Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disapplication or Modification of Financial Regulator Rules in Individual Cases) Regulations 2024

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 General Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disapplication or Modification of Financial Regulator Rules in Individual Cases) Regulations 2024.

The regulations form part of the Government’s programme to deliver a smarter regulatory framework for financial services, using an approach to regulation that is tailored to the needs of the United Kingdom. Under this programme, the Government are delivering a regulatory framework that is logical, consistent and conducive to economic growth—rather like the Government as a whole—while preserving the robust regulatory standards that are the cornerstone of the attractiveness of UK markets.

The ability of a regulator to flex the application of its rules for individual firms is a useful regulatory tool that can enable a regulator to take into account a firm’s specific circumstances to ensure that rules are applied in ways that achieve the best regulatory outcome. That flexibility is not new; it has long been a feature of the UK’s regulatory regime and is supported by our regulators and the financial services industry as a whole.

Since it was introduced over 20 years ago, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, known as FSMA, has included such a tool. However, as part of our work to adapt our regulatory regime for the UK’s new position outside the European Union, the existing tool for flexing the application of rules was reviewed, and it was concluded that, while useful, it was not as effective as it could be.

The existing tool is provided by section 138A of FSMA, which provides that the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority can disapply or modify a rule made under FSMA if a firm has requested it or if the regulator has the consent of the firm. However, section 138A contains a test that must be met before a regulator can do that. The regulator must be satisfied that the rules in question

“would be unduly burdensome or would not achieve the purpose for which the rules were made”.

That requirement in section 138A does not always allow for rules to be flexed, even where appropriate disapplication or modification of such rules would provide a better regulatory outcome.

The Government addressed that issue by introducing a new tool for regulators to flex their rules in a wider range of circumstances, which was legislated for through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 and is now set out in section 138BA of FSMA. Under section 138BA, the Treasury may specify regulatory rules that the relevant regulator can then permit a firm to disapply or indeed modify in some way. Section 138BA retains the approach by which a regulator can permit a firm to disapply or modify rules only if the firm requests it or the firm consents.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

On a point of clarity, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on financial technology, and I am conscious that many firms have been very firmly nudged to request the removal of licences, particularly around payments and onboarding of new customers. Just to be clear, are these regulations needed retrospectively to cover a lot of those voluntary submissions of licences, or is this purely a tidying-up exercise for the future?

[Bim Afolami]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I will respond to him in two ways. First, this is typically about looking prospectively forward, so it is not envisaged that this power will be used retrospectively. However, I will write to him if the position is in any way more nuanced than I have just described. Secondly—I was going to come to this point later in my speech, but I may as well answer it now—it is very important that firms have appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. Those are set out to make sure that no firm, under any circumstances, will be forced—or nudged—to do anything that it does not think is in its interest.

The regulations do two key things. First, they enable the PRA to permit a firm to disapply or modify any PRA rule. After careful consideration, the Government have concluded that the PRA should have the ability to permit a firm to disapply or modify any rule under section 138BA. That is because flexibility in the application of these rules is particularly important for banks, large investment firms and insurers that are regulated by the PRA. These complex institutions, with highly specialised business models, often require a highly tailored approach to ensure that they are appropriately regulated.

Secondly, the regulations apply certain procedural safeguards to PRA decisions under section 138BA, and this may address my hon. Friend’s point to some extent. When the PRA refuses a firm’s application or imposes conditions on a firm’s permission to disapply or modify rules, the PRA must issue a notice explaining its decision. When a permission to disapply or modify rules is given, the decision notice that the PRA publishes must be clear so that it is public knowledge that a particular firm is subject to tailored regulatory requirements. If an affected firm is aggrieved or somehow disagrees with a PRA decision, the firm may appeal by referring the decision to the upper tribunal, which is part of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service responsible for hearing appeals against decisions made by various public sector bodies, including the PRA.

In closing, these regulations make use of an important regulatory tool approved by Parliament in FSMA 2023. They provide the PRA with the flexibility needed to ensure that the application of prudential rules to banks, investment firms and insurers can be flexed only where appropriate to ensure that regulation of these large and complex firms is effective. They also ensure that the PRA is appropriately accountable and transparent. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations, and I commend them to the House.

Draft Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 General Committees

[Sammy Wilson]

This appears rather a flimsy instrument, but when one reads through it, it is clear that it is dynamite. It blows apart the promise made that the Windsor framework ensures we remove any sense of a border in the Irish sea. In fact, this legislation will ensure that the border is deepened, made higher and cemented in place, and some of the temporary arrangements in the protocol will now be made permanent. Any change to them will be made not by legislation in this House but on the basis of whether the EU is prepared to change its legislation. In effect, once these regulations are passed, we become totally subject to the EU, amending article 7 and changing the rules about what are legal and what are illegal goods going into Northern Ireland and being obliged then to put in place the necessary border provisions. This does not protect the Union. I know that the Minister had a hard job today, and she repeated almost ad nauseam “Oh, the Windsor framework is better than the protocol.” The fact of the matter is that the instrument is only one piece of the jigsaw that will further remove Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Let us just look at the draft regulations. Why are they necessary? Because there are things that cannot be done by HMRC and Border Force under existing legislation. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that certain things that currently cannot be done need to be done. Why do they need to be done, and how do we ensure that they will be done? The draft regulations make it quite clear that Border Force and HMRC need to be able to carry out searches and interference on goods moving from GB into Northern Ireland, which they currently cannot do for movements within the United Kingdom.

The way in which we do that is by treating Northern Ireland as a foreign country. That is why not once, but six times in this short piece of legislation, we read that “GB to Northern Ireland” is added to regulations that currently refer only to foreign goods. Northern Ireland is effectively being treated as if it were a country that is foreign to the rest of the UK, and therefore the requirements and arrangements can be put in place for HMRC and Border Force to interfere with postal arrangements, which previously they could not do. Of course, you cannot import or export within your own country, so you change the definition in order to ensure that goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland are regarded as exports. We are now lumped in with foreign countries; indeed, references to the UK have now been changed to GB. I do not care what the Minister says about protecting the Union and not trying to redraw lines. In anybody’s definition, it amounts to Northern Ireland now being treated as a foreign country.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

This is the first time that I have seen Northern Ireland treated separately from the rest of the United Kingdom in UK legislation. Is that the right hon. Gentleman’s understanding as well? It is quite an alarming signal.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is one of the reasons why I say this is dynamite, because it exposes the lie being peddled at present that the Windsor framework actually cements us into the United Kingdom. It does not; it pushes us further out.

The second point I want to make is that businesses have been kept in the dark. In fact, the scrutiny Committee pointed out that many businesses do not know what the arrangements are, and the Government have not even been able to give an answer on what the new arrangements are going to be. What will they entail? What provision will there be? The Minister argues that there will be no effect and that, if anything, be better for person-to-person parcels. She says that there will be no effect on business to consumers and that there will be some effect on business to business. The truth of the matter, though, is that once this legislation is passed, the EU will have total control over what movements need to be checked, and our Government will have no say about what happens in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

It was recognised that not even the infrastructure was in place to deal with all the parcels that come from GB to Northern Ireland. It was also known that, politically, this would create a huge storm, so a concession was made. The Government simply said, “It is impossible for us to implement the protocol, so we’re not going to implement that bit of it,” and the EU accepted that, so why has that situation not been left to pertain? The protection of the grace periods has now been removed, and we are introducing legislation that gives the EU the ability to say what are licit and illicit goods.

The Minister said that we do not need to worry, but we are told that one of the reasons this legislation is necessary now is that there are concerns about goods that affect the ozone layer, and that invasive species might be transferred, so we need protections. What happens if, in the future, the EU says, “People have found a way around this. They have decided that they can send those things from Sammy Wilson to somebody else in Northern Ireland”? Can the EU then use that as an argument for expanding the parcels regulations and demanding that parcels that go from one person to another be inspected too?

I asked a businessperson today, “How many of your goods do you expect to go through the green lane and be exempt? How many are business-to-business goods that are exclusively for consumption in Northern Ireland?” He said, “We don’t even know, because there has been no assessment of the kinds of parcels that are being sent at present. We have to assume that about 75% of parcels will have to go through the red lane.” I asked him, “What does that mean in terms of delays and costs?” I was told that, currently, the costs for goods that go through the full process from England through Dublin are higher than the freight costs themselves; the process used to take two days, but it now takes five days. We can see immediately how businesses in Northern Ireland will be affected by this change.

The Minister cannot run away from the arguments. First, this legislation undermines the Union; secondly, it will be costly to business; thirdly, even now the Government cannot tell businesses what new arrangements will be put in place; and, fourthly, there is no guarantee that the EU, when it has control through these regulations, will not use them in a way that the Government do not expect. That is why I believe that these regulations are flawed. They are not needed, they are a surrender to the demands of the EU, and they change the nature of the relationship between Northern Ireland and the UK.

[Adam Afriyie]

I am very much enjoying listening to the right hon. Gentleman,, and I thank him for allowing me one last intervention. Does he have any concerns about the power of the European Union to change these regulations—going way back to the Act of Union, not just the current regulations?

[Sammy Wilson]

They do. Even the explanatory notes make it quite clear that this will be subject to the EU still abiding by article 7 of the protocol. If the EU decides to say, “Look, article 7 isn’t working”—for whatever reason, maybe people are bypassing it—they can change it, and we do not have any say at that stage. We have handed control over the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland to a foreign entity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

We acknowledge the range of views on the framework, but I emphasise that the SI is solely concerned with the powers available to HMRC and Border Force to ensure that the improvements in respect of policies that we have secured through the Windsor framework are implemented.

[Adam Afriyie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I would like to answer the shadow Minister’s questions and then I will happily give way.

In terms of HMRC, we are fully confident that we have the staff and resources to meet the expectations of not just this element, but the whole Windsor framework.

[Adam Afriyie]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir James Duddridge]

rose—

Budget Resolutions

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). Unlike her, having recently left the Cabinet, I am grateful to the Treasury for all the effort that it has made to keep us informed of what will be in the Budget—I have never approached a Budget knowing quite as much in advance. However, I would still like to speak about a couple of elements that I think are quite significant.

One of those elements is the change in the universal credit taper rate, which will help millions of people throughout the country. It underlines a fundamental Conservative objective, which is to make work pay, and I strongly welcome it. I also think it important that we have announced an increase in the national living wage, which, again, will help us to build that higher-wage, higher-productivity economy that is so fundamental to our economic plan.

I also want to put on the record my praise for the Chancellor, which is contrary to some of the remarks we have heard today. I think that his stewardship of the economy over an extraordinary year and a half is enormously to his credit, and I think that that is reflected in the public confidence that he has built up for himself and for the Government over that period. We are seeing the economy bouncing back better—still scarred, but in a significantly better position than many people would have imagined. We are seeing employment in an immeasurably stronger position than we would have imagined just a few months ago, along with a commensurate surge in tax revenues that contrasts with the gloomy forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility the last time we heard from the Chancellor. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood): we have to question how useful the OBR is when its forecasts are so far out, and have to hope that it can raise its game in the future.

Let me make a few brief points. First, I think the Chancellor was right to continue to highlight the cost of living as a major issue. I do not think we should assume that inflation will be fleeting and transitory; I think it could be with us for a long time, which is why it is important that we take action. The action on the universal credit taper rate will help, as will the national living wage, and the changes in fuel duty and other items will be useful as well, but we must prepare ourselves—steel ourselves—for the likelihood that this year and most of next year will be marked by a significant pressure on people on low and medium incomes.

Secondly, I am very concerned about the current level of public spending, and the size of the state. We must be honest with ourselves, and acknowledge that on top of the £400 billion of unplanned outlay that was required to get us through the covid response, we are now seeing the size of the state increase to the largest that it has been in peacetime. The amount of public expenditure today is higher than it was during the financial crisis; it is about the same as it was under Denis Healey in 1976, when he had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund. The size of the state is large, and we have heard from the Chancellor today that it is going to grow even further, beyond 41% of national income. History suggests that that is not a sensible long-term level for public expenditure, because it starts to crowd out the private sector, and makes it hard to build and sustain the free-market, free-enterprise economy that we all want to see.

That leads me to two points. One is that we have to ensure that this public money is well spent. I think particularly of the NHS, which is soon to account for 40% of total current expenditure. That is a significant amount. Many of us, and our constituents, want to see the NHS properly funded, but a heavy burden of responsibility now falls on the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the money is well spent and is accompanied by reform. I remember previous settlements, including the one referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Just a couple of years ago, money was given to the NHS without a proper plan for reform and was not well spent, so I hope that this money will be spent differently.

The second point is the difference between funding for day-to-day purposes and funding that will genuinely increase productivity in the economy. At the end of the day, as many Members have already said, it is all about productivity growth. The forecasts that the Chancellor set out earlier today were for one or two years, if we are to believe the OBR, of very significant growth in the economy, and then a return to low levels of growth— 1% or 1.3%—with perhaps a decade of low growth ahead of us.

We have to improve productivity, and in that respect there was much to commend in the Budget and the spending review: significant increases in infrastructure, particularly the sorts of infrastructure, such as roads, railways and broadband, that will genuinely improve productivity and boost the economy, and the work on skills—in particular lifelong learning, which for too long has been a weakness in our country.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about productivity. Does he share my delight that the Chancellor announced tax relief for investment—certainly in the short term and hopefully in the longer term? Hopefully, that will enable businesses to do the heavy lifting rather than the Government trying to do it for them.

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. At the end of the day, the way we boost productivity is by backing the private sector in the economy. The way we grow the economy is to make the UK a more competitive place to do business. That will mean ensuring that we attract investment from overseas. It will also mean correcting the poor levels of trade that we have seen in recent years, as has been mentioned. That needs to change. It also means ensuring that we as a Government bring forward some of the supply-side reforms that we will have to implement if we are going to make ourselves more innovative and competitive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on beer and brewing, I welcome the measures that the Chancellor announced to support sectors that have been particularly hard hit throughout the pandemic and by many of the measures that were necessary to fight coronavirus. In the previous financial year, around £17 billion in lost trade was wiped off the value of the pub and beer sector. Trade in the wider hospitality sector was down 64% year on year; beer sales through pubs fell by 70%; and at least 1,000 pubs that closed during the restrictions have still not opened their doors since the end of those restrictions.

Beer and pubs are worth fighting for and are intrinsically linked. Pubs and brewing support around 930,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom, roughly equally split between men and women, and around half the people employed in the sectors are aged under 25. Pubs and brewing support more than 1,000 jobs in my constituency of Dudley South. They contribute around £26 billion to the UK economy and, as the Chancellor will be aware, around £15 billion to the Exchequer in tax revenues.

If pubs are a force for good economically, they are also a force for good socially and culturally. As Professor Robin Dunbar of the University of Oxford wrote in his report “Friends on Tap”, people who have a local that they use regularly are more likely to have more friends and to be more

“satisfied with their lives and feel more embedded in their local communities”.

They are likely to be healthier and happier.

Isolation is one of the big social challenges that face so many of our communities. Pubs really were the original social network. They are at the heart of our communities. So often, when a pub in a town or village closes, it is the last facility to go. As pubs have closed throughout the pandemic, it is not just one service that has gone with them. As we have seen through so much of the work by the wonderful charity Pub is The Hub, there are, in effect, community centres operating out of pubs. There are parent and child groups, jobs clubs and almost every facility and service. The APPG even visited one pub with a barber and hairdresser operating out of the bar. I only hope that the people cutting the hair had less to drink than some of those who might have been on the receiving end of the haircut. Pubs also raise more than £100 million a year for charities and they support grassroots community sport to the value of £40 million annually, working in every one of our constituencies.

Over the past two years, pubs have never been in greater need of support, so pubs, brewers and beer drinkers were looking to the Chancellor today to see whether he would step up to that challenge. I was pleased to hear that he did with a package of measures that went beyond what I think the industry had even dared to hope for. A key measure will be around business rates. The 50% support on business rates will make a massive difference to the viability of many pubs and to the jobs and livelihoods that depend on them.

One of my first questions in this place after I was elected six and a half years ago was to ask the now Health Secretary about business rate reform. As has been alluded to during this debate, it has been promised a few times. For this finally to go ahead, we need to make sure that it recognises the realities of a 21st century economy where the value of property is not necessarily the driving force of economic activity, as it might have been 50 or 60 years ago.

Pubs pay around 2.5% of business rate revenues and that is despite having only about 0.5% of the rateable values. They are paying far more than the proportionate amount and that needs to be addressed during the reforms that were mentioned earlier.

As a sector, beer and pubs were absolutely clear that the one thing they could not afford as they started to rebuild after the pandemic was an increase in alcohol duties.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for his speech. He is making a wonderfully nuanced exposition of the benefits of pubs and local hospitality businesses to an area, both in terms of charities and of contributing socially to a community. The Windsor constituency is dependent on hospitality and the whole constituency breathed a sigh of relief with the measures in the Budget, because it is clear they hit home when it comes to supporting those hospitality businesses and pubs, which are at the heart of our local communities. Like him, I very much commend the Chancellor’s words today and, in particular, those measures that support those smaller businesses.

[Mike Wood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The wider hospitality sector employs around 3 million people across the country. It is a bigger employer than automotives and aerospace combined. It is one of our biggest economic sectors. An increase in alcohol duties today, even a CPI or RPI increase, would have killed off so many of those small businesses: businesses that have struggled through two years of on-off restrictions, that have just about kept their heads above water, and that have exhausted all of their savings and reserves—their borrowing facilities—but have just about managed to keep going with rebuilding their businesses. It is excellent business and job-saving news that the Chancellor has listened to them and announced that, yet again, there will be no increase in beer duty, which will mean that beer duty has not increased at all since before the 2017 general election.

The broader reforms that the Chancellor has announced for a new, simpler and fairer system of alcohol duties, and that my hon. Friend the Minister has published in the consultation alongside the Budget this afternoon, also make sense. They take away so many of the distortions that the current multiple rates represent: the disincentives to expand; and the incentives to produce stronger alcoholic drinks rather than ones that may be lower in alcoholic volume. These are all counterproductive and go against our policy in other areas.

The changes resolve many of the anomalies in a system that has grown in an ad hoc fashion over many years—for example, on cider duties. Why should far more duty be paid on a flavoured cider just because the fruit is added after the fermentation process, so that it suddenly finds itself being taxed as a wine, instead of a cider? The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) seemed to think that the changes being introduced to duty on sparkling wines were either unnecessary or illogical, but what is logical about a system of wine duties under which more duty is paid on a £6 bottle of prosecco than a £30 bottle of claret? That makes no sense economically or on any level. Resolving those anomalies in the duty system is only possible now that we have the control to restructure duty systems outside of the previous EU excise duties regulations.

Most significant of all was the announcement by the Chancellor of the new reduced rate for draft beer and cider. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), is smiling; she may be aware that I have been arguing this case for some time. I think the issue was in the speech that I made four and a half years ago when I first became chair of the all-party parliamentary group. Of course, at that point we did not have the legal powers to address it.

Before the pandemic, it made sense to support our pubs, bars, restaurants and hospitality venues by charging a lower rate of duty on draught beer—the beers that can only really be served and sold through a hospitality venue—than on the bottles and cans that tend to be sold at very low prices in our supermarkets. Since the pandemic, that has gone from being a sensible measure to a bit of a no-brainer. It will help the parts of the sector that have been hit hardest during the pandemic and need the most support.

Beer and pubs have had a terrible two years. For many, the conditions will remain extremely difficult for some time to come, but the measures that the Chancellor has announced today provide a lifeline and a source of confidence to rebuild, reinvest and support those jobs to play their part in creating the prosperity on which our constituents rely.

Lockdown: Economic Support

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a valid and fair point. As I said on my call with the First Minister yesterday, I hope to be in a position to update her this week about the additional Barnett guarantee that we can give. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the consequentials that flow from the £1.1 billion of additional local authority funding that the Chancellor set out. He will also have seen, for example, the additional support that the UK Government gave to Transport for London, the rail support measures that we have provided, and so on. Those are the issues on which the Barnett consequentials will be shaped. He is right that it is important for them to have sight of that. That is why we have taken the unprecedented decision to give that up-front guarantee, and I hope to be able to give an update on that later this week.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

My heart is breaking for the once-thriving businesses across the Windsor constituency and the country. I have met owners of pubs, clubs, restaurants, bars, sports venues, salons and retail outlets. They cannot magically become online businesses. I have spoken to business owners who have literally been in tears on the phone and in person when they think about their staff and their livelihoods.

The new proposed lockdown will prove fatal to many such businesses. There are many questions about the strategy, the need for a lockdown and the generous support the Government are trying to give, but I will contain my question to this: how do the Government intend to protect retail businesses that are forced to close from the increasing dominance of online retailers, which often benefit from lower business rates and taxes than their terrestrial partners?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend has a deep understanding of business from his career prior to coming to the House. He is absolutely right to talk of the personal consequences, the commitment that people who set up and run businesses have made, and the devastating impact of the virus and its consequences. On the tax position, he will know from his time in the House that those are questions for the Budget and for my right hon Friend the Chancellor.

On the support that has been given to businesses, I direct my hon. Friend to the extension of the loans that we have given to help businesses with their cash flow, which recognises that the biggest cost for many businesses is the fixed cost of their property. That includes the up to £3,000 a month grant for those with rateable values above £51,000 and the support to local authorities, as I referenced in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) a moment ago, for their discretionary support to specific businesses. It is part of that comprehensive package, but he is right to draw attention to the human consequence of those decisions.

Black History Month

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I am delighted to be speaking in this debate during Black History Month, as the first black Conservative MP on these Benches in 2005. It is great to look around the Chamber today, on both sides, because the complexion is new. Certainly on the Government Benches, every one of us is here based on hard work, merit and, yes, of course, a little bit of luck from time to time.

When I was growing up in a single-parent household in south-east London, racism was pretty crude. It was in your face. It was insults, casual violence, and it was very direct and very physical, including being spat at on buses and all sorts of things. I never dreamt, back in those days, that there would be any opportunity to get to the law-making apparatus of our entire nation. What an amazing thing to achieve—I am sure that everyone here of any background and persuasion feels exactly the same, especially if they came from a challenging background.

The beauty of this Chamber and the strength of our United Kingdom is its rich diversity. Our country and our Parliament have demonstrated the ability to evolve, adapt and integrate good people who share our values and aspirations. It also demonstrates that we reject beliefs and practices that run counter to our values and those that seek to undermine democracy, freedom of speech and the rule of law. But British history is long and diverse, and it is undeniable—Magna Carta, democracy, the agrarian and industrial revolutions, the uniting of our kingdom, free trade, the abolition of slavery, emancipation, the defeat of Hitler and fascism, freedom of speech and plurality of media, and, in recent days, thank goodness, race relations and equal opportunities.

The constitution of our country consists of waves of people coming and going over millennia—Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Flemings, Huguenots, Indians, Kenyans, Russians, and, in more recent times, Americans, Australians and—soon—Hong Kong Chinese. Let us face it: at some point in the past 12,000 years, every one of our ancestors was an immigrant to these islands. If anyone is daring enough to take a DNA test, they might make some interesting discoveries. They might discover that, actually, we are all related. If we go back 70,000 years, we discover that modern human beings are all from the same stock. Black history is as rich and varied a part of our history as Asian, Jewish, Chinese and Mediterranean history, and the history of sex, gender, sexual preference, disability and class. I am delighted to see that the contribution of non-white Brits is increasingly recognised across society, and Black History Month is a good opportunity to make those recognitions.

We cannot erase uncomfortable parts of our history, but we can learn from them. As a former governor of the Museum of London, I am deeply conscious of the many and varied histories that run through the streets of London and flow through the veins of our nation, and it is important that these contributions and historical interactions between people across the globe are acknowledged in the teaching of history and culture. As every teacher will know, timetables are tight, so this is a good time to reflect on whether we have the right balance of lessons in the context of our history and of the composition of present day Britain. History should not be whitewashed, but it should also not be blackwashed. Acknowledging black histories in schools should not crowd out other histories but highlight the rich diversity of all the histories that we share.

So I add a little note of caution: it is all too easy to say that a single characteristic, such as skin colour, eclipses and overshadows everything else. It is all too easy to fall for the dangerous identity politics, where individuals are kettled into stereotypical communities, often for the benefit of self-appointed spokesmen and leaders. It is all too easy to focus on difference to generate a sense of grievance for political gain—I think we all recognise that—but I believe that what unites us as British citizens is far greater than what divides. So for me, Black History Month is a good time for reflection. I want us to live in a country where a person

“will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”,

and that goal is very much more within our reach than it was when I was a child in the ’60s and ’70s. For me, black history is not about segregating communities or about the racist, dehumanising, infantilising politics of identity; it is about recognising different histories and embracing our common humanity as equal citizens today. With a solid adherence to our values, our culture will continue its subtle evolution. Consensual integration will arise on the gentle currents of myriad individual free choices.

So let us celebrate the rich and evolving nature of our great nation. Let us celebrate those people of various heritages who have made it in mainstream life in Britain—including many of us in this Chamber today. Let us not forget where we were before the ’70s and Bernie Grant. Before we made our changes here, this Chamber had a very different complexion. We have made huge advances. We have non-white people at the top of science, at the top of the media and at the top of scientific academies; we have the editor of Vogue. There are so many good examples—[Hon. Members: “The Minister!”] And the Minister—forgive me! We have so many examples of how far we have come, but I acknowledge that there is still further to go. Let us celebrate the rich and evolving nature of our great nation: one nation awash with difference but united on the foundations of democracy, free speech and equality under the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Spoken like a true engineer. His highest achievement, however, was that he played for the Scotland football team on three occasions, captaining the side in his first match. Most importantly, Scotland won each game. [Interruption.] The consensus and smiles may disappear in a moment, when I tell the House that the first of those matches was played at the Oval in Kennington, where he led his team to a 6-1 victory over England. In the next match, we beat Wales 5-1, and in his final international, we beat England again, but sadly, that time it was only 5-1. That is really why he is my hero.

However, I knew nothing about this man until about 10 years ago. There were efforts to get him recognised, and indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) once made a documentary about Andrew Watson, in conjunction with celebrated broadcaster and journalist—and my friend and constituent—Stuart Cosgrove, who is also an author. As an aside, his latest book is about Cassius Clay. Andrew Watson is now memorialised in the hall of fame at Scotland’s national stadium in Hampden, but why do special efforts and campaigns have to happen for people to be recognised? As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) explained, it took 12 years to get the statue of Mary Seacole. Do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that 80,000 people lined the banks of the Thames to celebrate Mary Seacole when she returned from the Crimean war? How on earth did we manage to whitewash her out of history until recently? Why did it take a campaign to recognise her?

Most people do not wish to be racist, I believe—most of it is simply down to not knowing or not understanding. Part of our job here is to help them, and I invite Members to join the all-party group on unconscious bias, which I co-chair with my friend the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who gave a brilliant speech and tolerated the nonsense from Government Members extremely well. Our first investigation is on unconscious racial bias, which we will launch shortly—I will send an email about it.

Yes, progress has been made, but it is not enough. I will share a story with Members. My 17-year-old goddaughter Toniann texted me yesterday, saying, “I’m in class and I’m watching Uncle Graham on TV.” Toniann’s mum is white Scottish and her dad is black Jamaican. Uncle Graham is my partner, who was featured in a BBC documentary made by Stewart Kyasimire called “Black and Scottish”. It is on iPlayer, and I urge Members to watch it—it is absolutely brilliant. Here is a child of Scottish Jamaican descent seeing black role models featured in her education, and she was absolutely delighted. The icing on the cake was that she was related to one of them.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) noted the decision by Glasgow University to make reparation for the way in which it benefited from the Caribbean slave trade.

[Adam Afriyie]

The hon. Lady is making a fantastic speech. I am fascinated by the APPG on unconscious bias. Could her first inquiry be on the unconscious bias of the SNP against the English?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Maybe we will change the inquiry—I need to speak to the hon. Member for Brent North, but perhaps we will change it to the conscious bias of the SNP against the Tories. [Interruption.] Did I hear Conservatives saying, “Hear, hear”? Thank you.

Glasgow University is making reparations for the way in which it benefited from the slave trade. It was the aforementioned Uncle Graham, in his role as chair of Flag Up Scotland Jamaica, of which I am a board member, who approached Glasgow University to suggest that it do that, and it is a lesson in life that if you do not ask, you do not get. The university, to its credit, agreed almost immediately, secured the services of historian Dr Stephen Mullen, did its sums and set about a fantastic reparation programme that is about much, much more than just the money.

I want to end by saying something about tolerance. I have heard too many Members talk about racial tolerance today and how Britain is tolerant. I want to gently but firmly urge them to be careful about their use of that word, or be prepared to explain who exactly we are tolerating and what exactly they do that requires tolerance. Language really matters and we should all, including me, be ready to examine our own.

Coronavirus Bill

Adam Afriyie Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

I will attempt to answer the points that I did not answer during Second Reading.

The Bill has been introduced to support public bodies and wider society in responding to a serious emergency. The Bill is required as part of a concerted effort across the whole of the UK to tackle the outbreak. The intention is to get to a position whereby the right people—public agencies in all four countries—take the right action, as set out in the UK coronavirus action plan, at the right time, as a result of decisions taken by the four UK Governments, usually under the auspices of Cobra, using the same powers, at the same time, in the same way.

The action plan sets out the options that can be taken as part of that response. This Bill ensures that the agencies and services involved—schools, hospitals and the police—have the tools and powers they need. They are our front line in our fight against this disease, and they have the right to expect our support for the action they need to take. The Bill provides the possibility for that for the duration of the emergency.

Turning to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), we cannot use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to do this. If we have time to bring forward legislation, it is proper that we do that, and anything we did under the powers of the 2004 Act would apply for only 30 days. He should have the reassurances he asked for earlier on other rules that we follow, such as on the military aid to civil authorities protocol.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

It seems to me that the whole purpose of the 30-day provision in the Civil Contingencies Act was for the Executive to be accountable to Parliament. For example, those checks and balances would be needed in a scenario where—I am not suggesting this in any way, shape or form—the Government say that nobody can travel, and Parliament is therefore unable to reconvene. I simply point that out, but I do not intend to divide the Committee.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend has made my point for me. That is why we need this particular course of action, as opposed to relying on the Civil Contingencies Act.

I turn to the six-month review. I want to reiterate how these decisions will be made in an incredibly dynamic situation. Apart from a few parts of the Bill, these powers are not live at Royal Assent. They will be called upon or drawn down by the appropriate Government in the four nations—it is obviously appropriate that some of these decisions should be for the devolved nations—and they could be applied to very local areas, depending on what is happening in that particular situation.

We are therefore ensuring that the support that people need is there, with regular reports and debates in Parliament, to ensure proportionate accountability that does not itself make the management of this outbreak harder than it already is. These mechanisms currently include Ministers reporting to Parliament every two months on how we have used these powers. There will also be a debate after 12 months and a meaningful vote on renewal after 24.

We have also listened to people’s concerns about the need for periodic reviews of these powers. The Government have therefore tabled an amendment to the Bill that will enable the House of Commons to take a view every six months on whether the provisions of the Act need to be reviewed. That will be done within seven days of each six-month period if Parliament is sitting. If the House declines to renew these temporary provisions, the Government will ensure that they expire.