Draft Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Late Appeal) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Debate between Barry Gardiner and Andrew Murrison(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Murrison
It is worth pointing out that 24% of decisions made on the armed forces compensation scheme are in fact appealed—a significant number. Most of those come within the 12 months, so what we are talking about is what happens if people bring an appeal outside that time, between 12 and 24 months, and the answer is very few. If I give the hon. Lady a few figures, that will go some way to addressing the points that she made. From the data that I have, since 2019 Northern Ireland has received eight late appeals, of which seven were accepted and one was rejected by the president. Scotland has received four late appeals, of which two were accepted and two are still pending awaiting reasons for lateness from the appellant. In the past 12 months in England and Wales, there have been no late appeals. I hope that gives a sense of the extent of the matter that we are dealing with today.
In terms of breaking down by cause, illness or injury, I will reflect on the hon. Lady’s request. When we get down to these small numbers, there is a danger that we might start identifying the causes for people appealing, and it might be that that information is protected. Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to reflect on that, but if I can be helpful, I will be.
On the wider reforms to the armed forces compensation scheme, there is the quinquennial review that is currently under way. I expect that to report in the spring, and we will then have to make a decision on whether the scheme is fit for purpose or whether it needs to be changed.
The matter of nuclear test veterans and others is kept under review by the independent medical advisory group, whom I have met, and it examined the epidemiology of various conditions. So far, the data regarding nuclear test veterans gives us some cause for reassurance. That data is kept under constant review, given the passage of time, to make sure that individuals have not been disadvantaged because of their military service.
On the grounds for objection to an appeal by the Secretary of State, the truth is that the Secretary of State does not object. Even if he did, it could be overturned by a tribunal. That has been a consistent feature. I have asked officials whether we have any records of the Secretary of State objecting, but we could not find any. In terms of the criteria and why this is going to be helpful to people in Northern Ireland and Scotland, it introduces flexibility. At the moment, the only way to make a late appeal is on the grounds of a set of very defined circumstances. This removes that constraint and it is important to say that this is at the request of the presidents of tribunals in Northern Ireland and Scotland and the Lord Chancellor’s advisory group. This is something that they have identified as causing the playing field to not be as level as it should be and is therefore seen to be erasing a potential disadvantage that people living in Northern Ireland and Scotland making an appeal for a late application may fall under. The point of this is to erase that incongruity but, as I said in my opening remarks, the expectation is that the number of people who will be affected by this is very small, and I hope the figures that I have given serve to illustrate that.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Can the Minister clarify a point? When my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South was talking about the Secretary of State not objecting, she was referring to new regulation 3, under which it would be possible for the Secretary of State to object if a late appeal was made, but also possible for the pensions appeal tribunal to then overrule that, in effect, and make its own judgment. I just wanted clarification from the Minister, who was absolutely right in saying that the Secretary of State could not do that to date, but would be able to under the new regulations. Therefore, the clarification that my hon. Friend sought is still needed.
Dr Murrison
The Secretary of State could object, but he would have to state his grounds for objection. The reality is that he has not objected so far as we can determine and, in any event, even if he did, his objection could be overruled by the appeal process. I hope that makes it clear and that is not altered by this particular measure.
Going through the list of points that the hon. Member for Luton South made, I hope what I have said explains the position because it is the tribunals and the advisory group set up by the Lord Chancellor that has called for this—the advisory group set up to ensure that there is congruity between the arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the arrangements in England and Wales. This has been driven by those two sets of authorities, so the answer is that they would be commenting on a measure that they themselves have decided to push for. I hope that is helpful.
I think the hon. Lady’s point about consultation was reasonable, but there has to be some proportionality in this and, given that there really is no conceivable objection to this from a user point of view, it is difficult to see anything in this that could possibly disadvantage any set of veterans. I will be quite clear with the hon. Lady: our consultation has not exactly been extensive on this matter. I hope that is helpful. I cannot possibly see how any of the service charities, Cobseo or any group of veterans could object to the playing field being levelled in the way that has been described, particularly since this has been driven by the presidents of the tribunals and the Lord Chancellor’s advisory group. If there was any suggestion that anyone was going to be relatively disadvantaged, we would have to have done, as the hon. Lady said, a piece of work around wider public consultation, but, on the grounds of proportionality, that would be unnecessary in this particular case.
The hon. Lady asked about an impact assessment. I hope she is reassured by the numbers. They really are tiny and it is not entirely clear that these changes would affect those numbers in any way historically. This has been identified by the presidents of the tribunals and by the advisory group set up by the Lord Chancellor to address what appears to me to be a theoretical disadvantage that residents of Scotland and Northern Ireland may face. It is for that reason that this measure has been introduced. I hope that is helpful.
Question put and agreed to.
EU Referendum: Energy and Environment
Debate between Barry Gardiner and Andrew Murrison(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend, who takes a consistent and committed interest in these matters, is absolutely correct, and the precise intention of this motion is to flush out those issues and ensure that the Government do precisely as he says.
In the aftermath of the leave vote, the Government’s own external adviser has stated that a future for the Hinkley C nuclear power station is now “extremely unlikely”. Vattenfall has said it is now reassessing the risk of working in the UK, which could jeopardise its plans for a £5.5 billion wind farm off the east coast of England, while Siemens has announced that it is putting a freeze on its future—not its current—clean energy investments in Hull as a result of what it called the “increased uncertainty” from the leave vote.
I must say that for all the talk from the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), about the “sunlit uplands” of the post-Brexit world, there is really no use in the Secretary of State trying to pretend that she thinks the vote is anything but a disaster when she herself is on record quoting the analysis of Vivid Economics warning that the result of an exclusion from the EU’s internal energy market could cost the UK up to £500 million a year by the early 2020s. The stock response of the right hon. Lady that Labour Members should not “talk Britain down” will simply not serve, given that these quotations come from her own advisers, industry leaders and, indeed, her!
Bloomberg New Energy Finance was not scaremongering when it said of the upcoming Brexit negotiations that they were
“likely to cause project investors and banks to hesitate about committing new capital, and could cause a drop in renewable energy asset values”.
That was an authoritative, independent commentator telling the unvarnished truth.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I always follow the hon. Gentleman’s comments with a great deal of interest, but is it not about time that he and his party moved on? The British people have delivered their verdict. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is not terribly helpful of people like him to continue to talk the British economy down in that way?
Barry Gardiner
I understand that there is a need to move on, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must now look to the future, but I think that if he bears with me, he will find that that is what I am trying to do. Yes, I am critical of where we are, but the criticisms that I have adumbrated so far are not my own. They are criticisms made by the Government’s own advisers, they are criticisms made by industry itself, and, indeed, they are criticisms made by the Secretary of State. I am not talking the UK economy down; I am trying to set out the present situation with clarity, and then see whether we can move on from it.
Perhaps the Secretary of State could do the same as Bloomberg in telling the unvarnished truth, and inform the House what assessment her Department has made of the increased price of imported energy as a result of the falling pound. I will happily give way to her if she wishes to do so.
Barry Gardiner
I am sure you are correct, Mr Speaker, in referring to “his preliminary remarks”.
I am happy to explain that relationship. Unless we have clarity about the post-Brexit scenario, unless we know where we will be able to secure funds to replace all the funds that fell within the common agricultural policy to finance measures to mitigate flooding, and unless we are able to deal with land management in the way that was allowed by the European Union, we will not have clarity on these matters, and clarity is vital to adaptation.
We are living at a time of increased risk, and robust planning is required to limit harmful impacts on British communities and businesses. I say in all seriousness that, following the devastation of communities and cities around our country by recent floods, this new assessment requires a new response from the Government. Cuts in the budgets, and in the staffing capacity of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency, have left the UK increasingly vulnerable, and the Government must take responsibility for that.
The UK’s ability to face up to energy and environmental challenges—more than almost any other area of policy—was strengthened by our EU membership. Given that the Treasury’s principal response to the leave vote so far is a U-turn on the Chancellor’s core election pledge to balance the books by 2020—
Barry Gardiner
I think you would like me to press on, Mr Speaker, so I will not. I have, I think, been most generous in giving way.
Given the Treasury’s response, it would be helpful to hear from the Under-Secretary, when he winds up the debate, precisely where he proposes to find the additional resources that are required for adequate flood defences to meet the new assessment. Last week, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the House:
“It is absolutely clear that it is business as usual while we remain members of the EU.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2016; Vol. 62, c. 1030.]
Perhaps she will understand that what concerns many of us is that, as soon as we are no longer members of the EU, many of the protections the UK natural environment currently enjoys will fall away. The clean air directive has been strenuously opposed in Europe by this Government, who tried to water it down for years; indeed our own Supreme Court has now found them to be in breach. I pay tribute to ClientEarth and its work in holding Government to account for the 52,500 excess deaths every year as a result of polluted air in the UK, and I pay particular tribute to Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London who used the 60th anniversary of the Clean Air Act 1956 to unveil a new clean air programme.
The Government must remember that they have a job to do, and that includes taking concrete action to meet the legal air quality standards as ordered by the UK’s Supreme Court. The Government need to explain to the House if they will incorporate the provisions of the clean air directive into UK law and then begin to comply with its provisions in a way that they have, tragically, failed to do for the past six years.
The birds and habitat directives may well already be fully transposed into UK law, but we need to know if our beaches will still be protected from sewage by the bathing water directive or whether swimming through sewage will once again become a feature of a day at the seaside. We need to know which elements of the waste and electronic equipment directive were not transposed into UK law under the 2013 regulations and what the impact of leaving the EU might be for our recycling industries and our commitment to the circular economy.
Barry Gardiner
No, I will not.
The fact is that fish and birds and insects do not carry passports; pollution is oblivious to the strictures of national airspace or inshore waters. If we wish to manage all of these, whether as pests, problems or resources, then it is better to do so in concert with our regional neighbours. The vote to leave the EU has made that harder. The Government must outline how they propose to overcome that problem.
The Environment Secretary told the House last week that the subject of continued subsidies to farmers up to 2020
“is not a decision I can make at this stage.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2016; Vol. 612, c. 1028.]
Surely it is a decision that should have been made long before anyone asked farmers to vote to leave the EU. Much of the subsidy that farmers receive is for environmental stewardship schemes and other land management practices that benefit biodiversity and wildlife. To turn round to farmers now and say that the £3.5 billion total of subsidy that used to flow each year from the EU into their pockets is no longer secure is not just an attack on farmers’ livelihoods; it is an attack on all the work that farmers do to enhance our environment and protect our landscapes.
These are not abstract challenges. Managing the risks born of the uncertainty from the referendum outcome is a responsibility for Government. Ministers must urgently identify any legislative gaps in environmental protection that may arise from the removal of EU law, and develop plans to replace any protections so that the UK does not become a riskier, unhealthier or more polluted place to live in or do business in.