We feel that an outright ban across all organisations may therefore not be appropriate and could have unintended consequences for employees.
The Government have listened carefully to the experiences shared through a consultation on sexual harassment. We are legislating through the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill, first introduced in the Commons by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), which will strengthen protections for employees against workplace sexual harassment by placing a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees.
Protecting and enhancing workers’ rights while supporting businesses to grow remains a priority for this Government. We are clear that the use of NDAs to intimidate victims of harassment and discrimination into silence cannot be tolerated. We are already taking action in the higher education sector; we have published extensive guidance and consulted on the use of NDAs in the workplace; and we are carefully considering how to tackle wrongful practices in a wider context.
Dame Maria Miller
To sum up briefly, I thank everybody who has taken the time to be here today, including the Minister; I know he has, importantly, strong feelings about this subject and he is a good advocate for us. The debate has shown that the misuse of NDAs is a matter not of party politics, but of fairness, justice and the rule of law. All political parties in this place subscribe to that, and I know that the Government will be listening to that carefully. I hope that we will hear more news on the subject—maybe in the King’s Speech, and in other legislative programmes the Minister brings forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the use of non-disclosure agreements in the workplace.
Mains Water Connections: Cost for Rural Communities
(1 year, 3 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
Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)
I will call Sir Simon Clarke to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as this is only a 30-minute debate.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cost of mains water connections for rural communities.
It is a real pleasure to have the chance to talk about this important issue in the House this afternoon, Ms Ali.
Water is life. That is a statement of fact as ancient as civilisation itself, but today I am here to talk about the lack of clean water affecting Aysdalegate, which is a row of cottages that forms part of my Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency. Aysdalegate sits about two miles from Guisborough, the main market town in East Cleveland, just along the A171 road over the moors to Whitby. It is somewhat isolated, but it is not so remote that the problems I am about to relate can reasonably be anticipated. I find it astonishing, living as we do in an age of unparalleled technological advances, that there remain corners of England where something as simple as access to safe running drinking water should even have to be the subject of debate, but here we are.
For the residents of Aysdalegate, their days are marred by an issue that most of us would have thought resolved in the previous century, if not the century before that: their homes are not linked to the mains water network. Instead, they grapple daily with inadequate water quality from a private water supply, and they are told that the cost of connection, a figure that will almost certainly amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds, will fall upon them, should they seek to remedy the situation. This is not some multimillion new build vanity project that we are talking about, or some millionaire seeking to pull a fast one by getting public funds for improvements to a remote sporting lodge or a holiday home. This is a small hamlet in which very normal people are trying to live everyday lives. Aysdalegate represents hard-working families, the elderly and, in some cases, the disabled and the vulnerable.
We should be clear about the conditions my constituents are living in. Over the last decade, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council has performed drinking water checks nine times at Aysdalegate. On each and every occasion, supplies have been judged unsatisfactory owing to bacterial contamination, including E. coli and enterococci. I am sure everybody is aware of the dangers posed by these organisms. E. coli, which is a bacteria that predominantly resides in the intestines of humans and animals, is a strong indication of recent faecal contamination. It can lead to severe gastrointestinal illness, kidney failure and, in severe cases, death.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He previously asked about this in Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. The Minister also replied on that occasion, when I was happy to ask a supplementary question—I understand the issue very well. Does he agree that it is not just the quality of the water, but the cost factor for those who just want to live in the countryside? Does he also agree that sometimes the connections are prohibitive? In the Minister’s response to his question, she seemed to indicate a willingness to assist. Does he feel that the Government perhaps have an important role to play in improving the water quality and in making a connection at a price that is feasible and acceptable?
Sir Simon Clarke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which precisely anticipates the line of inquiry I am going to pursue, which is how we improve the quality of the water and address the cost of so doing.
As I was saying, the issue with E. coli and enterococci is really very serious. Enterococci—to follow on from what I was saying about E. coli—is also associated with faecal contamination. Although it is generally less harmful than E. coli, its presence in water can be a precursor to the existence of other, very dangerous pathogens. Repeated exposure to water tainted with these bacteria places residents, as a matter of certain medical fact, at risk of long-term medical harm.
As a result, Redcar and Cleveland council has served a regulation 18 notice specifying that the water needs to be boiled before it can be drunk, which has been in place permanently since December 2017. If only boiling the water solved the problem. Alas, residents have reported to me their disgust at finding tadpoles and evidence of rodents and other animal life in their drinking water. Tadpoles and rodents in their drinking water—let us pause for a moment and think about what that means. A parent will hesitate, even after boiling the water, because they wonder whether it is safe for a child. An elderly resident will, in their lifetime, have witnessed this nation advance enormously yet will still wonder why they are waiting for safe drinking water.
I will read out a response to a survey from Redcar and Cleveland council, which was completed by one of my constituents and forwarded to me. She writes as follows:
“I approached the council and joint meetings were held. Year on year we have been served ‘boil notices’—but I am disgusted by this notice”
and the lack of action. She continues:
“Redcar and Cleveland…are totally aware of the plight me and others have expressed assistance for and at each turn we have been left to it. No-one here has the financial capacity to do anything more than we are currently doing. We are treated appallingly.”
Explaining that she has contacted me as her Member of Parliament, my constituent continues:
“As you know we are now in negotiations over”
the
“successful prompts for Northumbrian Water to finally consider us as a whole row to be mains connected. Though funding has yet to be sourced to cover this cost, none of”
our group
“are holding our breath as this could yet again give us a false hope. I have also recruited the help of our local parish…and spoken to local councillors. I attend parish meetings where our water supply is raised constantly. We know the farm opposite us received grants to have their own private well…so animals, rightly, can be looked after with clean drinking water/bathing water…but we’re considered less than animals.”
My constituent spends “£70 a month” for
“bottled water to drink and cook in”,
and says that there are animals and
“rodents in our water system frequently”.
She says that her
“bath water is always brown/cloudy”
and the system
“has to be visited by trudging over a busy road”,
hiking up a hill and “through woodland.” She is spending hundreds of pounds a month on filtering the water that comes into her home.
We need to do better than this. Private supplies do not have to be below standard. In fact, last year, only 3.8% of tests from private water supplies across the UK were positive for faecal contamination, but where they are dangerous, we need to have viable options for mains water connection. When I raised the issue at DEFRA questions, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, I was advised that
“it is right that the legislation allows a water company to charge for the cost of making a new connection, because otherwise it would impact on all customers’ bills.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2023; Vol. 735, c. 916.]
I simply do not see how that can be considered an acceptable response. According to the Government’s figures on our official development assistance, between 2020 and 2021, the UK spent £188 million to help provide clean water to disadvantaged people across the globe, and we should be very proud of that. However, our pride in our humanitarianism should be tempered when here at home we are telling a number of my constituents that, if they do not like boiling tadpole and rat-infested water, “That is just your problem and the bill’s on you”. DEFRA asserts that that is just how the system works. I am sorry, but the system clearly does not work, and it certainly does not work for the people of Aysdalegate.
Thankfully, it is not all bad news. Northumbrian Water’s process for exploratory work towards connecting communities to the mains network involves network assessments, evaluating existing infrastructure capacity and ensuring that new connections do not impact existing ones. All that obviously comes at a cost. I am glad to report that, after I had spoken to it, the company rose to the occasion by waiving its fees to quantify how to connect Aysdalegate to the water main and at what cost. That report is expected shortly, but informally, a cost of between £150,000 and £200,000 has been suggested to me. That is obviously a very large sum for a group of nine homes, many of which do not have significant household income.
I would have seen no route to resolution if it had not been for the exceptional action taken by Northumbrian Water, but we will shortly need a plan to deliver the requisite infrastructure. There can be only very few poor isolated communities such as these that fall into this category. I suspect that there are not many Aysdalegates in the UK in 2023. I believe DEFRA needs to consider a special fund to enable work of this nature to proceed in truly exceptional circumstances.
This seems to be a classic example of a case where the associated infrastructure cost needs to be socialised. Ultimately, doing that for a small number of homes would have a minimal impact on wider bill payers’ costs. Lest we forget, we live in a society where we talk proudly about having a universal service obligation for broadband; under the rural broadband scheme, we offer vouchers that, at points in recent years, have been worth up to £10,000 per household. How can we have less than that for clean drinking water?
I believe that my constituents’ experience proves the case for a comprehensive plan and, if necessary, a change to legislation, although I hope that the problem can be remedied by direct ministerial action. I ask the Minister to set out in her reply what the Government will do to ensure that the residents of Aysdalegate, and others like them across the country, can connect to the most basic of necessities and the most fundamental of resources: safe drinking water. Although they are few in number, their plight is very serious. We cannot apply to them a rule that feels better suited to isolated larger homes or farms, which are in a far better position to deal with the cost of connection than my constituents. They are effectively a marginalised and isolated handful of people who, through no fault of their own, live somewhere where even a reasonable quality of life is simply not possible. They cannot remedy their situation through their own means. I do not believe that the council has the funds to help them. I can see no recourse other than to the guarantor of last resort in our society: the Government. These people pay their taxes; they have a right to expect the Government to look after them.
We must accept in this House that for people to have to live without safe drinking water in 2023 is unconscionable. For people of normal means to be told they should foot an unaffordable bill, and for the Government to wash their hands of them now, would be unacceptable. I hope that this afternoon we can work out the genesis of a plan to ensure that when Northumbrian Water reports back with the cost of connection—as I said, it is likely to be a six-figure sum, but not a high six-figure sum—we can try to work out what recourse there can be to public funding to resolve this very dangerous and upsetting situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Ms Ali. I must begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) for bringing this matter before the House, and for championing those in his constituency, who he speaks about so clearly and with a great deal of compassion. I obviously realise on hearing his words—we have talked about this before—that there are some real challenges in this case. I welcome this opportunity to air the subject. I will talk generally about private water supplies, which will not surprise him, and then come on to his specific case about the cottages.
As my right hon. Friend will know, drinking water policy is devolved—we had a comment from Northern Ireland earlier—so these comments will apply only to England. Obviously, private water supplies generally originate from a range of local sources, whether they are boreholes, natural springs, brooks or becks. I grew up on a farm. We had our own private water supply for some parts of the farm, and for some cottages. Over the years, all that sort of changed according to how the situation was going. It is something that I have a bit of background knowledge on.
According to the Drinking Water Inspectorate, 1.7% of the population in England get their water from a private supply as of 2022. I am pleased to say that, overall, the compliance of private supplies with the drinking water standards has been steadily improving. According to the Drinking Water Inspectorate’s annual report summarising the data from all local authorities, the compliance rate was 96.4% in 2022, up from 91.4% in 2010. That is a pretty good record; it is improving.
Private water supplies, as my right hon. Friend will know, are regulated under the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2016. Local authorities are the regulators of private supplies and are responsible for identifying the risks to the quality of the water. They may serve a notice if they determine that the supply is, was, or is likely to be unwholesome or insufficient, and they must serve a notice if they consider there to be a potential risk to human health. My right hon. Friend mentioned that the water had been sampled a number of times by the local authority. He also mentioned what had been flagged as a result, and the advice given.
Local authorities can recover the costs incurred for the duties that they perform from those responsible for the supply—a point I will come back to. Although private water suppliers are found across most regions of England, the highest number are in rural areas. In my constituency and wider Somerset, it is not uncommon to have a private water supply. Often farmers supply their own water, but some of them supply other houses, although there can be other providers. In many cases, people can and want to remain on their private supply, and that is their right.
We recognise that in some cases property owners wish to connect to the mains water network. In such cases, water companies have a duty under the Water Industry Act to make supplies available where it is feasible to do so. They obviously check capacity and so forth. The water company that has distribution mains closest to the property would then check that there is capacity in the network and so forth. However, water companies do not need to provide a mains connection free of charge. We understand that the costs of connection can be high, but it is right that the legislation should allow a water company to charge to make a new connection. Otherwise, the cost of such connections would need to be absorbed by all the existing customers, who do not benefit from new people connecting, and there would be a knock-on impact on people’s bills. I think people understand the point about whether others should carry the can for the cost of someone joining.
When it comes to connections to the mains, the role of Government, via the economic regulator Ofwat, is to ensure that water companies act responsibly and transparently in the services they provide and the fees they charge. That is why Ofwat requires water companies to set charges that reflect the cost of undertaking the work. That has to be clear and transparent. Ofwat also requires them to publish up front the charges for most of the new mains and connection services they provide, and to provide worked examples, so that customers can understand how the charges are calculated. On top of that, there is an element of competition in the market, which might help to reduce connection costs. Customers have the option of contracting with third-party providers, known as self-lay providers, who compete for the work against the water companies.
There are also avenues for recourse when people on private supplies are not happy with the costs quoted by the water companies. They can complain to the water company in the first instance. If that does not resolve the concern, they can ask the Consumer Council for Water to look at the case. Although the Consumer Council for Water has no formal responsibility to review charges for connection, it will challenge companies to provide clarity and review their charges where it considers that appropriate. That might be another avenue to explore further. Ofwat is responsible for enforcement if a water company is not complying with the expected charges, and can issue directions if companies do not comply with Ofwat’s charging rules. Constituents therefore also have the option of contacting Ofwat with their concerns.
On Aysdalegate cottages, the example being talked about today, officials from DEFRA and the Drinking Water Inspectorate were in contact recently with the local authority, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council, to discuss the case. I understand there are nine households supplied by a beck located on third-party land—the third party is a local livestock farmer. I understand that the local authority has in the past proposed a number of options as part of its risk assessment, including: improving the existing supply; exploring a new water source, such as a borehole; and mains connection.
I was pleased to hear that the water company has stepped up to say that it will pay for the cost of exploring the options, and it should be thanked for that, because it is not an insignificant amount of money that it has committed to, so I am pleased about that. Installation of high-quality filtration and UV treatment equipment at the point of use in each household is likely to significantly improve the quality of the supply. The Drinking Water Inspectorate provides guidance on UV treatment on its website and recommends that any UV system used for this purpose be tested by an accredited laboratory. The inspectorate was at pains to explain to me that it is really important that the right kit be used if that road is taken, because some kit would not be as good.
I understand from my officials’ discussions with the local authority that, to date, not all residents at these properties have wanted to connect to the mains. Ultimately, the householders will need to reach a consensus on what joint action they want to take to improve their water supply.
Sir Simon Clarke
I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. From my conversations with the residents, I think that they have in some cases indicated a lack of willingness to connect precisely because the costs are anticipated to be beyond their means. This goes to the fundamental point that I was driving at: there is a mechanism, but it is effectively out of reach for, in this case, a very deprived group of people.
Rebecca Pow
I hear what my right hon. Friend says and thank him for clarifying. I obviously sympathise with the challenges faced by people on private supplies.
My right hon. Friend might be interested to hear that the Drinking Water Inspectorate has recently commissioned a research project to review the impact of the current private supplies regulatory framework on public health. To be honest, the inspectorate considers that some areas may need to be looked at forensically, and it will return with its results early in 2024—not too long away. As with all legislation, the Government will keep the regulatory framework for private water supplies under review, but we look forward to hearing what the inspectorate comes back with, because it may well have some synergy with some of my right hon. Friend’s points. As for individual cases, the Drinking Water Inspectorate can provide technical advice to local authorities, and that facility should be made full use of. My office would be happy to provide all the details and contacts if my right hon. Friend does not have them.
I cannot give my right hon. Friend exactly what he has asked for, but he has raised an important issue. I think the review will be helpful in directing us, so we look forward to its outcome. I thank him again for bringing the matter to the attention of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
British Nationals Detained Overseas
(1 year, 3 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
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered British nationals detained overseas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Ali. The first duty of the British Government is to protect their citizens at home and abroad. Being arrested or detained abroad can be a difficult and traumatic experience. Often the detained are unable to see their friends and family, sometimes for years. I am sure that we were all moved by the scenes of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe being reunited with her husband Richard and their daughter Gabriella.
Iran has shown itself to be a serial offender of detaining British passport holders. Morad Tahbaz, a British-American citizen, is still detained there. It has now been over five years. It was only last month that Tahbaz was taken out of Evin prison, the infamous home to many political prisoners of the autocratic regime, and placed under house arrest. Yet this occurred only after America agreed to a prisoner exchange and to allow the Iranian regime to access almost £5 billion of frozen assets in South Korea. In other words, the Iranian regime was using foreign prisoners for ransom. The situation with Nazanin was the same: she was released only after the Government paid £400 million to Tehran.
Mehran Raoof is another dual British-Iranian national who has been detained. At 66, he was detained in Evin prison for supporting and campaigning for workers’ rights. In his own letter, Mr Raoof says the Iranian regime is treating dual nationals as “a valuable commodity”, and the evidence backs him up.
The UK Government must look at the actions of Iran and label them for what they are: state hostage taking. Quite frankly, it is working. The Iranian regime is getting vast sums of money to release foreign or dual nationals whom they have arrested on trumped-up charges. The Foreign Office needs to take a much stronger stance within our role in the UN to call out state hostage taking.
Iran is not the only country guilty of unjustly detaining British citizens. Jimmy Lai, a British national and long-time critic of the Chinese Communist party, was arrested in Hong Kong over three years ago.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady for securing the debate and highlighting these important issues and individual cases of concern. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on media freedom, I share her specific concern about the case of Jimmy Lai. Does she agree that Mr Lai’s case is not only one of appalling consequences for him personally, having served nearly 1,000 days in prison, but emblematic of the Hong Kong Government’s crusade against free media and freedom of speech?
Ms Rimmer
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Mr Lai is accused of violating the new national security law in Hong Kong. Leaving aside our Government’s failure to properly hold China to account for reneging on the Sino-British joint declaration, there is still a duty to protect British nationals. Mr Lai awaits trial this month, yet the Chinese Communist authorities are trying to block his attempt to hire a British defence lawyer.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend raises an important point about people’s access to justice and consular services when detained illegitimately or even legitimately. Other countries require a minimum level of support from their Foreign Offices and consular services, including the provision of approved lawyers. That would mean lawyers approved in other countries but certified by Britain. Is that something that we should consider doing in order to ensure that our consular services are protecting our nationals wherever they are?
Ms Rimmer
I agree with my hon. Friend; of course we should be doing that. It is about justice, not rigged justice.
The use of foreign lawyers by both prosecution and defence is a long-established tradition in Hong Kong. Only last month, the Foreign Secretary met the Chinese Vice-President, Mr Han, known as the architect of China’s crackdown in Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary raised the case of Mr Lai, but did not go far enough. It is British values that are on trial: the values of freedom and democracy, which we signed a treaty to uphold. The Prime Minister should raise this with the Chinese regime at the highest possible level.
Cases of British citizens being detained abroad are not limited to the middle east and Asia. In 2021, Mr Nnamdi Kanu, a British citizen, was abducted by Nigerian security forces in Nairobi, Kenya. Since his detention, he has been subjected to torture and many other unpleasantries. A United Nations Human Rights Council report released a damning assessment of the Nigerian Government’s treatment and called for his immediate release.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has worked tirelessly on behalf of Mr Kanu and is urging the Foreign Secretary to do more to secure his release. Nigeria is a Commonwealth nation that receives tens of millions in UK aid; it is one of the biggest beneficiaries. As part of that aid support, there must be a commitment to human rights and upholding the right to a fair trial. Mr Kanu must be given access to a fair and due process. A British citizen travelling on a British passport should not be kidnapped in a third country and dragged to a Nigerian prison. The Government need to get much tougher.
Another case I will raise is that of Alaa Abd-El Fattah, a British-Egyptian activist who was detained in Egypt. Once again, he has been detained and denied fair and due process. He even took to hunger strike in prison to protest against his treatment. The Egyptian authorities also denied his British citizenship and refused British consular support. Our Government need to insist that Mr Abd-El Fattah gets that assistance.
Only this week, the Foreign Office was told by the parliamentary ombudsman to make a formal apology to Matthew Hedges, who was accused of spying and tortured in the United Arab Emirates. The Foreign Office failed to do its duty to Mr Hedges, a British citizen being tortured by a country we consider one of our closest allies in the region. The chief executive of the ombudsman’s office, Rebecca Hilsenrath, described Mr Hedges’ experience as a “nightmare” that was
“made even worse by being failed by the British Government.”
Quite frankly, that is not good enough, and it calls into question whether the current guidelines need reviewing.
The cases that I have raised are examples. There are many others that I could have gone into, and I am sure that other colleagues present may well do so. I appreciate that these cases are often complex and no country is the same when it comes to Foreign Office engagement. However, there is much more we can do, especially with countries that we financially support. We can also work with our allies to take a much tougher stance on state hostage taking in countries such as Iran.
Many British citizens detained abroad do not even get the necessary consular assistance. That is why Labour is looking to introduce a legal right to consular assistance, which I am sure that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), will go into in further detail. Consular support to British citizens must be a given. After all, it is the first duty of Government to look after their citizens.
Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)
I remind all hon. Members who wish to speak to bob. I call Daniel Kawczynski.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Ali, for calling me to speak in this debate. I very much agree with the comments of the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) about the importance of how a country supports its citizens overseas when they are in distress, in particular in prisons. I congratulate her on securing this important debate.
I will speak briefly on behalf of my constituent, Saiful Chowdhury, who is a leading member of the Muslim community in Shrewsbury and does a great deal to support our mosque. He contacted me because of his two cousins, Murad Rahman Khan and Yadur Rahman Khan. They were at the airport in Dubai in February 2023, trying to secure a wheelchair for their elderly mother. They were travelling as a family, with their elderly mother and their children, on holiday in Dubai. They tried to secure a wheelchair because their mother had difficulties walking, but the staff were unhelpful, rude and confrontational.
Unfortunately, that led to a verbal confrontation between the two British citizens and the airport staff, resulting in them being convicted to a six-month jail sentence. They are appealing, but their passports have been stamped to prevent them from leaving the United Arab Emirates. They are in a hotel at their own expense. They have spent thousands and thousands pounds already on accommodation since February, while they wait for their court process to be concluded.
The Minister is a very good and responsive Minister, and I would like him to take a particular interest in this case. The reason why I feel compelled to raise it is that some of the allegations put forward include no CCTV evidence being presented to the court. The defendants are keen for that to be shown to demonstrate that the altercation was purely verbal, rather than physical in any way, and yet the authorities refuse to allow CCTV evidence from the airport. That is the allegation. Another concern relates to the repeated refusal of the Emirati authorities to facilitate ongoing and effective dialogue and communication with the defendants, our British embassy officials and indeed their lawyers. My concern is also about the length of time taken to date.
The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston mentioned the United Arab Emirates as one of our closest partners in the middle east. I would go further: it is the closest British ally in the middle east. We have extensive commercial and political links with the Emiratis. I am extremely concerned to hear about this case, and I will give the Minister the details, via his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). I will be extremely grateful if the Minister could look into it. I will also send a link to the debate to our British ambassador in the United Arab Emirates. I will be grateful to the Minister for any support that he can give to Mr Saiful Chowdhury, my constituent, who was clearly extremely concerned as to the welfare of his cousins and about the impact not just on them, but on their elderly relatives and children, who have come back to the United Kingdom and are separated from their loved ones.
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Ali. I had not expected to be called so quickly.
I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this debate, not least because I think all the members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs have been making arguments about some of the issues for some considerable time.
In particular, there was the situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The former Prime Minister managed to make things more difficult when, as Foreign Secretary, he suggested to the Foreign Affairs Committee that she was engaged in other activities. That possibly led to her being kept in an Iranian jail for much longer than was necessary. In addition, as the current Chancellor admitted when he was Foreign Secretary, sometimes we have not devoted enough energy to making sure that British citizens get a fair trial and are treated properly in prison, or that, if possible, their sentence can be served in the UK.
I will very briefly explain one of the things that I did when I was a Foreign Office Minister for five minutes. There was a British woman who was arrested in Laos. I will not name her, but she was pregnant, and she was arrested for an offence that would have been an offence in the United Kingdom. Laos is a very closed country, politically—a communist country and very difficult. At the time, we did not have an embassy in Laos and we were being helped by the Australians. I said, “Well, I’m sorry, but she’s pregnant; I don’t want a British child to be born in a Laos prison, in filthy conditions, and likely to have a miserable life, if a life of any kind at all. I want that child to be born in a British prison.” All the officials said, “No, that is nonsense, Minister. It is nothing to do with you. It will simply make life difficult.” But I went and I had a difficult but good, thorough meeting with my counterpart in Vientiane. We had a wonderful lunch afterwards, and it thawed the relationship. I said, “I’m going to ring you every Monday morning.” That is what I did, and after three months we got her out and she came back to a British prison. She has no idea; I am absolutely sure of that.
Ministers may be doing that all the time and we do not know about it—I have never told that story before—but I gently say to them that that is kind of what a Minister is for. There will be times when officials will go, “Oh, Minister, that is very brave, very courageous,” but I think there are times when Ministers need to do exactly that.
Another case that is very prominent for me is that of Jagtar Singh Johal, who is still in prison in India. As I understand it, our Prime Minister is going to visit India soon. I do not know why the Prime Minister is not saying clearly and categorically that he should be released. Every single independent assessment that has been done shows that this man is innocent of the crimes that he has been fitted up for, but, as I understand it, the Foreign Secretary has actually written to the families concerned to say that he will not raise this matter because it
“could impact the co-operation we depend on from the relevant authorities to conduct consular visits, resolve welfare cases and attend court proceedings”
I think that is to presume that the Indian Government will react negatively, but I think that every single time we do that, particularly with Governments who have a tendency towards autocracy—not so much perhaps in India but certainly in other countries—all we end up doing is inviting them to adopt a yet more hard-line attitude.
That takes me to the situation in China. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston is absolutely right about the situation facing Jimmy Lai. I understand that the British Government regular position is, “Well, we don’t want to push too far”. I am sorry, but I do not understand why a British Foreign Secretary would not say before going to China that some of the people in this Chamber should not be on a sanctions list. That is incomprehensible, because it is as if we are saying, “I’m sorry; our democracy doesn’t really matter. We don’t really mind what you’re doing.”
Daniel Kawczynski
I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Three Sundays ago, we joined the fastest-growing, biggest trading bloc in the world—the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership in the far east. Does he agree that we ought to use our position in the CPTPP to restrict Chinese entry to the bloc as long as it continues to behave in this manner?
Sir Chris Bryant
Yes, and not only because of the sanctioning of the right hon. and hon. Members present but because of the complete reneging on our agreement with China on Hong Kong. When I talk to Hongkongers who have left Hong Kong, who now nearly all leave with nothing, leaving everything behind them, they talk of genuine fear for their family back at home, if they have stayed.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Carmichael
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will get there eventually. I fear that the reasons for the non-intervention and non-comment in respect of Jimmy Lai’s case are explicable—they are not worthy but they are explicable—but this is a moment that really matters for Jimmy Lai, because he now has a trial date set for December, and an intervention at this critical stage in the criminal proceedings against him could make a material difference to the outcome. Does that in itself not merit a more robust intervention from our Foreign Secretary?
Sir Chris Bryant
I think it does, and I was going to make that point myself. This is a very opportune point at which to make an intervention.
I have another, broader point to make, which is that when people around the world are asked to name the UK’s unique special achievement in foreign affairs, most say it is the rule of law. It is the fact that our word is our bond. It is the fact that a case can be prosecuted properly in a legal court in our country, and that we stand for democracy, the freedom of the individual and equality under the law. That has to be just as much part of our foreign policy as our mercantilist desire to do better trade with other parts of the world. My experience of working on issues in Russia and countries in central Asia is that if we do not tie the two together, we make a terrible mistake, because British businesses simply cannot flourish because they have to pay bribes and deal with an autocratic regime.
To conclude, I very much hope that the UK Government will adopt a more robust, more coherent and more determined approach in their relationship with a series of different countries: China, Russia and India.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Ms Ali. Others wish to speak so I will try to keep my comments brief.
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this vital debate. We should hold such debates regularly because there is so much to be done in this policy area. British citizens carry British passports, and those British passports have a clear statement at the front that none should let or hinder those who hold that passport, yet too often we find ourselves apologising and running around that major statement at the front of the passport.
I want to focus carefully on the case of Jimmy Lai. I had the privilege of meeting the international team of lawyers who are attempting to defend him, even though they have now, appallingly, been barred from Hong Kong by the Chinese authorities, such is their approval. Nevertheless, I congratulate his team on the huge efforts they are making around the world to draw attention to the plight of a man whose only crime is to cry freedom for all those he lives with.
The point about Jimmy Lai’s case is the reality of the change in Hong Kong. The Chinese authorities have trashed the Sino-British agreement that protected people’s rights in Hong Kong as a special case, once it was all agreed. That agreement is an international treaty. The problem we have is that the authorities can now proceed against people such as Mr Lai for sedition and other appalling charges. He has already been forced to lose his company, and the assets of Apple Daily have been seized. It is unprecedented and could not happen here in the United Kingdom.
Here is the point: Hong Kong is still meant to be a common-law area, but it cannot be a common-law area if people can have their assets seized on charges that have not yet gone through the courts. It is a peculiarity that we go on pretending, as do some of our justices who serve out there. It is no longer really a common-law jurisdiction because it has the national security law over it. People such as Jimmy Lai will now suffer under the national security law without any redress or protection, as would normally be the case here in the United Kingdom, for example, where English common law protects our normal and natural rights. Those rights have been completely decimated in Hong Kong.
The interesting part is that Jimmy Lai has been prosecuted in four separate sets of criminal proceedings arising from his peaceful participation in the high-profile pro-democracy protests in 2019 and 2020, which were organised by civil liberties groups. His crime, therefore, is to have attended the protests; that alone, apparently, is the key. The thing is that he has already been prosecuted and found guilty. One of the charges against him was eventually dismissed on appeal—others were upheld—but he had already served his sentence when that happened. He now faces even more serious charges. He has faced spurious prosecution on charges of fraud, which is why his equipment was seized. He was convicted in October 2022, and in December 2022 he was sentenced to five years and nine months’ imprisonment.
The conviction has meant that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) said, Jimmy Lai has spent some 1,000 days incarcerated on trumped-up charges. But worse is to come. Those charges were all precursors, giving the authorities time to build a case that, under the national security law, will put him inside for a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life.
The point that I want to make about Jimmy Lai, which is very important, is that he could have fled Hong Kong. He had made enough money to leave Hong Kong and go elsewhere, and complain about the Hong Kong authorities and the Chinese authorities from outside. But he did not. He chose to stay in Hong Kong, because he knew that if he fled then a lot of the hope about what they might eventually be able to achieve would also go. He is a beacon of freedom, and freedom of speech, in a way that no other that I know of globally is at present. I do not decry others; I simply say that he is remarkable.
Jimmy Lai’s choice to stay put in Hong Kong came with the full knowledge that he would not enjoy freedom for long. That has been realised, with these trumped-up charges, and now he faces a full prosecution—it has been delayed, but is likely to happen towards the end of this year, maybe in October—under the national security law.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend, I and indeed you, Ms Ali, attended a conference in Prague over the weekend that was full of parliamentarians from around the world, many of whom, including my right hon. Friend and I, have been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. The whole subject of Jimmy Lai was very much the focus of that conference.
However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of Jimmy Lai is not just about Jimmy Lai himself but about what this country stands for? In the case of Jimmy Lai, the Chinese Communist party has enacted two criminal acts, one of which is breaking the Anglo-Sino agreement over Hong Kong, an international treaty to which we are a signatory. As a result of its trashing of that treaty, all the protections under the rule of law that might have applied have been swept away. That is why Jimmy Lai, one of the most successful businessmen and whose company was the largest quoted on the Hong Kong stock exchange, is now facing this prosecution.
Jimmy Lai is a British citizen—there is no doubt about that—and therefore he is entitled to the full force of the British Government’s protection. Why has that not been shown and why have there been no consequences, despite the warm words from the Foreign Secretary and others, for the fact that my right hon. Friend and I, along with five other parliamentarians, remain sanctioned and Jimmy Lai continues to be denied the basic justice that we take for granted in this country?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am very grateful that my hon. Friend intervened, because I agree, of course, with everything he said. He and I are sanctioned; in our case, it is for raising the genocide in Xinjiang, which is another case altogether.
I agree with my hon. Friend about Jimmy Lai. I will come back to Jimmy Lai, but I want first to say something more widely about the many British citizens who languish abroad. I am afraid that we too often find reasons and excuses to believe that behind the scenes we can somehow do something that will help them without raising the fact that they are British citizens and therefore, under international law, they require full consular access and rights. I simply say that that is a mindset that we need to get out of. We need to say: “If you are a British passport holder—and, most importantly, a British citizen—then you have the protection of this United Kingdom, which is supposed to believe in human rights and freedom.”
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
It is difficult to disagree with anything the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree with me that a legal right to consular assistance would be one step in the right direction to help to protect our citizens when they get into trouble abroad?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Well, I would not be against it, but if the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not go into that now. I am sure she can make her case on that, and I shall be happy to discuss it with her later.
I want to use this opportunity to return to a human being who is now likely—as he must believe, given the way the Chinese authorities are working—never to see the light of day again. He will never see his son or his family ever again, because he took the brave choice: to stay. He did not run away. All those people who have left, quite legitimately, have had their bank accounts frozen and their pension funds frozen illegally—it goes on. But Jimmy Lai stands like a beacon in the middle of this to say, “No. No further. We will not put up with this. Freedom is our right. It is not something that we get given; it is our right, and I am standing up for it.”
Here is what I want to raise with my hon. Friend the Minister, who is going to defend the Government’s position, and I use my words carefully. I noticed that the Foreign Secretary has used this phrase—we had this debate recently, and we did not reach an agreement, so I am going probe that lack of agreement further. He said in connection with his conversations with the Chinese Government that they
“deliberately target prominent pro-democracy figures, journalists and politicians in an effort to silence and discredit them.”
So far, so good. He continued:
“Detained British dual national Jimmy Lai is one such figure. I raised his case”.
Can I just pause there? Jimmy Lai is not a dual national. He has never had a Chinese passport. He has only had a British passport. He is a British citizen, under British law and British protection, and he has appealed for that protection. His own defence counsels have reiterated their inability to mount a proper defence because they cannot get access to him, and now they have been barred from ever seeing him because they were too much trouble and were causing problems.
I say this again: every time we say that Jimmy Lai is a dual national, it plays into the hands of the Chinese authorities, for they know that they can claim rights over his position as a dual national that they do not possess. He languishes as a result, because they do not recognise other nationalities, so they do not allow consular rights of access. Here is a big problem for us. I again call on my Government: please, just get to your feet today, if you might, and say that we believe that Jimmy Lai is a British citizen and a British passport holder, full stop. We do not need to debate it, we just need to agree it. I therefore claim that that is the problem. The UN has made recognitions. The United States has recognised Jimmy Lai as a British citizen. The European Union has recognised him as a British citizen. The only country that I am aware of that does not recognise him as an out-and-out British citizen is—why, that would be the United Kingdom. For some reason, we have reticence.
When the Chinese Government trashed the Sino-British agreement, the Americans sanctioned 12 of the most senior people responsible—and the same with Xinjiang, by the way, when they sanctioned something like that many as well. We have sanctioned nobody in Hong Kong since the start of this saga. Why are we not sanctioning them? Why are we so worried about what they might say or do? If it is to get their help in stopping the Russians in the war, then they are busily supplying them with weapons, parts and all sorts of stuff at the moment. When it comes to net zero, there is nothing zero about their net. It is off the charts, and we are the ones who will pick up the pieces.
To end, I simply say this to my hon. Friend the Minister: please, please, please defend a British citizen. Proclaim it from the rooftops that the British Government stand for freedom and human rights, that when a British passport holder and British citizen is incarcerated, we will move heaven and earth and demand that that individual receives our full support, and that there is no way on earth that the normal access to justice will be blocked, for freedom must prevail.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate, and it is always good to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) when we probably fundamentally agree completely on something.
This is not the first time that I have risen to my feet in Westminster Hall to speak on this very subject, and many here today will have heard me speak about it before, so I will do my best to say something new about the subject. There are many parts of the job that we are elected to do that our constituents expect us to do. Making speeches is one of them, as is helping constituents with the issues we all come up against as we deal with the authorities that be. There are, of course, others we do not expect to be involved in. I can say now, after eight years in this place, that dealing with constituents who are themselves in some sort of distress, or getting in contact on behalf of their family members who are, is certainly one of those things that we cannot prepare ourselves for before being elected.
Whether it is the distance, the unfamiliarity with the language and the culture, or just an enhanced feeling of helplessness, there is always a heightened feeling around such cases. I am afraid to say that the added extra in such cases always tends to be the disconnect, which is fairly unique in these instances, between what the UK citizen and their family expect and what services are actually available to them, as I think was alluded to by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. In this debate today, we are talking about UK nationals imprisoned overseas, but much of what I will say will also applies to many of those who come into contact with consular services.
Let us remind ourselves of the words that form part of our passports—recently updated, of course—to which, again, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green alluded:
“His Britannic Majesty’s Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of His Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”
I would say that, for example, prisoners—those accused or convicted of wrongdoing—are the very definition of vulnerable people at the mercy of the state and how it administers justice. Regardless of their culpability within any jurisdiction, the very least the UK Government can ask of countries in which their citizens are imprisoned is that they are treated consistently and fairly.
Indeed, when I have previously spoken about the case of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, who was alluded to by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), I have used three phrases: transparency, due process, and the rule of law. Those are three things that I would hope any Indian national imprisoned here in the UK could rely on and should be the very least we expect in Jagtar’s case.
The case of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal is a considerable matter of public record, and I have spoken in debates here and on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions since Jagtar’s initial detention in November 2018—coming up for six years ago. The circumstances of Jagtar’s arrest—being snatched off the street by unidentified men, held incommunicado, and then signing a confession, which, it later emerged, was extracted through torture—meant that the case got attention. His family, though understandably frantic, managed to have the presence of mind to bring together many of the elements within the Scottish, UK and global Sikh diaspora that eventually became the “Free Jaggi Now” campaign, which has fought tirelessly on his behalf.
Jagtar’s family also very quickly got in touch with their MP. I raised his case immediately in a point of order, and then at Foreign Office questions, when the then Minister stated at the Dispatch Box that the UK Government
“take extreme action if a British citizen is being tortured.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 858.]
I and the family were surprised to hear those words at the time, and they seem increasingly like a cruel joke for Jagtar and those close to him. On one level, we were fortunate that there was the initial publicity in the case and that the Minister’s words at least made the case something of a priority. Not every UK citizen—full UK national—detained will be able to say the same. As time has gone on and I have heard more about the plight of those in similar positions, as has been spoken about today, the more I have seen the gap between the expectations of families and what the FCDO can deliver.
I should say something about the consular prisons team before I take their superiors to task. Along with the staff at post in Delhi, who have made great efforts to visit Jagtar—bringing news from home and taking notes from his family to him—the team in King Charles Street have really done its utmost to keep up very good communications with the family, even with the political aspects of the case being uncertain or, indeed, negative. The professionalism that they have shown has been greatly appreciated by me and the family, and their ability to go above and beyond, putting in long hours in the offices at the top corner of KCS, never quite knowing when another crisis may strike, is to be commended. So why do they remain so deprived of the resources to do a job that is very much the bare minimum that UK citizens should expect from their Government?
Whenever I sit in on these debates, I hear the same list of grievances. I hear kind words from the Front Bench, but we continue to see the de-prioritisation of consular budgets. I reference at this point the excellent report published by the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance, led by my very good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). It is an APPG set up in the wake of a similar realisation to the one that I have described with my constituent.
The report is a testament to the work that the APPG did in giving those families a voice. It is full of excellent recommendations to ensure that the importance of consular services is recognised and informed by the lived experience of those families, in an attempt to ensure that their trauma in such situations is recognised. Consular services should have a much clearer identity within the FCDO, and the obligations it has towards UK citizens should be stated in a much clearer manner. One thing that I also hope that approach would achieve is helping families navigate what can be quite an intimidating bureaucracy.
Despite the initial statements about an extreme reaction, we now appear to be getting ready to announce the UK-India free trade agreement—quite a statement of priorities from a succession of Governments. I know that I need to come to a conclusion.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I could talk for three hours about this subject, which is very close to my heart and my constituents. I will sum up by referring to those words on the passport—and I hope the Minister takes note. This Government, and the one that is about to replace it, need to do much more to ensure that holders of that document receive
“such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”
That means funding consular services properly. To lead is to choose, and, frankly, they have chosen badly.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a delight to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on her excellent introductory speech.
For any British national, the idea of being wrongfully detained abroad or denied true legal processes is bone chilling. Kept away from friends and family, dealing with foreign laws and customs, in some cases subject to arbitrary processes, and with an uncertain outcome, it is a situation none of us would want for any of our loved ones. We saw how hard my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) worked, along with the family, on freeing Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. There are many of us who are also doing similar work in our constituencies. I had the case of Aras Amiri, who was in the same prison as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
When someone is detained abroad, many people have the expectation that an official from the British high commission or embassy will provide advice and support until they are returned to the UK. It is a great credit to our hard-working officials that they put in the hours abroad, attending many visits to prisons and providing that important link back with home. I know that all Members will pay tribute to the important consular work that goes on day in, day out.
Sadly, however, that is not the case in every situation. We know from the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who has talked about Jagtar Singh Johal, the opportunity that the UK has right now to be talking publicly about that case. We know from the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee—which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) has sat on for quite some time, and that published a report about the shortcomings of the current offer for people who are in trouble abroad—that too often the Government’s efforts to secure the release of British nationals unjustly obtained abroad have been, according to the families, arbitrary, haphazard, uncoordinated, and lacking resource and transparency.
This week, we have seen a formal apology from the FCDO for its appalling handling of the case of Matthew Hedges. These ongoing individual cases have been raised many times by their respective constituency MPs. I wonder whether the Minister will outline what learning he has made as a result of the apology issued just this week.
We must remember that there are many others who do not share the same profile as Jagtar Singh Johal, Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe or others, but there is still no legal obligation for the UK Government to provide consular assistance to a British citizen, even in cases involving allegations of torture or arbitrary detention, leaving it entirely at the discretion of the Foreign Office and Ministers. That stands in contrast with a number of other countries that recognise there is a specific right to consular assistance. We have looked at examples from German consular outposts and Estonia; even smaller countries, in some cases, are doing a better job. Whether the case is high profile or not, British nationals deserve the support of the British Government, and I am proud that Labour’s commitment to legislate for a legal right to consular assistance for British nationals in trouble abroad, should we form the next Government, will be a keystone of our foreign policy. Until then, Ministers must do more to reassure British nationals that they will be supported.
Many Members in the debate have highlighted the cases that have been put on record in a number of cases. We share the concerns about Jimmy Lai. We have had meetings with the council and we have met Sebastian Lai; he is desperate about the situation of his father, who was wrongly imprisoned for freedom of the press. We also know that, with the G20 coming up in India, this is a great opportunity for the UK to highlight the case of Jagtar Singh Johal. We understand that Morad Tahbaz has been released into house arrest. Can the Minister give the House an update on that? I know that Mr Tahbaz is also a US citizen and the State Department has led negotiations, but can the Minister update us on the UK’s role and whether we can expect that he will be allowed to leave Iran soon?
Finally, for two years Egypt has continued to deny Alaa Abd El-Fattah his basic right to consular access as a British citizen and paid no diplomatic price for doing so; the Prime Minister raised this in person with President Sisi 10 months ago. Do the Government have any concrete plans or an update for the House to secure access beyond raising it in meetings? Have the Government considered amending their travel advice to warn British nationals about their inability to guarantee the provision of consular support to them in the event that they themselves are detained, particularly if they are dual nationals? I conclude my remarks here and note the cross-party consensus and commitment in the Chamber to seeing a better deal for Britons detained abroad.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
It is a great pleasure to be here today, Ms Ali. I am here in the place of the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan). She has responsibility for consular policy, but she is travelling; I am very pleased to be here in her place. I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing the debate and for the passionate contributions of other colleagues across the Chamber.
I will set out some general principles of our consular and detention policy before covering some of the specific questions asked about individual cases. Consular assistance to British nationals abroad remains at the heart of our work at the FCDO. Our trained staff are contactable 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and they offer empathetic and professional support tailored to each individual case. They have a huge case load—some 20,000 to 30,000 cases annually—and we continue to review and improve the service that they offer; we always welcome feedback on how it can be improved.
Consular staff help about 3,000 British nationals who have been arrested or detained abroad each year, and their welfare and human rights are our top priorities. Consular officials are contactable 24/7, including if a British national is detained, and our support can include seeking consular access and providing relevant information to detainees. We can also raise specific consular cases with foreign authorities and support the families of those detained. Of course, this is considered on a case-by-case basis. I should like to be very clear that we thank our consular staff for the tremendous work that they continue to do.
As a general principle, we are guided by international law and the Vienna convention on consular relations. Our ability to offer support in a particular country is of course constrained by the laws and practice of that country. In detention cases, the detaining authority has jurisdiction and control over detained British nationals, and the British Government may not interfere in the foreign legal process. But we can and do intervene when British nationals are not treated in line with international standards or where there are unreasonable delays in proceedings. Of course, there are a number of areas where, sadly, consular staff cannot help. We cannot offer or pay for legal services, pay outstanding fines or ask for British citizens to receive preferential treatment on the basis of their nationality.
We do provide tailored support to detainees who raise allegations of torture or mistreatment—something that we take incredibly seriously. Although we cannot investigate such allegations ourselves, we will, with the detainee’s permission, raise our concerns with the local authorities and request an investigation. Last year, the FCDO received 133 new allegations of torture or mistreatment from British nationals overseas. Each year, we conduct a review of all such cases to identify trends and develop strategies to engage with relevant countries.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Can the Minister confirm that that includes the accusation of torture in relation to my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, who is in the Indian Republic?
Leo Docherty
Yes, indeed—we consider all these cases. If I may, I will come on to that case, because the hon. Gentleman has been a champion of it. Let me assure him—I am sure he knows this—the Government have raised concerns about Mr Johal’s case with the Government of India, including allegations of torture and his right to a fair trial, on over 100 occasions, and we will continue to do so. We take the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s opinion in this case very seriously. We have consistently raised concerns about Mr Johal directly with the Indian authorities and we will continue to do so, as I say. Having carefully considered the potential benefits and risks to Mr Johal of calling for his release, as well as the likely effectiveness of doing so, we do not believe this course of action would be in his best interests. But as I say, we will continue to raise his case with the Government of India.
Let me turn now to two cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston. The first is the case of Morad Tahbaz in Iran. We are pleased to see that British national Morad Tahbaz has been released on furlough. That is a first step, and we remain focused on his permanent release. Of course, the UK is not party to negotiations between the US and Iran; the details of any agreement are a bilateral matter for those two countries. But we do think that his release on furlough is a positive step.
I turn now to the case of Mehran Raoof, also in Iran. We are supporting the family of Mr Raoof, who is a British-Iranian national and has been detained in Iran since 2020. Of course, his welfare remains a top priority. It remains entirely within Iran’s gift to release any British national who has been unfairly detained and so we should urge Iran to stop this practice of unfairly detaining British and other foreign nationals and urge it to release Mr Raoof.
I turn now to the case of Mr Alaa Abd El-Fattah, in Egypt. Of course, we remain committed to securing consular access for dual British-Egyptian national and human rights defender Alaa Abd El-Fattah. We continue to raise Mr El-Fattah’s case at the highest levels with the Egyptian Government. We remain committed to supporting him and his family. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met family members on 6 February, and Lord Ahmad has met family members several times—most recently on 6 July. Our ambassador in Cairo and consular officials are in regular contact with family members and they met most recently on 5 April. Of course, we will continue to offer all the consular support that we can.
I was very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for raising the case of his constituent Mr Saiful Chowdhury. Of course I give him my absolute assurance that we will be happy to correspond and raise this case. Perhaps we could exchange details after this debate. We look forward to corresponding on that case and we look forward to offering any support we can to Mr Chowdhury, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case.
Turning to the case of Jimmy Lai, which was raised by several Members, let me be very clear that we are using our channels with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to raise Mr Lai’s detention and request consular access. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, last met Mr Lai’s son and his international legal team on 24 April and officials continue to provide support. We continue to make our strong opposition to the national security law clear to the mainland Chinese and Hong Kong authorities. It is being used to curtail freedoms, punish dissent and shrink the space for opposition, free press and civil society. The Foreign Secretary raised Jimmy Lai’s detention with Chinese Vice-President Han Zheng on 5 May and in his opening statement at the 52nd session of the UN Human Rights Council on 22 February. We will continue to raise this case and others.
Catherine West
In the course of this debate, the question of whether the Foreign Office considers Mr Lai to be a British national has been raised. Could the Minister please elaborate on that because it is key to the sort of approach that we in this House take, but also which legally the Foreign Office should be taking? I have met the wonderful leader of the Hong Kong mission. I know he is doing his utmost but this has to be pushed at a much more senior level in order to get a result. I know that that is the view of the House.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the opportunity, and I will reiterate the language used by the Foreign Secretary and referred to by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith): Mr Lai is a dual British national born in China, and the reality of the matter is that Chinese nationality laws are very clear in that they do not recognise dual nationality and therefore have not allowed us consular access to Mr Lai. We are therefore using our channels with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to continue to raise his case.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
May I ask my hon. Friend something very clearly? The question was: do the British Government recognise Mr Lai as a British citizen and passport holder? The answer came back that he is a dual national. The Chinese Government say that he is a dual national and do not recognise it, so what do the British Government say? Is he a British citizen and a British passport holder? That was the question.
Leo Docherty
Mr Lai has a British passport. He is a dual British national born in China.
Leo Docherty
He is a dual British national and we will continue to look at this case. We will continue to use our channels with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to raise his case and call for his release.
Ms Rimmer
I thank everyone for contributing today because this is an important matter and something that has deserved the attention it has had in this debate. Hopefully we can get some movement from the Government and we can get this man’s citizenship sorted. I think he and his family know his citizenship better than anyone—far better than the Chinese would know. It is surely a con, isn’t it? I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. We need to keep going. We need to do this as soon as possible. Please grab hold of it, Minister. We would congratulate you if you got things started now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered British nationals detained overseas.
Written Statements
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Planning Update
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
I am today setting out updated policy on planning for onshore wind development in England.
In December last year the Government consulted on a number of proposed changes to the national planning policy framework, including changes relating to onshore wind development in England. That consultation concluded on 2 March this year and we received over 26,000 responses which my Department is carefully considering.
Through this consultation the Government have heard the strength of feeling and range of views on onshore wind. My right hon. Friend the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary and I continue to believe that decisions on onshore wind are best made by local representatives who know their areas. This will ensure decisions are underpinned by democratic accountability. We agree following our consultation, however, that we need to strike the right balance to ensure that local authorities can respond more flexibly to suitable opportunities for onshore wind energy, contributing to electricity bill savings and increasing our energy security as well as respecting the views of their local communities.
Having considered the responses carefully, I am confirming our intention to proceed with changes to national planning policy for onshore wind which take forward the proposals which were consulted upon, with minor changes to reflect responses and provide clarity on how policy should be applied in practice.
This includes amending the planning tests for proposed onshore wind developments to make clear that suitable locations can be identified in a number of ways, rather than solely through an area’s development plan. Development plans can take a number of years to be produced and adopted and we want to be clear that other, more agile and targeted routes are appropriate: for example, through local development orders, neighbourhood development orders and community right to build orders. We hope that this will mean sites are identified more quickly, speeding up the process of allocating sites for onshore wind projects, and ultimately, as a consequence, more clean and renewable energy is generated sooner.
We are also adjusting the policy so that local authorities can more flexibly address the planning impact of onshore wind projects as identified by local communities, on which we intend to publish further guidance. We have heard accounts that current policy has been applied in such a way that a very limited number of objections, and even at times objections of single individuals, have been taken as showing a lack of community backing. This is not the policy intent, and as a result of today's policy change it will now be important that local decision makers are able to take a more balanced approach, considering the views of communities as a whole. The Government are also open to novel ways to demonstrate community consent, building on best practice and using new digital engagement techniques.
We are also clear that local areas that support hosting onshore wind should directly benefit. That is why we have consulted on proposals for improved rewards and benefits to be offered to communities backing onshore wind farms, including potential energy bill discounts. The Government will respond to this consultation in the autumn.
I can also confirm that we are taking forward changes in relation to the repowering and life extensions of existing renewable energy sites to make clearer the circumstances in which these may be approved.
I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all those who participated in the consultation. Our formal response to the other wider proposals in the consultation will also be published later this autumn.
An updated national planning policy framework will be published today and policy changes, relevant to planning decisions, take effect immediately upon publication; some transitional arrangements for plan making are set out at annex 1. The amendments are to chapter 14 of the national planning policy framework. Relevant extracts can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-09-05/HCWS1005/
[HCWS1005]
Transport update
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
I have been asked by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to make this written ministerial statement. This statement confirms that it has been necessary to extend the deadline for the decision for the A1 in Northumberland—Morpeth to Ellingham development consent order under the Planning Act 2008.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make his decision within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) to extend the deadline and make a statement to the House of Parliament announcing the new deadline.
The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on the A1 in Northumberland—Morpeth to Ellingham development consent order application on 5 October 2021. The current deadline for a decision is 5 September 2023, having been last been extended from 5 December 2022 by way of written ministerial statement of 6 December 2022.
The deadline for the decision is to be further extended to 5 June 2024—an extension of nine months.
In addition to the reason for the extension set out in the written ministerial statement on 6 December 2022, the extension will allow further time to consider any matters relevant to the application.
The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to give development consent for the above application.
[HCWS1004]
House of Lords
Home Office: ODA-funded Support
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will place a cap on the amount of ODA-funded support provided by the Home Office for refugees who have reached the United Kingdom.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
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 Members’ interests.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
ODA-eligible costs of supporting refugees and asylum seekers in the UK have increased significantly, including to reflect support offered to Ukrainian and Afghan citizens. The Government have provided £2.5 billion of additional ODA to mitigate impacts on wider aid budgets and will continue to strike an appropriate balance between fiscal responsibility and our development objectives.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, had the Government not broken the pledge to deliver 0.7%, the overseas aid budget would now be £17.5 billion, which is £4.75 billion more than is currently proposed. Worse, domestic support for refugees going on hotels, barges and Rwanda is taken from that reduced ODA budget. Will the Minister acknowledge that giving the Home Office a blank cheque to raid the aid budget gives no incentive for restraint, value for money or processing the backlog of asylum claims and allows it to waste even more money on unsuitable accommodation? Can the Minister be proud of that? Should what is left of the budget not be protected instead of being used to balance the books on the backs of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do not accept the points that the noble Lord has made. It is right that we provided the responses that we did to crises such as that in Ukraine but it is also important that we deliver value for money in our spending in this area. We continue to look to drive down the costs of asylum accommodation in particular. The Home Office has doubled the number of caseworkers in the last two years and continues to recruit more. It is streamlining and modernising its end-to-end process, with improved guidance and use of digital technology. We are also looking very carefully at where we accommodate people and how we can drive better value for money there too.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
On where the Government choose to accommodate people, the Minister will recall that, in July, the High Court found that the Home Office’s use of hotels for unaccompanied child refugees was “systematic and unlawful”. Have the Government decided on a response to that judgment?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government will update the House when we respond to that judgment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the Government would be able to be much fairer to genuine refugees if they got a grip of the shortage of manpower dealing with the vast of cohort of people who are applying for asylum but will never get it, and brought to the places where those applicants live tribunals and officials who could deal with them in what might loosely be called “real time”?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I said in response to an earlier question, the Home Office is increasing the number of caseworkers to deal with asylum claims; it has more than doubled that over the last two years. Of course, the Illegal Migration Act will be an important part of our strategy here as it will end illegal entry as a route to asylum in the UK.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister acknowledge the difficulties that this uncertainty around ODA allocation and budgeting causes for those who are trying to deliver our programmes around the world? Not only does such uncertainty risk the success of our programmes but it can damage our international relations and, of course, it delivers bad value for money for the UK taxpayer. How are the Government working to provide more certainty here?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I acknowledge some of the points that my noble friend has made. There has been disruption to the FCDO’s ODA budget. In addition to the additional £2.5 billion that was allocated to help to manage those, the publication of the FCDO’s provisional ODA allocations for 2024-25 demonstrates our commitment to openness and transparency, and enables FCDO teams and their partners across the world to forward-plan.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister referred to the Illegal Migration Act. The Home Office assumed that it would be able to score on ODA all the costs of the that Act, but it cannot. I asked for clarification of the consequences for the taxpayer of having to fill that gap for the cost of the Act from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, on 12 July. He did not reply on that day, so I wrote to him through the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on 14 July. I confirmed with his office just this afternoon that the letter had been received but I have not received a reply. I am glad that the Leader is in his place because he speaks passionately and sincerely about this House being able to do our constitutional duty and ask questions of the Government and hold them to account. The Home Office simply does not wish to reply to letters when it does not like the questions that are in them.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will happily take the noble Lord’s point and make it to my noble friend and the government department. In addressing the point that maybe he was making, as I said, the Illegal Migration Act represents a vital step forward in the Government’s plans to tackle illegal migration. I reassure noble Lords that we will continue to report all ODA, consistent with OECD and DAC rules, and we will continue in our commitment to spending 0.5% until we can return to 0.7% when fiscal circumstances align. We keep all our ODA spending forecasts under review to deliver that, and will be closely looking at the evolution of eligible asylum spending as the Illegal Migration Act is implemented.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, we are all familiar with the Government’s decision to purchase the “Bibby Stockholm” barge and to move asylum seekers on to it even though it was not fit for habitation. Can the Minister confirm whether that purchase was made, in whole or in part, using any ODA funds? Does she consider that purchase to represent good value for money, and are any other such purchases planned?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that all spending is done in line with DAC rules, and I can report back to him on the specific point about that spending. However, when it comes to looking at accommodation solutions for asylum seekers, we are driven by looking at what represents good value for money for the taxpayer. Accommodating asylum seekers in hotels is absolutely not good value for money, and we will continue to look at different solutions to help to accommodate those to whom we have an obligation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister perhaps confirm whether, under the international rules about using ODA for asylum seekers and, above all, Ukrainians—to whom the Government’s welcome was very good—that runs for only one year? Are the Government now cutting off the mulcting of the aid budget for this purpose for those Ukrainians who have been here for more than a year?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is right that ODA-eligible spending runs for the first year in country. Of course, the programmes have been designed to deliver support that is appropriate to those moving to this country and where there are costs beyond that year, they are met from elsewhere in government departments’ budgets.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, the impacts of cuts in aid have been and will continue to be significant. The equality impact assessment published by the International Development Committee revealed some of the effects, particularly on women. For example, the number of maternal deaths that will be averted by the women’s integrated sexual health programme will fall by more than half. In Afghanistan, the maternal mortality rate will worsen. How will the Government look to mitigate the impact of these cuts, particularly on women and girls?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that the reduction in ODA spending has had important consequences and we are, as I say, committed to returning to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. In various international development strategy documents, we have also set out how we will prioritise spending to the lowest-income households in humanitarian efforts, while aligning our programmes further with our ambitions on supporting women and girls in order to address the issues that the right reverend Prelate has set out.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has twice cited the Illegal Migration Act in defence of government policy. Can she say which part of that Act is working?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, that Act is only in the process of being brought into force but it is an important part of our approach to reducing the pressures of illegal migration, so that we can better address the needs of legitimate asylum claims in this country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, following the previous question, how will the Act, when it is implemented, stop the boat people?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, by ending illegal entry as a route to claim asylum in the UK, we will change incentives for those who wish to enter the UK by that route, but it is not the only action that the Government are taking. We are working closely with law enforcement in France; we have a number of other initiatives upstream that are all aimed at tackling this problem, and we have seen that small boat arrivals to the UK are down by 20% this year.
Zimbabwe: Election
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the result of the recent election in Zimbabwe, and whether it was free and fair.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom commends the Zimbabwean voters for their peaceful participation in Zimbabwe’s recent elections. However, the UK shares the view expressed in international election observation mission preliminary statements that the pre-election period and election day fell short of regional and international standards. The UK is also concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding the compiling of results by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and the severe disruption of domestic observation.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it was obvious to every independent observer that those elections were not free and fair. In the words of Nelson Chamisa himself, they were a “blatant and gigantic fraud”, but the hard-hitting SADC report questioned the credibility of the elections and the breaches of its own standards. The saddest thing is that, as the election observers left, the familiar pattern of widespread arrests, abductions and torture of grass-roots supporters of the opposition is taking place as we speak all over the country. There were even lawyers arrested last night in a hospital where they were representing tortured victims—the same kind of retribution that Mugabe did after 2008. Does the noble Lord agree that now is the time for full support by His Majesty’s Government for SADC’s efforts to resolve the crisis, and in particular for our newly arrived ambassador to re-evaluate all facets of our relationship with a Zimbabwean Government who flout their own laws through acts of violence and torture, and to give some hope even in the darkest days to the perseverance and courage of the Zimbabwean people?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the arrival of our new ambassador. He arrived today and brings both diplomatic and development experience. I am sure he will play an exemplary role in our relations with Zimbabwe, its communities and all parties in Zimbabwe as well. The noble Baroness mentioned the abduction and torture of opposition CCC members, which we have raised directly. I can report that we are relieved that they have been found and are receiving treatment for their injuries. We also note the arrest and subsequent bail of two lawyers acting on behalf of the alleged victims on 4 September.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the Government’s present concerns and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, are quite correct, but will the Minister accept that Zimbabwe is a vast country of potentially great wealth? Will he accept that, in the longer term, we will need its markets, its raw materials and its support in keeping the Russians and Chinese from dominating the whole of Africa? Despite the present difficulties—and remembering that Zimbabwe was once a member of the Commonwealth and could be again, although clearly not now—will the Minister accept that these things should be kept in the back of our minds?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, who speaks on these matters with great insight and experience. Membership of the Commonwealth and its unique nature as an institution provide a real alternative to countries around the world. However, any country seeking to join must abide by standards, and, of course, that decision is ultimately for all members of the Commonwealth.
Baroness Kingsmill (Lab)
My Lords, I have just returned from Zimbabwe. I was a member of the Commonwealth observer group, and we did an extensive report, the interim statement of which Members can find in the Library. A lot of factors, many of which were also raised in 2018, led us to doubt the credibility of this election. Will the Minister agree that the ideal would be for Zimbabwe to re-enter the Commonwealth, but it can do so only when it meets the standards of proper democracy, the rule of law and free elections?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I answered the noble Baroness’s question in part in response to my noble friend, but I agree with her. I commend her efforts, and those of all the observer missions, in observing the election. We hope that, ultimately, inclusive and pluralist democracies emerge, and that Zimbabwe can find its way back into the Commonwealth.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, in light of the developments in Zimbabwe—the widespread violence and intimidation of voters in the rural areas, the abduction and torture of many opposition activists and the continued detention of opposition Members of Parliament—will the UK Government be rather less equivocal and make absolutely clear that they do not regard these elections as free and fair and that the Government of Zimbabwe have no legitimacy? Will they make clear that, as long as this is the case, it will not be readmitted to the Commonwealth, as far as Britain is concerned, and that we will work with SADC colleagues to try to find resolutions to the problem?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord’s work as an observer of Zimbabwe, and I am sure that he has seen the two statements that we have issued since the elections. I agree with him about the importance of working with key regional partners, including SADC, which is very much deployed and making the same representations that we are, along with other key interested parties, to ensure that there is a pluralist approach when it comes to democracy. Democracy needs stability, security and inclusivity to be sustainable—that point has been made consistently to the Zimbabwean authorities.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I will reiterate a point I have made before: the ingredients of a thriving democracy are not limited to elections; civil society’s role is vital. I welcomed the noble Lord’s statement before the Summer Recess about the Government’s response to the legislation that is being introduced, but has his department acknowledged, or made representations about, the new labour Act that they are pushing through in Zimbabwe? The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions has warned that this will allow the Government to interfere in trade union administration. Will the noble Lord work with global unions to ensure that the voice of workers is heard, not just politicians?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord and I have often had exchanges on the importance of all aspects of society being represented, and of civil society organisations and groups having their voices heard—that is clear. The noble Lord points to legislation. We have been extremely concerned and raised directly the implications of when, in June 2023, the Parliament approved the criminal law code amendment Act—the famous “patriot Act”, as they call it—which limits civil society. We are also concerned about the PVO Bill currently in front of the President. We are making representations and will continue to do so.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, it is patently clear from all the international reports that these elections were not free and fair, but CCC still managed to secure at least one-third of the parliamentary seats. What measures can His Majesty’s Government take, as well as our international partners, to call for an all-party conference in Zimbabwe to try to reach an inclusive compromise road map for the economic and political sustainability of the country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks from great insight about Zimbabwe. First and foremost, he will be aware of the work that Zimbabwe must do with the African Development Bank on the repayment of its arrears. The economic focus that is needed is something that must be prioritised by the new Administration. I also very much agree on the need for inclusivity when it comes to Zimbabwe and its future. Of course, the CCC and indeed all other parties must be part of that. One does hope that these points prevail and, as I said earlier in response to a couple of questions, these then add to the basis and foundation for eventual membership, we hope, of the Commonwealth as well.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, how did the recent election in Zimbabwe compare with the very first election, back in 1980, which I had the honour of attending?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I did not catch that, because of other voices. I will reflect on the Hansard and respond to my noble friend, because I missed the first part of his question.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, after all the major concerns about the Zimbabwean elections raised by observer missions, and the arrest yesterday of human rights lawyers, can the Minister ensure that these issues will retain a primary focus in the governance reform challenges identified in both the African Development Bank-sponsored debt arrears negotiations and discussions with the Commonwealth regarding readmission?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Yes, I can assure the noble Lord we will make exactly those representations, because they are vital to the discussions we are having with key partners about Zimbabwe.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that, although we send observer teams to oversee the actual election, much of the stealing of elections takes place before any observer team actually arrives there? Was it not significant that the violence that I witnessed after the 2018 election took place after the observer teams left? We are seeing the parallel experience this time: it is before and after the observer teams are there that is the real problem in relation to elections in Zimbabwe.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I understand the point my noble friend is making, and that is why it is extremely important that we continue to engage both pre-election but also importantly now post-election, through our ambassador and of course, as I said earlier, with key partners including most notably SADC and the African Union, to ensure that the very point my noble friend raises is addressed quite directly. I do feel we have traction: through representations, along with others, we see the release of those who are arrested. While it may be a glimmer, it is a positive glimmer in these situations.
2030 Emissions Reduction Target: Heating
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to decarbonise heating in order to meet the 2030 target of a 68 per cent reduction in emissions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are investing £6.6 billion over this Parliament in improving energy efficiency and installing low-carbon heating. A further £6 billion has already been committed for 2025 to 2028. Heat pumps are the key technology for decarbonising heating in the near term and are essential in all 2050 scenarios. Therefore, the Government’s aim is for 600,000 heat pump installations annually by 2028. However, a range of technologies will be needed to decarbonise heating, including expanding heat networks in the longer term.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s emission targets are both ambitious and critical, so why are we still allowing gas boilers to be installed in new housing developments right now?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, that is a matter for building regulations. The future homes standard will come in from 2025; it will not specify the type of heating but it will put in place standards that will, in effect, end gas boiler installations in new homes.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that heat pumps are a very efficient means of turning electricity into heat, but does he think that, while electricity costs roughly three times as much as gas, there is any prospect whatever of them taking off in the UK?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right about the efficiency of heat pumps and about the cost of electricity. Later this year we will issue a consultation on so-called price rebalancing, which will attempt to bring the electricity price down relative to gas.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government turn their mind to trying to encourage heat pump installers to install them in flats, where a large proportion of UK residents live? In other countries, they can do this; obviously, it is not feasible in all cases, but in many cases it is.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a valid point. Heat networks are probably more appropriate for most flats—for instance, you could have one heat pump in the basement that would heat all the flats—but for some cases she is right.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, what is the Government’s estimate of the cost of meeting this target and who will pay for it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That depends on what target the noble Lord is referring to. There are a number of different targets but a substantial amount of government funding is going into this—some £450 million for the boiler upgrade scheme and £6.6 billion to decarbonise heating generally.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, this July, residents of Whitby in Ellesmere Port vetoed plans to be one of two proposed sites for hydrogen village trials out of safety concerns—concerns which were extremely well-founded, I might add, given that hydrogen is the lightest element in the periodic table and notoriously difficult to control. I have two questions. Can the Minister confirm that the residents of Redcar in Teesside will have a similar right of veto? Which other locations are now being considered for these ill-advised hydrogen boiler trials?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Public acceptability is a key component; that is why we ruled out Whitby for the trial. Redcar is the only other location being considered.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that decarbonisation would be faster if we had better insulated rental properties, rather than seeing most of the heat go through single-glazed windows, particularly in the north of England?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I would not characterise just rental properties in that way; whatever form of heating is used, better insulation and better performance of buildings is a good thing.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, made clear, the decarbonisation of home heating will require an even greater supply of clean electricity. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement today that they will finally end the destructive and irrational effective ban on onshore wind development that we have lived with since 2015 by updating the National Planning Policy Framework. What scale of difference does the Minister think this will make to the amount of electricity generated by onshore wind? I am sure he will be aware that, last year, we managed two new onshore wind developments while Ukraine managed 19.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness has been dogged in her pursuit of this. It is very difficult to give an estimate, as she asks me to do. It would depend on the number of applications and its acceptability for local communities.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, including industrial processes, heating accounts for about 37% of total UK carbon emissions. Of the 17% of carbon emissions from heating and cooling in buildings, the vast majority can be attributed to domestic homes. Analysis shows that a third of the money pledged for retrofitting and alternative systems has not yet been allocated. That is approximately £2.1 billion unspent. When and how will this be resolved, or do the Government believe that they are on track to reduce emissions as planned without it?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will have to look very closely at the noble Baroness’s figures. I do not recognise £2.1 billion as being unspent; in many of the schemes we are oversubscribed in applications, but we will press on with the progress in many of these schemes. In fact, I went to visit a number of them in the noble Baroness’s home area of Leeds only a few weeks ago, and they are proving extremely successful.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, what are the Government’s proposals for increasing the number of transmission lines? Electricity once generated must reach the people who are going to use it and at the moment we do not have enough transmission lines.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble and learned Lord is right. His home area of Scotland will see the installation of a number of transmission lines to help to get power to other parts of the country. This is very important. Ofgem has allowed billions of pounds in the settlement to the DNOs, which will help electricity upgrades, but as he will be aware it is not without its controversial elements.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, last year, France installed nearly six times as many heat pumps as the UK? Does he think that a coherent government decarbonisation heat policy, a more effective new-build efficiency regulation, support for a professionalised end-to-end supply chain and independent advice for consumers have anything to do with France’s success? Are the Government planning to adopt any of those strategies?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed we are. The situation in France and for ourselves is very different, because France has not had the availability of domestic gas that we have had over the years. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Baroness’s point: we need to expand the number of heat pumps being installed. In fact, we are already doing many of the measures that she outlined.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend please put greater emphasis on the development of tidal energy, which would greatly reduce carbon emissions? I think he will tell us that the infrastructure is extremely expensive; that is true, but thereafter it is utterly free and totally predictable.
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is the case for many renewables. Tidal power is an emerging technology and it is eligible for contracts for difference schemes. We made a number of allocations of tidal power support in the last round. I agree with the noble Lord, but we must look at the costs of that against the costs of other renewable technologies and get the best value for the bill payer and the taxpayer.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, it is an unfortunate feature of Conservative Governments that they constantly churn grant schemes—
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
I will be very brief. A crucial component of the decarbonisation of heat in homes agenda is to have enough skilled technicians and engineers to install the various heating solutions. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of creating the necessary training opportunities?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can indeed update the right reverend Prelate. There are a number of schemes and training competitions, and we have recently allocated tens of millions of pounds, training thousands of new installers. I am pleased to say that many of the boiler and heat pump manufacturing companies are running their own training courses, and there are now, I think, about 2,000 registered firms with the Microgeneration Certification Scheme.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I apologise; I had not noticed the right reverend Prelate rise to ask his question.
It is an unfortunate feature of Conservative Governments that they constantly churn grant schemes and support. The Government is way off on their targets for the boiler upgrade scheme and have now, in consequence, in their usual pattern, extended the support for heat pumps until 2028. Do the Government recognise that this constant lack of commitment undermines the confidence of businesses and householders to plan ahead?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is asking a self-contradictory question. He starts off by saying that the Government have no long-term schemes and then admits that we have extended the boiler upgrade scheme through until 2028—precisely to address the point that he is talking about. We need more long-term schemes and we need a greater commitment over the longer term. That is precisely what the Treasury has allowed us to do, by already announcing £6 billion of extra funding from 2025 to 2028 to provide exactly that certainty. We need to build up the skills base and the supply chains in the longer term.
National Air Traffic Services: Operational Failure
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for making National Air Traffic Services liable to pay compensation to customers for operational failure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government deeply regret the recent NATS operational failure and its impact on airlines and their customers. The incident is being investigated and lessons will be learned. NATS has an outstanding aviation safety record and is regulated against service targets set by the Civil Aviation Authority. There are incentives for NATS linked to its performance; failure to reach target levels may incur penalties and reduce the charges paid by airlines.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, last week 2,000 flights were cancelled because of NATS’s inability to process flight plans, and a quarter of a million passengers were grounded. When airlines are responsible for delays, they must pay compensation to the passenger and pay for alternative flights, accommodation and food. When NATS is responsible for delays, no compensation is payable at all—and, worse, the airlines have to pick up the bill for alternative flights, food and accommodation, which, in this case, was £100 million. Both NATS and the airlines are commercial companies—NATS had a profit of £150 million last year—so is not the differential compensation between NATS, on the one hand, and airlines, on the other, wholly indefensible?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting this issue, but I am afraid that I do not accept the premise that the two are comparable. There are elements in NATS’s current licence that allow financial penalties to be placed on it in the instances of poor performance. Indeed, as I stated in my first Answer, there is also a mechanism to reduce charges in subsequent years to the airlines because of poor performance. However, I would say that the event that happened was, thankfully, very rare; nothing similar had been seen for over 10 years. Therefore, we are very grateful for the work that the airlines did, and we worked closely with them to repatriate people as necessary.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, if a passenger is delayed on a train, they can claim compensation from the train operator, which in turn can claim from Network Rail, the infrastructure manager, if it caused the delay. It seems to me that NATS and Network Rail are very similar—they are infrastructure managers—so what is the difference between compensation if you are on a train or on a plane?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not think that those two comparisons are quite correct. We have to deal with the situation we are in now, where there are already arrangements for NATS to be penalised financially and for future charges to the airlines to be reduced, should NATS’s performance fall below set levels. I am delighted to say that NATS’s overall performance is incredibly high and it tends to outperform other European air navigation service providers.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, was there any disruption to military flying—flying by the Royal Air Force and the other armed services—during the recent NATS problems?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
There was not, because the miliary planners would not have been able to take over the system as quickly as NATS was able to. There are well-established contingency plans in NATS on what to do in these sorts of very rare events, and those plans were followed. There was a restriction on flow; however, as many flights as possible were kept flying.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, whatever the cause of the problem, from the passengers’ point of view there was disruption to their flights and many passengers reported being very poorly treated by their airlines. As has been pointed out, it is the airlines’ responsibility to deal with the problem, however they might be reimbursed in the end. Can the Minister explain to us what the Government intend to do to increase the powers and resources of the CAA to ensure that, when passengers have disruption to their flights, they are properly and promptly compensated?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the noble Baroness will be well aware, we retained EU 261, which became UK 261, which puts certain obligations on the airlines to provide information on rights, refunds or rerouting, and care and assistance. Broadly, that is working very well. The CAA already takes action on the airlines not complying with that. The noble Baroness may have seen, a few weeks ago, that the CAA reached an agreement with Wizz Air to go back over many years to rectify some of the times when it had not treated passengers in line with those obligations. However, the Government will legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to give the CAA additional administrative powers to enforce consumer laws.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I was heavily involved in the original regulation 261 on passenger rights 20 years ago and I understand fully the criteria for exceptional circumstances, which was the case with NATS recently. However, can my noble friend tell us what mechanism is in place for the airlines to recover financial losses caused not only by the recent air traffic failure but by other third-party providers involved, such as ground handling companies, so that passengers can be compensated in a fair and proper way by the airlines?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I think I have already outlined, there is no mechanism by which airlines can seek financial compensation directly from NATS in this circumstance. However, there is a mechanism whereby charges can be reduced in the future if NATS does not meet its service targets.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, when the investigation into what the Minister refers to as “these events” is completed, if it concludes that there was negligence on the part of NATS or people who work for it, surely NATS should be responsible for compensating those to whom it owed a duty of care—namely, the airline companies and the passengers. Is that not how it works in this country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord raises a hypothetical—the outcome of this investigation —which I will probably not engage with at this moment. However, what I am very clear about, as is the Secretary of State, is that the investigation that NATS is carrying out, overseen by the CAA, will get to the root cause of whatever caused these events and that that will be published in due course with next steps.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when I represented Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley in the other place all those years ago, when the air traffic control in the south had some problems, the air traffic control at Prestwick took over for the whole of the United Kingdom. However, once Swanwick was open, it was integrated and therefore there is now only one NATS service. Would it not be better to have a look at going back to where one could come in when the other failed, and therefore we would have a backup?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. As I said, when the investigations around this are completed and the reports are available, potential next steps will be considered, particularly around mitigations to ensure that this does not happen again.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I think we are all a bit fed up with hearing that lessons will be learned. We have had a number of really serious incidents recently when that has come out again and again. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, more than 2,000 flights were cancelled, which meant that many thousands of passengers, including members of my family—and I am sure Members of your Lordships’ House—were left at chaotic airports with no information, help or support from airlines. It was utterly miserable, expensive and very concerning for all those affected. That has now become a routine occurrence during periods of disruption. If lessons are going to be learned, how quickly will the investigation report, will airlines be held to account, and will the enforcement powers for the CAA come forward in the King’s Speech?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I noted, and as I believe noble Lords will be aware, the preliminary report from NATS was submitted to the CAA yesterday. It was then transmitted to the Secretary of State, and it will be made public in due course by either the CAA or NATS—obviously, those two organisations will be carrying out the investigation into this. When we have that report, we will be able to consider what next steps can be taken.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for commending our air traffic controllers on their very impressive record. When we have discovered the cause of what happened—preliminary reports seem to indicate that a rogue flight plan, out of many thousands of flight plans, was fed into the system and that that seemed to cause this disruption—can we just focus on the pride we have in our own air traffic controllers, who played no part at all in how this incident occurred?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank my noble friend for raising that, because I am enormously grateful for the work of our air traffic controllers; I have visited Swanwick and seen their work at first hand. It is an enormously stressful job and, in this very rare event, I think all noble Lords must agree that the system failed safely. We are in agreement that at no point was there a risk to life and that shows that the system is working.
Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 September 2023 - (4 Sep 2023)
Business of the House
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 6 September and Wednesday 13 September to enable Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to begin before oral questions on those days.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I cannot let this go through without some explanation. I have raised this every time the business is changed. Havoc arises, Select Committees have to be changed, people have to cancel engagements already made and there is no explanation except that the Government’s legislative programme is in total disarray. Is it not about time that the Leader of the House and his retinue got the legislative programme properly organised? When I raised it before, the Leader of the House said, “Well, this is unlikely to happen again. We will try to organise things better”, but he has not. What has gone wrong? Why are we having this chaos now?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I would not consider it to be chaos. In fact, I thank the usual channels, who have agreed to sit early to maximise scrutiny time on the levelling-up Bill. The aim is to conclude Report without recourse to a late sitting, which I think many of your Lordships find a great inconvenience.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, is this the right occasion—if it is not, I am still going to raise it—to consider what a sensible time is for the House to sit? It is not a choice, as it is frequently presented, that the sensible time for us to start on a Wednesday, for example, is 3 o’clock in the afternoon and then we can sit till midnight or thereafter, when the whole quality of debate, the capacity of Members to make a decent contribution and the number willing to do so diminish, and then, out of the blue, when it is convenient to the Government—I fully understand why—we have to start early on certain days on this short-term basis. It seems to me that no serious disadvantage would occur if we regularly started earlier and finished earlier. Is it not time that we made some changes in this direction?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, obviously, that is a matter for the House as a whole, and this probably is not an appropriate occasion to launch a major debate on it. Obviously, we sit earlier on a Thursday. As noble Lords will know, the tradition and reality of this House is that many noble Lords have other activities to undertake—
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord scoffs, but that is a reality, and this House benefits from the experience that noble Lords have in other walks of life. However, I would always be open to consider and discuss this in the usual channels and elsewhere.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
The Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content—
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Perhaps I may be allowed to speak. I just wanted to ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House if we could find time to discuss this.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I did not wish to make the point because I think that it sometimes appears as though I am reproving the House—which I am not; I am always open to the ear and will of the House—but we had a lengthy consultation, and indeed a debate and a vote, on this matter not so long ago. The House decided then not to change our sitting times.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for not allowing her to speak. I thought that we had come to the end of this piece of business.
Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023 View all Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black for his good stewardship of this Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Borwick for his engagement on it. I refer the House to my letter of assurance, which has been placed in the Library of the House.
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and at his request, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill.
Lord Craig of Radley
“(i) advising on revisions to or the restructuring of the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber.”
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my probing amendment. I had thought to speak in the gap during this Bill’s Second Reading when I suddenly realised that there was a connection with an issue that I had dealt with some 15 years ago. However, regrettably, I arrived too late, having missed the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster. I am therefore most grateful for the indulgence of the House to my tabling a probing amendment about possible VAPC responsibilities in this excellent Private Member’s Bill.
I have intervened a number of times in the past over proposed changes to the arrangements for the PAT— Pensions Appeal Tribunal—in England and Wales. In 2008—15 years ago—following the passing of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Government intended by secondary legislation to do away with the long-standing PAT in England and Wales, first introduced in 1919, and allocate its work to a social entitlement chamber of a First-tier Tribunal. This was part of a wide-ranging government restructuring of tribunals. This change seemed totally wrong and at odds with treating the affairs of serving personnel and veterans in an appropriate manner. The outgoing PAT team—the experts—to a man was against its work passing to a civilian-type tribunal dealing with social benefits and other civilian claims.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for his contribution and for explaining his reasons for tabling an amendment to this Bill. His interest is long-standing, and I can understand why he is probing for greater clarification.
This Bill is fully supported by the Government. While I appreciate the noble and gallant Lord’s concern regarding the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber, the purpose of this Bill is to reform the statutory role of the VAPCs, moving them on to a more stable footing and bringing their statutory functions into line with how they have been operating in practice in recent years. The MoD has been careful to ensure that any proposed extension to the scope of the delegated power moving to the Armed Forces Act 2006 is similar to the existing power in Section 25 of the Social Security Act 1989 and that it is limited to only what is necessary to achieve its policy outcomes in relation to MoD functions and services rather than the wider issues that are embraced by the amendment.
The amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord would extend the power to make regulations that give VAPCs functions, to include advising on changes to the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber, which is actually a tribunal with separate governance arrangements. It therefore extends beyond MoD functions and service and into the realm of tribunals, which are a matter for the Ministry of Justice. As one would expect, there are separate rules and processes that govern tribunals. Indeed, the advisory steering group was established by the Lord Chancellor to pursue a consistent approach to war pensions and compensation appeals across the whole of the United Kingdom for this very reason. It considers matters relevant to the Scotland and Northern Ireland Pensions Appeal Tribunals as well as the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber. The advisory steering group meets every six months to raise and discuss tribunal issues and ensure that tribunals’ decision and outcomes are fair, transparent and consistent. It is for these reasons that the Government cannot accept this amendment to the Bill as drafted.
The Bill has been carefully drafted in relation to the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees—and they are different to tribunals—to retain some flexibility in how the regulations are framed. This is important, given the recent independent reviews. The reviews in question are the Independent Review of the UK Government Welfare Services for Veterans and the reviews of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, and copies of these reviews have been placed in the House Library. These reviews will help to determine how the VAPCs could be fully developed and aligned to the wider welfare service effectiveness and delivery, so that they can continue to contribute to the veterans community across the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government are considering the recommendations of these reports in full, with responses to be published later in the year. Changes to the VAPCs resulting from these reviews could be implemented via secondary legislation made pursuant to the enabling power in this Bill, and this Bill will ensure statutory backing for the VAPCs to formally engage with all former members of the Armed Forces and their families. When issues relating to the Chamber, embraced in the amendment, are brought to the Minister’s attention, of course the MoD would be able to consider such usage with the Ministry of Justice.
I conclude by thanking the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for the opportunity to discuss the separate issue of the chamber, which in law is a tribunal, as I have said. I hope that, following these assurances, the noble and gallant Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very warmly and sincerely for a very comprehensive response. It will need reading again in Hansard to take the full strength of it. She has been very courteous and kind, and I appreciate the effort that has gone into making this response. I am well aware that any amendment to a Private Member’s Bill could lead to its death before Prorogation. This Bill, under the excellent efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, has been in progress for some years, and it is right that it should go on. I will have no difficulty at all in withdrawing my amendment.
Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 View all Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101 Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jul 2023)
Police Service of Northern Ireland: Security and Data Protection Breach
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, the breach of security in the PSNI was absolutely catastrophic for both the morale and the security of all the people who work for it, including civilians. Nearly 4,000 people —40% of police officers who work for the PSNI—have self-referred to its emergency threat management group. It has led to the resignation of the chief constable of Northern Ireland, whom we thank for the service he has put in, and brought particular distress to Catholic officers—but not exclusively, of course—because of possible attacks by republican dissidents. Indeed, it will affect future recruitment of Catholics to the PSNI.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Who is now ministerially responsible for the PSNI in the absence of a Security Minister in Northern Ireland? Will the Secretary of State have a role to play when the internal inquiry is finally concluded? Will he have a role to play in trying to ensure the security of all officers? Finally, can he guarantee any costs arising from the breach, which will be considerable and which the PSNI simply cannot afford?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
I am very grateful to the former Secretary of State for his comments and his questions. Of course, I share his concerns over the security breach that took place. I was in Northern Ireland a day or so after and I was fully briefed at the PSNI headquarters by the then chief constable, who, as the noble Lord reminded the House, handed in his resignation yesterday. I place on record my appreciation for his service and wish him well for the future.
Nobody underestimates the seriousness of the breach. The noble Lord referred to the number of self-referrals to the emergency threat management group, which is absolutely correct. I assure him that the PSNI and His Majesty’s Government take the safety, security and welfare of police officers and support staff as the very highest of priorities. The Government have been keeping in very close contact at official and ministerial level with the PSNI, and we have offered specialist assistance wherever we can.
On the noble Lord’s specific questions, as he rightly alludes to, there is no direct ministerial direction within the Department of Justice. As he knows, policing is a devolved issue and is the responsibility of the Department of Justice. There is no Minister there at the moment. A number of inquiries have been launched, in particular one by the Policing Board, whose results we hope to see in the autumn, possibly as early as October. Any assessment of that report will obviously have to wait until it has reached its conclusions and been published.
As far as finance is concerned, the noble Lord is aware that policing is a devolved issue, as I said. The Department of Justice has a budget of £1.2 billion. There are certain matters for which the Northern Ireland Office is responsible. It is too early to reach conclusions, but we will have to look at the findings of the various inquiries once they report.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those clarifications to the noble Lord’s questions. Policing in Northern Ireland is always challenging and this very unfortunate release has made it even more so. We have lost the chief constable and replacement will also be challenging. Given what the Minister has said—namely, that policing and justice are devolved, although there is a role for the Northern Ireland Office—does that not reinforce the case for those people who are genuinely concerned about policing, and indeed all other services in Northern Ireland, to recognise that we cannot go on kicking things backwards and forwards between Westminster and a non-existent Assembly or Executive? This is just another case in which those who are blockading the re-establishment of the Assembly are preventing the resolution of the very issues that they are raising concern about in a proper fashion using the devolved Administration that was created for the purpose.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I pay tribute to the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which does an amazing job across the entire community, policing in a very difficult situation. Irrespective of the data breach, it faces pressures that are unknown to other police forces within the United Kingdom. Obviously, the breach has caused great anxiety. In respect of the thrust of the noble Lord’s questions, he is absolutely right: we need an Executive back in Northern Ireland as quickly as possible. We are doing everything we can to bring that about; that will obviously include the appointment of a Justice Minister within the department who could give political direction.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
As well as questions for the chief constable, who has rightly resigned given the series of gaffes and debacles that have happened under his leadership of the PSNI, are there not questions for the Policing Board of Northern Ireland, the body that holds the police to account directly, given the reports that members of the Policing Board, which is supposed to be completely independent of operational matters, tried to direct the chief constable and how he should behave in certain respects? In relation to the financial issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will the Minister give a guarantee that ordinary people in Northern Ireland will not suffer as a result of the money that will be diverted into clearing up this mess of data leaks?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions, as always. He will be aware that the Policing Board itself has asked the Department of Justice to undertake an inquiry into its activities; we should await the outcome of that. On funding, I reiterate that funding is primarily a matter for the devolved Administration out of the £1.2 billion that has been allocated to the Department of Justice. We will obviously have to look again at the various reports and investigations, and the conclusions that they come to.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, given the problems raised by my noble friend Lord Murphy, it is doubly unfortunate that Northern Ireland is now left without a chief constable. Can the Minister say something about the timeline for the appointment of any new chief constable, since that will obviously affect the questions raised about the occurrences we have been faced with? Secondly, can he say whether that will be exclusively a matter for the Policing Board, or will it be in any way affected by the absence of an Executive and a Justice Minister?
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for his questions. He will understand that the timeline is entirely a matter for the Policing Board, which appoints the chief constable. I am sure that it will wish to seek a resolution for this issue very quickly. It is important that the PSNI has strong leadership restored as quickly as possible, but that is entirely a matter for the Policing Board. It is within its power to appoint an interim chief constable while the formal recruitment process is ongoing, but that is its own issue. On the lack of a Justice Minister, in the unfortunate circumstance that the appointment be made before the Executive is re-established, we would have to take powers for His Majesty’s Government to ratify any appointment that would normally be ratified by the Justice Minister. That happened back in 2019, when the outgoing chief constable was appointed and there was no Executive and Assembly functioning.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, could I revert to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce? Would my noble friend, for whom we all have the utmost respect, discuss with the Secretary of State the calling together of the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland yet again—I know it has been done before—because it is essential that the Executive are re-established? It is essential that the people of Northern Ireland do not continue to be let down by the failure of their elected politicians.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I am not sure whether it is in order to refer to people sitting outside the Chamber, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State might well have heard my noble friend’s question direct. I completely agree with my noble friend that the imperative is to restore the Executive and to get the institutions established by the Belfast agreement fully functioning, up and running, at the earliest opportunity. I can assure my noble friend that the Secretary of State and the entire ministerial team are focused on that outcome and that my right honourable friend has been having a number of discussions over the summer with the political parties towards resolving the issues that are preventing the re-formation of the Executive.
Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 View all Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 163-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (4 Sep 2023)
17:19 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 190 - Amendment B1 agreed.
Lord Caine
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 20 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 20A and 20B in lieu.
“(3A) The Commissioner for Investigations must ensure that each review, whether or not a criminal investigation forms part of the review,”
“(2B) If particular questions were included in the request for a review (see section 11(1)), the final report must include—
(a) the ICRIR’s response to those questions, if and to the extent that it has been practicable to respond to them in carrying out the review in accordance with section 13;
(b) for each question to which it has not been practicable to respond, a statement of that outcome.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A and will speak also to Motions B and C.
We have debated these issues at great length since this Bill was introduced in your Lordships’ House in July 2022. I will therefore speak briefly to the remaining issues today. I have always been the first to acknowledge the challenging nature of this legislation and how it requires some very difficult and finely balanced political and moral choices. The Government have, however, continued to listen and sought to strengthen the legislation. Since July last year, I alone have had more than 80 meetings on legacy issues, mostly in Northern Ireland, but also in Ireland, the US and of course in your Lordships’ House. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also had a large number of meetings on these issues.
Motion A1, regarding the conduct of reviews by the commission, raised a number of important issues, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, a distinguished former Secretary of State, for the manner in which he has engaged on these matters. This engagement has resulted in a number of key amendments to strengthen this aspect of the Bill. This includes amendments expressly to confirm that the Commissioner for Investigations, when exercising operational control over the conduct of reviews and other functions, must comply with obligations imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 and to make clear that the independent Commissioner for Investigations will determine whether a criminal investigation should form part of any review. The noble Lord has, therefore, already significantly influenced this Bill during its passage, and I genuinely thank him for that.
Respectfully, however, I would suggest that the content of the noble Lord’s amendments has been extensively addressed by the package of amendments tabled both on Report and subsequently at Commons consideration by the Government. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State tabled two amendments in lieu in the other place to address further the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, through these amendments.
The first of these amendments, Amendment 20A, clarifies that the duty to look into all the circumstances of a death or harmful conduct when carrying out a review applies no less rigorously in a case where the Commissioner for Investigations has decided that a criminal investigation should not take place. Amendment 20B emphasises the importance of the involvement of victims’ families in the review process. It does so by placing the commission under an express obligation to include in its final report answers to any questions posed by family members as part of a request for a review, where it has been practicable to obtain the requested information as part of that review. I should remind the House that both these amendments in lieu were accepted in the other place without the need for a vote.
Turning to Amendment 20D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the Government are also unable to accept the addition of a power that would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe standards under subsection (6A) as an alternative to attempting to provide for those standards on the face of the Bill.
The Government consider it vital to safeguard the independence of the commission. This is something that we have worked very hard to do, and to strengthen, during the Bill’s passage, in direct response to a number of points made in your Lordships’ House. In our view, any such power as set out in the noble Lord’s amendment would run directly counter to this objective.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting this intervention and I thank him for his generous remarks earlier. The point that he has not so far made, and which I hope he will acknowledge, is that the amendment says that it would be by affirmative resolution. In other words, it will require proper consideration by both Houses. My concern in the amendment, as I will explain, is that this Bill can be further improved over time in the light of experience and the views of victims’ groups.
Lord Caine (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, although I think my point stands. Throughout the passage of the Bill—in response to criticisms, when it was brought from the other place, that the Secretary of State had too many powers vested in him—we have sought to divest powers and to strengthen the independence of the commission. Whichever procedure is used in this House, this amendment seems to me to be running in the opposite direction. I also remind the House that the Bill already contains a provision in Clause 35 requiring the Secretary of State to review the performance of the new commission by the end of its third year of operation.
I turn next to the issue of conditional immunity, which I readily accept is the most difficult and challenging element of this legislation, but which, in the view of this Government, is essential if the new processes which the legislation establishes are to have a chance of working. I am grateful as always to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for his alternative proposal, instead of insisting on the wholesale removal of conditional immunity. Having been passed in your Lordships House by 12 votes, this was decisively overturned in the elected House by 92 votes—far more that the Government’s actual majority in the other place. As I have said, conditional immunity is, in this Government’s view, an important mechanism to help the independent commission to fulfil its functions.
I briefly remind the House that the aim of the Bill is simple and straightforward: to provide more information to more people in a shorter timeframe than is possible under current mechanisms, to establish the facts of what happened to the families who wish for that, and to help society both to remember the past and to look forward to a more genuinely shared future.
I understand that the aim of Amendment 44E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, is to give family members a role in whether immunity should be granted. In the Government’s considered view, that would critically undermine the effectiveness of these provisions in their principal aim: the recovery of information for families. For example, the “public interest” consideration element in condition D would lead to uncertainty as to the circumstances in which immunity will be granted, undermining the clear and transparent approach that we have sought to develop.
To ensure that the commission can obtain as much information for families as possible, we need to ensure that the right incentives are in place for individuals to come forward and provide that information. The possibility that eligible individuals who co-operate fully with the commission could be prevented from obtaining immunity is highly likely to act as a significant disincentive for individuals to disclose information.
As the House is well aware from our numerous debates over many months, the commission will grant immunity from prosecution only if individuals provide an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. We have developed a more robust test for immunity in which that account must be tested against any information that the commission holds or can access. The commission must, as a result of amendments in your Lordship’s House, take reasonable steps to secure additional information needed to test the truthfulness of an account.
If an individual does not provide a truthful account of their actions that could be passed to families or does not participate in the immunity process at all, immunity will not be granted and that individual will remain liable for prosecution, should the evidence exist. Where prosecution takes place, should a conviction be secured, an individual will not be eligible for the early release scheme under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—again, as a result of amendments in this House.
“(3A) The Commissioner for Investigations must ensure that each review, whether or not a criminal investigation forms part of the review,”
“(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the standards to which the Commissioner for Investigations must ensure that reviews by the ICRIR are carried out.
(6B) Standards prescribed under subsection (6A) may include (but need not necessarily include)—
(a) whether reviews should be carried out to criminal justice standards,
(b) what measures should be used to ensure that reviews comply sufficiently with obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights,
(c) whether as much information as possible should be gathered by reviews in relation to the death or harmful conduct, and
(d) whether all evidential opportunities should be explored by reviews.
(6C) The Secretary of State may prescribe standards under subsection (6A)—
(a) following representations from victims’ families or representations on their behalf, or
(b) if the Secretary of State considers standards should be set or changed in the light of experience of the reviews.
(6D) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative procedure.”
“(2B) If particular questions were included in the request for a review (see section 11(1)), the final report must include—
(a) the ICRIR’s response to those questions, if and to the extent that it has been practicable to respond to them in carrying out the review in accordance with section 13;
(b) for each question to which it has not been practicable to respond, a statement of that outcome.””
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his generosity. It is true that, having clearly been uncomfortable with the Bill from the outset—a Bill imposed from elsewhere in the government machine—he has sought to come at least some way towards the deep concerns and criticisms of it that have been expressed on a cross-party basis. Yes, he has made some concessions, but, frankly, they have not gone anything like far enough to satisfy victims’ groups especially. The Bill remains toxic for almost all victims’ groups in Northern Ireland and has not been supported, even in its amended form, by any political party in Northern Ireland, so far as I am aware.
My amendments would ensure that there was an opportunity to improve over time—by affirmative resolution, not executive fiat—what will soon be an Act, thereby creating a measure of consent for it where currently there is absolutely none in Northern Ireland, amended or not. As this sorry Bill slithers towards Royal Assent, one thing is clear: despite the willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to engage and listen—he has regularly gone out of his way to do so to me, for which I thank him—and despite the amendments that he has tabled that have marginally improved a truly terrible Bill, the Government have monumentally failed to persuade Northern Ireland’s victims and survivors that what is being done in the name of reconciliation is even remotely in their best interests. Instead, the Government turn their back on them, saying, “Take it or leave it. We are done with you”.
Even when the Bill leaves here, with all its worst excesses, and goes to the other place, that will emphatically not be the end of the story, hence the need for my Motion. There remain serious doubts as to the legal basis upon which the Bill is founded. When Sir Declan Morgan, an outstanding jurist of unimpeachable integrity and the immediate past Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland, who has been appointed interim chief commissioner of the ICRIR, was asked whether he believed that the legislation was European Court of Human Rights-compliant, he said:
“I am not going to express a view”.
But the Secretary of State at the time that the Bill was published did express a view that it is and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, will express that same view. What else could he do?
Just last week, Sir Declan said that he welcomed victims challenging the legislation in the courts. I repeat: he welcomed them challenging it in the courts. What on earth are we doing to victims? Will they welcome being forced to go to court to fight for their basic right to be treated fairly, with respect and dignity and within the law? For that is what the Government are doing to them.
There is no doubt that the Bill’s immunity provisions will be challenged and, very possibly, the review/investigations mechanism as well. In my amendments in lieu, I set out a mechanism whereby the commissioner can move towards a Kenova-type operating model, endorsed by this House but rejected by the Commons, that is demonstrably European Court of Human Rights-compliant, and evolve the Bill in the light of experience and the views of victims’ groups, or indeed if the courts rule against what is proposed, as many think is likely. It is a modest amendment but if it is adopted change can evolve by affirmative resolution rather than ministerial fiat or going through further lengthy years of consultation and fresh primary legislation on this perhaps most thorny and difficult of the issues in Northern Ireland’s great list of difficult issues. I tried to address it with the Eames-Bradley report; the Minister has grappled with this issue for years. We who are former Secretaries of State have all tried to address it but it is very difficult.
If the Bill does not have the support of those whom it is designed to address, surely it should be allowed to evolve in the light of representations. That was what my amendments provide for, rather than going through years of further grief and consultation, and fresh primary legislation. I appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to accept my Motion and, by doing so, achieve a measure of support for a Bill that currently has none. I beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the complicated amendments in the Motion in my name on the Marshalled List. Like the Minister, I wish to pay tribute to his civil servants, who have worked very hard on this Bill during a very long 13 months. I also thank the Minister himself for the courtesy and diligence with which he has taken this dreadful Bill through this House.
I do not believe for one second that the Government were wrong in trying to address the issue. Of course, it has to be addressed. It is a difficult one: Governments and the people of Northern Ireland have tried for a quarter of a century to deal with it. Generally speaking, they have failed, so there is no difficulty in accepting that the Government should try to deal with it. However, I believe that in this instance, particularly because of the most central and controversial part of the Bill—the issue of immunity—they have not succeeded in acquiring the support that would be deserved under normal circumstances in Northern Ireland.
Some months ago, your Lordships agreed the amendment I tabled to delete entirely Clause 18—the central clause dealing with immunity and therefore the central and most controversial issue of the Bill. It was defeated in the House of Commons and has now come back, but, because the clause was defeated here, two important amendments that would have been debated on that occasion—one tabled by my noble friend Lord Hain and one tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames—were not given the opportunity to be considered by your Lordships. My amendment is an amalgamation of both of them, dealing with licence conditions and family consent.
I point out again to the House that those amendments were originally moved by a former Secretary of State and a former Church of Ireland Primate of All Ireland and Archbishop of Armagh—so they were serious amendments about serious issues. I believe that the Government have tried to remedy some of the worst injustices of the Bill, and I thank them for it, but they have not gone far enough. They have not addressed the real issues that have been expressed over the course of the last 13 months when the Bill has been going through.
My noble friend Lord Hain referred to the comments of the commissioner-designate, Sir Declan Morgan, and I share his view that he is of course a considerable and significant jurist. He said that the issue of compliance and compatibility with the ECHR would now be a “matter for the courts” and international law. Only last week, we heard that the Irish Government are contemplating taking serious legal advice about going to court. That cannot be right for a Bill as significant as this.
Sir Declan went on to say that the Bill has virtually “no support” in Northern Ireland—that is one of the most major understatements I have heard for a very long time. Every Church in Northern Ireland is opposed to the Bill—and Northern Ireland is a very churchgoing place. If all Churches are against it, that should be taken seriously into account. Every single political party is opposed to it, whether they be nationalist, republican, unionist or none of these. Every victims group, and the victims’ commissioner, is opposed to the Bill. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and commissioner are opposed to it, as are all human rights bodies in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government do not like it, the Council of Europe has disagreed with it, the United States Government are dubious about it and the United Nations is against it. With all that opposition, why on earth are the Government insisting on proceeding with this?
My amendment would not solve the whole difficulty with this bad Bill, but it would mean the involvement of victims’ families and the ability to impose conditions on immunity, including the right to revoke it altogether. This would improve it, but we have heard that the Minister will not accept it.
But the best solution is for the Bill to be put on hold and frozen until such time as we have a properly governing Executive and Assembly back in Northern Ireland. Those are the people who should decide how these matters should be dealt with. Once again—finally, I suspect—I appeal to the Government to do such a thing. The Minister knows that imposition on the people of Northern Ireland never works, and nor should it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, although the House is faced with two undesirable options, I very much prefer the position advanced by the Government to that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. If accepted, his amendment would preclude immunities from being granted, in the most part. The Government’s position allows for the possibility of immunities, albeit surrounded by provisos and caveats.
I personally take what I know to be a minority view: that the proper way forward is for a statute of limitations to preclude all prosecutions for all offences alleged to have been committed prior to the Good Friday agreement. This would apply both to security personnel and to alleged terrorists; I do not think it is possible to make a distinction between the two.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to the Minister’s Motion on Clause 13, and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, to the Minister’s Motion on Clause 18.
The Bill removes fundamental legal rights from victims of the Troubles throughout the United Kingdom. The aim of the Bill is clear. The Minister referred to the purpose of the Bill in his introductory remarks, but actually the Long Title says that its purpose is to limit criminal investigations, civil legal proceedings and inquests, despite the fact that by May 2024, there will be some 15 outstanding legacy inquests to be heard. It is also to prevent police complaints investigations—all this into matters arising between 1966 and 1998. All these ancient and balanced legal procedures are being removed under the Bill, as well, it has to be said, as all the protections and powers that the courts have in the conduct of criminal, civil and inquest proceedings.
The Minister’s amendments do not address the deficiencies identified in the Bill by so many across the world—the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, referred to them—and the other place’s responses to the amendments made in your Lordships’ House do not address the deficiencies identified either.
It is important to remember that the Council of Europe, its Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN special rapporteurs, national human rights organisations, our own parliamentary committees, civil society organisations, all political parties in the UK, with the exception of the Conservative Party, political parties in Ireland and the US, victims groups and community groups have all declared the Bill to be unacceptable because of its manifest deficiencies, and because of the breach of our international legal obligations.
I remind noble Lords of the fact that, under the Bill, the ICRIR does not even have powers to demand information as of right but must justify each request as reasonable. That does not happen in normal criminal investigations. Yet untrammelled access to information is fundamental to the conduct of criminal investigations, and it has frequently only been the determination of judges, coroners, lawyers and litigants which has resulted in the disclosure of relevant and important information which should have been disclosed as a matter of course. Even in that situation, the police and the MoD have frequently said that they cannot produce the material because they do not have the resources to do so.
The answer to this situation cannot be to close down the justice system; rather, as Patten recommended, policing must be delivered in the context of a coherent and co-operative justice system. We do not have that in Northern Ireland. For example, the Kenova investigation submitted some 33 files from 2019 onwards, but no decisions have been made by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland because it does not have access to the lawyers it needs.
The Secretary of State and the Minister keep reiterating that resources must be found within the Northern Ireland budget, yet what happened in Northern Ireland over the years of the Troubles was not the responsibility of paramilitaries alone. Agents of the state also played their part. In my 2007 report on the case of the murder of Raymond McCord Junior and associated matters, I said:
“it has emerged that all of the informants at the centre of this investigation were members of the UVF. There was no effective strategic management of these informants, and as a consequence of the practices of Special Branch, the position of the UVF particularly, in North Belfast and Newtownabbey, was consolidated and strengthened … information was withheld … Instructions were given that matters should not be recorded. The general absence of records has prevented senior officers, who clearly have significant responsibility for the failings, from being held to account. It is abundantly clear that this was not an oversight, but was a deliberate strategy and had the effect of avoiding proper accountability”.
That was accepted by the chief constable at the time and by the Secretary of State. In many other cases, there were similar findings. It is these situations, for which the state had responsibility, which demonstrate what happened and show the responsibility of the state for some of it. That is why I would argue that the Government have, at the very least, a moral duty to support those engaged in the pursuit of justice and truth and not to impede their search for it through passing this Bill—for that is what this Bill in its final form will do.
Your Lordships have discussed at length the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of investigation and pondered the Government’s commitments under the Good Friday agreement. The Minister’s Motion A does not make the Bill compliant with the ECHR or the Good Friday agreement. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, would at least impose an obligation for any regulations made by the Secretary of State in this context to be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and be subject, as he so articulately said, to the affirmative procedure.
The conditional immunity scheme, despite the Government’s amendments and others tabled by noble Lords, remains in breach of the Government’s obligations under the Good Friday agreement to provide people with access to the courts and remedies for breaches of the convention. That fact is profoundly important.
Victims’ groups such as the Truth and Justice Movement regard this Bill as destroying their democratic and human right to truth and justice. Nobody, not even the Government, thinks that this Bill will provide truth and justice, let alone reconciliation. The Secretary of State has repeatedly acknowledged the problems with the Bill, most recently stating:
“This Government believes that the conditional immunity provisions will be key in helping to generate the greatest volume of information, in the quickest possible time”.
There is no evidence to demonstrate that immunity will have this effect and it is well known that former paramilitaries involved in murder really have no incentive to tell all. All they have to do is sit out the five years within which cases may be brought for review. Even when information is provided, it is rarely the whole truth. On some occasions, information that has been provided has been demonstrated to be untrue.
The conditional immunity scheme which the Minister is again promoting, and which we are debating, would result in impunity for serious human rights violations and the unilateral shutting down of avenues to justice for victims and would give rise to questions about the ability of the independent commission for information recovery to deliver outcomes that would meet human rights standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, seeks by his amendment to provide the victims of the Troubles and the close family members of those who died with the right to be asked for their consent to a grant of immunity. It states that the chief commissioner must be satisfied
“the close family member has given consent for the granting of immunity and no objections have been raised by any other close family member within three months of the consent being given”.
Alternatively,
“if no consent has been given by that close family member within three months or an objection has been raised by any other close family member”
within three months, the chief commissioner can decide that
“it is nevertheless in the public interest to proceed with the granting of immunity”,
regardless of the views of the family. This modest amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, seeks to put victims at the centre of the process of granting immunity. It is qualified by an overriding right of the ICRIR chief commissioner to determine that, even when victims do not want immunity granted to a perpetrator, the views of the victims can be overridden in the public interest.
One of the problems of the current system is that judicial review has repeatedly been necessary to challenge decisions made by public authorities involved in dealing with legacy. Judicial reviews cost a lot of money. They take a long time to be resolved in our underresourced legal system, and they cause immense further distress to victims. If approved, the Secretary of State’s amendment will simply lead to more judicial reviews. Rather than solve the problem, it will add to it.
Your Lordships were right to remove Clause 18 from the Bill. The other place has—as it is entitled to do—overridden your Lordships. This amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will at least qualify the operation of Clause 18 by inserting some recognition of the fact that any process which ignores the views of victims simply has the capacity to cause them even more suffering, rather than to promote reconciliation.
As the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Hain, said, the Bill is fatally flawed. It deprives people across the United Kingdom who suffered so grievously during the Troubles of their fundamental rights under the Good Friday agreement, the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. If and when it is passed, it will lead to lengthy and complex litigation—something welcomed by the former Lord Chief Justice, Declan Morgan. This is not the way to promote reconciliation in a divided society. In the event of a Division, I will support the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Murphy.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I once more find myself speaking as earnestly as I can in support of the sentiments of two former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland—two men who undertook those tasks at times of division, suffering and what I can only term injustice for so many people in Northern Ireland. Given the fact that two men who had that experience have voiced sentiments in your Lordships’ House this afternoon and spoken in terms of their experience, I cannot understand why His Majesty’s Government do not understand that there are those outside this Chamber and this Mother of Parliaments who cannot understand why their voices are being ignored.
Yes, there have been attempts to bring the concept of victimhood into the legislation that is proposed, and yes, the Government can claim that they have made efforts, but, in God’s name, I ask your Lordships to consider the overall impetus of what changes have been made to try to recognise the needs of victims and their families, and of those who, in years to come, when they read what has been said, attempted and failed to be produced, will find it incredulous to understand that the Mother of Parliaments has ignored their crying.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, on this very difficult and vexatious issue that impacts most families not only in Northern Ireland and Ireland but across the wider UK. Many people have been impacted by the untimely and summary death of a family member as a result of the Troubles. Therefore, very clearly, the victims should be central to the Bill—as this House has said; it was articulated by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. However, I am sorry to say that the victims are not central to the Bill. This is probably an issue of expedience on the part of the Government to deal with this issue—and that is totally unacceptable. I will support both amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Murphy, if they choose to put them to Divisions.
It is interesting to note that we are joined today in the Public Gallery by some of the representatives of victims from Northern Ireland, including Raymond McCord, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred, and his colleagues. They have direct experience. They have told the Government, the Irish Government, the European Union and political parties in Northern Ireland, this House and the other place, that the Bill will not meet the needs of victims and that victims will be undermined.
On Monday of last week, 28 August, Sir Declan Morgan gave an interview to the Irish News, to which my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Murphy already referred. When I bought my copy of the Irish News last Monday morning, I was immediately struck by heading, “Legacy Body Chair Welcomes Any Legal Challenges”. I would like to tell him that there will be legal challenges; they will come not only from the victims’ groups but, probably, from the Irish Government and other bodies in the European Union. The European Commissioner has already highlighted the issues around immunity. There is no doubt that the Bill, as it exists, will impede justice and truth; it will relegate victims, not to the second division but to the eighth or ninth division.
I implore the Government at this late hour to support the amendments in the names of my noble colleagues. If that is not possible, I beg them to stop the Bill and to stop further hurt in an already divided society that has seen so much over the last number of weeks in relation to policing, to victims and to the Bill and legacy. Those were two thorny issues that came out of the Good Friday agreement which required resolution. We thought that the policing issue was resolved but now it appears that a greater investment in the structures is required to ensure that there is proper retention, proper recruitment and a return to 50:50 recruitment, and that police officers and civilian staff are properly protected. However, victims also need to be protected.
In his wind-up, will the Minister demonstrate to this House how the Bill will be human rights compliant? I note that Sir Declan Morgan has said that he is committed to ensuring that the commission is human rights compliant. From his interview, I would deduce that Sir Declan is probably now querying whether the Bill, if enacted, will be human rights compliant, and whether it will comply with the ECHR. I know where I stand. I stand with the victims of the Troubles on all sides; whether their loved ones were executed by paramilitaries or by state forces, victims come first in all of this.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, we return to this issue of legacy, almost certainly for the last time in this House as far as the Bill is concerned but certainly not for the last time in this or the other place—and possibly sooner than expected.
I have no difficulty in supporting the amendments brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, which represent an improvement on what is currently before the House. We all know and acknowledge, and it has been said across all sides of the House, that all the amendments, including the ones brought forward by the Government during the passage of the Bill, do not and cannot rectify the fundamental flaw at the heart of the Bill, which is that it provides immunity from prosecution to terrorists. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said so passionately and eloquently, what will future generations think of this mother of Parliaments, which was prepared to do such a thing to innocent families?
Nevertheless, some important work has been done to try to mitigate some of the worst aspects of this wretched piece of legislation, although I regret that, despite our best efforts, the glorification of terrorism has still not been adequately addressed in the Government’s amendments. Again, week after week, in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic, we see Sinn Féin, and the person who wants to be the First Minister of Northern Ireland, supporting and glorifying the bloodshed and terrorism that the IRA committed. They were not the only ones to engage in terrorism but they are the ones that are most to the fore in glorifying it, much to the trauma, pain and hurt of their victims.
The Government have brought forward a number of amendments, some of which had been originally tabled in the other place by my party colleagues, especially Gavin Robinson. I think of the repeal of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which the Minister referred to, as well as the increase in fines. It is also beneficial to the Bill that there is now the ability to revoke immunity should it be obtained through deception or lies. Again, that was tabled in the other place by my party colleagues. The Government committed in the other place to delivering that change in this House, and it is good that that was done.
I am glad that in these amendments, both in the other place and here, a lot of heavy lifting has been done by colleagues over many hours—in opposition parties, as well as by colleagues on our Benches—in an attempt to improve what is fundamentally flawed during long, what appeared sometimes to be interminable, debates, often with few outside those who were really interested present.
It has been argued by some that because of previous betrayals of victims and the previous setting aside over many years of the principle of justice in various ways, we should now somehow not be too hard on this Bill. People have referred to the on-the-runs legislation, to letters of comfort handed out to terrorists, to republicans, via Sinn Féin, and indeed to many other things that happened to the hurt of victims under both Labour and Conservative Governments.
But, my Lords, that is not something that victims say to us today. I am glad that our party in and outside Parliament, and many others, stood with innocent victims and opposed those previous obnoxious steps which were taken to appease terrorists and their supporters at that time. We opposed them then, just as we oppose this legislation, not out of any idea of populism but as a matter of principle. We have been consistent in that.
Indeed, we opposed one of the greatest betrayals of victims, when those guilty of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable, including mass murder, were given early release in 1998—something that to this day traumatises many victims, as they will tell you if you speak to them, and which was cheered on by those who should have known better, and indeed did know better at the time.
It is right as we finish these debates in this House to call out some of those people who purport to stand on the side of victims. We hear about all the political parties which are opposed to this legislation, and that is right, but Sinn Féin purports to talk about victims, victims’ rights and justice, and it is the greatest perpetrator of murder, which still to this day glorifies and defends it. It cannot speak for victims, and its cynicism and opportunism should be called out. Nor can the Irish Government, for that matter, who for many decades harboured terrorist fugitives from Northern Ireland and refused to extradite them there for justice. Whatever about the issues in the Bill—and we are opposed to it—it ill becomes the Irish Government in particular to complain. Even to this day, they refuse to co-operate properly in regard to allegations of collusion between the Garda Siochana and IRA terrorists in relation to a number of incidents in the Irish Republic and refuse to instigate a public inquiry in relation to the Omagh atrocity.
All along, we have believed, as other noble Lords and Baronesses have said, that the victims should be listened to. It is their crying that should be taken account of. If the evidence justifies it, terrorists should not be able to hide or escape justice by having the ability to invoke some kind of immunity or amnesty—conditional or otherwise.
In closing, I want to pay tribute to those innocent victims. I think of the delegation which came to Westminster in late January of this year. Among them was Pam Morrison from County Fermanagh, who will be known to many from Northern Ireland, whose three brothers, the Graham brothers, were all brutally murdered by the IRA one by one between 1981 and 1985. She also lost her sister, serving with the UDR: four brothers and sisters. Pam pleaded with the Government to listen. They have refused, but I have no doubt that we will hear her voice again, and we will all return to this subject soon.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, these amendments are really an attempt to respond, in a way, to the way in which the Minister has engaged with this Bill. Before I speak to them, let me say that I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Suttie, who has been very engaged on this Bill but is unable to be here today. I know that she was appreciative of the engagement from the Minister; indeed, I have sat in on one or two of those meetings as well as these debates.
Many of these arguments have been rehearsed many times. We do not need to say them over and over again. I want to say only two or three brief things.
The heart of this Bill is an attempt to provide immunity, yet it was driven by a minority in the Conservative Party who really wanted to give immunity to one side only. It is not possible to do that without giving immunity to the other side. That is why nobody can support this Bill—because nobody can feel satisfied that they can secure justice in that environment.
A question has been raised about compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and, indeed, the possibility of tests in the court. I have had the honour of serving as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and was a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Most of the democratic members of the Council of Europe—all of them are democratic, in fact, which is why Russia is no longer there—recognised that the point of the convention and the existence of the court was to try to avoid matters going to court while recognising that the court was there for when failures had taken place. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I therefore find it extraordinary that the Government and their representative in this context are saying, “Let’s test it in the courts”.
The question I have for the Minister, then, is this: if a case is taken to the ECHR and the court determines that this Bill is in contravention of the convention— all that will take time, of course; no doubt the measures that the Bill provides for will have been implemented and followed through by then—what will the impact be? Will it mean all the decisions taken under this legislation being invalidated? In the meantime, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, many inquests that are currently nearing progression, at least to a point where they could continue, will have been abandoned. I suggest that this Government or their successor would find themselves in an extraordinarily difficult situation, which would also be difficult to remedy because so much damage would have been done.
All of us in this House, apart from on the Conservative Benches, are quite clear that this Bill should not go ahead. However, the Minister should acknowledge, as we have in turn acknowledged of him, that there has been genuine engagement to try to move the Bill to the least damaging place, if you like—even though we all agree that it should not be here at all. These amendments are designed to be helpful and in that spirit. Frankly, it would do the Government a lot of good if they were prepared to accept them because it would show that the good will goes in both directions. I certainly make it clear that, if a Division is called on either of these amendments, we on these Benches will support it.
I hope that he will forgive me for saying so but the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, made what was a short intervention for him. However, it was so passionate in terms of his dismay and hurt, as he put it. I think many of us know how uncomfortable the Minister must be when almost anybody and everybody who has been involved in this matter in Northern Ireland says, “This is wrong. This should not be happening”. I do not think that the Bill will stand the test of time as anything other than a dishonourable and disreputable course of action by a British Government.
At this stage, I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. The Bill is supposed to provide reconciliation. As has been said on many occasions, it does not do that, but the noble Lord’s speech demonstrated that it not only does not provide reconciliation but aggravates grievance, which is the exact opposite of its intention and that is extremely disappointing.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Murphy, are constructive and helpful. In particular, the point about the Kenova process has been well respected by everybody. Given the necessary resources, it could have led to progress; the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is commendable for that reason. The right of victims to be consulted properly, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, seeks, is also essential. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, the victims are at the heart of the problem, yet they are the people who have been most ignored by this legislation.
In that context, I hope that the House will be prepared to support these amendments, which means that we will of course be back here debating them again in the not-too-distant future.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who seems to be attempting to turn the ICRIR and its reviews into the sum of all the existing legacy reinvestigations that have already happened, by the PSNI, the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and by Operation Kenova under Jon Boutcher. His amendment is complicated but would effectively mean that the new arrangements would be no different from what went before, and that the time required and the funding involved would be limitless, as I have said in the past. Given that to date we have already spent some £2 billion on Troubles reinvestigations, for little resultant value, if we are honest, this is not an attractive prospect.
The amendment also attempts to bind the ICRIR to the international standards required by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. I thought that the Government had already dealt with that aspect in a very late amendment by invoking the Human Rights Act. That Act has a domestic UK effect which is exactly appropriate for the ICRIR, rather than it having to respond to the political machinations of the court’s enforcing body—the committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
In the earlier stages of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and others, presented the Kenova process as a model for the ICRIR. That option seems to have disappeared from today’s amendment. I am not quite sure why the name has been removed. However, it is important to look a little at the background and history. The noble Lord knows that he played a very important role in an earlier stage of legacy policy, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland between 2005 and 2007. In July 2005, seven years after the Belfast agreement, the IRA, in its words, “dumped arms”. A few months later, the Government responded with the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. This proposed an alternative justice system, outside the existing institutions, to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past.
Government Ministers have not mentioned this precedent for their current Bill, but they could well have cited this attempt to further the process, conducted by then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Jonathan Powell on behalf of the Government, and by Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness on behalf of Sinn Féin and the IRA. The political situation in 2005-6 was not unlike that prevailing during the course of this Bill. The then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was opposed by all local parties except Sinn Féin. However, Clause 1 of the 2005 Bill referred to offences
“in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland (whether committed for terrorist purposes or not)”.
This meant that the amnesty provisions—and it was an amnesty, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was very honest about in his speech—could extend to the security forces. Immediately, in the other place in December 2005, Mark Durkan, the leader of the SDLP, asserted that the Bloody Sunday soldiers, still being inquired into by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, could benefit from the Bill. Sinn Féin immediately withdrew its support for the Bill and, in January 200,6 the noble Lord, Lord Hain, dropped the Bill. However, it is important to remember that the Republicans—the IRA/Sinn Féin—did not lose out. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness had been working on the on-the-runs scheme, which would soon move into its Operation Rapid phase, with comfort letters being issued to several hundred IRA men, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said.
Now, 20 years on, this Bill with its many imperfections sets out what the Government believe is a new model for addressing the legacy of the Troubles, something that—everyone is now being honest—was not considered back in 1998, and which the local political parties have not been able to agree on since. I therefore oppose this amendment, as it brings us back to where we started and is not moving us forward in any way, no matter what we think of the Bill.
I want to mention the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I am pleased that I was signature to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, in his amendment, which did not get put to the vote. This amendment, picked up by Labour’s Front Bench, is beginning again to put the victim at the centre of the whole issue. I feel that, if the person who is the victim has gone through the whole process of listening to someone who has come forward and given what they say is the truth, and everyone has listened and a great deal of time has been invested, and in the end the victim—the person who has really suffered—is prepared to accept that that person can have immunity, we can live that. I am disappointed that the Government have not moved a little bit on that, because some sensible suggestions were made in Committee, particularly by the noble and right reverend Lord. I hope that today perhaps they will come back and look at that.
Overall, this legacy Bill is—and I hate to use this expression—a dog’s breakfast. It has been cobbled together in a way that tries to please everyone and is ending up pleasing absolutely nobody. The Government are determined to put it through, which is why I have, in the past, supported certain amendments that would make it slightly better. I think that is all we can do at this stage, but I certainly do not think that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is moving us forward in any way.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to deal particularly with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and support, in as far as it goes, the good intentions of his amendment. I say “as far as it goes”, because I think the noble Lord himself would be the first to admit the limitations that can be brought forward at this stage of any amendment. There have been, throughout this process, as my noble friend Lord Dodds highlighted, from all sides of this Chamber, attempts to mitigate and ameliorate this Bill. I am glad that at least some of those have been successful, and I think we should acknowledge where improvements have been made. It is undoubtedly the case that, despite of all that, we are left with a Bill that is unsalvageable and insupportable and which perverts the course of justice to the detriment of victims.
Nevertheless, as a House, I think we are left with no alternative but to seize, where possible, any opportunity to make any improvements that we can, however small. I support in particular the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, because it seeks to put the rights of victims much closer to the heart of this Bill, irrespective of what community those victims come from, irrespective of whether they come from Northern Ireland or are external to Northern Ireland, and irrespective of what organisation has been responsible for making them victims. It is right that the ultimate focus should be on victims.
When dealing with Northern Ireland, there are two glib but dangerous lies that are often told. First, it is said that collectively there is guilt for what has happened —that we are, in some shape or form, all perpetrators. That is fundamentally wrong. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, from whatever community, were never involved in nor supported violence. They got on with their day-to-day lives. If there is acceptance of the idea that, in some way, there is a collective guilt, it gives credence to the notion that there was no alternative to violence. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland pursued that alternative—the democratic alternative—and the violence was imposed by tiny minorities on both sides, and victims suffered as a result of it.
The second lie that is often told in Northern Ireland is that somehow collectively in our society we are all victims. There are many—indeed, there are some in this House—who have suffered that victimhood at first hand, and there are far too many victims in Northern Ireland, but we are not all victims. For my part, I was fortunate enough to grow up in as relative normality as I could. I was not a victim. I cannot and do not claim victimhood, which is one of the reasons why I am particularly disturbed by this legislation, because it seeks to impose on others a system that denies them their opportunities.
The principal reason why I was not a victim in Northern Ireland was because of the brave work of the men and women of our security forces in keeping us safe. I particularly want to highlight the brave women of the security forces, because they are sometimes forgotten. In particular, this month represents the 50th anniversary of the formation and first enlistment of the UDR Greenfinches. I think they were the first units in the British Army to serve alongside men on the front line. Four of the Greenfinches—Eva Martin, Jean Leggett, Ann Hearst and Heather Kerrigan—paid the ultimate sacrifice for protecting ordinary citizens like me against terrorism. That is a very good reason why we cannot throw justice out of the window.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly on a very sad day. There is no Minister in His Majesty’s Government who has a better command and understanding of his brief than my noble friend Lord Caine. He is rightly respected and admired in Northern Ireland and, I think, in all parts of your Lordships’ House. He was clearly extremely unhappy about the Bill in its original form. He has clearly tried very hard indeed to improve it, and to some small degree it has been improved. But the speech that really should dominate this debate when it comes to be talked about in the future is the extremely powerful and moving speech of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames.
In my time as the chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place, I got to know and love Northern Ireland, and I came to respect a number of people, including the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, but none more than the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who was rightly held in fond affection throughout Northern Ireland, was looked up to, and did so much, particularly with the commission that he and Denis Bradley chaired. What he said today was an eloquent endorsement of the point made from the Opposition Front Bench by a much-respected former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. He effectively said that this Bill is unimprovable.
I missed some of the debates on the Bill for domestic reasons, which many Members of your Lordships’ House are aware of, but I did speak at the beginning on a number of occasions. Although it has been before your Lordships’ House for over a year, it is still, frankly, an unacceptable Bill, because it does not command any support outside the Government, and quite a number of us on the Conservative Benches in both Houses are very unhappy about it.
There was a degree of impeccable logic in the speech of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. There is a case for a statute of limitations; it is a clear, unambiguous answer. It is equally clear—the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, recognised this in his speech—that that would not command support either at the moment.
It is incumbent upon the Government, in view of the widespread concern, anxiety and deep unhappiness, to pause this Bill. We have a new Session of Parliament opening on 7 November, just a little over two months ahead. We have a fairly frenetic week this week and next week, and a few days after, and then we break for the so-called Conference Recess. We come back for about 10 days. There will be no further opportunity for detailed examination of this Bill, and we cannot play indefinite ping-pong. I am one of those who is frequently on record as saying that of course the will of the other place, as the elected House, must prevail in the end.
It would be doing a service, to the people of Northern Ireland in particular, to pause on this. However, one service deserves another, and I revert to a point I made during Questions earlier this afternoon. It is incumbent upon political leaders in Northern Ireland to come together and have an Assembly and an Executive, because the ultimate verdict on the Bill should be given in Northern Ireland itself after a close re-examination of all the alternatives, including a statute of limitations. This is not a Bill that should go on to the statute book in the fag end of this Session. With every possible tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I genuinely mean what I said, I beg him to have urgent conversations with the Secretary of State and to press the pause button.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am, as ever, extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on these amendments. I will attempt to be very brief. I had not planned to make a long wind-up speech. I will reply to just one or two points, if I may.
In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, referred to the long history of attempts to deal with legacy issues. In 1998, it was, of course, put into the “too difficult” drawer. There have been subsequent attempts, none of which have come to a successful resolution. I refer to the valiant efforts of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and his work with Denis Bradley. As noble Lords know, I was involved in the 2014 Stormont House agreement which, despite all of our best efforts, never managed to make it on to the statute book, and the level of consensus that we thought we had achieved at the time very quickly evaporated. There have been many attempts and many failures around legacy over the years.
This legislation, as I made clear in my opening remarks, sets out a different approach. The overall objective is very straightforward. It is to try to get for victims and survivors of the Troubles more information about what happened to loved ones in a far shorter time than is possible under existing mechanisms in a context in which, unfortunately for many, the prospect of prosecutions and convictions is going to be vanishingly rare.
I acknowledged as far back as Second Reading that I totally understand and acknowledge the feelings of many victims and survivors. I have met so many over the years, especially over the course of the past year, and for many the emotion, grief and anguish are as raw today as they were whenever the particular incident that caused their loved ones to be lost actually occurred. I referred in my Second Reading speech last November to my friend Ian Gow. Only last week, I dug out the letter that Ian sent to me on 4 June 1990, looking forward to lunch in the Strangers’ Dining Room on 11 June, just a matter of weeks before he was brutally murdered by the Provisional IRA—so I am acutely aware of the victims of terrorism.
However, I say to noble Lords that, if we are to pause this Bill or to refer it to the Assembly, all we are really doing is setting ourselves up for a further significant delay in providing answers to victims and survivors of the Troubles. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and my noble friend Lord Cormack—I am very grateful for and touched by my noble friend’s generous words towards me—talked about referring this back to the Assembly. I think I said in the past that it was always the assumption, going back to the Haass/O’Sullivan talks in 2013, that these matters would be dealt with in the Assembly after the Stormont House agreement, which largely covered devolved issues. Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson, then Deputy First Minister and First Minister respectively, came to the then Secretary of State and said, “Secretary of State, these issues are all far too difficult for us to deal with in the Assembly. Please could you take all the legislation through Westminster?” That is when we ended up unsuccessfully trying to convert the Stormont House agreement into legislation through this House. So I do not necessarily agree with the noble Lord that the answer is to refer this back to the Assembly.
I dealt in my opening remarks with the Government’s objections to the two amendments; I do not intend to add to those remarks. The subsequent debate has to some extent taken on the nature of another Second Reading debate, in that a number of issues have been raised that have been debated extensively throughout the past year. So, once again, with the greatest respect to the House, I do not intend to go over all those points again; we have debated them exhaustively.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for taking my intervention. In that same article in the Irish News there was a subheading which indicated that the staff to assist Sir Declan would come from the Northern Ireland Office. Can the Minister confirm that this is correct and, if so, how will it address the issue of independence of the commission?
Lord Caine (Con)
There are officials from the Northern Ireland Office assisting with the establishment of the body, but the staffing of the body will be entirely for the commission itself; it is not a matter for the Northern Ireland Office. The legislation is not yet passed, so the commission will not formally come into being until next year. All that is happening is that officials from my department are helping with the establishment during that transition phase.
As I said, this has taken on something of a Second Reading debate. We have heard many points rehearsed extensively. Therefore, I conclude by asking noble Lords not to insist on Motions A1 and B1 but instead to agree with the Commons amendments in lieu under Motions A, B and C, and pass this Bill; that is the clear will of the elected House of Commons. I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I want to thank especially the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie, for their fulsome support for my amendment. In the circumstances, I reluctantly beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Lord Caine
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 44 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 44A, 44B and 44C to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendment 44.
(b) any other law that might or would prevent a prosecution of P for an offence from being begun or continued (for example abuse of process—but see paragraph 3 of Schedule (No immunity in certain circumstances)).”
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 44D, 44E, 44F and 44G as additional amendments to the words so restored to the Bill and Amendments 44H and 44J as consequential amendments—
“(6A) Condition D: in relation to immunity for offences causing death, consent of a close family member of the deceased has been sought, and the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that—
(a) the close family member has given consent for the granting of immunity and no objections have been raised by any other close family member within three months of the consent being given, or
(b) if no consent has been given by that close family member within three months or an objection has been raised by any other close family member, it is nevertheless in the public interest to proceed with the granting of immunity.
(6B) Condition E: the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that P—
(a) has complied with any conditions imposed by the ICRIR following the request for immunity under subsection (2), and
(b) is likely to comply with any licence conditions imposed as part of the granting of immunity.
(6C) For the purposes of subsection (6B), conditions imposed by the ICRIR, whether before or after the granting of immunity, may include—
(a) attendance at a specified place,
(b) provision of fingerprints and non-intimate samples,
(c) restrictions on P’s ability to approach or otherwise communicate with—
(i) a victim, in the case of injury, or
(ii) a victim’s family, in relation to a death,
without the consent of the victim or victim’s family (as the case may be), and
(d) restrictions on activity which might allow P to gain financially from the offences for which immunity is sought or granted.
(6D) The ICRIR may revoke P’s immunity from prosecution if the Chief Commissioner is satisfied that P has breached one or more licence conditions imposed by the ICRIR.
(6E) A revocation of immunity under subsection (6D)—
(a) has immediate effect, and
(b) does not prevent a person making a further request for immunity under subsection (2).
(6F) For the purposes of this section, a person (F) is a close family member of the deceased (D) if F—
(a) was the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of D on the day of D’s death (and for the meaning of “co-habitee”, see paragraph 2 of Schedule 3),
(b) is a child of D,
(c) is a parent of D,
(d) is a brother or sister of D,
(e) is a step-child of D (see paragraph 3 of Schedule 3),
(f) was a step-parent of D on the day of D’s death or is a step-parent of D on the day on which consent is sought (see paragraph 4 of Schedule 3),
(g) is a half-brother or half-sister of D, or
(h) is a step-brother or step-sister of D (see paragraph 5 of Schedule 3).”
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Caine
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 119A.
Work Capability Assessment Consultation
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement given in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, I would like to make a Statement on our proposed changes to the work capability assessment, which aim to ensure that no one who can work is permanently written out of this country’s strong labour market story. It is a story that has seen nearly 4 million more people in work compared to 2010; 2 million more disabled people in work than in 2013; and record numbers of people on payrolls. But, although it is the case that the number of people overall who are economically inactive has fallen strongly from its pandemic peak, there remain over 2.5 million people who are inactive because of long-term sickness and disability.
Yet we know that one in five people on incapacity benefits who are currently not expected to prepare for work want to work in the future, if the right job and support were available, and the proportion of people going through a work capability assessment who are being given the highest level of award and deemed to have no work-related requirements at all has risen from 21% in 2011 to 65% last year. This situation is excluding significant numbers of people from receiving employment support to help them to move closer to work opportunities. It is holding back the labour market and economy but, perhaps most important of all, it is holding back human potential. I want to ensure that everyone who can benefits from all the opportunities that work brings—not just the financial security but all the physical and mental health benefits too.
No one who can work should be left behind. That is why, earlier this year, we announced an extra £2 billion-worth of investment to help disabled people and those with health conditions move into work. That includes bringing in our new universal support employment programme, which will assist disabled people and those with health conditions to connect with vacancies, and will provide support and training to help them start and stay in a role. Through our individual placement and support in the primary care programme, we are investing £58 million to help more than 25,000 people to start and stay in work. We are modernising mental health services in England, providing wellness and clinical apps, piloting cutting-edge digital therapies and digitising the NHS talking therapies programme. We have also published fundamental reforms to the health and disability benefits system through our health and disability White Paper. That will see the end of the work capability assessment and a new personalised, tailored approach to employment support to help everyone reach their full potential.
The scale of our reforms means that they will take time to implement, but there are changes we can make more quickly that will also make a difference. So before the White Paper reforms come in, I want to make sure that the work capability assessment—the way in which we assess how someone’s health limits their ability to work and therefore what support they need—is delivering the right outcomes and supporting those most in need. Today my department is launching a consultation on measures to ensure that those who can work are given the right support and opportunities to move off benefits and towards the jobs market.
As I have said, we know that many people who are on out-of-work benefits due to a health condition want to work and, assisted by modern working practices, they could do so while managing their condition effectively. We have seen a huge shift in the world of work in the last few years—a huge change that has accelerated since the pandemic. This has opened up more opportunities for disabled people and those with health conditions to start, stay in and succeed in work.
The rise in flexible and home working has brought new opportunities for disabled people to manage their conditions in a more familiar and accessible environment. More widely, there have been improvements in the approach that many employers take to workplace accessibility and reasonable adjustments for staff. A better understanding of mental health conditions and neuro- diversity has helped employers to identify opportunities to adapt job roles and the way disabled people and people with health conditions work.
The consultation that I am publishing today is about updating the work capability assessment so that the way it works keeps up with the way people work. The activities and descriptors within the work capability assessment, which help to decide whether people have any work preparation requirements to improve their chances of gaining work, have not been comprehensively reviewed since 2011. It is right that we look afresh at how we can update them, given the huge changes we have seen in the world of work. For instance, the work capability assessment does not reflect how someone with a disability or health condition might be able to work from home—yet we know many disabled people do just that.
Our plans include taking account of the fact that people with mobility problems, or who suffer anxiety within the workplace, have better access to employment opportunities due to the rise in flexible and home working. We are consulting on whether changes should be made to four of the activities and descriptors that determine whether someone can work, or prepare to work, to reflect changes in working practices and better employment support. This includes looking at changing, removing or reducing the points for descriptors relating to mobilising, continence, social engagement and getting about. We are not consulting on changes to the remaining descriptors, which will remain unaltered. These changes will not affect people who are nearing the end of life or receiving cancer treatment, nor will they affect the majority of activities for those with severe disablement—for example, if a person has severe learning disabilities or is unable to transfer from one seat to another.
We are also consulting on changes to the provision for claimants who would otherwise be capable of work preparation activity but are excluded from work preparation requirements on the basis of substantial risk, most commonly on mental health grounds. The original intention for substantial risk was for it to be advised only in exceptional circumstances. It was intended to provide a safety net for the most vulnerable. However, the application of risk has gone beyond the original intent. We are therefore consulting on how we might change how substantial risk applies, so that people are able to access the support they need to move closer to work and a more fulfilling life. We are also considering the tailored and appropriate support that will be needed for this group, safely helping them move closer to work.
These proposals will help people move into, or closer to, the labour market, and to fulfil their potential. We are consulting over the next eight weeks to seek the views of disabled people, employers, charities and others about our proposed changes. If the proposals were taken forward following consultation, the earliest we could implement any change would be from 2025, given the need to make changes to regulations and ensure appropriate training for health assessors.
These plans are part of our wider approach to ensuring that we have a welfare system that encourages and supports people into work, while providing a vital safety net for those who need it most—a welfare system that focuses on what people can do, not on what they cannot, and that reflects the modern changes to the world of work. It is time to share the opportunities of work far more fairly. It is time for work to be truly available to all those who can benefit from it. It is time to get Britain working. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for advance sight of it. The way we support sick and disabled people in this country is of huge importance, both to the millions directly affected and their families and to our country as a whole, and it says something about who we are as a nation. Labour believes passionately that everyone who can should be able to access a decent job, with all the financial and other benefits that brings. That is why we have been so concerned at the Government’s failure to address the disability employment gap over such a long time. Nobody should be shut out of the workplace when, with the right help and support, they could be working.
We are now in a position where an astonishing 2.6 million people are out of work as a result of long- term sickness—the highest number ever, and up almost half a million since the pandemic. This is a serious problem for individuals and a challenge for our country. The Government have been warned for many years now that benefit assessments are not fit for purpose and, crucially, that unless we have a proper plan to support sick and disabled people, even more people will end up stuck out of work when they do not need or want to be.
So what can be done? Our approach has been to set out some serious plans in this area: to transform back-to-work help by personalising employment support and tackling the huge backlogs in our NHS and social care; by offering an “into work guarantee” so that people can try work without worrying about losing their benefits—something that has had widespread support both from the voluntary sector and within Parliament; to make sure that employment support meets local needs by devolving appropriately to local areas; and to make sure that, when disabled people get a job, they get the support they need when they need it, not several months down the line.
By contrast, this consultation is rather small in scope. The Statement seems to suggest that the Government have decided that the main problem is that too many people who undergo a work capability assessment are classed in the higher rate, and therefore the only way to solve that is to change the criteria. We will look at the outcome of this consultation carefully but let me ask a few questions of the Minister now.
Is the sole intention of this exercise to reduce the number of people who are classed as having limited capability for work and work-related activity? If so, by how many? Is there a target? The Statement says that the current situation
“is excluding significant numbers of people from receiving employment support”.
Will the Minister tell the House whether DWP could choose to offer employment support now to people who are deemed LCWRA?
If in future more of these millions of people were classed as simply having limited capability for work, rather than in the higher area, would that make any other difference to them, as opposed to just getting employment support? Might it affect how much money they were given to live on while they were waiting to get a job? Can the Minister tell us how these proposals will address the total inadequacy of decision-making, which causes untold stress and wastes millions of pounds?
The Minister pointed out that the Government have longer-term plans. The Health and Disability White Paper outlined plans to abolish the work capability assessment altogether and replace it with a single assessment, which will be the PIP—the personal independence payment assessment. I do not want to be mean, but PIP is hardly a model of good practice: 80% of PIP decisions get overturned at tribunal, and only 2% are down to new evidence. In any case, these plans are way in the future, beyond this Parliament. If the proposals contained in this consultation will not come in until 2025, when will we possibly see the plans that will not even be considered until after the next election? Will the Minister give us some idea of when, if his Government were returned to power—I accept that it is an “if”—they would expect to see those plans come to fruition?
We need a big plan now to help sick and disabled people who want to get back to work—after all, the backlog for Access to Work payments has trebled to 25,000 since the pandemic. Where are the proposals to bring that down? Where is the plan to slash the waiting lists for those who are struggling with anxiety and depression, which is keeping them out of the workplace? Where are the plans to give help to carers to support their sick and disabled loved ones so they can get back to work?
I understand what the Minister is trying to do, but the truth is that this is tinkering around the edges of a system which is failing sick and disabled people. It is not providing the help they need and, in the meantime, our NHS and social care, on which sick and disabled people depend more than anyone, is being run into the ground. We need more than this and we need it soon.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, what a mixed message there is in this Statement. The first page of the Statement that the Minister so kindly read says how successful the Government have been in getting people back to work and in the next part it tells us how we need to get more people into work. If ever a message was mixed, that is it. It is not a good story, and the fact that it needs consultation shows that. With all this so-called success, the Statement says that the policies are, in its words, “holding back human potential” so let us have the old idea of consultation.
Flexible and home working usually require that the employee has adequate access to space and technology to safely work. This is even more the case for someone with a disability. Will the Minister say whether the Government will also commit to extra funding for the aids, adaptions and technology required to take up work- from-home opportunities?
The Minister, in rereading the Statement, is suggesting removing descriptors. Will the Government also review additional descriptors, which can impact on someone’s ability to work? At the moment, fatigue is not a descriptor. However, we know that this is a significant symptom for people with long Covid, MS and pain conditions. Sitting at a desk—we know all about sitting on the Benches here in the Lords—for long periods, even for people who do not need to leave their house, may be no less fatiguing. Will the Minister consult to make sure a safety net is kept in place?
I am concerned about the consultation on substantial risk. We know that, for many people, engagement with the DWP can create anxiety and worsen their mental health. In doing his review, will the Minister take the opportunity to get his own house in order and make employment support a positive experience and not one that has, sadly, seen so many people come to harm and even take their own lives?
Finally, in the real world, when somebody comes before someone at the Department for Work and Pensions, how consistent will the DWP be in treating them in the way they should be treated? I am worried about the balance between helping people into work and forcing people—and I do mean forcing—to give up on support for those least fortunate in society.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for their points. The way I read it is that the consultation has broadly been accepted, but I understand that a number of questions have been raised and I will do my best to answer them.
First, there is some agreement that it is very important to support disabled people and to give them every opportunity, if they are not in work, to find a way of getting into it or to prepare for it. Hopefully, there is agreement to that extent. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is absolutely right that no one should be shut out of the workplace. We are at the forefront in wanting to do more to ensure that disabled people who want to and can work are able to do so. However, some disabled people may not be able to work; we are a compassionate country and it is important to make the point that, where they are generally unable to work, the state should step in and support them, as it does at the moment.
I take issue with what the noble Baroness said about the intention and scope. We believe that it is an important measure to look at the conditionalities during this eight-week consultation, because it is important to move quickly. It is part of a whole package of measures that the Government have taken and continue to take for the disabled, which includes, as the House will be aware, the national disability strategy and the disability action plan. I will expand on that to try to be helpful. By the way, the sole intention is not to do with figures —there is no target; it is not to do with that at all; it is to look more closely at who in the disabled diaspora might be willing to work and how they can be encouraged and helped into work or preparing for work.
To pick up a point from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as he will know, the consultation is inviting comments on the four descriptors: mobilising, continence, getting about and coping with social engagement. As the House will know, people are referred for a WCA when they report a health condition or disability which may prevent or limit their ability to work or undertake work preparation activities. Currently, the activities do not take account of somebody’s ability to work from home, as the Statement said. We have identified some activities as the most likely to be affected by modern changes in the workplace, including working from home and better support and understanding from employers around how to overcome barriers to work for disabled people and people with health conditions. To that extent, we are moving more quickly and offering this targeted approach as part of the consultation.
On our broader support, I remind the noble Baroness that we announced £2 billion at the Spring Budget 2023 to support disabled people and people with health conditions into work, including through WorkWell and universal support. We also increased our support offer to help people move back into work when they can with additional work coach time.
I will set out some figures for the House. Roughly 700,000 new benefit claimants go through a work capability assessment each year and we are seeing around 450,000 determined as having limited capability for work-related activity. Hopefully, that gives some scope of the population we are working within. Clearly, if we helped just 10% of that cohort, around 45,000 more people per year would be placed in a group in which they would receive the necessary help to get into employment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I do not think the Minister answered some of the questions I asked—maybe he omitted to do so. I asked about the timing and whether a shift away from the higher rate to the lower rate would have any implications for the amount of money somebody got, for example. Did he miss those questions?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
This is unusual procedure. On the timing, I made it clear in the Statement that we will work through this consultation and receive the results. In terms of the results coming through, I mentioned 2025. I will certainly look at the other questions the noble Baroness raised and write to her, although I think there were probably just one or two.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the start of the Statement. In all my time in the department, now being carried on by my noble friend the Minister, there was real ambition to help those people in the work capability assessment—earlier rather than later, because the longer you leave it, the worse the condition gets.
This weekend, I was trying to tidy up my study, which is a massive job, when I came across an independent evaluation of a programme we ran at Tomorrow’s People when I was there—I declare an interest, although I am not there any more. We had a programme in a doctor’s surgery called “The Right Prescription: A Job”. When somebody was physically or mentally unwell and came to the doctor, if there was nothing he could do for them, he called them his “heartsink patients” because his heart sank when they walked in the room. He wrote “a job” with us on the prescription pad.
We had a consulting room and, initially, we worked with a cohort of 200 people. The results were pretty astounding. We ended up with 880 surgeries across the country wanting us, representing millions of patients. The Government at the time—I will not declare which—said that it was too expensive, but for an investment of £2,000 you got a return to society of £10,000. We reduced the anti-depressant prescription bill by 34% for those 200, saved the doctor 20% of his time, saved referrals to counsellors and got people into work. On average, 80% of them were there 12 months later, although it was intense.
We must look at the consultation as an opportunity for people to put forward ideas that make life better for people. If the department will have me in for 10 minutes, I will certainly come back and share that evaluation to see whether it can help, because people with mental health issues in particular need all the help we can give them.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I take this opportunity to encourage all those who are interested to give input to the consultation. To pick up on my noble friend’s point about GPs, a key principle is that the WCA considers what impact the person’s disability or health condition has on them, not the condition itself. To clarify, the department does not ask claimants’ doctors to make decisions about their patients’ capability for work. This is because the doctor diagnoses and treats a patient’s illness, whereas the WCA healthcare professional’s role is to assess the effects of the claimant’s illness on their ability to perform everyday work-related activity. It is important to make that distinction.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question is informed by a study published this May by a group called INvolve, which spoke to 500 UK employed adults with invisible disabilities, including visual impairment and chronic pain. Two-fifths said they were not getting the support they needed at work, particularly as businesses cut back under the current economic challenges; two-thirds said it was up to them to sort out their own support, as they were not getting help from their employer; one-quarter said they had a workload that they simply could not manage; and one- fifth said they were considering leaving their job as a result of their difficulties. The kinds of things these sick and disabled workers were seeking were flexible working hours, training for other employees to understand their situation and assistive technologies and tools.
This government action is focused entirely on people suffering from sickness and disabilities, but they are going out into a workplace where there is clearly significant discrimination. The Statement makes a lot of the move towards working from home, but quite a number of businesses have been heading in the opposite direction, trying to force staff now working from home to come back into the office. Do the Government plan measures of a similar scale to those in this Statement to crack down on discrimination in the workplace and to ensure that employers offer conditions in which the people this Statement refers to can work?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point, which allows me to emphasise the dependence on employers. The noble Baroness will know that we have reached out considerably to employers to encourage them, and we continue to encourage them to take on those who are disabled. ONS data from September 2022 to January 2023 shows that 44% of working adults work from home exclusively or at least some of the time each week. If that is translated into those who are disabled working for employers, that is quite encouraging. We encourage everyone to input into the consultation.
The noble Baroness may know that recent published data suggests that disabled people are more likely to work in the health, retail or education sectors. As of July 2023, these three industries have a combined total of 350,000 vacancies. There is a tremendous opportunity there, and we need to work through that.
Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill
Tuesday 5th September 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 View all Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (1 Sep 2023)
Baroness Garden of Frognal
“(1A) For the purposes of this Schedule, one credit corresponds to 10 notional learning hours.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment puts the number of hours that constitute a credit on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
Amendment 1 proposes the widely accepted requirement that the learning hours associated with credit must be consistent with sector-wide standards. It would be beneficial to have 10 hours written in the Bill in order to cement its definition, because that would mean that no new definition could be introduced or imposed at a later date for the purposes of setting fee limits.
We continue to express concern that the lack of detail in the Bill could mean that in the future the policy could significantly change from the intentions of the current Government, and there is little constraint against decisions made by the Secretary of State—often a “here today, gone tomorrow” Minister—but I recognise that on Report we are unlikely to be able to change the powers of the Secretary of State.
Amendment 2 proposes the insertion of a new clause to review the provisions in the Act. Businesses are reporting having difficulty recruiting employees with the relevant skills. In August 2022, the Federation of Small Businesses found that 80% of small firms faced difficulties recruiting applicants with suitable skills in the previous 12 months. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation estimates that if labour shortages are not addressed, the UK economy will be £39 billion worse off each year from 2024.
Despite the rising population, many employers are facing skills gaps. Some 28,300 London employers report that not all their employees have the right skills for the job. Almost a quarter—23%—of all vacancies in London are due to a lack of applicants with the right skills, while almost half of firms—42%—are not confident that they will be able to recruit people with the higher-level skills their organisation needs over the next five years. It is possible that many of the migrants waiting to be processed will have the skills that the country urgently needs, so when will the Home Office speed up the processing so that we can see if that is the case?
We are not convinced that the introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement will help to plug the gaps. The Liberal Democrats have called for grants, rather than loans, to encourage adult reskilling, concerned that many adults will be reluctant to take on debt for their further training. Will the LLE allow people to upskill effectively? Will they want to take out loans to upskill? It will be important for the Government to review the impact of the provisions of the Bill to assess whether these measures alleviate the skills shortages.
I am not my party’s expert on sharia finance, but I am aware of the Islamic belief that benefiting from lending money by charging interest or repaying more than the initial amount borrowed—riba—is forbidden. The investments made by loan companies, which might be in industries such as gambling or alcohol, are also considered problematic. For these reasons, Muslim students are deterred from taking out student loans from the Student Loans Company to cover the tuition fees and living costs associated with higher education. Research has shown this can act as a barrier to higher education for Muslims or cause financial hardship for those who do choose to study at university.
The UK Government first proposed a student finance product consistent with Muslim beliefs about interest-bearing loans in 2013. The Higher Education Research Act 2017 allows the Government to introduce such a product, but it has yet to do so. The issue has been raised in Parliament a number of times, with the delay described as shameful by my noble friend Lord Sharkey, who is indeed an expert on sharia finance.
In March 2023, in their response to the consultation on the lifelong loan entitlement, the Government said that a sharia-compliant alternative student finance product would not be available as part of the launch of the LLE in England in 2025. In July 2023, the Government said that they remain committed to delivering alternative student finance as soon as possible after 2025. Can the Minister say why the Government have yet to do this? It would be useful to understand their thinking behind the delays and whether they could explain how the introduction of the LLE would impact those who require sharia-compliant loans.
The other part of the amendment calls for a review before the end of 2026, and preferably earlier. I have also added my name to Amendment 4, which Labour will introduce. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 4, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a review of the lifelong loan entitlement before bringing in further regulations on fee limits. I welcome the Minister's comments in Committee, and I fully understand her feedback about what information will accompany further regulations as these changes are rolled out.
We have brought this amendment back to further raise the point about ensuring that students, the sector and Parliament are given clear information on the details of the LLE as soon as possible. Throughout the passage of this Bill, we have raised concerns, often after input from those in the higher education sector, that so little about the LLE in terms of course provision, maintenance, credits, transfers, and further rollout of modular study at other levels is confirmed in any meaningful detail.
I am none the less grateful that, following Committee, the Minister outlined further details of the LLE that relate to this Bill in a letter. However, as we know, this huge shift in higher education policy goes further than fee limits. We all want this change to work, but for that to happen the sector will need much more clarity than has been provided through this very narrow Bill.
The accounting officer assessment for the LLE states:
“The main feasibility risk of LLE is meeting the 2025 delivery timescale”.
Is the Minister still confident that the department will be able to deliver on time, particularly in the light of current pressures arising from the major emergency that the department is currently dealing with in school buildings across the UK?
My next question follows on naturally: what is in place if this timescale turns out to be unworkable? There are a great many sector stakeholders—as well as the students themselves, of course—who will need clearly communicated timelines. Amendment 1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, puts in the Bill the number of hours that constitute a credit. We understand why she tabled that amendment: it is important that the sector is given clarity and control over the definition of working hours and that it is consistent with the QAA’s higher education credit framework. As she noted, her concern is about the lack of detail. This is one of many areas in which the higher and further education sectors still have questions about how a credit will be defined.
The concept of a credit in education terms will also be completely alien to the general public, and there is a risk that employers simply do not understand its value. The Government need to think about how this can be communicated. We do not believe that putting a number in the Bill at this point would be beneficial. However, we would like a commitment from the Government that they will not seek to amend the value of a credit and will be led by the sector’s understanding of it.
On Amendment 2, I am glad that the Minister has outlined the Government’s plans to ensure sharia-compliant loans in writing; we look forward to receiving further engagement on this issue as the LLE progresses. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, pointed out, there is a distinct problem with skills gaps—a lack of applicants with the right skills. The economy cannot move forward appropriately with skills shortages.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, the amendments reflect widespread cross-party support for the Bill and its principles; they are not intended to destroy the Bill in any way. I see the case for the Bill, which of course I warmly welcome, as opening up new possibilities. We genuinely do not know the circumstances in which people may take them up and we do not know whether debt aversion is much more of an issue among mature learners than among young people aged 18 or 19; we will find out only if we give this a try. Similarly, we do not know how much suppressed demand there is for level 4 or level 5 qualifications because of the way in which loans are currently structured; we will find out only if we give this a try. So this is definitely worth going forward with.
I have three brief comments on the amendments. First, one of the temptations we have in this House— I have occasionally succumbed to it myself—is to try to determine the details of policy through primary legislation. That is one of the risks in Amendment 1, with its specification of the definition of “one credit”. Of course, it is an important and interesting area but, as we are embarking on a journey with a new and more flexible system, trying to put that into primary legislation would inhibit necessary policy flexibility—a point that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, referred to.
Secondly, I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on sharia-compliant loans. We have been at this for 10 years now, and it really is time that a scheme such as this were available and in force. There were initially some tricky problems, but I think that the long work that the department has done over the years has resolved them. My understanding is that the technical and theological issues have been addressed. I know that the Minister herself is keen to get on with this, so anything that she can say to the House about her commitment to that timescale would be very welcome.
Finally, on Amendment 4, I am proud to say that I am acting as the spokesman for the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. She very much regrets that she cannot be with us; she briefly appeared, but I think she had to catch a plane to Lithuania. In many ways, she is the intellectual origins of the Bill. I know that her spirit is that she wants to get on with it. Her concern about this amendment—which I completely understand and support—is that requiring another review before we can get on with things will slow down the pace still further. I think that the mood across this House is that we want to get on with it; we do not want reasons for further delay. I fear that Amendment 4 would constitute another obstacle to this potentially important and significant innovation in policy, which I warmly support.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, many interesting points have been made about the amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the other speakers that we would like to see this progress; it is a good idea. We want to improve access to education, which means having more and better information about fees and recognising the fact that they cannot just continue uncontrolled.
Another point I endorse is that which the Minister said in a previous speech on this subject: that the Government had a “phased approach” to this. I think consideration has been given to the many points that have been very intelligently raised; I am sure that the Minister is grateful for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, ahead of speaking to the amendments tabled, I thank all noble Lords across the Chamber for their contributions and the support they have expressed, both for this Bill and for the wider programme to transform opportunities to build qualifications over one’s lifetime. We heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden and Lady Wilcox, about the importance of filling skills gaps so that the economy can grow. I thank both my noble friend Lord Willetts and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, for their support and acknowledgement that the Bill will open new opportunities for learners.
Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, would define a credit as equivalent to “10 notional learning hours” in the Bill. The Government believe that it is crucial that the definitions of credits in the fee limit calculations align to standard practice in the sector—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made. The Government plan to set out this detail in regulations, rather than in primary legislation. The power to do so is provided for in new paragraph 1B of Schedule 2 to the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, introduced through Clause 1 of this Bill. Specifying learning hours in secondary rather than primary legislation means that providers that might choose to use a different number of learning hours per credit will simply have those courses treated as non-credit-bearing for fee limit purposes. If we took the approach of this amendment, those same providers could instead be considered in breach of the fee limit rules as a whole, with all the regulatory consequences that might bring. I am sure that is not what the noble Baroness intends with her amendment.
To be clear, as I think the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to do, the Government do not intend to change the number of learning hours in a credit unless standards in the sector change. Learning hours are, and should continue to be, based on sector-led standards. Regulations on learning hours will follow the affirmative resolution procedure, so Parliament will get the opportunity to debate and formally approve any changes to those regulations.
Amendment 2 and Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, would require the Secretary of State to publish a review of the impact of the future Act on the progress of the rollout of the lifelong loan entitlement. Amendment 4 sets out that such a review must be published ahead of regulations being laid, and Amendment 2 would require the review to be presented to Parliament before the end of 2026. I thank my noble friend Lord Willetts for being the very eloquent messenger of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. We absolutely agree with her point and that made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Amendment 2 specifies that the review should include the impact of the credit-based method on sharia-compliant loans and skills gaps.
I thank your Lordships for these amendments. The Government agree with the sentiment behind them, if such sentiment seeks the department’s commitment to monitoring the impact of these measures on the transformation of student finance under the lifelong loan entitlement. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government published an impact assessment alongside the Bill upon its introduction in the other place in February this year. Subsequently, the department published an updated and more extensive impact assessment of the lifelong loan entitlement, more broadly, alongside the publication of the consultation response in March. As was committed to in the impact assessment published in March, and in accordance with the Better Regulation Framework, a more detailed assessment of impacts will be published at the point when the Government lay the necessary secondary legislation to implement the lifelong loan entitlement fully. Therefore, the Government already intend to publish an updated impact assessment covering all aspects of the LLE, including the measures in the Bill, when regulations are laid.
In addition, parliamentary accountability mechanisms are already in place to review Acts of Parliament and the impact that they have on policy, including post-legislative scrutiny in particular, but not exclusively. There will be continued scrutiny of the LLE and the impact of these measures in both this place and the other place, including the role of the Education Select Committee in scrutinising the work of the department.
I will just rest for a moment on the point about post-legislative scrutiny, which I understand the noble Baronesses raised at the briefing yesterday. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, will be aware that under the current government guidance and as proposed in 2008, between three to five years after an Act is passed it should be reviewed by the government department and Parliament. I can assure the noble Baroness that the Government will seek to work together with the relevant Select Committee in line with that guidance. However, while we recognise the importance of reviewing the implementation, it should be not just of this Act but of the reform of the system—and again, I can commit that the Government would like to see that review happen.
On the specific details within the amendments themselves, the timing requirement in Amendment 4 would require a review of the impact of the Bill on the rollout of the LLE prior to regulations being laid. I want to be clear here that any impact assessment which is conducted ahead of laying regulations would not be any different to the impact assessment currently available for the Bill and the consultation process. The next point at which impacts can be assessed is when the regulations are laid and, as stated, the Government are committed to publishing an impact assessment at that time.
Amendment 2 relates to the impact of the credit-based method on sharia-compliant loans and skills gaps. First, it is important to note that fee limits are set on courses, not on students. Therefore, the credit-based method—like the current fee limit system—will not depend on any characteristics of individual students. All students on a course will have their fees determined in line with the same fee limit rules, regardless of whether they use their LLE, self-fund, or use alternative loan arrangements.
I take this opportunity to assure your Lordships that the Government remain committed to delivering an alternative student finance product compatible with Islamic finance principles. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, questioned why it was taking so long. I will not rehearse all the arguments, but I think she will remember that we touched on this in Committee, and it really is linked to the complexity of implementation. Every element that changes within the student finance systems needs to be mirrored for the alternative finance product, so it is a more complicated process and is contingent, and it has to follow the building of the systems which will allow us to deliver the new approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, questioned our commitment to being able to deliver by 2025. I remind the House of the measures that we set out in the letter that I sent your Lordships on this point following Grand Committee. I am pleased to confirm that in August, the Student Loans Company commenced delivery planning for alternative student finance, and it is supported on this phase of work by experts in Islamic finance, the Islamic Finance Council UK. I continue to meet on a quarterly basis with the Student Loans Company, the Islamic Finance Council UK, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, Stephen Timms MP and representatives from the Islamic community to discuss the steps the Government are taking to deliver alternative student finance as swiftly as possible. Because of the delays there have been, we need to be as transparent as possible to make sure that we build or rebuild trust with the community that we really will deliver on this. I will provide a further update on alternative student finance later this year.
On skills gaps, in response to the LLE consultation, the Government made it clear that they will be taking a phased approach to modular funding, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reminded the House, focusing on higher technical courses which have the clearest employer value. It is important to note that fee limits are not a means to address skills gaps; they are to ensure that students have affordable access to higher education provision provided by those higher education providers who receive government funding to support course delivery.
Finally, it is worth noting that the LLE policy is much wider than the provisions of the Bill, and as such, the reviews sought through these amendments would focus narrowly on fee limits and not on the impact of the LLE as a whole.
For these reasons, while the department understands the sentiment behind these amendments, they would either have unintended consequences or would be unnecessary, as there will already be mechanisms in place to provide such review. Therefore, the Government cannot accept these amendments and I hope that your Lordships will withdraw or not move them.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and her reassurance, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Berkeley, for their comments on this short debate.
Of course, we are all committed to encouraging lifelong learning—it is essential for the well-being of the country and of individuals—and we all want to make sure that it is encouraged. As I say, we continue to express concern that adults may not prepared to take on loans for this but, obviously, only time will tell. I thank the Minister for her remarks about sharia finance, because it is a concern that Muslim students are deterred from entering higher education because they cannot get the means to do so. With that, I thank all your Lordships and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Twycross
“Review of the operation of the Act(1) The Secretary of State must conduct an annual review of the operation of the provisions of this Act.(2) The review must consider the impact of the provisions of this Act on—(a) learner uptake of modular study;(b) learner uptake of non-modular part-time study;(c) adult learner uptake of Level 3, Level 4, Level 5 and Level 6 study;(d) access to higher education for students with disabilities; (e) access to higher education for students from lower- income backgrounds;(f) access to higher education for students from ethnic minority backgrounds;(g) uptake of modular study amongst learners between the ages of 30 and 60;(h) employer spending on lifelong learning, retraining and upskilling opportunities for their employees;(i) the provision of courses offered by higher education and further education providers;(j) the financial sustainability of the tertiary education sector;(k) differences in higher education provision across different regions of England;(l) skills gaps in the United Kingdom.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report on the findings of the first review before Parliament within one year of the introduction of the Level 4 lifelong loan entitlement provision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to annually review the impact of the Act on various aspects of higher education and adult learning, starting within one year of the rollout of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3, standing in my name and the names of my noble friends Lady Wilcox, Lady Thornton and Lord Blunkett. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for giving his time yesterday to meet to discuss the Bill, and I thank the Minister for her own engagement in correspondence on the Bill.
As my noble friend Lady Wilcox stated in the debate on the previous group of amendments, Labour supports the aspiration in this Bill, and we want the change to work. However, we think that the Bill could be strengthened, and all the amendments we have tabled have the aim of making sure that it succeeds.
Labour wants students to have access to funds and to have a lifelong loan entitlement and the opportunity to learn throughout their careers. I have found the cross-party consensus and debate on aspects of this Bill of great interest, and one of the most compelling points in the debate in Committee was from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. To paraphrase—and I apologise to him if this is an incorrect interpretation—he stated that one of the main issues for the success of the Bill’s measures will be whether or not those who are thinking about deferring their entitlement believe and trust that the funding will still be there in the future. I think it was a really well-made point. We need enough trust in future Governments keeping the entitlement to ensure that people do not instead decide to use it all at an early stage of their career to ensure they do not lose it, thereby negating part of the point of the Bill.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I start by apologising for my bad timing in not arriving for the previous set of amendments to which I was a signatory. I was caught on the hop, and it takes a few hops to get here from my office in Millbank House, so I apologise to the House.
It is important that some of the issues to which my noble friend Lady Twycross referred are emphasised. The impact of the Bill’s provisions on a number of education sectors is considerable, and I return again to the impact on the access to higher education for students from lower-income backgrounds. I shall not rehearse the arguments about BTECS and AGQs, the Minister will be relieved to hear, but that is one issue that needs to be borne in mind as the legislation proceeds.
I can no longer speak on behalf of the party as I am no longer on the Front Bench, but I very much hope that an incoming Labour Government would retain much of this legislation, because I think it is very positive and it would be a great shame if that was not done. I think it will; I think common sense will mean that that happens. Some of how we shape the Bill now, therefore, will have an impact further down the line, whatever happens at the next general election. I particularly mention the skills gaps in the economy, mentioned at the end of subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in the amendment; it is very important that we bear that in mind going forward.
The Minister, in response to the previous set of amendments, talked about impact assessments: the one done before the Bill was published and one in, I think, March this year. I was surprised that she did not mention—at least, not when I was here, and I think I was here when she was speaking—the report issued just under two weeks ago by the Permanent Secretary of the department on the assessment of the lifelong loan entitlement, which I thought was potentially rather worrying. The Permanent Secretary was questioning the ability to complete the rollout by 2025, as is intended. She said, and I quote from her report, that the biggest risk to feasibility of the lifelong loan entitlement is “significant delivery challenges”.
I will not go through all of those, as I am sure noble Lords will have seen them—this is the report issued on 25 August. It is all very well to talk about an impact assessment, but an assessment has been made of whether the deadline can be met, and I would like the Minister at least to comment on it, because we are getting fairly close to the time when, if certain preparations for the implementation of the lifelong loan entitlement are not completed, that 2025 introduction date will slip. That would be very unfortunate, to say the least, and could have considerable knock-on impacts.
Coming to my final point—perhaps I am being a little unfair to the Minister, but I am going to say it anyway—I referred, in my Oral Question in July, to a thematic report published by Ofsted which raised some questions about T-levels. I know that this is not the same thing, but I think the way that T-levels roll out will have an effect on the number of people who are properly prepared to take up some of the options under the lifelong loan entitlement. Could she say whether—if she thinks it is not appropriate to do so now, I should be very happy if she could write—she and her officials, having had more time to study the Ofsted report, have any other comments to make on it? I thought it unusual for His Majesty’s inspector to be as openly critical on such a fundamental part of the Government’s education and skills policy. If she would prefer not to rise to that today, I would be very happy for her to write, but it would be helpful to have some comment on that thematic report issued in July.
With those remarks, I think that the issues covered in Amendment 3 are important, and I do not really see why the Government should be unhappy about the Secretary of State conducting an annual review considering the various issues listed in the amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment, to which my name is attached, but I also echo my noble friend’s remarks on this matter. As I mentioned to the Minister, the rollout will be very important, and the three to five-year assessment of whether the legislation has worked will not serve, because it will be a moving feast. Indeed, I thank the Open University for writing to us to draw our attention to the accounting officer’s assessment, which my noble friend mentioned, which highlights concerns within the department that the rollout might be a problem.
There are two things here, really. First, I seek some clarity on how this will be promoted. This partly echoes the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in Committee, which we rather liked; they were about trust and how this will be sold to people as something that we would want them to take up in the long term. The second point is about addressing the concerns that have been expressed within the department by the accounting officer.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, we have here a fairly formidable list of things, all of them important. I want to focus on subsection (2)(j) in the new clause proposed by Amendment 3, which concerns:
“the financial sustainability of the tertiary education sector”.
We note that student fees have not gone up in all the years they have been there and that universities now face intense financial pressures. I note that, in Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson, put forward a suggestion that student fees should rise with inflation; that has not gone further but I wonder whether the Minister could give some succour to university vice-chancellors, who are desperately worried about how on earth they can balance their books as costs go up but income does not.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I now turn to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Twycross, Lady Thornton and Lady Wilcox of Newport, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual review of the operation of the provisions of this Act and specifies several areas that the review must cover, including learner uptake, access to higher education and financial sustainability in tertiary education more broadly.
As mentioned in relation to Amendments 2 and 4, the Government published an impact assessment upon the introduction of this Bill in February and an extensive impact assessment of the lifelong loan entitlement more broadly in March. The Government intend to publish an updated impact assessment covering all aspects of the LLE, including the measures in this Bill, when regulations are laid.
There will be continued scrutiny of the Bill and the LLE via existing parliamentary accountability mechanisms, for example post-legislative scrutiny and the Education Select Committee. In addition, there are already systems by which the areas mentioned in this amendment are monitored. I will take each area in turn to provide reassurances as to the existing work being undertaken in these areas and the mechanisms in place for review.
In relation to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about three to five years, I was speaking specifically about post-legislative scrutiny. It is in the Cabinet Office guidance from 2008—a period that I imagine the noble Baroness might support. Obviously, as I have just listed, there are a number of other mechanisms for scrutiny.
The amendment lists a number of areas relating to uptake. I want to take this opportunity to refer noble Lords to the publications produced by the Higher Education Statistics Agency, which will continue to include data on learner uptake and enrolments. For example, the Higher Education Statistics Agency website allows anyone to view information about higher education student enrolments broken down by year, level of study, higher education provider, subject, mode of study and more. High-level national results are also published in its annual statistical bulletin.
Regarding uptake of modular and part-time study, the Government expect to see a shift in how, what and when people study as the LLE provides support for alternatives to full-time study. For example, Universities UK polling in 2020 on modular study indicated that 82% of prospective students polled who were either unemployed, at risk of unemployment or looking to learn a new skill would be keen to study individual modules of a university degree.
Turning to access, tackling inequality in higher education is a central part of the Office for Students’ mission. The OfS shares information through its access and participation data dashboard, which allows it and the public, alongside registered universities and colleges, to identify gaps between groups. The OfS also maintains an equality of opportunity risk register, which identifies key sector-level risks to equality of opportunity in higher education and highlights the student groups that are most affected by each one.
The Government recognise the importance of supporting access, which is why maintenance loans will be available for all eligible courses and modules that require in-person attendance under the LLE, as will targeted support grants such as the disabled students’ allowance and the childcare grant. The impact assessment published alongside this Bill notes that learners who will particularly benefit from the introduction of fee limits for short courses and modules are more likely to be older, female, from ethnic minority backgrounds or from lower socioeconomic groups.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response and thank all those who participated in this short debate. It is regrettable that the Government do not view this as a useful amendment. In Labour’s view, it would improve the likely outcomes of the Bill and the outcomes for the students who the Bill intends to help. Notwithstanding that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Countess of Chester Hospital Inquiry
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Statement that we consider today reminds us of acts that were so cruel that it is hard to make sense of them. Our thoughts must be with the families who have suffered the worst of ordeals and with the children who were so brutally taken from them. It can only be hoped that the conviction and the sentencing have helped bring some closure, even though the murderer dared not face up to them in person in court. More than this, the extent of the crimes committed by Lucy Letby may not yet be fully known, as Cheshire police have widened the investigation to now cover her entire clinical career.
There are heroes in this story—the doctors who fought to sound the alarm in the face of a hard-headed and stubborn refusal to even consider the evidence that was brought forward. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in recognising the courage of Dr Stephen Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram.
This killer should and could have been stopped months before. If it had not been for the persistent bravery of the staff who finally forced the hospital to call in the Cheshire police, the lives of even more babies would have been put at risk. The refusal to listen, the failure to approach the unexplained deaths of infants with an open mind, and the failure to properly investigate when the evidence appeared to be so clear, are absolutely unforgivable. There was then the insult of ordering concerned medics to write a letter of apology to a serial killer. It is clear that the allegations that were made and the evidence produced were not met with any respect or regard.
This is a tragic and true story, where events came together and flags were raised and ignored. It is to this point that I would like to take the Minister. I start by saying that we very much welcome that the inquiry has been put on a statutory footing, and it is welcome that the full force of the law will be behind it. However, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House why it took so long to get to that correct decision? It is right that families have now been listened to, but why were they not consulted before the initial announcement? Will they be consulted ahead of any future decisions?
This is not the first time that whistleblowers in the National Health Service have been ignored. On all the occasions such as these where they have not been listened to, there has been a missed opportunity to save lives. The reality is that nobody thinks that the system of accountability, professional standards and regulation of NHS managers and leaders is good enough. Why were senior leaders at the hospital still employed after the conviction? Regarding the absence of serious regulation, which enables a revolving door of those with records of poor performance or misconduct, does the Minister agree that this is unacceptable, particularly when lives are at stake?
I refer the Minister to the duty of candour. It is 10 years since Sir Robert Francis’s report was published in which he put forward the duty of candour, and yet the duty of candour of a number of consultants was ignored and overridden in this case. As a result of that, will the Minister ensure that there is an independent external route through which concerns can be raised in future? Will he look at the accountability, scrutiny and supervision of clinicians throughout the National Health Service, because the pressures on the service at the moment mean that, sometimes, these vital double-checks can be missed? What review has been conducted into the effectiveness of the duty of candour? What is the conclusion of any review that has taken place about what has gone wrong over the past 10 years?
The terrible events at the Countess of Chester Hospital shine a clear light on a lack of consistent standards. Therefore, it is welcome that the Government are considering a register of NHS executives and the power to disbar, which was recommended by 2019 Kark review. However, the Government should go further. Will they begin the process of bringing in a regulatory system for managers, and standards and quality training, as was recommended by the 2022 Messenger review? Can the Minister indicate how and when there will be progress on bringing together a single set of unified core leadership and management standards for managers, and training and development to meet these standards? What is being done to promote excellence in leadership and to ensure patient support when things go wrong?
I am sure we can all agree—I know that the Minister will join with this—that we owe it to the children who lost their lives and to the families who grieve their loss to do what we can to prevent anything like this ever happening again.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we have all been appalled at what happened at the Countess of Chester Hospital, and we would also like to extend our sympathy to all those affected, especially those parents of children who were taken from them. Those were losses that we now know that could, and should, have been prevented. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, in praise of those doctors who did raise concerns and fought to have them taken seriously. The accounts that we have seen of legitimate concerns either being ignored, or in some cases being actively suppressed, are truly shocking and represent a call to action that we must heed.
The inquiry is welcome, and will cover a lot of important ground, and I will not try to pre-empt their work today. Instead, I want to focus on one aspect where the department could act now without cutting across the work of the inquiry, and that is the role of NHS trust non-executive directors. This is something which the patient safety commissioner also highlighted in her statement on the Letby case. She said of NHS non-executive directors that
“it is vital that they are able to ask the right questions and escalate concerns where needed.”
The relationship between non-executive directors on a board and senior management teams in any organisation involves the delicate balance of responsibilities. Would the Minister agree that NHS trust non-executive directors should see patient safety as a priority responsibility—perhaps the single most important among their broad set of duties? Would he also agree that it is a healthy and positive situation if trust managers feel that they are under scrutiny from their non-executive directors on safety issues and believe that they will be pulled up if they are not fully open with them? We saw in this case claims of management not presenting the full sets of facts to their boards. They must be entirely candid with their non-executive directors and must expect to be challenged; that is the culture we want to see on trust boards, not one of cover-up and misleading.
In this context, could the Minister confirm whether the department will take steps now to reinforce with trust boards the importance of non-executive directors being able to raise safety issues? Importantly, will they be providing non-executive directors with training on how to perform this function effectively, so that they understand the best ways in which to challenge executives where necessary?
As I said at the outset, we welcome the inquiry from these benches, but I hope that the Government will not wait until the inquiry has completed its work to start making changes, and that they will be equally committed to making changes now where these would improve governance, and that the Minister can confirm that they are looking at strengthening the role of non-executive directors on NHS trust boards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
I would like to thank the comments, and the spirit of the comments, made by noble Lords. I start by adding my condolences to the parents and families in question. As we all know as parents, it is the most horrible thing we could ever imagine happening to us.
Clearly, the inquiry will find out the full facts of the matter, but at the same time it is important that lessons are learned quickly. To the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, the families will continue to be consulted throughout this time. We would all agree that what happened is unforgivable, and we should praise the doctors for the work that they did and the courage that it took to bring it forward. I am convinced, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that we need to make sure that we are doing sensible things in the meantime to ensure that we learn those lessons quickly. The foremost responsibility—the first line of defence as I like to call it—is the role of the board and the NEDs.
Speaking to colleagues about this, Chris Whitty was just saying that any sensible statistician and someone with sound common sense should have been able to say that there is something seriously awry here. We must all ensure that the boards are equipped to be able to challenge in the right way. That does take training, but it is important to make very clear to them that their primary duty must, beyond anything else, be the safety of the patients in that hospital. That has to be the first line of defence. There are things that we need to do to help them, including training—and to the noble Baroness’s point, that they are equipped with the records of those people so that it is known whether they are fit and proper people. One of the questions that I have asked, and got answered, is that I know there is a list so that, when you are looking to employ people, you know now whether a person is not a fit and proper person. As happened in this case, people moved on to other trusts in intervening periods, and there must be a mechanism where the trust can annually review, or review even more frequently, whether they are fit and proper through past cases that have just come to light, so that they have the ability to act.
It is our role to arm those boards, and give them the information and training to be that first line of defence. Tragically, we know in this case that first line of defence failed. These actions should bolster that first line of defence, but we also need to look at some of the second lines of defence. Medical examiners are a good way forward. From April 2024, they will now oversee all deaths that have not been put to coroners. I am told that this happens quite regularly already in the hospital setting; the challenge is more in the primary care setting. Along with other lines of defence, there is the duty of candour, allied with the freedom to speak up, so that we are gaining knowledge from the staff and people on the front line. Again, it is clear in this case that, while doctors were very brave in bringing it up, a lid was kept on it for too long. Clearly, we need to do more in terms of that whole approach of them feeling emboldened to speak up.
At the same time, the steps being taken in terms of the Getting It Right First Time programme and the health and safety investigations board and CQC are all good steps in that direction. But what is vital is that we do not, by putting in those central measures, somehow give boards the feeling that the first responsibility does not lie with them. It is the most important job that they can do, and the last thing that any of us would want is the feeling that they do not have to worry so much about that, because there are these other bodies looking into it. Absolutely fundamental to all of this is that they realise that it is their primary duty and that we in the centre are arming them to do that properly.
I hope that gives a good sense of the direction of travel we are going in, and I hope it accords very much with the points made. As to whether we should be going further in terms of registers to make that regulatory, we are absolutely open to that. It is just about trying to work out the practicalities and where the right level is. There are, however, some things, such as making sure this fit and proper persons list is up and running. That is something that we can do very quickly and are doing tomorrow. Clearly, there will be other opportunities for questions that I am taking in a moment. As ever, I will follow up all of this with a detailed reply. Most of all, I want to give a moment’s pause.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I am registered with the General Medical Council. I am a doctor and I have been involved in providing some support to the Nuffield review into disagreements in care of critically ill children, which is about to report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, pointed out, this is unbearably and unbelievably terrible. I watched the whole story unfold almost with a sense of disbelief, except the awful thing is that one can believe it happened as it did, with the suppression of the whistleblowers.
That is what I want to pick up from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan: we do not have a senior doctor on every board. The training of a doctor is different from the training of a nurse, a manager or an HR manager. That understanding of statistics is different. When a doctor tries to raise a concern but hits a brick wall, they need to be able to go directly to another doctor on the board to explore what they want to raise and because that other doctor is also subject to the GMC’s requirements. I quote from the GMC’s duties of a doctor:
“You must take prompt action if you think patient safety, dignity or comfort is being compromised”—
“must” being the key word. It was easier for staff to raise issues in the days when there was a senior doctor on the board. It did not always work, but I hope the Government will look at that as an action that could be taken much more rapidly. The GMC also says that doctors must contribute to adverse event recognition.
Again, as has been pointed out, these things have happened before: we had the Robert Francis report into Mid Staffs and the Bristol inquiry into heart surgery. Those people who have been whistleblowers have been traumatised, but nobody has been as completely destroyed as the parents when they know that their child has been killed. Child bereavement is overwhelmingly terrible, but when you know that it was from the action of another person it is even more impossible to come to terms with it.
I hope the Government really will look at whether some urgent intermediate action can be taken, and whether they can have discussions with the GMC so that doctors who are reported to the GMC as being difficult because they are raising concerns are not treated with some of the problems that have arisen, where we have seen doctor suicides and so on when they have been inappropriately referred. I hope the Government will seriously consider whether there needs to be a senior doctor on every board, both in hospital and a provision in the community. Even the appraisal systems that are in place do not seem to be working adequately to protect whistleblowers.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for bringing her knowledge and skills to this. Bringing senior doctors very much goes along with the sentiment that we were all trying to express about equipping boards in the right way to be the first line of defence in bringing such things up. I know that many boards have doctors on them, but the noble Baroness raised a very good point; it is something that we should take back. From my point of view, I absolutely see the sense in making sure we do that.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I also declare my interests as noted in the register, specifically as a previous Chief Nursing Officer for England and as a non-executive director of a number of NHS trusts for a number of years. I also extend my sympathy and prayers to those who have been impacted by these awful and unimaginable atrocities.
I join others in welcoming that this is now a statutory inquiry. I also support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, particularly around NHS manager regulation. I ask the Minister whether, when the Government look at that regulation, they will consider that it should go beyond the NHS executive, who themselves are managers, so providing external scrutiny.
The NHS has sought to improve patient safety for decades. It has also sought to improve people’s ability to be whistleblowers through a number of reports— I was involved in the publication of some of them. There are policies, guidelines and NHS bodies. A number of policies are even referred to in the Statement, some of which are now up to eight years old. My question to the Minister is whether the review will look at why those policies, procedures and bodies that are already in place, with the aspiration of improving patient safety and enabling people to whistleblow, were not enough to prevent this. The question that goes alongside that is whether the review will look at culture. It is not just about the policies and procedures; what was the culture that enabled this to happen? How might we recognise it and prevent it happening again?
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, I thank the right reverend Prelate for the sentiment of her reply. On whether we should be looking at the regulations beyond the executive, all these things are very much in the mix, for want of a better word, to ensure we have the right ones there. On the question of why the bodies that are in place did not catch it, obviously we will learn more as the inquiry goes along, but one of the major things for me when I looked at this was the fact that, because a lot of those cases did not go to a coroner, the medical examiner system was not fully in place at that point, so there was no other set of eyes in all that. I have to believe that if the medical examiners had looked at that they would have picked it up incredibly quickly. The fact that is now being put in place so that everything will have to be overviewed by a medical examiner or a coroner will be a key issue in all this.
There is an issue around the culture. I have a quote from a report by Sir Gordon Messenger, which is a perfect example on this and absolutely covers that point. It says that the culture that is set down by these places can often cause these problems. It is clear that, in the case of this hospital, the culture was not right. He said:
“We heard too frequently that poor inter-personal behaviours and attitudes were experienced in the workplace. Although by no means everywhere, acceptance of discrimination, bullying, blame cultures and responsibility avoidance has almost become normalised in certain parts of the system, as evidenced by staff surveys and several publicised examples of poor practice. This exists at the micro-level, in individual workplaces, and across sectors, where the enduring lack of parity of esteem, conditions and status between healthcare and social care remains a blight on effective collaborative working”.
That sums up a lot of the problem with the culture. The board, in terms of its training and equipment, is where staff surveys and feedback should act as one of the early warning mechanisms that we should look to put in place.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the importance of boards and patient safety being a key factor that they ought to take responsibility for. I will make a wider point. As health is a devolved matter and we are talking about the NHS in England, I urge the Minister to have comparisons of best practice: talk to the devolved Administrations, see what happens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, both for the way in which we can learn from each other’s experiences but also so we can arrive at common standards that can be accepted across the United Kingdom. Similarly, if any registers are being set up, these should not be confined to just England but should be UK-wide.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness; that is a good point. We clearly need to be looking at best practice across the board. That is not limited to any one devolved authority, but means learning from each of them and, I think, somehow making sure that hopefully they can learn from the terrible events that have taken place here—so they are putting that in place as well. For me, one of the main failings that we are now putting right is the medical examiners, which I want to make sure are spread out across all the devolved authorities. Clearly it is up to them whether they take it or not, but we should absolutely be making sure that we are cross-fertilising some of those key learnings, so they go both ways.
Nutrient Neutrality: Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question given in the other place by my honourable friend Minister Maclean.
“Mr Speaker, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up tabled a Written Ministerial Statement yesterday on the Government’s plans, but I am happy to provide an update to the House. In proposing the amendments, we are responding to calls from local councils, which want the Government to take action to allow them to deliver the homes their communities need. The Government recognise that nutrient pollution is a real problem, but the contribution from new houses is very small compared with that from other sources such as industry, agriculture and existing housing.
We are already taking action to mandate water companies to improve their wastewater treatment works to the highest technically achievable limits. Those provisions alone will more than offset the nutrients expected from new housing developments, but we need to go further, faster. That is why, as well as proposing targeted amendments to the habitats regulations, the Government are committing to a package of environmental measures. Central to this is £280 million of funding to Natural England to deliver strategic mitigation sufficient to offset the very small amount of additional nutrient discharge attributable to up to 100,000 homes between now and 2030. We have also announced more than £200 million for slurry management and agricultural innovation in nutrient management and a commitment to accelerate protected site strategies in the most affected catchments.
In our overall approach, there will be no loss of environmental outcomes and we are confident that our package of measures will improve the environment. Nutrient neutrality was only ever an interim solution. With funding in place, and by putting these sites on a trajectory to recovery, we feel confident in making this legislative intervention”.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the Statement asks why the Government took the decision to use the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill for these amendments. I bring the House’s attention to the fact that on 11 July, I expressed our concerns about the Government’s approach to the proper and timely legislative scrutiny of the levelling up Bill. On that particular occasion, I was referring to the late addition, following Committee, of the Government’s decision to add in a whole raft of amendments on childminding.
Now, at an even later stage in the Bill’s progress, amendments that introduce significant changes to the habitats regulations have been tabled by the Government, limiting the ability for full parliamentary scrutiny and consideration. Does the Minister agree with me that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill appears to have become a dumping ground for anyone’s good—or bad—ideas? Does she also agree that, in order for these very important issues to receive proper scrutiny from your Lordships’ House, further time will have to be allocated? If not, how does she envisage that these key issues and others that are still to be debated will be dealt with in just one day next week, given that we have already agreed to start early at 11 am?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that. I understand her concerns, but this has been quite a complex issue to deal with. But it is an important issue; we need these measures to unblock housing, as well as other developments such as hotels and care homes, which connect to standard wastewater treatment works. This also covers, by the way, septic tanks. We need this; it has been complex and we have taken a little time to ensure to ensure that we are putting in the mitigation to deal with the environmental issues—not as a sticking plaster, as nutrient neutrality was, but at source. We have a Bill that is about levelling up; I think it is important that that Bill is used for this important issue. I am sorry; we will give noble Lords the required time, as we promised with the childcare amendments, to discuss this fully and I am sure we will get through the rest of the Bill in the time allowed.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, but also as a director of Wessex Strategic, which has an interest in housebuilding—so I have a foot in both camps here. But I am very clear about which side I am on, and hats off to the Office for Environmental Protection for actually saying very robustly how this proposed change of legislation really stands as a regress of environmental law.
As chair of a local nature partnership—and my colleagues throughout England will have a similar issue—I can say that we are at the moment trying to persuade stakeholders to contribute to local nature recovery strategies. These are absolutely core in terms of what it says on the tin: nature recovery. That is on the Defra side, yet here in terms of levelling up we have the Government saying, “We’re not interested in that agenda; we actually want to change and regress environmental legislation”. So my question to the Minister is a very practical one: how do I and my colleagues as chairs of local nature partnerships persuade stakeholders —farmers, housebuilders, businesses and communities—to take local nature recovery strategies seriously when the Government are giving a completely different view on nature recovery?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think you explain to people that we are building houses that people will need in the areas that that particular group works in, and that we do not accept that this constitutes a regression in environmental outcomes. The packages of environmental measures, backed by significant additional investment, will more than offset the very small amount of additional nutrient discharge attributable to those 100,000 houses. They should carry on the great work that they are doing. We should be building out those houses and at the same time investing in making sure that we are dealing with the environmental outcomes at source.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I was speaking today with businesses which have been working with farmers and land managers to develop mitigation schemes that could be used by housing developers. They were, I think it would be fair to say, in a state of shock. The rug has literally been pulled out from underneath their business plans. They said that there are other ways in which the Government might have approached this. People have been working on the idea of a levy as an alternative and on the idea of changing the planning system so that housing developers could later in the process bring in mitigation schemes. What we have seen is a sudden nuclear option from the Government to just throw away what has been there without any kind of replacement. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government have considered these other proposals of a levy or of changing the way in which mitigation schemes come in, or have they just gone ahead with this single stroke without any consideration or consultation?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I said to the noble Baroness opposite, this is why it has taken time. It has taken time to look at all the options. As far as farmers are concerned, the package that we are offering includes £200 million for slurry infrastructure grants, which are really important to farmers, and £25 million for nutrient management innovation. There is a lot of innovation going on, but farmers need support to be able to deliver it. I think farmers may not have seen all the information that is here, but I am sure that when they do, they will support it wholeheartedly. We know that agricultural outputs put a significant amount of nutrients into water—far more than small housing developments do—and we want to help farmers to deal with that.
I want to give an example of what has been stopped by this: a proposal for a change of use around a house in multiple occupancy in the Solent to include one additional resident was dismissed on appeal due to the additional nutrient pollution. That cannot be right. Another example, which was reported in the Times, is that of a retired couple who have struggled for seven years to convert barns on their Herefordshire property into four homes, including one for their son. The scheme received outline planning permission in 2016, but nutrient neutrality rules have left them unable to build to this day. We want those houses, but we also want to protect the environment, and that is what we are doing with these amendments.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
What pressure are the Government putting on water companies to deal with pollution at source?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
In the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill we address pollution at source by placing a new statutory duty on water companies in designated catchment areas to upgrade wastewater treatment works by 2030. Interestingly enough, the analysis suggests that this will lead to about a 69% reduction in phosphorus loads and around a 57% reduction in nitrogen loads in total from wastewater treatment works across all the affected catchments, reducing a significant source of nutrient pollution and supporting the recovery of habitat sites most affected by this pollution. This is on top of the much wider improvements being driven forward through our plan for water.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, when the Minister introduced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill into this House on 19 December, in accordance with the Environment Act, she made a statement. I quote from the front page of the Bill:
“Baroness Scott of Bybrook has made the following statements under section 20(2)(a) and (3) of the Environment Act 2021 … In my view … the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law”.
Given that, as my noble friend Lord Teverson said, the Government’s statutory watchdog, the OEP, has said that the amendments that she has tabled to this Bill to reduce water quality will demonstrably reduce the environmental protection afforded by current laws and that they are a “regression”, does she stand by her statement?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Yes, I stand by our statement. As I think I have said before, we do not accept that this constitutes a regression on the environmental outcomes and therefore we do not agree with the Office for Environmental Protection, because it took into account the amendments without the mitigation alongside them, as I understand. The package of environmental measures, which are backed by significant additional investment, will more than offset that very small amount of additional nutrient discharge attributed to the development of 100,000 houses between now and 2030. So, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. I stick by what I said because we are mitigating any small amount of additional nutrient discharge.