Farming and Inheritance Tax

Debate between John Hayes and Daniel Zeichner

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate on the planned reforms to agricultural property relief. It has been important to hear from people on all sides of the debate and to outline the steps that the Government have taken to reach the decision on agricultural property relief. The reforms to APR are just one of the tough decisions that the Government had to take across the board on tax, welfare and spending to plug that £22 billion black hole that we inherited from the Conservatives and restore our public services.

We have had many contributions to the debate; I am sorry that I cannot respond in detail to all of them. On my side, we started with an excellent account from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis). My near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), spoke eloquently about the workforce issues; it is astonishing how rarely they are raised from the Conservative Benches, although there are some noble exceptions. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce), who, along with a number of others, rightly raised issues of profitability in the sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) made the important point that we are not discussing the Finance Bill today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) asked why it takes Labour Members to raise rural crime issues, because anyone who has been out talking to farmers will know that that is their top concern. From my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) we heard a powerful account of the value of rural life. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) again talked about the national health service. These are the concerns of people in rural areas.

From my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), we heard about rural crime again. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger), who rightly outlined the Conservatives’ atrocious record over 14 years on public services. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) rightly dismissed the Opposition motion as a load of tripe—although perhaps that is tough on tripe.

A huge range of figures and analysis have been quoted in the debate so far. I have to say that part of the problem with those figures is that they seem to be about different things. Only one set of figures actually gives guidance on this issue, and that is the Treasury figures showing that about 500 estates a year will be affected. That is based on the hard data of the actual claims. It includes the impact of APR but also takes into account business property relief. I urge some Opposition Members to look at the Chancellor’s letter to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, which outlines all the details, taking into account those personal circumstances, the nil-rated inheritance allowances and the other capital allowances. It is available to all Members. Those figures, of course, are endorsed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

Food Security

Debate between John Hayes and Daniel Zeichner

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is very good to see you in your place.

I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) not only for his very kind words and warm welcome, but for his customarily thoughtful speech, and not least his very comprehensive account of his wonderful county of Lincolnshire and the huge contribution that it makes to our food production. I also thank the other hon. Members who made very thoughtful contributions to the debate.

I cannot tell the House how delighted I am to stand at the Dispatch Box on the Government side of the Chamber for the first time as Minister for food security and rural affairs. The very title is a clear statement of this Government’s commitment to rural areas, and as has been said, this Government absolutely recognise that food security is national security. That is why we need a resilient, secure and healthy food system that works with nature, but also supports British farmers. This Government are offering a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen Britain’s food security, and we will set out more details in due course.

Frankly, climate change is one of the most significant threats to our food security. We have seen it this year in the extreme weather events that farmers are having to deal with. It is absolutely the case that taking the difficult decisions now to address climate change will enhance, rather than threaten, our food security. We have to face up to the challenge of an energy transition to achieve that, and in doing so must plan how we will use land in this country to ensure a proper balance between food security, restoring and preserving nature, and clean energy.

I was interested to hear the observations from Opposition Members after their 14 years of opportunity to do the things that they are now keen to do, but we will pick up on many of their suggestions. Certainly one of the key ones will be to publish a land use framework; that was promised by the previous Government, but there were many delays, and we are now picking that up. It will work in tandem with our spatial energy plan.

I can assure the House that communities will quite rightly continue to have a say on proposals for their area. It is important for this Government that where communities host clean energy infrastructure, they should directly benefit from it. However, we will not get into a position where the clean energy that we need does not get built and the British people end up paying the price.

Credible external estimates suggest that ground-mounted solar used just 0.1% of our land in 2022. The biggest threat to nature, food security and our rural communities is not solar panels or onshore wind; it is the major climate crisis, which itself threatens our best farmland, food production and, indeed, the livelihoods of farmers. The Government will absolutely proceed on the basis not of hearsay and conjecture, but of evidence.

One of the Government’s five missions, which I am sure people have heard much about, is our commitment to making Britain a clean energy superpower. That is part of a wider ambition to deliver on existing net zero emissions targets. Farming has a big role to play in contributing to net zero; 70% or so of UK land is used for agriculture, and farmers are custodians of the natural environment. They absolutely work hard to manage their land responsibly while providing the food we all need.

I am glad that there is now consensus around the need for farmers to produce food. There was a curious period a few years ago when it seemed as though food production had somehow been forgotten. I can see the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings nodding wisely because he knows to what I refer, and I am pleased that we have all moved on and can agree on the notion that food production is so important.

[Sir John Hayes]

The previous Government, albeit belatedly, changed planning guidance to give additional protection to grade 1, 2 and 3a land of the kind that I described. Furthermore, they said that when an energy developer expressed an interest in developing a site—of solar panels, for example—any assessment of the soil should be entirely independent. Those seem to be perfectly reasonable policies—reasonable enough for a reasonable man to accept.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The right hon. Member tempts me into a level of detail that I am afraid I am not prepared to go into this evening. We are examining all these issues and will come to a considered position. We want to get the balance right and that is what we will do, because the transition to more climate-friendly practices does not need to come at the expense of food production or farm profitability. In our view, net zero can absolutely support economic growth, including by accelerating the uptake of innovative technologies to increase productivity and efficiency in the agriculture sector. That, in turn, will support net zero food production, the efficient use of land and nature recovery.

Our intention is to work closely on that necessary transition with not just the farming industry, but all stakeholders involved. We will work with farmers to ensure that we avoid imposing unnecessary costs, and—this, I hope, will be welcome to many in the sector—we absolutely guarantee that we will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals.

The right hon. Member, as I rather anticipated, mentioned solar in particular. As with all major infrastructure projects, there is a rigorous application process, and food production is rightly considered in it. I point hon. Members to the decision letters on these solar projects, which are available on the Planning Inspectorate website. That is the normal procedure in planning decisions. All the documentation will be found there, not just the final decision letters. I hope that makes it clear that all objections, relevant evidence and points raised throughout the planning inquiry are addressed and given weight in coming to a planning decision. I appreciate that the decision letter is a long, complex document, as indeed it should be, given the important issues raised. There is a limit to what I can say, as I am bound by the planning propriety guidance, which is clear that during the legal challenge period, planning Ministers and officials cannot comment on the decision, summarise it or interpret it.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Daniel Zeichner

2nd reading
Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Let me declare some interests: I chair the all-party parliamentary university group and I represent an education city with a fantastic further education college, Cambridge Regional College; two great universities that are very different but both outstanding, and very well led by Roderick Watkins and Stephen Toope; and the University of the Third Age. We are brilliant at universities in this country.

There is so much talk of our being world-beating; we actually are world-beating when it comes to universities. Would it not be nice to have a Minister for universities rather than an Education team for doing us down? I am not saying that everything is perfect, because there are huge challenges, not least for students, who have had such a tough time and still face huge debt for an experience very different from that of those who went before. Would it not be nice to hear something positive from the Government Front-Bench team about the amazing work that staff in universities have done as they have transformed their practice to devise online courses to go alongside the traditional teaching methods? The Government could have been talking about that today, or the thorny issues around finance. Where exactly is the Augar review, beyond leaks and rumours?

As we have heard, we live in a world where international students play a huge role in the financing of our universities, but those students cannot be taken for granted. The Government could tell us today about the quarantine arrangements that will be needed when 100,000 students from red-list countries are expected in September—that is urgent; or about the impact of a 43% fall in the number of students applying from the EU; or about the challenges facing research when official development assistance cuts are biting and there is still no clarity on how the Horizon gap will be funded.

All those things matter, but for this Government the only thing that matters is themselves. How can they stoke up some more divisions to throw more red meat to people who do not like universities? It is pretty hard to take this pathetic Bill seriously. Is there an issue around free speech? Of course there is—there always has been and always will be. Labour’s commitment to free speech is uncontestable: as we heard from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), it was Labour that brought the European convention on human rights into UK law. Is free speech more difficult now, in a socially media-driven, instant communication world? Yes, but it is not just universities that face that; it is a wider societal question.

Members on the Government Benches should remember how they got their get-out-of-jail card on the vaccine: it came from universities—researchers working together, using the huge amount of detailed knowledge accumulated across institutions. Our universities are world-changing and world-beating. Are those universities calling for this legislation? Hardly. They know how difficult it is to balance the rights and freedoms of different groups and individuals because they do it every day. They have been doing it for years, since long before the “here today, gone tomorrow” lot opposite snatched power, and they will be doing it for years to come. Will there be incidents and flashpoints? Yes, of course there will, as there always have been, because freedom allows for that.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful and measured speech, and I agree with him that the problem is much wider than universities. He talked about social media, as many have, and there is an increasingly vitriolic level of debate that has coarsened and damaged discourse, perhaps irreparably and certainly profoundly. However, dealing with universities is surely part of that, and that is what this Bill attempts to do. He is right to say that it does not solve everything, but it certainly does no harm and, in my judgment, it does a great deal of good. By the way, I ought to have referred Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when I spoke earlier; I do so now.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I was happy to take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but the point about freedom of speech is that it is always difficult to deal with because, as others have pointed out, freedom allows for a fair amount of offence to be given until it becomes too much and we have to respond. However, that is a judgment call. We cannot legislate for that. It is a great irony that a Government who claim to be Conservative are promoting measures that many of their predecessors would have been very quick to criticise in other countries. A commissar for free speech? Come on! But actually, this is not the Conservative party, is it, because its boss expelled those who dared to dissent, and that is where all this leads.

Those who have looked at the Bill can see the problems. I am sure the Government will not have much interest in hearing from those who actually run our universities, but it is worth repeating what they say. Universities UK has warned that those promoting conspiracy theories could easily take the opportunity to sue universities or student unions. It has also pointed out that with existing routes of redress available, the same complaint could lead to very different outcomes depending on whether an individual went to the Office for Students, which will now have a so-called director of free speech, or whether they went down the Office of the Independent Adjudicator route. As have others have said, the likely consequence of all this is that universities and student unions will err on the side of caution and steer away from anything risky. That will lead not to more free speech but to less free speech, and for those with really outlandish views, there will be a legal stick with which to beat institutions. So, good times for the crazies everywhere—

Transport Secretary: East Coast Franchise

Debate between John Hayes and Daniel Zeichner

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. That takes us into a much broader philosophical discussion about how we get investment into our key industries, and that applies to a whole range of discussions. Just look at the huge number of consultants, lawyers, contracts and all the rest of it that are involved. We are told that some 300 people are employed just on trying to sort out who is responsible for delays and that hundreds of millions of pounds are lost on this process. Frankly, do we really need all of that? What are the train operating companies actually delivering, apart from the delightful colour changes that have been suggested? If we ask passengers what they want, they say an integrated system. They are talking not about transferring risk or arguing about blame, but about getting the system to work. Let me conclude with a few words about the so-called future partnership model.

[Mr John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, making a valuable contribution. One of the most interesting things that has come out of this debate, thanks to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), is the business of how we integrate transport policy. We have heard that a competitive element is associated with road and rail and that all kinds of other factors affect projections and estimates. Perhaps the Minister will take that away from the debate. There has always been a call for an integrated transport strategy, and every Government have wrestled with it. Perhaps this event will stimulate and catalyse just that sort of approach.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, the right hon. Gentleman, an experienced former Minister, speaks very wisely. In the end, this is a slightly false debate. Of course there will always be a role for the private sector in transport; the question is whether we have to build in competitive mechanisms in this kind of way. We could probably repeat the same discussion with regard to buses and other parts of the transport system. We need investment—of course we do. It is a straw-person argument to point to British Rail 30 years ago. Of course we knew that there was underinvestment in British Rail 30 years ago. The question is what the system will look like in the 21st century and how we will unlock the resources that we need.

Let me turn now to the partnership model, which, I am afraid to say, the Secretary of State has hidden behind. The Transport Committee heard pretty clear evidence on Monday evening from experts in the field that that approach does not look like the best one to try out. Apparently, some 20 passenger, freight and open access operators use the line. Once again, this is a recipe for argument and dispute about who gets priority and how the whole thing will work. It seems to me that this was more an excuse for the Secretary of State to hide behind to spare his blushes, because he could not bear to admit the fact that the line was coming back into public ownership.

Finally, let me take this opportunity to disagree with Lord Adonis, who spoke very engagingly to the Transport Committee on Monday in defence of the franchising system. At the end of his evidence, he gave a warning to me and people in Cambridge who use the line into King’s Cross, explaining how difficult it could become because of the various competing priorities within this partnership. I had to tell him that that was already happening. A year or so ago, I had the pleasure of having a cab ride to King’s Cross—one of the best parts of being a Member of Parliament is that I get to ride in the front of the train. It was an extraordinary experience and very different from the mixed experiences as a passenger. I well remember the train halting from Cambridge as it joined the east coast main line, and the drivers pointed out that there are regular disagreements and disputes about priority at that point. These are very real issues.

Let me return to the people who really matter. I am not convinced that the passengers who were fuming on the station platform in Cambridge this morning are that bothered about the intricacies of franchising approaches and who is to blame. They want a railway that works and a railway that is affordable, and that should be the aim of everyone in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Hayes and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

I went on such a walk a few weeks ago in Spalding town centre, and I recommend it to hon. Members; I know many will have done it. It gives an entirely different insight into the struggle that people have getting around town centres when others have inconsiderately parked and there are many obstacles in their way. It also gives a real understanding of how wonderful our guide dogs are. It is important that the Government do their bit. Of course the charitable sector does an immense amount, too. I certainly take my hon. Friend’s remarks seriously. We will look closely at what more can be done, but he can be absolutely certain that I and my colleagues in the Department will be champions of the interests of people who are visually impaired and use guide dogs.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that one of the biggest obstacles to the take-up of cycling is people’s fears about safety. Has he done an assessment of whether the necessary resources are in place to implement the cycling, walking and investment strategy, and if he has, could he publish it?

[Mr Hayes]

As the hon. Gentleman implies, we do have such a strategy. He is also right that cyclists need the same kind of attention that I mentioned in my previous answer. They can be put into hazardous circumstances by a range of different obstacles that they encounter as they go about their business. The Government are strongly committed to cycling, as I think he knows, but he is right that we must look closely at the hazards cyclists face, and that will be included in the strategy.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Daniel Zeichner

2nd reading: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

Well, I was not going to add that, but, yes—in rather less number. Those cars add a vivid aspect to motoring—an elegance and style we would not wish to see lost in any move towards this change in technology. But, for most people, their daily experience will not be to drive an Allard, a Jensen or any other of the cars my right hon. Friend and I revere; it will be to drive a car to get to the places in which they work, to access educational opportunities and to get to the places where they buy the goods they need to service their wellbeing; it will be to use a car for recreational purposes, in the way my father did for his family all that time in the past, as I described a moment ago.

The change that we are now experiencing, and that we will experience to a greater degree in the coming years, is not a threat and not something to doubt or fear, but an opportunity. It is an opportunity for Britain from the perspective of the technology we will develop and export. It is an opportunity to give access to cars to those who have never had them—the profoundly disabled, the elderly, the infirm, and the partially sighted and the blind. They have not been able to drive, and they have relied on others to drive them, but they will suddenly have the opportunity of car ownership, which has been denied them for so long by the nature of their disability or their need. That is the sort of future I envisage.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Minister is making a characteristically wide-ranging speech, and he touches on important points, but the Bill is remarkably thin. It does not deal with many of these points. There are so many other issues—the social issues and the skills issues. When will the Government bring forward a Bill that actually deals with the issues the Minister is referring to?

Emissions and Vehicle Type Approval

Debate between John Hayes and Daniel Zeichner

Thursday 20th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend may have heard—I heard about it recently—that we are going to have a general election. The problem with that, in terms of the business of Government—he knows this well as a former very distinguished Minister with whom I worked very closely in office—is that it limits what Ministers can do and say. I have to be cautious in setting out an immediate timetable, given the events that are going to take place over the coming weeks. While this House is sitting—I remain a Minister through the election process—I will press my officials very hard, not least as a result of this debate, to ensure that there is no hesitation or undue delay within the bounds that I mentioned.

My hon. Friend is right—I can see where his mind is going—that we must not have a couple of months in which nothing happens. That would not be right. As much as I can, I will continue the work and reinvigorate my officials—I do that every day, but I will do so with even more vehemence than I usually exercise—to ensure that the eventuality that he postulated would be unhelpful does not come to pass.

I have been very anxious and determined to press Volkswagen executives consistently in person and in writing to address many of the outstanding issues that were raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside. I have brought with me a list of occasions on which officials or Ministers have met or written to Volkswagen over recent weeks and months. It goes back to the very beginning of this sorry tale. I see no harm in setting out that chronology for Members. I will not read it out because it is quite exhaustive, but I will make information available about what we have done and when we have done it. Let it suffice to say for the purposes of this debate that the Secretary of State and I have met Volkswagen on many occasions and written to it on many more. My officials have been engaged with it steadily and determinedly to bring about many of the things that hon. Members call for.

It is right, as William Morris says, that

“all men should have work to do which shall be worth doing”.

I think this is work worth doing, because it is in the interests of the consumers who were adversely affected by the means I have described, who bought cars in good faith believing one thing, and who found that they were dealing with a very different product from the one they imagined they purchased.

There is disappointment in this House—it was reflected in the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside and is shared by the Government—about the lack of remorse and appreciation of the gravity of the deception that has been displayed by Volkswagen, not least in Mr Willis’s appearance before the Transport Committee on the same day that I gave evidence.

Let me go back to the start of this sorry business to fully explain where we are now and the progress we have made. If I do not, someone, perhaps the hon. Member for Cambridge, will rise to their feet with speed and say, “It’s all very well. You’ve had all these meetings, John”—well, he wouldn’t in fact say “John”, because you wouldn’t have it, Mr McCabe—“but what have you achieved?” Just weeks after Volkswagen’s supercherie actions were discovered, the Department launched an emissions-testing programme to understand whether there was widespread cheating across the industry. Alongside the Vehicle Certification Agency, we tested many of the UK’s most popular diesel cars. We were the first European country to publish a report of that kind in April 2016, with Germany, France and several others following shortly afterwards. The programme found no evidence that any manufacturers we tested other than Volkswagen had utilised prohibited defeat devices to manipulate emissions tests to gain a vehicle’s type approval.

It was clear to me then and remains so now that taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the testing programme. Volkswagen’s actions cast doubt on the integrity of the whole industry and, following meetings and repeated requests, the company reimbursed my Department with £1.1 million. That was an important victory for the UK taxpayer. The money is being used for three important areas of work, which I want the Chamber to know about: first, to increase the UK’s capacity and capability to test real-world emissions, which is a response to a question and a point made by the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge; secondly, to increase the air quality fund, allowing us to provide funding for a city council’s HGV fleet to be retrofitted with emissions reduction technology, to reduce emissions in that location; and, thirdly, further investment to encourage the uptake of ultra-low emissions vehicles.

But we are not stopping there. Mr Willis may believe what C.S. Lewis did not—that an “explanation of cause” is a “justification by reason”—but I too do not. I am therefore pressing Volkswagen for a further £1 million to fund the first year of the new market surveillance unit. The Department set up that unit in the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency in the wake of the VW scandal to source and test vehicles to ensure that they comply with the law. We will of course continue to be completely transparent on matters relating to that testing and, as I said previously but am happy to repeat, we will publish the results of this year’s programme when we have fully analysed the results. It is right for us to be as open and transparent about that to provide the further reassurance that Members have sought in this debate.

The new unit will provide essential ongoing reassurance to motorists and the wider public, and useful information to the Government and the House. In all my meetings and correspondence with the Volkswagen managing director and management board, I have been absolutely clear that the Government expect that further £1 million. I have emphasised that we will be relentless in our pursuit of the money, because we would not have been spending it had it not been for Volkswagen.

[Daniel Zeichner]

On a point of clarity, given that the welcome reimbursement of the Government by Volkswagen presumably means the company has conceded that there is an error and a problem, why can there not be similar good news for all the vehicle owners who also need compensation?

[Mr Hayes]

I agree. I believe that the consumers affected by the scandal should be compensated. I have called on the company to offer UK consumers a similar package to that given to their US counterparts—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire. The company will claim again, as it already has, that the United States has a different legal system with different requirements, and that that is somehow a justification for not doing what I have just called for. However, I think that the company has an ethical responsibility to do so.

We need a fair outcome for UK vehicle owners. To that end I have met legal firms that are considering taking action against Volkswagen on behalf of affected customers. I am now actively considering ways in which we can support the firms to optimise the chances of their claims succeeding—those discussions are ongoing. My officials are speaking to vehicle owners’ legal representatives, and I am happy to meet those people again. I encourage the owners of affected vehicles to look carefully at the actions the legal firms are taking and to consider whether it is right for them to join them. Compensation, far from being off the agenda, is still very high on my agenda for the reasons I have given.

Let us not forget that the issue has, as I said, left people with vehicles that they bought on one assumption but now know not to fit the bill. At the technical level, it is important that the consumers affected have their cars fixed. Volkswagen has developed technical solutions to remove the cycle recognition strategy for vehicles across their four affected brands. We have of course not relied on Volkswagen’s opinion that the solutions are appropriate, but have performed our own checks to verify the accuracy of the company’s claims and the efficacy of the devices.

As the original approval authority in the UK, the Vehicle Certification Agency has direct responsibility for signing off the Skoda technical solutions. The VCA checks that vehicle emissions, such as nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, and vehicle noise remain below the legal limits. As part of the testing, the VCA also checks for any adverse effect on CO₂ emissions and maximum rated engine power. I am aware that those factors have been of serious concern to affected consumers and I want to reassure people that we are closely monitoring the issue.

I have pressed Volkswagen to ensure that it implements those technical solutions as soon as possible. As of 10 April, Volkswagen had applied the fix to approximately 592,000 of the 1.2 million affected vehicles in the UK. It has put extra resources into the process as a direct result, in my view, of the pressure that I have exerted on it. I told the company I wanted that done quickly, properly, efficiently and conveniently for the customer. We are making progress, but the Department’s officials are monitoring the process carefully. I asked Volkswagen for regular updates on progress, which we are getting.

Of the seven technical solution clusters that Skoda proposed to the VCA, we have so far signed off two. Since then we have been made aware of concerns that the durability of the emissions regulation system may be adversely affected by the technical solution. The Department’s technical experts have frequently requested—I have been to meetings with Volkswagen about this—detailed information from Volkswagen, which it has often taken far too long to provide. As a result, we have had to delay the sign-off of the remaining vehicles while we continue to assess the evidence presented so far.

Separately, we are pressing Volkswagen to provide UK customers of the four VW brands that have the technical upgrade applied with a meaningful statement of its goodwill policy. Volkswagen must provide a meaningful statement of its goodwill policy—I repeat that for the sake of emphasis, though I do not want to become a creature of habit in employing the device of repetition. The company must investigate any complaints that arise from the service action, taking appropriate measures to rectify them swiftly and appropriately.

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct) Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Daniel Zeichner

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury on introducing the Bill. I am delighted that it has cross-party support. I have very little to add although, in the accustomed manner, that will not stop me saying it anyway.

We very much support repealing those provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that suggest it would be lawful to dismiss a seafarer for homosexual activity. This is a very short Bill. Clause 1 would omit from the 1994 Act sections 146(4) and 147(3):

“(homosexual acts as grounds for dismissal from the crew of merchant ships).”

Clause 2, as we have just heard, is being amended. It would have required the Act to come into force at the end of two months, but we support the amendment.

The Bill’s brevity does not in any way undermine its importance; short Bills can be quite significant, as we are discovering at the moment. There is little to amend and I hope it will be agreed that it is relatively straightforward. We are all keen that the Bill should be passed, and speedily. It is clear that the provisions that the Bill seeks to repeal have no place in a modern society based on sexual equality and inclusion. Although other countries appear to be going backwards at the moment, it is good that we continue to go forwards.

The provisions to be repealed are now legally null and void in any case, superseded as they were by the Equality Act 2010 and related regulations. Dismissing a member of a merchant ship’s crew on account of homosexual activity would be discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to part 5 of the 2010 Act.

As we discussed on Second Reading, section 14(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2016 already repealed the parts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act that related to the armed forces but left in place the aspects concerning merchant ships. The Government said they would decouple the two issues and would soon act to repeal those sections concerning merchant ships.

The Bill will tidy up existing legislation and remove discriminatory language from the statute books. It is an important, albeit symbolic, gesture, so let us get it done.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Like you, during my time in the House I have heard many hon. Members and Ministers begin their speeches by saying, “I will be brief.” The difference today is that I mean it: I will be extraordinarily brief.

I have to do only the following: to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on bringing the matter to the attention of the House and to reassure the Committee that I will not be using the beautifully crafted but arid speech prepared for me by my civil servants, because I do not need to add much to what was said on Second Reading and previously.

It is a curious thing that in our age we tend to measure virtue in mechanistic terms—both curious and undesirable, I think. Men and women are driven by feeling, and what arises from feeling. So, in taking the Bill forward, let us not speak in mechanistic terms. Let us not speak drily about legal consistency and procedural certainty.

Let us delve a little deeper just for a moment. The Bill is about being fairer, kinder, more reasonable and more generous. If those are more testing virtues and more difficult to think about this morning, then so be it: we should consider them for all legislation—particularly the kind that we have before us, which involves people’s feelings, sentiments and privacy. Men and women are complicated and fascinating because of their complexity. We should at all turns, at every opportunity, try to remember those enduring values of reasonableness, kindness, fairness and generosity. In that spirit and for that purpose, I welcome the Bill.

I will say one more thing if I may. It is also common in our age to speak of transparency and openness. Let us also this morning, just briefly, make a case for privacy. The Bill would reinforce the privacy of people who simply seek to go about their lives in the way that they choose.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Commencement, extent and short title

Amendment made: 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 6, leave out “at the end of the period of two months beginning with” and insert “on”—(John Glen.)

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.