Town and Country Planning

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In terms of Grenfell, I referred to the draft building safety Bill and gateway 1. Certainly in terms of planning permitted development, there is an issue there—it is an issue that we will undoubtedly discuss beyond the debate today. With regard to the concession to the rebels, and the fact that we have laid the motions today, of course we welcome baby steps forward—finally, there is a concession that actually people deserve space as well as windows. That is a step forward, undoubtedly, but major problems remain with permitted development.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest, as chair of the all-party group on healthy homes and buildings that sits in this House. We carried out an inquiry two years ago and made recommendations. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the importance of homes having the heating, quality of life and lighting correct, and having environmental amenities throughout. A home is not just four walls; it is much more than that. Does he agree that that has to be part of what the Government bring forward?

[Mike Amesbury]

I wholeheartedly agree with those powerful and pertinent points.

The quality of housing—the minimum standards required from Government—should be guided by a moral compass, one that puts health and wellbeing at the heart of housing provision, rather than the profit margins of some of the more unscrupulous developers in our country. Rather than bypassing local residents and councils, why not resource and fund local planning authorities properly and maximise that civic voice to create healthy communities and housing that people are proud to call their home? Ministers wax lyrical about the need for more affordable housing, yet this massive extension of permitted development bypasses the requirement for section 106 contributions and in many cases community infrastructure levy payments too, robbing communities of decent affordable housing and local infrastructure. The Conservative-led Local Government Association estimates that 3,500 affordable homes have been lost due to the current regime of permitted development. This centralisation of our planning system is a Stalinist power grab, bypassing local democracy and creating a developer’s charter, while vandalising the character of our villages, towns and cities, hollowing out our high streets, flattening industrial estates and concreting over green space. It is ideological claptrap with bells on. I worry that the Secretary of State is spending far too much time with his Russian oligarch friends—Private Eye is even referring to him as “Moscow Bob”.

If these statutory instruments are passed today, when more of these unplanned monstrosities start to appear in our communities, residents will no longer be able to voice their concerns to local councillors, their MPs or the local planning departments.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the answer is no. To ensure we take that political football totally off the table and return the Bill to what is was always designed to be about—giving businesses in Scotland and all parts of the UK the business continuity and certainty they need without such distractions—the technical amendment dots the i’s and crosses the t’s.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

For Northern Ireland to be a successful part of the United Kingdom, may I gently suggest that the Minister should work with us on new clause 7, which my party has tabled? It is an imperative tool to ensure that Northern Ireland is not left behind in Brexit in terms of being an integrated member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—in other words, that we are treated equally.

[Paul Scully]

I will turn to new clause 7 in a second, but clearly we will treat Northern Ireland equally.

Amendments 2 to 11, 24, 27, 28 and 35 to 38 are technical changes to remove sources of potential confusion in the drafting. Amendments 19 and 21 provide fuller clarification that a wide range of agricultural processes are considered to be in scope when we refer to the production of goods. Amendment 20 ensures that the UK Government and devolved Administrations can continue to respond to specific biosecurity threats arising from the movement of animals and high-risk plants and that they are excluded from the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles of the Bill.

Amendments 22 and 23 clarify the meaning of clause 16 that a change to the conditions attached to an authorisation requirement would bring it in scope of part 2 of the Bill. Amendment 26 ensures that the exemption in clause 23 covers the replication of non-statutory rules as well as a re-enactment of legislation. Amendments 12 to 15 ensure that the higher courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may make declarations of incompatibility in respect of the regulations under clauses 42 and 43, but may not quash them. That will ensure that, in the unlikely event of a violation of convention rights, there is a remedy available through the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I strongly agree; I will come to that point shortly.

The Government’s next justification was that it was necessary to rip up the withdrawal agreement because the European Union is ripping it up itself, but we have heard differing accounts of this: the Northern Ireland Secretary said throughout the summer:

“The Government is extremely confident that the EU is working in good faith”.

Which is it? We are still not clear about that.

Perhaps the most dangerous of all the contortions relates to Northern Ireland. The shifting justifications of the Government over the last three weeks have added to the sense that they are using Northern Ireland as a pawn in a wider negotiating strategy. Remember, this is a deal that the Prime Minister told the House was

“in perfect conformity with the Good Friday agreement”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 583.]

Callous or careless? Untrustworthy or incompetent? The Government are playing a dangerous game, and it is the people and businesses of Northern Ireland who risk paying the price.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the shadow Minister for the constructive way in which she is putting forward her point of view. Does she agree that new clause 7, which was tabled by my colleagues, among others, and has some supporters in the House, is essential to ensure the viability of businesses in my constituency and across the whole of Northern Ireland whose biggest trading partner is the UK? Does she further agree that Northern Ireland cannot be left at the whim of Europe and that we must have security when these measures go before the House?

[Lucy Powell]

Yes, I do agree. I will mention that point in a moment.

For the people of Northern Ireland, this is not the latest episode in a Brexit drama; it is a profoundly worrying moment. Little wonder that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland himself, Sir Declan Morgan—a widely respected voice—said that the Government’s actions “undermine trust”. Let us remember that this issue could scarcely be more sensitive. In order to ensure the continuity of the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions—recognising the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland sharing a land border with the Republic, and therefore the special responsibility and role that the UK and the Republic of Ireland have as co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement—any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland rests on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland in their plurality. That is why it is essential that the protocol upholds Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market and that this delicate compromise builds the confidence of all communities. That is the principle behind new clause 7, which we have co-sponsored with the DUP and Alliance.

But instead of proceeding with due caution and going the extra mile to seek consensus, the Government resort to legislative vandalism. They also stoop pretty low—into “straight bananas” land—with scare stories about what the Bill is needed to prevent, some of which we have heard again today. The Prime Minister warned that the Bill was necessary because the EU wants to enforce an embargo on the transport of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and are

“holding out the possibility of blockading food and agricultural transports within our own country.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 43.]

Yet nowhere in the Bill do the Government safeguard against this. Despite the many amendments at every stage, there is nothing at all in the Bill regarding the movement of goods from GB to NI.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He is right to chide the European Union about seeking to interfere with the integrity of this sovereign nation. However, the end of that sentence should encapsulate the disappointment of some of us at the fact that our own Government would accept a framework that seeks to do just that.

That brings me to our amendments, which are in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. colleagues—both new clause 7 and amendment 17. Last week, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is a pleasure to address you in that way—a very concerned constituent of mine, Mike, chided me engagingly, as he always does, for referring to you in personal terms. I had to outline that that was because we were, for day after day, in Committee, so it is good that we are on Report. I am mindful of the time constraints, so I do not intend to rehearse the many sincere arguments that we advanced in Committee that lie underneath our amendments, but I will touch on them in relation to new clause 7 and amendment 17.

I listened carefully to the Minister, who is now back in his place, when he spoke about amendment 17 in his opening remarks, which, as I mentioned in my intervention, replicate quite closely those of the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker):

“I understand Members’ concerns and support mutual recognition and the non-discrimination principle, but the exception to mutual recognition that we have introduced for chemicals is there to allow the relevant authorities to respond to local factors. Authorisations granted by the EU after the end of the transition period will not take local conditions into consideration. I emphasise that the authorisations relate to the use of substances of very high concern. It is important that the Government and devolved Administrations can take local factors into account when they decide how to protect human health or the environment from the significant risks posed by such chemicals.”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 658.]

That is a fair enough analysis of why we should be within the UK regime on REACH regulations, but the thrust of this Bill is to ensure that our businesses are not unfairly disadvantaged in the conduct of their activity. I have highlighted in Committee and I highlight again today the fact that it is unnecessary to ask businesses to adhere to two separate and distinct regimes on chemicals and dangerous substances—an EU regime and a UK or GB regime—in the conduct of their business.

I heard the Minister say, in response to my intervention, that the Government were working on a common framework, but in pushing this amendment, we are asking them to accept that this will have real, tangible implications for a small subset of our businesses. It demonstrates acutely the burdens that will be added to our businesses when we have one foot in the GB market and one foot in the European Union single market, with all the rules that come with that, and when we are expected to adhere to the rules of both jurisdictions. That will make our businesses less competitive.

[Jim Shannon]

To illustrate the “best of both worlds” that my hon. Friend has referred to, does he remember that as recently as last year two Northern Ireland skippers were arrested for fishing in waters within six miles of the Republic of Ireland, after an EU judgment? We never seem to get a good deal in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that that illustrates the importance of our new clause 7, which would guarantee a review of business and trade?

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend touches on new clause 7, which I will turn to in a moment. The egregious circumstances to which he refers, in which the skippers were arrested last year, were completely outrageous. However, Judge Coughlan in the south recognised that they were men of deep integrity, that they did not deserve convictions and that Irish fishermen were doing exactly the same in Northern Ireland waters. Had it not been for his clarity of thought, things could have been much worse.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I have spoken in a number of debates during the passage of this internal market Bill. For me and my colleagues, the Bill is about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland together and we wish, through our contributions, to try to explain where we stand on these issues. We do not want to ruffle feathers in a way that annoys people.

The briefing for this debate outlines the aim of the Bill, which is well worth repeating for those who perhaps do not understand the point that we are trying to make. There are those who are fixated on what could be said about us. Well, I am fixated, and my party is fixated, on this definition. The briefing says:

“The Bill sets out two principles that will govern access to the UK market for goods and services. The principles aim to allow people and businesses to trade across the UK without having to face different barriers in its different nations.”

We are convinced that the people of Northern Ireland should have the right to the same opportunities as those in England, Scotland and Wales. The briefing says:

“The first principle means that if a good or service can be legally sold in one part of the UK (as it meets the relevant regulations) then it can be sold in any part of the UK.”

That is exactly what we think and this is the principle of mutual recognition. The briefing goes on to say:

“The second principle prevents parts of the UK treating goods coming in from other parts of the UK less favourably than local goods. This is the principle of non-discrimination.”

We have recorded our amendments, but we will not be pressing them today. They are on the amendment paper, so if Members get a chance, they can take a look at them and get a fair idea of where we stand on this matter.

I know that I must sound like a stuck record, but the fact is that, for the sake of my constituents, for the sake of my local businesses and for the sake of my local industries, I have to say again that the principle of non-discrimination must apply to Northern Ireland as an intricate part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is what this Bill seeks to do. That is why the DUP has tabled various amendments, which we will not be pressing today. They set out the statement of our position and it is important that we have that recorded in this debate. We seek to underline the fact that we are, and must remain, on an equal footing with every other nation—Scotland, Wales and all of England—and must remain on an equal footing across this wonderful Union that we all take so much for granted.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On the point that my hon. Friend is making about unfettered access across all four nations of the UK, that is a fundamental prerequisite that we need to see in this Bill, however it is amended. Hopefully that is an objective that everybody in the Committee should be committed to.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is exactly what I am saying and exactly the point that we are trying to put forward today. It is about east-west trade and west-east trade. It is about how this affects our agrifood sectors. It is about how our businesses can continue to operate and not be restrained in any way.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) referred to the fishing sector, which is very important for me in my constituency. At one time, Portavogie had 120 boats in its harbour, but owing to EU regulations and all the bureaucracy that came in, that number is now down to approximately 60. We hope that through this our fishing sector can grow, and we are quite convinced that that will happen.

Our amendment, which is not for debate today, reflects the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) made. It states:

“In making these regulations, the Secretary of State must have special regard to the need to maintain the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom internal market.”

It also requires that we must

“have regard to safeguarding unfettered access of NI businesses to the UK Internal Market.”

That is the very point that he refers to and that our party has consistently uttered in this Chamber—that we want to have the same rights as everyone else.

I have yet to hear a single convincing argument that tells me that Northern Ireland does not deserve the same recognition. I think we all know that, and hopefully it will be delivered whenever this Bill is finally concluded. I have yet to see one single statement that points me to the holy grail of the Belfast agreement that is being waved about as a reason we cannot have our place in the United Kingdom. There is no clause in the Belfast agreement that precludes us from maintaining our place in the UK outside of Europe. We believe that our position on this Bill today will be one that all of us, on all sides of political opinion, can support.

Again, we hark back to the legal opinion. It is important in this debate to have a legal opinion that is balanced. Martin Howe QC has unequivocally stated that

“there are good arguments that the government’s clauses will not breach international law. First, there is a general principle of international law that treaty powers should be exercised in good faith, and an EU blockage of reasonable ‘goods at risk’”

between GB and Northern Ireland

“could be classed as a bad faith exercise of treaty powers…Secondly…the alteration of the constitutional status of NI (which across the board tariffs on GB to NI exports would entail) would breach the core principle of the Good Friday Agreement...International law does not justify a later treaty to which these community representatives are not parties being used to over-ride the rights they enjoy under the earlier treaty”.

That legal opinion is very pertinent to this debate and to the importance of where we stand. It also states that

“section 38 of the Withdrawal Agreement Act preserves Parliamentary sovereignty and makes it quite clear that Parliament has the right to pass the clauses which the government is proposing and thereby override these errant clauses in the Protocol.”

That is why I can support the Government in what they put forward and reject the Opposition arguments, while ever understanding that people have differences of opinion. We can agree to differ on these things while feeling very strongly on the stance that we have. That highlights the importance of this debate in terms of the legal and moral necessity of our opinion as stated in our amendments, which we are not pressing.

For me, this is all about free trade. It is all about having the same opportunity. It is about businesses in Strangford and across the whole of Northern Ireland being able to trade east-west and west-east. It is about my fishermen being able to land their fish in Portavogie harbour and not be subject to a tariff that would make it nonsensical to do so. It is about my fishing sector growing. It is about my agrifood sector, which employs some 2,500 people, growing. I believe that that could happen through this Bill.

[Craig Williams]

On day four in Committee, it is tempting to regurgitate all the points that have been made previously, but I can assure Members that I will resist that. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I agree with much of what he said about our precious Union. It was also a pleasure to hear from my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) about the non-tariff barriers. Those two key points—non-tariff barriers to trade and market access for our Union—are why I was so exercised that I put myself forward to speak in this debate.

I want to briefly talk about market access. We have heard some Members getting exercised about the creation of this market access framework, but much of what is in the Bill replicates the EU market as it was. Much of the political debate around the Bill thus far has been a regurgitation of the former Brexit argument—it is just the same old politics in a different guise.

A third of my constituents in Montgomeryshire travel across the English-Welsh border every day, whether that is for education, jobs, skills or goods. It is entirely porous. It is essential for my constituency—I task the entire Welsh nation with this—that we get market access right, with no distortions and no non-tariff barriers internally or externally, for the rest of the world. It is critical that this is done at a UK level.

I want to touch on amendment 9 and the perceived attack on devolution. This is one of the single biggest transfers of powers to the Senedd, the Welsh Parliament —70 powers. I will happily take an intervention from anyone who can name a single power that the Welsh Parliament will not be able to exercise because of this Bill. Indeed, the Counsel General of the Welsh Government went as far as to say that

“this doesn’t specifically prevent the Senedd from exercising its powers”.

All the noises to date in this Chamber and in the press are a lot of politics.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Although I perhaps did not agree with everything that he said today, we do agree on many other things. Indeed, I think that it is perhaps the first time that I have followed three Liberal Democrat speakers. I am not sure whether that gives them a numerical advantage, but one DUP man is equal to three Liberal Democrats—I say that in jest; we are not in any way against each other.

I have listened very closely to the speeches both last night and this afternoon. I must say that the case presented by the Prime Minister outlines what our fears were with the withdrawal Bill, which is the same withdrawal Bill that we voted against on three occasions when it was brought forward by the former Prime Minister. In January this year, we also voted against the withdrawal agreement because we felt at that time that it put us at a disadvantage. What makes this different is the position we now find ourselves in. The Prime Minister has brought forward a Bill that gives protection to Northern Ireland in a way that we would like to see. With that thrust and protection in the Bill for Northern Ireland, there is something that we agree in our party we can support, and we look forward to that. The exception is clause 47, to which we are bringing forward an amendment tomorrow that we feel would strengthen our position again. Hopefully the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Government and others will feel that that is the right way to go.

I am without doubt a proud Brexiteer. That is not a secret—it is well known. As a Unionist, I love this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I love my Scottish colleagues and they know that. I love my Plaid Cymru friends and I try to work with most people in this Chamber. They might have a different political viewpoint about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I will tell the House one thing: they are genuine people and I respect their point of view, even though I, in many cases, do not agree with it. I am simply someone who has experienced, in my nation—in Northern Ireland—the difference between intent and reality. This Bill has been brought forward to give help to the devolved Administrations as they look at trade, and I am very pleased to see that.

I am reminded of a devolved Administration today that I was a Member of for some 12 years, as long as my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was—the Northern Ireland Assembly. As a Unionist, I forewarned that the make-up of Stormont would lead to one party being able to bring the institution down. I listened as I was told that it would not happen as it was in the best interests of Northern Ireland to continue to work together. I sat in my office and watched the country being left adrift for almost three years, with this place reluctant to take over and upset the premise of devolution in everything other than the imposition of abortion against the will of the Assembly and the general public. But the Assembly is now up and running, and we want it to succeed. I want it understood in the internal market Bill that we can have an input, a contribution and a say from the Northern Ireland Assembly.

When my party and I warned that the good faith aspect of the withdrawal agreement was not enough security against what we were surrendering—the sovereignty of the UK over Northern Ireland—I did so not only as an anxious person, but as an experienced person, who has seen the process, and I understand why this Bill, without any changes, with the exception of clause 47, has been brought forward in a way that we can support: because it makes us stronger within the United Kingdom. I am pleased to see that.

Europe is doing what I knew it would always do, what it has historically done—ride roughshod over good intent to achieve its goal. There was an outcry when it was felt by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the leader of the Scottish National party, that there would be a possible rise in food prices, with supermarket shelves lying empty, in the event of a no deal. And yet Europe has blatantly threatened that all goods may be considered at risk and that the rest of the United Kingdom may not be considered a third nation, meaning that the shelves in my constituency could be empty or that there could be price rises, whereas a trip over the Irish sea to my right hon. Friend’s constituency will see nothing of the same. Is that acceptable? In terms of the internal market Bill and the Trade Bill, as they have been put forward, are families in my constituency richer than those in the constituencies of others? No, they are not. Are their bellies less deserving of food?

I want to make a plea in respect of this Bill for the agri-food sector in my constituency—for Mash Direct, Rich Sauces and Lakeland Dairies, three companies that have some 2,500 jobs. I agree with the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). With this Bill, are we decreasing or minimising our standards? No; he is right to say that we are not. Companies will grow, and we will retain the standards that we have achieved. There is no way in the world that we will let it be otherwise, and I respectfully suggest that anyone who thinks that we will has got it wrong. Previous Ministers have sought and got agreements across the world, including for trade deals in China. We got those markets with our products, quality levels and standards. We are not going to surrender them; we are going to keep them with this Bill.

The fisheries sector is also important to me and my constituency. It is important that this Bill becomes law to ensure not only that we can produce the products that we do out of Portavogie, Ardglass, Kilkeel and elsewhere in Northern Ireland, but that we can increase our trade and potential to grow, and continue to feed the United Kingdom and Europe.

The UK’s chief negotiator has confirmed:

“I am afraid it has also been said to us explicitly in these talks that if we are not listed we will not be able to move food to Northern Ireland…if GB were not listed, it would be automatically illegal for NI to import food products from GB.”

That is why this Bill, as it was presented by Government, is the way for us to move forward. The European institutions are using Northern Ireland—as I knew they would—to exert control and undermine our sovereignty, and the House is considering a method of protection, which is what the Bill is about. Yes, there could be a breach, but it is one of acting in bad faith, and the blame lies with the Europeans. They are threatening my constituents, Northern Ireland and the whole United Kingdom. They are threatening my constituents with the possibility that our biggest supplier, GB, will have checks and perhaps tariffs on my food—on my constituents’ food. Tariffs on fish, tariffs on food—am I less British than those from Scotland, Wales and England? Do I deserve less consideration and support from this Government? I do not, and my nation does not. The opinion and wishes of the Northern Ireland Assembly are entitled to such consideration.

I have listened to those who trounce out the Belfast agreement as a talisman against the United Kingdom internal market. When I look back—I say this with great respect—at the treachery of both Blair and Major with on-the-runs letters and shady backroom deals, and when I look at their banner-waving of the Belfast agreement as the only consideration in this debate, it is difficult to understand their absolute abandonment of the principle of consent, which is being demolished by the Northern Ireland protocol. I understand why the amendments have been tabled, but I feel that the protection that the Government have put forward is worthy of consideration and support, and our party will be supporting the Government on their proposals.

We have heard legal opinions from other people, and I want to put this one on the record. Martin Howe QC has clearly said that

“the alteration of the constitutional status of NI (which across the board tariffs on GB to NI exports would entail) would breach the core principle of the Good Friday Agreement…International law does not justify a later treaty to which these community representatives are not parties being used to over-ride the rights they enjoy under the earlier treaty”.

That legal opinion tells us that the Good Friday agreement is not under any threat; indeed, I suggest that it enhances where we are and where we are going.

Let us grasp why the Bill exists. As my esteemed colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) outlined yesterday, we should consider who is threatening to destroy the peace process. The only such threats are coming from Europe. As is often the case, they are smoke and mirrors—they have no validity. Those who espouse the Belfast agreement and devolution, and who respect the will of the people that the Northern Ireland Assembly should have a say, need to think carefully about what will happen. We can see our fears coming to be reality. It is right and proper not just that the Government understand that but that, with this Bill, they are putting in place measures that can be enacted if Europe continues down the route of bad faith that tit has set out on.

It is equally right and proper that we as a House protect Northern Ireland as an intrinsic part of the United Kingdom and ensure that the devolved Administrations, and in particular the Northern Ireland Assembly, have a say. That is why the Bill, as put forward and without change—with the exception of clause 47—is the right way to do it.

Regulatory Impact Assessments (Legislative Scrutiny)

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I shall start with some quotes from my constituents about the Government:

“The most inept and incompetent administration in my lifetime.”

“Incoherent and indecisive.” “Authoritarian and arrogant.” “Inconsistent and incomprehensible.” “Socialist in all but name.” As these criticisms become increasingly difficult to rebut, it is indeed essential that the Prime Minister gets a grip. The constructive purpose of this debate is to remind the Government that one key tool to enable them to get a grip is to use regulatory impact assessments as part of the policy-making process.

A regulatory impact assessment is a well-established, internationally acclaimed toolkit for good policy making. It facilitates transparency and public accountability, promotes democratic discussion by enabling potential possible policy options to be evaluated and compared. It prevents the inconsistency that arises from knee-jerk reactions and policies being developed on the hoof.

It helps to ensure that sudden changes are the exception and are made in response to changes in hard evidence rather than in response to the chorus of a single-issue pressure group—and I think it is probably fair to say that the covid alarmists are the most successful pressure group in British history. If, for the past six months, the Government had been using this toolkit, it would not have been possible for commentators to observe, as one did on Sunday:

“Britain has become a paradise for those who like to answer questions with ‘rules is rules’; even when they’re clearly made up on the spot or nonsensical.”

Allowing beard and eyebrow trimming for men but not eyebrow treatments for women was but one ridiculous example.

Most fair-minded observers supported the Government’s initial response to the covid-19 pandemic. The Government had no option but to make their priority ensuring that our hospitals were able to treat all those seriously ill as a result of covid-19. Our NHS was not as well-prepared as it would have been if the recommendations of Exercise Cygnus had been implemented. Cygnus was a brilliant initiative to war-game a serious epidemic of respiratory illness in order to identify where investment was needed to fill the gaps and thereby ensure an effective response. Tragically, Public Health England did not learn the lessons identified and failed to put the recommended preparatory work in place. We, the public, have been denied access to the full results. It remains a mystery to me as to why the Government are so defensive about the whole matter—and have indeed been dodging parliamentary questions that I have put down on the subject.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman often brings things to the House that are very important, and this is certainly one of them. Does he agree that impact assessments, if produced reliably, can form a critical element of the better regulation agenda? Regulatory impact assessments need to be the right foundation and the right basis to ensure that legislative scrutiny is not just a checklist but is instead an effective mechanism. I think that that is what he was referring to.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Gentleman has given a brilliant summary of my Adjournment thesis. He is saying that this should not be a tick-box exercise but that clear evidence should be presented that can then lead to proper debate and facilitate scrutiny, and that is what this is all about. I hope the Government are still wedded to that, because their better regulation unit has had consultations and is, I think, still taking the line that we need to have proper regulatory impact assessments. The purpose of this debate is to try to get some more assurance from the Government that they are going to apply these principles not just to covid-19 but to other regulatory measures that are, at the moment, being brought in with far too insufficient scrutiny.

Tomorrow it will be six months since the Department of Health and Social Care policy paper on coronavirus was published. This action plan, as it became, on which the Coronavirus Act 2020 was based, envisaged four phases: contain, delay, research and mitigate. The delay phase was to

“slow the spread in this country, if it does take hold, lowering the peak impact and pushing it away from the winter season”.

Because of the emergency timetable, the legislation had the sketchiest of regulatory impact assessments, without any cost-benefit analysis. But who would have thought that none of the regulations being made under that primary legislation would be properly evaluated before implementation? I certainly hoped that that would happen, but it has not.

The basic steps in the RIA process should involve consultation and an assessment of the nature and extent of the problems to be addressed. There should be a clear statement of the policy objectives and goals of the regulatory proposal, which should include the enforcement regime and strategy for ensuring compliance. Alternative courses of action should be identified, including any non-regulatory approaches considered as potential solutions to the identified problem. There should also be a clear outline of the benefits and costs expected from the proposal and identified alternatives. The conclusion should not only identify the preferred solution but explain how it is superior to the other alternatives considered. Finally, there should be a monitoring and evaluation framework set out describing how performance will be measured.

Although the processes I have set out could not be embarked on in the immediate emergency of introducing lockdown, they should surely form an inherent part of the process of easing lockdown, and ensuring consistent and timely relaxations of the regulations. It is the failure to do this that has resulted in sudden and contradictory changes to the regulations.

This has also led to unacceptable mission creep, which increasingly embodies a gradual shift in objectives. Hon. and right hon. Members will remember that the original objective was to enable the NHS to provide the best care to all the victims of covid-19 who needed it. That clear mission has now widened into a mission to suppress the spread of covid-19 as an end in itself, regardless of the cost. The irony is that, in allowing the original objective to be blurred, the important subsidiary objective of preventing the virus peaking again in the winter is being put in jeopardy.

The easing of lockdown has, sadly, become a veritable shambles. While the number of deaths from covid-19 has mercifully plummeted from its April peak, there has not been a corresponding relaxation of the emergency regulations. I shall refer later to the OECD principles of best practice for regulatory policy, but one of the key principles is:

“Proposed solutions should be appropriate to the risk posed, and costs identified and minimised.”

In the statement he made yesterday to the House, the Secretary of State for Health said that there are now

“60 patients in mechanical ventilator beds with coronavirus”.—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 23.]

This compares with 3,300 at the peak of the epidemic, and he then said that the latest quoted number for reported deaths is two in one day. Today, The Sun newspaper has calculated from these figures that the odds of catching covid-19 in England are about 44 in 1 million per day. Economist Tim Harford, who presents what I think is one, if not the only, good programme on the BBC—the statistics programme, “More or Less”—has said:

“Covid-19 currently presents a background risk of a one in a million chance of death or lasting harm, every day.”

While age, gender, geography, behaviour and other aspects affect the risk, it is now far lower than the risk of death or serious injury in a motor accident. On average, five people continue to be killed each day on our roads, yet I have not yet heard from the Government any proposals to ban people from driving because of the risks associated with so doing.

One sure way of ensuring consistency would be to impose the discipline of a regulatory impact assessment on each and every continuing restriction, so that the justification for loss of personal liberty could be evaluated against the alleged benefits. It is not too late for this to start, and I hope that the Minister, in responding to this debate, will provide an assurance that the forthcoming six-month review of the legislation will include a full regulatory impact assessment and an evaluation of the performance of the emergency regulations introduced.

The public would then be able to see the evidence about whether the decisions taken were correct. For example, was closing schools and setting back the education of the covid regeneration a proportionate and necessary measure? Was the postponement of 107,000 weddings across the United Kingdom justified? Could any of the 4,452 weddings which should have taken place last Saturday have been permitted? Why can people sit safely side by side with strangers on an aircraft, but not at a wedding breakfast or in a church, a theatre or a concert hall—or even in this Chamber?

Why was the World Health Organisation advice, which was originally that there should be 1 metre social distancing, not applied from the outset? We introduced a 2-metre or 6-foot rule, but that has now been modified with the 1 metre-plus rule, but at the same time the additional safeguards required for the 1 metre-plus situation are being applied to the 2-metre situation, which is creating all sorts of problems, conflicts and uncertainties for our constituents.

Is it protecting the NHS to create a situation where, as was revealed in The Times on 27 August, 15.3 million people are now on the hidden waiting list for treatment? Is it reasonable that we should try to prevent two deaths a day and keep 15.3 million people on waiting lists for treatment, with all the dire consequences that flow from that? Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you were listening to the Secretary of State for Health when he made his statement yesterday, but in my view his responses on the issue of NHS waiting lists were the weakest and least convincing parts of what he had to say.

Is the continuing economic cost of lockdown now disproportionate to the benefits? Well, let us have an exercise and see. Let us see the data presented, so that we can have a proper debate about it. I raised the importance of regulatory impact assessments in public policy making with the Leader of the House at business questions on 2 July. It was his response on that occasion which caused me to apply for this Adjournment debate, which I am delighted that we are having this evening. I said that we would be able to achieve much more consistency in Government advice with regulatory impact assessments. The Leader of the House, however, argued that

“if we spend too long doing all this, by the time we have done it we have moved on to the next stage of the lockdown.”

He accused me of “calling for bureaucratic folderol”, which would inhibit moving

“at a pace to ensure that things happen in a timely manner”.—[Official Report, 2 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 534.]

Would that they were. But I must correct the Leader of the House, because, far from being the worthless trifles described in the expression “folderol”, regulatory impact assessments are fundamental to ensuring that we make the right decisions as legislators.

It is incredible that, instead of lockdown continuing to be relaxed, new restrictions on freedom, such as mandatory face coverings, have been introduced. The consequence is that I detect a growing atmosphere of gloom and foreboding as we see winter approaching: no vaccine availability for many months; the economy in a worse state than most of our competitors; and the prospect of the resurgence of the pandemic coinciding with the flu season. I do not like the expression “waves” because it makes it seem as though we are talking about something equivalent to the Atlantic rollers so much enjoyed by our former Prime Minister and colleague, David Cameron. We are not talking about waves. We are talking about the potential resurgence of the pandemic—not everywhere, but in particular hotspots.

This scenario demands a rational evaluation of conflicting risks to the economy and public health, together with a cost-benefit analysis, and now is the time for the Government to reinstate the intellectual rigour of the regulatory impact assessment process. Sooner or later, the incredible economic cost of the Government’s failure to remove lockdown restrictions in a timely and effective manner will become apparent. If that coincides with the Government asking their natural supporters to pay the price for their failure through higher taxes, the political consequences will indeed be dire. It is for that reason that I commend to the Government what the OECD says about regulatory impact analysis. It describes it as an

“important element of an evidence-based approach to policy-making…that…can underpin the capacity of governments to ensure that regulations are efficient and effective in a changing and complex world.”

I will not read from the whole OECD regulatory impact assessment report on best practice principles for regulatory policy, but it extends to about 40 or 50 pages and is extremely well researched and documented. As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—these principles are supported by the Government; the trouble is that they do not seem to be being implemented by the Government and by Government Departments. I hope that in his response the Minister will tell us what he is doing to try and put that right.

The Government should revert to following their own “better regulation framework” established under the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which requires that

“A RIA should be prepared for all significant regulatory provisions as a standard of good policy making and where an appropriate RIA is expected by parliament and other stakeholders.”

The interim guidance issued in March this year sets out a general threshold for independent scrutiny of regulatory impact assessments and post-implementation reviews, where the annual net direct cost to business is greater than £5 million. It calls on Government Departments to undertake proportionate cost-benefit analysis to inform decision making.

The trouble is that this is not being done, and I will give just one topical example, to which I referred in my brief comments in the previous debate. Under the Coronavirus Act 2020, there was specific primary legislation saying that residential tenancies should be protected from eviction until 20 September this year. On Friday last week—27 August—regulations were made extending that period from 20 September for another six months. The regulations came into force on 28 August, which was last Saturday, the very same day that they were laid before Parliament. Regulation 1(2) says:

“These Regulations come into force on the day after the day on which they are laid”.

Those regulations have caused a storm of protest from residential landlords in my constituency; they are apoplectic about the fact that they are not going to be able to recover possession of their premises. Notwithstanding the contractual agreements they have entered into with their tenants, they are not going to be able to recover their premises until 31 March 2021.

It says in the explanatory notes to the regulations that they amend schedule 29 of the 2020 Act. This is primary legislation being amended by subordinate legislation subject only to the negative resolution procedure, and so one might have expected that there would be a regulatory impact assessment or something which would indicate to us, on behalf of our constituents, that the Government have thought this whole process through, but that is not there, and instead there is a little note which says:

“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument due to the temporary nature of the provision.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I think that rather than gusts of public pressure, the Government have been working in what is, in effect, as close to real-time decision making as we are ever going to get, and it is based on health advice and the business response. My right hon. Friend talked about the press and the media; I direct him to the example with which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch started—male eyebrow trimming and beard trimming—because that was never actually in the guidance. The guidance, which I worked on, was such that male beard trimming could work out, apart from detailing at the front if there was close, face-to-face, near contact. That was exactly the same as female eyebrow trimming, so there was no sense that men could go and get their eyebrows trimmed and women could not. The rhetoric in the media that men were getting a better deal than females, which understandably upset beauticians, just was not the actuality—it was not what was happening—but unfortunately, as we know, it is sometimes difficult to work with the media to stop a good story.

We must continue to engage. We do want to get back to the formality of regulatory impact assessments but, as I say, we need to engage at pace, so we will continue to listen to businesses. Sometimes, the consultations on the guidance we have been working on have lasted literally 12 hours on a Sunday. That guidance has come to me, to the unions and to businesses and we have all been acting within the same time constraints. We have not been hiding things away from businesses and those people who are most affected by this situation.

[Jim Shannon]

I must say that I am impressed by the number of people and businesses the Minister has met; that is an indication of the knowledge that he has gauged from them. May I make a quick suggestion on weddings? It is possible, in a bigger venue, to have people self-distanced and to have more than 30 people. It is also possible at weddings to have clusters of families who live closely together: there could be tables of 10 people —genuinely—which could increase the numbers who can go to weddings. To go back to the issue of regulatory impact assessments, if that was done, more people could attend weddings.

[Paul Scully]

As I say, weddings have been a big source of concern for me and others and, understandably, that argument has been put to me. The huge difference between weddings and, say, restaurants—an example that has often been cited—is that the wedding parties tend to know each other, whereas in a restaurant people have little interest in speaking to those at the table next door. Clearly, if someone’s grandmother or extended family are sitting at the next table, as the wedding and the evening develops, social distance suddenly starts to fall by the wayside.

I totally get the fact that wedding organisers know everybody who is there, so they can register and have test and trace working effectively, but it is a concern to the scientists. We are trying to balance the economy from the economic point of view, the human behaviour point of view and the science point of view, which is a difficult mix to deal with. Because we are working at pace, the regulatory impact assessments, which are the source of this debate, are not always easy to compile. For the reasons that the Leader of the House gave—I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch about the way that was worded—when compiling a formal regulatory impact assessment while working at pace, it is not always possible to go through that procedure.

We are reminding Departments of the importance of ensuring that appropriate resources are invested in gathering and analysing evidence about the regulatory impacts of the affected policies, and to publish it, where appropriate, throughout the period, if not at that particular time.

Flammable Cladding Removal

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

Absolutely.

We are finding that the small print requirements that housing associations and local authorities are having to pass is excluding them from accessing funding. They are then having to pass on the bill to the leaseholders, as hon. Members have said. Our leaseholder constituents cannot afford tens of thousands of pounds when right now their jobs are on the line, they are struggling to make ends meet and struggling to feed their kids. Middle-class families are having to rely on food banks in this crisis, and now they are worried about what will happen to their housing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this forward. She has been a champion when it comes to highlighting this issue, and I want to congratulate her on that as well. With the large number of Northern Ireland students in university flats and housing—some of them are my constituents, by the way—I have real concerns about the number of our students who are in unsafe housing. Does she agree that universities and landlords must do more to upgrade student housing to the highest standards to ensure that what happened at Grenfell does not happen there?

[Rushanara Ali]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I urge the Minister to use his powers and his position to look at these issues in the round, so that he can sleep at night and feel comfortable that he has done everything to protect people. Ultimately, we have a duty of care and responsibility to our citizens, and I hope that he will do all he can to address these points today.

My own local authority has 49 ACM-clad high-rise blocks, which is one of the highest figures in the country. I have had representations from many of my constituents over the past few years. It been years now, and the leaseholders have had to pay for the fire safety wardens. They were originally told that this would take a few months, but it has been years. They are worried about their safety and there is no end in sight for the work being completed. It has been done for some blocks but not for others.

A number of people have been told that the housing providers will not be able to provide the fire service reports. I hope that the Minister can give me some clarity on the need for transparency here, because whether they are private developers who own the freehold or housing associations, they should provide the fire safety reports. Without them, it is difficult for our residents to know how much they will have to pay if there is no Government funding, or to make plans for their future.

Business and Planning Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Not only do the breweries have an issue with how to sell their products; they also had a lot of their product in storage, which then went off and had to be disposed of in whatever way that is done. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the breweries had a double whammy in not being able to make sales and having their stock destroyed?

[Ben Lake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is particularly the smaller independent breweries, where storage is perhaps even more of an issue, that will have had to dispose of a lot of their stock at considerable cost. Then there is the relative uncertainty as to when they might reopen and, indeed, how much beer to brew again. That is another problem that small breweries in my constituency have tried to tackle. I still think that might be a discussion to have. It is at least worth keeping the matter under review. I would welcome the Government being willing to do that.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned temporary events notices and licences. Another proposal would be to consider extending the authorisation of off sales to small breweries that do not hold a premises licence, but that are registered under the alcohol wholesaler registration scheme. That would be temporary and quite exceptional, but in these exceptional times there might be a case for it.

New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and he may well speak to that at greater length in a moment, but I put on record my support for it. The Government need to recognise the need for sectoral flexibility as they review how to withdraw some of the support schemes and take stock of whether these measures, exceptional as they are, are working. Given the nature of the crisis we face, our focus must continue to be on protecting otherwise viable businesses and supporting employment, so I welcome new clause 1.

Finally, I turn to the provisions in the first part of the Bill relating to the consumption of food and drink outdoors. A few Members have referred to those provisions as ushering in an al fresco age, which I am sure we are all excited to see, weather permitting. That part of the Bill extends to Wales as well as England, but the wording of clause 1 has caused some confusion as to whether it will apply directly to Wales. In concluding my remarks, I ask the Minister to clarify in his summing up whether the provisions will apply to Wales directly. If not, is he content that the Welsh Senedd is empowered to introduce similar provisions to support bars and restaurants in Wales, so that we may also see an al fresco culture in Wales over the summer?

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He will note that the Government have extended the moratorium on the forfeiture of leases due to covid-19 debts to 30 September, with which the amendments in the Bill have become aligned. In my conversations with retail and hospitality in particular, but not solely with them, I have been exercised by property and the balance between landlord and tenant. We must keep an eye on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I recognise that what the Minister is bringing forward is important. We thank the Government and him for what they are doing. In relation to circumstances in the regional devolved Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—there may be peculiarities in those systems that mean businesses are particularly under threat or having problems specific to those regions. Does the Minister feel that within the Bill we can get help through the devolved Administrations, and in Northern Ireland through the Assembly, to those businesses and, in particular, tourism?

[Paul Scully]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is so important that we work with all parts of the nation and all the devolved Administrations, which we do regularly. My colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) has regular conversations from our Department, and other Departments liaise closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that local economies are protected, as well as looking at the overall national picture.

The measures that the Bill introduces will give our businesses the vital support they need to keep afloat, preserving jobs, maintaining productive capacity and enabling the foundations to be laid for the country’s economic recovery. Saving lives and livelihoods is at the heart of what we are seeking to achieve. Measures such as the new moratorium and restructuring plan, together with a prohibition on contractual termination clauses, will help more businesses in future to survive rather than become insolvent. Many of the permanent measures have been improved through scrutiny in the other place, and I will set out some details of the amendments that the Government have brought forward to ensure that the measures work as intended.

I turn first to the financial services super priority amendments.  The Government want to prevent firms gaming the system through a moratorium. Our amendments seek to disincentivise financial services creditors from seeking to accelerate their pre-moratorium debt solely to benefit from super priority should the company fail, or to obtain protection from compromise if a restructuring proposal was put to them. The amendments exclude pre-moratorium financial services debts from having super priority status in a subsequent administration or liquidation where the financial services debt has been accelerated for payment during the moratorium. That ensures that the correct incentives are in place for the moratorium to work effectively and not be brought to an end prematurely.

On amendments relating to pensions, the aim of the measures in the Bill is to rescue a company, which is ultimately the best outcome for its pension scheme. Nevertheless, the Government have been alive to the concern that the new procedures could result in a pension scheme being disadvantaged as an unsecured creditor of the company. As a result, we agreed that there is a need to build in specific protections. Amendments made in the other place ensure that the pensions regulator and the Pension Protection Fund get appropriate information in the case of both a moratorium and a restructuring plan and that the PPF can challenge through the courts, the directors and the monitor of a company in a moratorium. There is also a regulation-making power, which will allow the PPF to be given creditor rights in both procedures in certain circumstances. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will agree that these are important and fair amendments to the Bill.

We have also made amendments to the temporary measures in the Bill. These temporary measures allow businesses to focus on what is important for their survival through this extraordinary period, rather than having to respond to aggressive creditor actions, or struggle with statutory filing or meeting requirements during the disruption. The amendments to the temporary insolvency provisions in the Bill extend the life of those provisions beyond what was proposed when the Bill first came to the House. They will now expire, as I have said, on 30 September.

It is already clear that businesses will need these measures in place for longer than we first anticipated, and we brought forward amendments in the other place to take account of that. The provisions retain the capacity to be extended further through a regulation-making power should it be required, and the affirmative procedure will apply to such regulations.

Amendments have been made in the Bill in relation to pre-pack sales in administrations. Pre-packs are a valuable tool for saving businesses and jobs. However, concerns have been raised about the lack of scrutiny of them. The amendments reinstate a power that had elapsed earlier this year for the Government to regulate pre-pack sales in administrations to connected parties. The Government will look carefully at pre-packs and I can inform the House that a commitment was made by my ministerial colleague, Lord Callanan, to review current practices in the summer before making any decision on regulatory changes.

Finally, a number of technical amendments have been made to the Bill where it was judged necessary. These include changes that will restrict the period for which certain powers have been given in the Bill that will be available to Ministers, changes to clarify the intended effect of the legislation, and changes which place a condition on the use of some powers. We have ensured that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any regulation made under the Bill, as well as appropriate safeguards on these powers. Where they relate to powers for a Scottish or Welsh Minister or a Northern Ireland Department, the corresponding change has been made to ensure equal scrutiny for all the Parliaments of the UK.

This Bill has been improved by the scrutiny of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as well as by the incredible work of the Government’s own parliamentary counsel and their legal advisers. I hope that the House will agree that making good, accurate, appropriately balanced and clear legislation is very much in the interests of all, not least of businesses that rely on this legal clarity. I am confident that we have now achieved that in this package, which we have, nevertheless, brought forward as quickly as possible to respond to the covid emergency. Taken together, these amendments improve this important and much-needed Bill. The debates and discussions in this House, as well as in the other place, have shown quite what this Parliament can achieve, even if socially distanced, when we share that common aim to save and support businesses in this emergency context. I therefore call on Members to support all the Lords amendments.

Windrush Day 2020

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

In 2018, to mark the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury, 22 June was designated Windrush Day, an annual day of celebration of the enduring contribution of a remarkable generation to the UK. Yesterday saw the third national celebration. I want to start by paying tribute to Patrick Vernon, who led the campaign for Windrush Day for many years.

I am proud to represent a constituency with one of the strongest connections to the Windrush. Around 200 of the original Windrush passengers made their way from Tilbury to Clapham, where they found temporary accommodation in the deep shelter on Clapham common. From Clapham, they came to the labour exchange on Coldharbour Lane in Brixton in my constituency, where they found work in many different occupations, including with London Transport, in the construction industry and in the NHS. Many then settled in Brixton and a community grew, bringing food and music, and establishing local businesses and churches. Their identity is inextricably linked with the Brixton we know today.

It is easy for celebration of the Windrush generation to become sentimental, commemorating the positive story of people who came at the invitation of the British Government and helped to rebuild a country decimated by the second world war and to establish the NHS. Yet that is to ignore the hardship and racism the Windrush generation suffered: the signs in homes to rent that read, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”; the humiliation of bus conductors, whose passengers would leave their fares on their seat to avoid contact—the pervasive, oppressive, grinding discrimination encountered in so many aspects of life.

The first official Windrush Day took place against the raw open wounds of the Windrush scandal. The Home Secretary had resigned and the Government had promised to right the wrongs that so many have suffered.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this to the House for consideration. Does she feel the angst that many of us feel that in December last year only 1,108 claims had been made and only 36 people had received money from the £200 million fund? Does she agree with me and others that it is disgraceful that those who need the money most cannot get anything?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes the important point, which I will come to later, that as we celebrate Windrush Day we must also be mindful of the justice that so many of the Windrush generation are still waiting for. Two years on from that first Windrush Day, only 60 Windrush citizens, as he says, have received compensation from a Government scheme, which is complex and hard to access and far too slow to deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention. She makes a very strong and important point—that it is hypocritical for the Government to offer warm words in celebration of Windrush Day when, of the many thousands who were impacted by the Windrush scandal, only 1,275 have even applied for compensation so far, and of those, only 60 have received any money. There is still so much that the Government must do to put right the wrongs of the Windrush scandal.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has just mentioned the figures for now. In the six months that it has taken for 100 claims to be lodged, only 14 have actually been processed. That underlines the issue, does it not?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have sat with constituents and filled out the form with them, compiled the documents, gone through that process, submitted the application, and we are still waiting months and months to hear anything from the Home Office.

I welcome the establishment of the new, cross-Government Windrush working group, and particularly the involvement in the working group of the Black Cultural Archives based in my constituency. Black Cultural Archives is a trusted organisation with deep roots in the UK’s black communities, and it has done so much to support the victims of the Windrush scandal. I pay tribute to its work. It is absolutely vital that it is funded to continue to provide that support, yet it is still waiting for applications to open for the £500,000 fund that the Government announced to support grassroots organisations. I hope the Minister might mention a timescale for that fund in his response.

I also welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement today that she has accepted the recommendations of Wendy Williams’ lessons learned review.  However, the Government have been far too slow, not only in relation specifically to the Windrush scandal, but in delivering the much wider reforms that are needed to address structural racism, including implementing the recommendations of the Lammy review on the over-representation of black men in the criminal justice system. I hope that the Minister understands just how low confidence currently is in this Government to tackle racism and structural racial inequality, and that there will not be confidence until sustained and meaningful action is delivered.

This year’s Windrush Day is celebrated against the backdrop of a new and additional scandal: the disproportionate impact of coronavirus on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The stories of the Windrush generation and the NHS are intertwined. The Empire Windrush arrived at Tilbury just weeks before the founding of the NHS. In my constituency, that connection is embodied in a single street. At one end of Coldharbour Lane was the labour exchange; at the other end is King’s College Hospital, which was and is still substantially sustained by the commitment, skill and care of BAME nurses.

Yesterday, I took part in an event organised by the Runnymede Trust to mark Windrush Day by celebrating the role of BAME workers in the NHS. We heard from academic researchers who had captured the historic experience of migrant women working in the NHS. During the event, the chat bar filled up with devastating first-hand stories of racism and racial discrimination. They included the experience of migrant nurses who were prevented from training as state-registered nurses, meaning that they could only take the inferior career path of the state-enrolled nurse—effectively a structural limitation on promotion and pay—and stories of patients being allowed to wait to be treated by white staff instead of equally qualified BAME staff, reinforcing racist views.

In 2020, it is now BAME NHS workers who are dying from coronavirus in disproportionate numbers. The Government are once again being too slow to protect them: they have announced another review, which will report at the end of the year, rather than taking the immediate protective action that is needed and demanded now. Earlier this month, thousands took to the streets in a heartfelt cry for justice and reform in response to the horrific death of George Floyd in the USA, because his death resonated so powerfully with their own experience here in the UK.

This Windrush Day must be both a celebration of the contribution of the Windrush generation to our communities, culture, economy and public services in the UK, and a moment of deep national reflection. We must reflect on how, more than 70 years since those first Windrush citizens began to work in our NHS, BAME health workers have died in disproportionate numbers as they administered treatment and care during the coronavirus pandemic.

We must engage communities across the country in learning about their own history, even when it is painful, and find ways to ensure that our town squares and public spaces reflect the diversity of our communities, including by moving statues that glorify shameful periods of our history from public spaces to museums where they can be contextualised as artefacts from the past. We need reform of the history curriculum in our schools, so that every child is taught a truthful and inclusive version of British history, including colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade.

The Government must deliver a functioning and effective compensation scheme for the victims of the Windrush scandal and urgently implement the recommendations of Wendy Williams and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). They must give confidence that such a scandal can never happen again.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and I have said, we support the principle of the Bill and urge the Government to do more to support businesses, so that they can remain solvent and do not need to use these provisions. I hope the Minister will take the amendments in the constructive way they are meant. I will speak to each of them in turn and set out why we are seeking reassurances or think that the Government should consider changes to the Bill as it progresses. This has been a very truncated process, so we are relying on Ministers’ good will to take on board not just the comments I am about to make but those made on Second Reading, some of which were excellent suggestions.

I will take the self-explanatory amendments first. Amendments 3 to 12 inclusive would extend the time limits of the covid-19-specific provisions in the Bill. We welcome the retrospective nature of the provisions, but as we have discussed with the Minister, we suggest that the Government amend the Bill to extend the time limits for a number of the provisions, as they are insufficient given the prolonged nature of the crisis. Specifically, the suspension of the wrongful trading liability and statutory demands and winding-up petition measures should be extended to the same date as when the AGM and company account filing measures are valid, which is until 30 September.

Clearly, there was a sense from Government when the Bill was being drafted that on 30 June, most things would be back to business as usual. It is now clear that many sectors will not even be partially open for business again by that deadline—I am thinking particularly of hospitality, travel, tourism and the arts and their associated supply chains. They will not even have begun trading by the end of this month, let alone be getting back to any kind of solvency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Lady is saying. In Northern Ireland the start date for the hospitality sector, including hotels, is 20 July, so nothing will even be in place until that time. I am a wee bit disappointed that the Minister has not acknowledged that we should have a six-month extension, maybe even to the end of the year.

[Lucy Powell]

The hon. Member makes a good point. Businesses that are struggling to keep their heads above water need certainty, and they need to know that the lifeline measures in the Bill will not be pulled from under their feet before they even reach needing them.

The point of the suspension of the wrongful trading provisions is that lots of businesses are effectively trading technically insolvent already through no fault of their own. Just as we have seen Ministers rightly extend the furlough scheme, support for the self-employed and other measures, they should get ahead of this now. Rather than having to spend time on a statutory instrument in only two or three weeks’ time, Ministers could and should take the opportunity to get this done today by agreeing to our amendment.

Amendment 2 would extend the moratorium for small businesses from 20 days to 30 days for businesses facing insolvency. The Federation of Small Businesses has called on Government to extend the moratorium period for small businesses because it does not believe that the 20-day period in the Bill is sufficient. We support that call and ask Ministers to agree to that change.

New clause 2 has not been selected, and we will have a proper look at this in the other place, but we think that the powers of the Small Business Commissioner should be strengthened, as we discussed on Second Reading.

We have long argued for some of the permanent measures in the Bill, particularly in the wake of the Carillion collapse. However, we have some concerns about what has been left out, as I said on Second Reading. There could be unintended consequences in the restructuring proposals that are being put in place that could disadvantage small businesses, employees or other unsecured creditors, such as pension funds. The Minister and I have discussed the issue in private, and it was also raised by a number of Government Members earlier. Given the crisis and the numbers of businesses already struggling, we appreciate the haste in bringing forward the changes, but we are concerned that Members and outside bodies have not had a lot of time to scrutinise the Bill and its implications, so we think the Government could consider having a period for reflection and review.

We have included as amendments a number of omissions from the 2018 consultation. The collapse of Carillion and the consequences for workers, supply-chain businesses and the public were a national scandal and an abject failure of British corporate governance policies. There have been huge repercussions for taxpayers, with unfulfilled contracts, unfinished buildings and thousands of apprentices laid off—the taxpayer had to foot the bill for those failures of corporate governance. There is, rightfully, public anger at the failure to hold people to account for such things. As ever, it seems that in such instances the profits are taken by the private sector, but the public sector foots the bill when the risks have been taken by directors over whom they have no control. Given the economic crisis that we face and the likely recession, it is clear that in the next few months and years we will see more big corporate collapses and failures, so it really is remiss of the Government not to strengthen the corporate governance measures, as they said they would do in 2018. I wish to make it clear, especially because Members raised this earlier, that the measures in our amendment are lifted entirely from the Government’s own recommendations.

Alongside key omissions from the Bill, we have heard from academics, trade unions and other organisations about some of the sweeping powers in the legislation and the fact that there could be considerable scope for the misuse of some measures to disadvantage particular groups. The next set of amendments would seek to safeguard funds for unsecured creditors, protect pension schemes, and protect employees by giving trade unions a voice in any restructuring plans. I urge the Minister to have conversations with the trade unions and to look to add our provision—or a provision like it, as Members from both sides were calling for earlier—to the Bill as it progresses to the other place.

We have concerns about how the restructuring plan will hit employees: many more could be pushed to or around the national minimum wage and lose their rights and their wages, as we are currently seeing with what British Airways is doing. Pension scheme deficits will be left unaddressed and more workers could end up losing out from their pension schemes. If this was not an emergency Bill, we would have had a lot more time to probe Ministers on these issues in a full Committee and to discuss what could be done to strengthen the protections in the Bill.

New clause 1 would insert into section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986 a requirement that at least 30% of the proceeds from the sale of assets of businesses in administration or liquidation should be ring-fenced for payments to unsecured creditors, who often end up losing out to larger creditors, such as banks. The new clause explores a way for unsecured creditors to be guaranteed some assets so that they do not miss out. The legislation assumes that all creditors are identical and take a hit, but we know that that is not borne out in reality. There is a case for protecting the debts of SMEs and other unsecured creditors up to a specified amount, and that should not be reduced. What assurances can the Minister give that unsecured creditors will not lose out as a result of the Bill—although I know that that is what it is designed to try to achieve—and what mitigation is in place to protect unsecured creditors, who are often in the SME sector?

The intention of new clause 4 is to make pension scheme deficits a priority creditor in the event of insolvency and therefore due to be paid before unsecured creditors. The new clause would require the Government to make pension scheme deficits a priority, meaning that they would be the first in the queue in the event of insolvency and paid before other creditors. That could make employees’ votes count and offer them some protection. It is worth remembering that pension schemes are unsecured creditors in normal circumstances. If the deficit is not addressed by companies, employees face an erosion of their pension rights and their pension value goes down. Our amendment would help them to become a separate class in their own right and not to be subsumed into the amorphous mass of unsecured creditors. Members would be able to vote on any restructuring plan. That way, there would be a clear message to past and present employees. Given the nature of this debate and the number of colleagues from both sides of the House who have raised this issue, I hope that Ministers will look at the matter.

The intention of new clause 5 is to require mandatory discussion with trade union representatives once a company has entered the restructuring process. I understand that US evidence shows that restructuring plans often hit employees hardest, and many of the provisions in the Bill are based on US-European models. Wages can be reduced and employment terms changed. Many employees end up on zero-hours contracts or, as we have seen recently with BA, are sacked and then offered worse terms and conditions when they are re-employed. Pension rights are also reduced, and that could happen in the UK. I am sure that Ministers do not wish that to be an unintended consequence of the legislation, so we hope that the Minister will look at our idea, or a similar idea, and see if it can be introduced in the other place. I hope he can provide reassurance on that, not least because my boss, the shadow Secretary of State, is particularly agitated—and rightly so—about this issue.

I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments in the constructive way in which they are tabled. A number of Government amendments have been tabled, and they seem reasonable. We have not had a lot of time to study them, but I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a briefing with his officials. I look forward to his providing us with a bit more detail and assurance as the Bill proceeds.