UK Diagnostics Industry and Covid-19 Recovery

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) on securing this important debate and thank him for putting on record some serious points, which I have listened to and will read with great interest. I also pay tribute to his own personal experience as a respected professional clinician in the fields of oncology and adolescent cancer in particular. His bringing this different expertise to the House is hugely valuable and I welcome his input. I am grateful for this opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government.

The points the hon. Gentleman has made are probably better answered by someone from the Department of Health and Social Care, and I will raise them with the Department, particularly his points on infection control in the new post-pandemic landscape and on the importance of learning the lessons from the pandemic procurement emergency and the lessons for a sustainable and vibrant diagnostics sector. I also note the concerns he raised on behalf of his constituent, Craig Inglis, about investments, and the issues around Omega, the reliability of the lateral flow tests and the new pathogens. The point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was also well made: Belfast University in Northern Ireland is a diagnostics powerhouse. I am very well sighted on that in the heart of our science superpower and innovation plans, and I am looking forward to revisiting Belfast to see that work.

In the three minutes that I have, I cannot deal with all the points that have been made, but I will pick up the specific questions that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has raised and write to him with an answer. It is worth saying that the covid pandemic was the most extraordinary unprecedented emergency that we faced, and the first pandemic that we faced as a generation—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

You have until half-past.

[George Freeman]

I have until half-past? I will not detain the House unnecessarily, but that means that I do not need to rush quite so much.

If we cast our minds back to January and February 2020, the truth is that we were confronting completely unprecedented national decisions and emergencies. There was no playbook for this. Sadly, I was unable to bring my expertise in this sector to the Government at the time because I was liberated from the burden of office on 13 February, in the Valentine’s day reshuffle. In fact, my last Government role was to attend the first Cobra meeting on what was then called the virus emergency.

Energy Security Strategy

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before I call Ed Miliband, I would just like to say that we are going to move on from this statement at 7.20 pm, so a lot of people are going to be disappointed. Can you please focus on asking a question without any preludes, so that we can get as many people in as we possibly can?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Don’t forget: we want short questions and short responses, please.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is aware that the Back-Bench committee on business, energy and industrial strategy has done a very swift and urgent inquiry into how businesses and households can reduce their energy bills this winter. Will he and the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change meet me and my vice-chairs to discuss some of the very sensible and practical measures in the inquiry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am afraid that this will have to be the last question. I call Jack Brereton.

[Jack Brereton]

Energy price fluctuations are a particular issue for the ceramics sector. Over Easter, I was delighted to visit 1882 Ltd, a ceramics producer in my constituency that has raised these concerns with me. What is my right hon. Friend doing to support the ceramics sector, and all energy-intensive sectors, to reduce the cost of energy and help to increase energy sustainability?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend will have noticed that there is a commitment in the strategy to energy-intensive users. From his first day here, he has been a tireless champion of the ceramics industry. I was pleased to see him in his constituency when I went there, and to the other Stoke constituencies. I look forward to working with him to ensure that we protect our precious ceramics industry in the UK.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am sorry that some people did not get in—a note will be taken of their names—but we have real time pressure today.

Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Financial privilege is not engaged by any of the Lords amendments.

Clause 2

“Rent” and “business tenancy”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 20.

[Paul Scully]

Before I speak to the Lords amendments, I thank the shadow Ministers—the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—for their constructive and positive engagement during the Bill’s passage through the House. I have been pleased with the support for the Bill across both Houses. The Government made several amendments in the other place to ensure that the Bill is as useful as it can be. To that end, I believe that Members across this House will support the amendments.

I will begin with the Lords amendments that were introduced following extensive engagement with the Welsh Government; I am grateful for their positive and thoughtful discussions about the Bill. Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, 6 to 8, 10, 15 and 17 were introduced to allow Welsh Ministers to have rightful control over devolved matters.

Lords amendment 1 defines Welsh and English business tenancies to allow the Bill to distinguish between business tenancies in later provisions.

Lords amendment 3 clarifies that the power to extend the time limit for making a reference to arbitration could be exercised separately for English or Welsh business tenancies, as well as for both.

Lords amendment 4 removes a definition that is redundant due to Lords amendment 6 to clause 23.

Lords amendments 6 and 7 decouple the moratorium period from the period for making a reference to arbitration. They provide that the moratorium period will end six months from Royal Assent unless extended.

Lords amendment 8 inserts a new clause that means that the consent of Welsh Ministers would be needed to extend the moratorium period for Welsh businesses in respect of devolved matters.

On the power in clause 28—which was previously clause 27—to reapply the Act, Lords amendment 10 enables regulations under the clause to be made just for English or Welsh business tenancies, as well as for both.

Lords amendment 15 requires the consent of Welsh Ministers to exercise the power to reapply devolved provisions in relation to Welsh business tenancies.

Lords amendment 17 inserts a new clause that provides that Welsh Ministers can use the power in clause 28 concurrently with the Secretary of State insofar as it relates to the reapplication, in respect of Welsh business tenancies, of devolved provisions—that is, certain moratorium provisions.

Following those amendments, I am pleased to say that the Senedd has agreed a legislative consent motion, for which I thank them wholeheartedly.

Separately, I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its consideration of the Bill. The Committee raised concerns about clause 28, which, as I said, was previously clause 27. The clause provides that the Act can be reapplied if there are further closure requirements due to coronavirus.

The Committee’s concerns were about the breadth of the power and the potential for significant alterations to be made for a reapplication. In response, Lords amendments 12 to 16 were introduced to limit the power’s breadth. As a result, the power would still allow for targeted modifications in order to accommodate new dates and make adjustments to moratorium provisions to take account of new timeframes. However, the amended power could not be used to change the operation of the arbitration process or policy.

I am sure that Members will agree that the Committee’s points are important and will be reassured by the appropriate limitations.

Lords amendment 11 ensures that the power can be used in respect of closure requirements imposed after the protected period set out in the Bill, whether that is before or after the Bill is enacted and whether or not the closure requirement has ended when regulations are made. It ensures that the power will be clear and robust for any new waves of coronavirus. Along with Lords amendment 9, it also ensures that the language of clause 27 is consistent with that of clause 4.

We have continued to listen to stakeholder concerns. When the Bill was in the other place, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors gave useful feedback relating to the exercise of the arbitration bodies’ functions to remove arbitrators on the grounds provided for in the Bill. The Arbitration Act 1996 gives arbitration bodies immunity from liability in relation to the function of appointing arbitrators; arbitration bodies were concerned that under the Bill they did not have explicit immunity from liability in relation to the function of removing them. In response, Lords amendment 18 clarifies that approved arbitration bodies have immunity from incurring liability for anything done in exercise of the function of removing arbitrators under the Bill, unless the act is shown to be committed in bad faith.

Paid Miscarriage Leave

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

I welcome the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) and to speak in favour of her Bill.

Currently, legislation exists for paid parental bereavement leave where a baby is stillborn after the 24th week of pregnancy, but no such provision is made where a miscarriage occurs before that time at any stage during the pregnancy. The Bill would right that wrong. Whereas this debate will quite rightly focus on the care and rights of women, there are others who are clearly affected by these circumstances. I therefore wish to speak particularly from the perspective of the father or partnership in the relationship.

In a BBC report in September 2021, a woman who had lost her baby at only nine weeks said about the possibility of paid leave:

“I think a lot of people would find paid leave very useful because it would give them time to be there with their partners who are going through a difficult experience.”

It is understandable, given her traumatic experience, that she sees paid leave for her partner as being useful, essentially, for the mother. I am not suggesting that she was unaware of the shared nature of the trauma, but it reveals a common view that can obscure the suffering of fathers or partners. More recently, in an STV report in January 2022, a woman who had lost 10 unborn babies revealed her awareness of how vital it is for both parents to be allowed the time to understand what they have gone through, and regretted that she and her partner had not had time for themselves because they could not afford not to work. In a recent American research study report based on 386 partners, speaking of the effects of a miscarriage on a partner, an experienced senior social worker commented:

“We often deny and dismiss partners’ vulnerable feelings of loss and sadness. It’s very easy then for partners’ often subtle feelings of grief to get lost in the more obvious and physical experience of loss their partner has experienced.”

There is, regrettably, little research on the emotional reactions of partners after miscarriage. However, a study by University College London in 2014, with 160 partners, found as many as 85% suffering grief, sadness and shock, with nearly half of them saying it had caused sleep problems and had affected their work. Sadly, perhaps because of the need to return to work immediately, a quarter did not talk about their feelings at all with their partners, and nearly half did not share their full feelings for fear, they said, of causing their partner further upset. An earlier American study in 2010 found that couples who did not find the time to openly discuss the loss with each other were more likely to break up as a consequence. Current NHS UK advice on coping with a miscarriage reinforces the importance of partners being able to express their feelings openly, even, or perhaps especially, when they hold a more traditional view that their main role is to support the mother.

More recent research by University College London in 2020 suggests that for some the problems can be even more serious. Of 192 cases studied, 34% of the women suffered symptoms that could be described as post-traumatic stress disorder. While partners do not appear to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder as often as the mother, the research points out that with about 250,000 miscarriages in the UK every year, there could still be many thousands of partners living with it and requiring help and support.

All of this points to a need for greater attention and care for partners, but I feel sure it also points to the importance of paid leave and pay, regardless of the stage of pregnancy in which the miscarriage occurs. That would enable both partners to have the time to discuss fully with each other the shared trauma they have experienced and where necessary make arrangements for further medical assessment and treatment, free of the pressure to return to work.

The Scottish Government are committed to three days of paid leave for parents in the public sector who suffer miscarriage at any point during the pregnancy. While the Bill asks initially for only three days of paid leave, it is hoped that, as we become a more enlightened society, the Government will recognise the benefits not only to the couples and families involved, but to society in general, and in due course consider extending the three days of paid leave even further. However, as the matter is reserved to Westminster, it cannot be imposed on the private sector without UK Government legislation. With full fiscal autonomy, countries such as New Zealand and Australia have already put in place paid leave for all parents affected by miscarriage at whatever point the tragedy takes place. The Northern Ireland Assembly has also recently given a commitment to introduce paid miscarriage leave following a consultation, with the policy due to come into force no later than April 2026.

In conclusion, it is time for the United Kingdom to have the vision to support this Bill, and I therefore urge the Government to do so.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just before we start the wind-ups, I would like to say that, as the House knows, there will be a statement following this debate on P&O Ferries. It was anticipated that it would come at 5 o’clock. It is now likely to be way before 5 o’clock, so any Members wishing to take part in that statement should make their way to the Chamber now.

Professional Qualifications Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I am today proposing two amendments in relation to the devolved Administrations. New clause 1 would place a duty on the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor to consult the devolved Administrations before making regulations under the Bill that contain provisions that could be made under the Bill by the devolved authorities themselves. The new clause would also require the Government to publish a report on the consultation. Amendment 1 seeks to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006 so that a Minister of the Crown’s consent is not needed for Senedd Cymru to remove the Secretary of State’s and the Lord Chancellor’s ability to make regulations under the Bill that are within the Senedd’s legislative competence.

I know that hon. Members across the House have shown strong interest in the issue of concurrent powers and devolved competence. To underline the Government’s commitment to a collaborative approach on this issue, I am introducing into the Bill, through the new clause, a new duty to consult devolved Administrations. The duty includes a requirement to publish a report in advance of any regulations being made by the UK Government that would be within devolved legislative competence. That report should set out the consultation process, and whether and how the representations made by the devolved Administrations during the consultation have been taken into account.

My officials and I have engaged extensively with the devolved Administrations during the passage of the Bill and, although we strained every sinew to reach agreement on securing legislative consent, it is a great regret that, unfortunately, we have exhausted all available avenues. Lord Grimstone and I have held eight meetings with our devolved Administrations’ ministerial counterparts. Baroness Bloomfield and Lord Grimstone have held nine industry roundtables, including two specifically for devolved regulators. There have also been weekly official-level meetings during the Bill’s passage and numerous exchanges of letters.

The amendments were originally offered to the devolved Administrations in December 2021, in exchange for support for legislative consent motions from their respective legislatures, but that offer was rejected. But the UK Government are committed to delivering effective policies that work for the whole of the UK, so, to underline that commitment, I am now introducing those amendments without any conditions attached. I strongly believe that, if both Government amendments are accepted, the Bill represents the best outcome for both the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, without impinging on the UK’s ability to act where necessary.

The regulation of professions often falls within devolved legislative competence. For that reason, the Bill gives powers to both UK Government Ministers and devolved Administration Ministers. Some of the powers may be exercised concurrently to allow UK Government Ministers to make UK-wide regulations where appropriate. The most likely use of concurrent powers would be to implement international agreements on professional qualifications that are negotiated on a UK-wide basis. It is vital that the UK Government are able to implement such agreements across the UK in a timely and consistent manner, as failure to do so could jeopardise the UK Government’s credibility and ability to secure ambitious provisions to support UK services exports with global trade partners.

Amendment 1 would allow for an Act of the Senedd to remove UK Ministers’ ability to use powers in the Bill to make regulations that would be within Welsh devolved legislative competence, without the need to first obtain the consent of a Minister of the Crown. The Welsh Government would still be required to consult the UK Government on the removal of powers. That was a key ask from the Welsh Government. It is in line with similar approaches taken by the Government on the Environment Act 2021, the Fisheries Act 2020 and the Agriculture Act 2020.

In introducing those amendments, I hope that Members can see the UK Government’s determination to work collaboratively and transparently with all devolved Administrations and devolved regulators on the provisions of the Bill and on wider regulated professions policy.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Does the shadow Minister want to come in straightaway or shall I go to somebody else?

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Go to somebody else.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Ben Lake.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I do not intend to detain the House for long, but it is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of Plaid Cymru’s new clause 5, which would require the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments when acting in areas of devolved competence. Although I will not be seeking to divide the House on that, I hope that the new clause, alongside the repeated interventions of the devolved nations, will encourage the Government to reconsider their approach.

In its current form, the Bill represents an example of the Government legislating in devolved matters without having first secured the consent of Wales’s Parliament or, indeed, consent from any of the devolved nations. It betrays a blatant disregard for the constitutional framework of the UK, and further obscures the regulatory regime for workers, businesses and professional qualification providers.

Hon. Members should not mistake these concerns as mere trivial matters; they speak to the growing chasm of distrust between the Governments of the British Isles. Indeed, just last week, the Welsh Labour Education Minister accused the UK Government of acting in a manner that breaches the Sewel convention. Let us consider, for a moment, the implications of that statement: a Government Minister from one nation is accusing the Government of another of tearing up the constitutional convention that has been so instrumental in ensuring good governance and positive intergovernmental collaboration across our isles. That is what this Government and this Prime Minister are doing to the UK and that is why this Bill needs to be amended to respect the devolution settlement.

As I said, I will not be pushing our new clause to a vote tonight, but we will be supporting amendment 3 if it is put to a Division. I hope that Opposition Members as well as Government Members will acknowledge the seriousness of these constitutional concerns and accept the amendment as a first step towards government by consent, rather than imposition.

Delivery Charges: Scotland

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross]

Well, that is for others to decide, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Before my hon. Friend and I joined the Committee, it had looked at this issue. I have also secured Westminster Hall debates on it, including one that the Minister responded to 15 months ago, and I have raised it at Prime Minister’s questions. I know that it concerns Members across the House and our constituents, particularly those of us in the north of Scotland and the highlands and islands, and I make no apology for raising it again.

The surcharges on the delivery of products bought by people in Moray and across many parts of Scotland are punitive and unfair and have been going on far too long. Businesses and couriers are treating my constituents and the people affected with utter contempt. It is completely wrong, and something must be done. To put into perspective how many people the issue affects, a Scottish Parliament briefing paper suggests that 440,000 people in Scotland live in areas affected by the surcharges. To put that into context, the same report says that 87% of adults in the United Kingdom buy online. That figure rose as high as 95% during the pandemic. That means that a big number of shoppers—95% of 440,000 people—are being punished not for what they want to buy, but because of where they want to buy from.

It is absolutely wrong that the issue is raised time and again, but no action seems to be taken by the businesses or the couriers to deal with the problem. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre’s report says that the additional cost of delivery charges in commonly affected areas, compared with the rest of Scotland, is £45 million. That is £45 million that someone has to pay because they live in Moray, Inverness or one of many areas north of Perth—not the cost of the products, but the cost to deliver them.

I would like to give some examples from my constituency, and one from slightly further afield, that I have been dealing with as the local MP. I have made it very clear that I want constituents to tell me when they have faced such problems, because I want to stop them. The only way we will stop them is by highlighting the injustice, highlighting the unfairness of the system and trying to get some action. I am glad that some action has been taken. The Advertising Standards Authority has issued several enforcement notices in cases that I have referred to it and in many others. Indeed, the Minister and I discussed that in our previous debate, but let me give just a few examples.

A constituent in Mosstodloch purchased a wallet with no delivery charge advertised, yet when it came to the checkout online £15 was added. The ASA issued an enforcement notice on that company, because it had advertised no additional charges to mainland United Kingdom. A Findhorn resident tried to order a battery for a strimmer and was told it would be £30 to deliver to the IV36 postcode, which was almost more than the cost of the battery itself. Another constituent in Dyke was quoted £15 to order a tap for his motor home, even though free UK delivery was advertised. Dyke, in Moray, is part of the UK. How do these companies not get it? Why do they think that somehow we are cut off? We are not—we are part of the mainland UK. Therefore, if they advertise “free delivery to mainland UK”, whether for a tap for someone’s motor home or for something else, the person deserves to get free delivery to mainland UK. A constituent from Forres ordered goods worth £89 and the company was offering free delivery on orders over £40. She put in her IV36 postcode and the delivery charge rose to £117. So from free delivery for purchases of over £40, for her purchase of £89 it then became £117. Unfortunately, on this one, the ASA stated that because the company did not say that the free delivery applied to the whole of the UK, it was not able to take action. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. Free delivery was being advertised, but just because the company did not say it was to the whole of the UK it got away with it.

Another constituent from Findhorn had ordered £155-worth of specialist pipe insulation. Normal delivery was going to be £9.95, but they entered their IV36 postcode and an additional £40 was added, taking the total delivery cost to £50. In this case, the ASA did issue an enforcement notice, and I am pleased to say that the constituent got a full refund from the company. It accepted that it had done wrong in this case, even though it applied the charge in the first place. Another constituent put in an order for some garden equipment and although free UK mainland delivery was advertised, they were asked to pay a surcharge of £24 for “Scottish highlands”. We are not in the Scottish highlands. There is a Highland Council region, and Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen regions. Moray is a region on its own, yet we are again lumped in with the highlands. Finally, a product was ordered by one of my constituents in Elgin and they were told that the delivery charge was going to be £149.95. They then changed the address to that of a relative in Rothes, which is about 10 miles from Elgin and has an AB postcode, and there was no delivery charge whatsoever. So by travelling 10 miles within Moray one can go from a charge of almost £150 for delivery to having no charge at all. That just highlights issues with both businesses and couriers; they each try to blame each other, but they are both as guilty as each other and are imposing these charges when there is no good reason to do so.

I was looking at the debate that the Minister and I held in Westminster Hall some time ago, when we spoke about how companies must at least be up front. We might not like the small print but if they are up front about things, in some cases we have to accept it. I do not accept it, but they are also not being up front. Another constituent in Elgin bought a bed for £435 and the order went through and was completed, but several days later she was contacted to say, “Actually, we have looked at your address and there is going to be a £70 surcharge for delivery.” That happened days after the purchase had been accepted by the company and agreed with my constituent. They believed that they were going to pay a certain amount, only then to get a phone call or an email to say, “Actually, we’ve found out where you live, we think it is too far away and we are going to put on another £70.” That is indefensible on the part of these companies and couriers; I am sure the Minister would agree on that, and so something must be done about it.

I also said I would give one example from outwith my constituency, and I could have chosen literally hundreds. However, the example that I gave in a previous Westminster Hall debate—even previous to the one that I had with the Minister, because I have raised this issue a number of times before—was that it would sometimes be cheaper for me to buy an item in London, and instead of paying a charge to some company for it to be delivered to Scotland, pay for a seat for the gift I had bought, or some other parcel, on my easyJet flight.

That is no longer the best example that I could give. A resident of Inverness, Jim Oliver, was seeking to help his mother-in-law, who was trying to purchase a gardening tool online. The cost of the gardening tool was £40, but she was going to be charged £2,000 for delivery. [Interruption.] Oh, it gets worse! It gets a lot worse than that. Jim decided to try himself. He typed in the same product name, and the delivery charge came out, not more expensive than buying a seat on the easyJet flight to get it up to Inverness, but more expensive than the world’s most expensive footballer. They could have bought Neymar for less. The delivery charge for a £40 product came in at £2,001,997.

That was clearly a computer glitch, but I also want to highlight the fact that these companies just do not care. They literally do not care about their customers in parts of Scotland if they allow their system to say, “We will charge you more than the cost of Neymar to deliver this product to Inverness.” That demonstrates the contempt in which a number of these businesses hold our area, and the fact that they have got away with it for so long allows them to continue in the same vein.

I must give credit to the Advertising Standards Authority for the work that it does in this area. It has seriously tried to tackle the issue, and has been extremely diligent in pursuing cases that I have put to it. It has tried to deal with them by means of enforcement notices—I have given examples in which that has not been possible—but what is an enforcement notice? What does it do? It is a slap on the wrist. Enforcement notices are clearly not stopping other companies following similar practices, they are clearly not acting as a deterrent, and people in Moray and other parts of the north of Scotland are being treated completely differently from people elsewhere in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. We need tougher enforcement from the ASA, and I think we should consider what further powers we could give it to take far stronger action.

I decided to return to that debate in Westminster Hall and remind myself of the points that the Minister raised in his response. I wonder if he can update us on some of the issues. Back then, he said:

“The consumer protection partnership chaired by officials in my Department continues to work on the issues.”

Can he tell us what work the partnership is doing, and what proposals it has advanced to him or to other Ministers? He also noted that

“Ofcom will be undertaking a review of its future regulatory framework for post”

—and, presumably, other items—

“over the next year.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 453WH.]

That will have reached a conclusion by now. I do not know whether there have been any delays as a result of the pandemic, but can the Minister tell us what the outcome was of Ofcom’s review?

In the past the Minister and his predecessors have been averse to the idea of legislating in this area, but does he accept that the longer we debate the issue—the more times I return to it, or it is raised by Members from my part or other parts of Scotland—while the current measures are not dealing with the problem, the more important it is to consider legislation? Why do 440,000 constituents in the far north and many other parts of mainland Scotland have to live with this day in day out, week in week out, year after year? For these prices are going up year after year. We read in parliamentary briefings that the cost for many parts of Scotland is going up and up. It was £45 million in 2021; what will it be in 2022 or 2023 if this continues?

Will the Minister seriously consider potential legislation? In the more immediate term, will he agree to meet me and some of the big companies involved—the couriers and some of the other companies that are most guilty of adding excessive charges for constituents in Moray and many other parts of the highlands and the north? We need to get these companies round the table and explain to them that the problems they are causing and the issues that this causes for local representatives and the Government have to be dealt with. At the moment, they seem to be continuing as if nothing is wrong, although, as I have tried to explain tonight, things are continuing to go wrong. We need a meeting with them and the Minister, sitting round the table, to hear their responses to these concerns and to the cases that I and other elected Members put to them. If they think that they are in the right, we need to hear the reasoning behind that, but if they accept, as I hope they will, that they are in the wrong for imposing these excessive charges, we need to hear what they will do about it. I hope that the Minister’s office will help to bring these people round the table and help to deal with the situation before it is allowed just to go on and on.

This is simply unacceptable. It was unacceptable when I raised it in 2017 in my maiden speech, it was unacceptable when I raised it with the former Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions, it was unacceptable when I raised it with the Minister’s predecessor in Westminster Hall and it was unacceptable when I raised it with this Minister in Westminster Hall. It is still unacceptable now, as I raise it in this Chamber in March 2022, that my constituents are forced to pay these excessive charges simply because of where they live. This is a postcode lottery. It is no longer acceptable to treat people in Moray and many parts of the country so differently from their friends and relatives in other parts of Scotland or the United Kingdom.

The time for action has long passed. It has not come quickly enough, and we now need firm action from the Government to deal with this issue. Once and for all, we need to deal with the problem that many people have faced for far too long. I hope that, in responding to this debate, the Minister can update us on any actions taken since this was previously raised in this House, tell us what more can be done and give some hope to the people of Moray as they look to the year ahead. It is never too early to mention Christmas, and people will already be thinking about purchases for the year ahead and going into Christmas—[Interruption.] Well, it probably is too early to mention Christmas, but genuinely, people look at purchases and are deterred from buying them, not because they do not want or need the product but because they are unwilling to pay these extortionate costs. The people of Moray and the people of the highlands and islands are watching with interest tonight to see what hope the Minister and his Department can give them that this long-running problem will soon be just a bad and distant memory and that we can look forward to a future when Moray and other parts of Scotland are not affected by these extortionate costs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I wish you all a merry Christmas, and I call the Minister.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

We had the creation of the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision, supposedly to tighten up on the facilitators and enablers, but while some, including the banks, flooded the system with suspicious activity reports, others appear to have taken very little responsibility for their actions. That was reflected in the Treasury Committee’s report. Under Gordon Brown, we had the creation of the golden visa scheme, which attracted these oligarchs in, gave them a veneer of respectability, treated them with the deference that very few of my hard-working, honest constituents receive from the Home Office and allowed them to buy their seat not only at party fundraisers but at the very heart of British democracy—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place, and I am finding it difficult to hear the hon. Lady.

[Alison Thewliss]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was talking about people buying their seats at party fundraisers and at the heart of British democracy. That is something that this House should reflect on. This place needs to take a long hard look at itself and at what it has facilitated, allowed and ignored over the course of many years.

We in the SNP welcome this Bill—how could we not?—but we would argue that it is long overdue and does not go nearly far enough. The UK Government’s inaction and prevarication have given the oligarchs a head start to shift their assets, to lawyer up, to step down from companies and boards and to saunter unimpeded to their getaway yachts and go to places that will still have them. Co-ordinated and quick global action, including in the overseas territories, could have made this more difficult, as would action on crypto-assets. The recent Treasury Committee report highlighted the growing role of crypto-assets in economic crime.

We support Labour’s calls to cut the registration of overseas entities to four weeks. We all agree that 18 months was ludicrous, but six months still gives people far too long to shift their ill-gotten gains. I would be grateful if Ministers confirmed what they are doing to monitor asset flight, and if they could provide an estimate of how much money has already left. Our amendments 18 to 23 would lower the threshold for beneficial ownership from 25% to 10%. Evidence already points to the threshold being gamed and to people appointing family members and those they can easily control, and the Government need to be aware of that and do more to prevent it.

--- Later in debate ---

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I understand that some pass readers in the No Lobby are not working, so we are extending the time by which people are able to vote by another two minutes. [Hon. Members: “No!”] That is right—the No Lobby.

Corporate Transparency and Economic Crime

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I was very generous with Dame Margaret Hodge, for obvious reasons, but I shall be less generous now in respect of the length of questions. You are all warned.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I welcome the statement. While I fully support efforts to have the means to investigate criminality and sanctions-busting schemes at Companies House—and I hope that that will be properly funded, because it will be expensive to carry out—I also hope that the process of registration will not be burdened to the extent that we lose competitive advantage and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough a parliamentarian to know that the idea of freezing assets is outside the scope of this legislation—indeed, it is outside the scope of my Department. The Government are looking at a range of other measures that may well reflect the concerns he has described.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Business Secretary for coming to the House, making his statement and answering questions from hon. Members for about three quarters of an hour.

Points of Order

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier this afternoon, in response to the Home Secretary’s very confusing statement on sanctuary arrangements for Ukraine, I asked her whether the elderly Ukrainian mother of a British resident who was prevented by Border Force from travelling from Paris to the UK to join her daughter would now, as a result of this announcement, be able today to return to Gare du Nord to come to the UK. The Home Secretary said, very simply and clearly, “Yes”, which was welcome.

However, the Home Office has since clarified that the arrangements apply only to immediate family—that is, spouses, partners, children under 18 and those in need of care—and do not include elderly parents. In this case, the Ukrainian widow is therefore not covered. Indeed, I have spoken to her daughter this afternoon; she is still waiting in Paris and has been told that there is no family visa route that she can apply for. She is attempting still to find other, quite costly, ways to try to rejoin her daughter here, perhaps through tourist visas instead.

This is totally confusing. Either the Home Office website and the information given to journalists this afternoon about the policy are completely wrong, or the Home Secretary gave wrong information to the House. That is not fair on Ukrainians who are trying to find shelter and solidarity and to rejoin family. Given that Home Office Ministers are in the House all evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, could you endeavour to encourage them to get some clarity for the sake of Ukrainian families? Do the arrangements only cover immediate relatives, as defined by the Home Office, or are elderly parents included? Can elderly parents rejoin their sons and daughters who are resident and settled in the UK?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me forward notice of her point of order. Clearly, this is an incredibly distressful time for so many people, but the Chair does not audit the accuracy of what hon. Members, including Ministers, say in the Chamber. Having said that, those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the right hon. Member’s point of order and, if the record needs to be corrected, I am sure it will be. Should a Home Office Minister or the Home Secretary want to come to the House and make a statement later today or at some stage in the future, the House will be notified in the usual way.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not having given you prior notice; the reason is that, while the Secretary of State has announced emergency legislation for tomorrow, as far as I am aware we have had no business statement changing tomorrow’s business, and I do not know how amendments will be made. Will a statement be made today so that the House will know how it can deal with tomorrow’s urgent business?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will just check with the people who know what is going on. It may well be that there will be a business statement either later today or very soon, in order to facilitate the business that the Secretary of State has announced.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Bill will be introduced but Second Reading will not happen tomorrow.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

So it will appear on the Order Paper in the usual way.

[Mr Bone]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but I thought we were told that the House was expecting emergency legislation tomorrow. It seems that this is not going to happen tomorrow and I have perhaps misunderstood.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend knows, there are three different stages to a Bill—introduction, publication and then Second Reading and further stages—so Second Reading will not be happening tomorrow.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Now I know what an umpire at Wimbledon feels like. I think we will leave it there and move on.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Carry-over Extension

Ordered,

That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended by 51 days until 28 April 2022.—(Kit Malthouse.)

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Programme (No. 3)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16 March 2021 in the last Session of Parliament (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 5 July 2021 in this Session (Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Programme (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after their commencement.

The proceedings—

(a) shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and

(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Yesterday, many Conservative Members, not many of whom are here today, said that they wanted to talk about the real things that affect their constituencies. I am as happy as they are to talk about the things that affect our constituencies.

One of our constituents’ most immediate concerns, of course, is the increase in their energy bills, which amounts to an energy crisis for millions of people. As we have heard, rising wholesale gas prices are threatening to drive energy bills up by almost a third—a huge £700 increase to £2,000 a year. As for getting things done, delivering on people’s priorities or levelling up, the situation is worth a perusal. What did the Government get done on energy infrastructure? Not a lot. They have refused to invest in the infrastructure necessary to decarbonise our energy supplies and reduce our reliance on external providers. Instead, the British public have been left at the whim of oil and gas companies.

Financial challenges loom for our constituents because the Government did not get the job done in that policy area. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that single adult households on low incomes could soon be spending 54% of their income on energy bills—a shocking statistic. The energy crisis is compounded by inflation at 5%, the highest level since 30 years ago when the Tories were last in government. There is a slash-and-burn approach to the country’s energy supply. Households across our nation have had their resilience tested time and again by this Government. Millions more are struggling with the cost of living, and it is becoming impossible to heat houses. Energy bills are shooting up and there is no action of any substance from the Government.

What is the Government’s response? Let us say that there are two options: a windfall tax on the oil and gas companies that have profited from the Government’s mess, or an increase in taxes on struggling low-income families and workers. Of course, we all know what the Government will go for and have gone for: taxing £12 billion out of people’s pockets. It is worth remembering that a 1.25 percentage point increase on national insurance contributions is in effect an 8% increase, given a national median wage of about £29,900. On that income, in 2021-22, a person will have paid £2,439, but in 2022-23 they will pay £2,652, which represents an increase of 8%.

The gas companies have made mega-profits over the years. The largest made a combined profit of $174 billion in the first nine months of 2021. Huge profits are being made, but despite the ambitious plans from BP, for example, to reduce its carbon footprint and move towards renewables, they are not being reinvested at the level that they should be—not at all.

Data published by the UK Government-backed extractive industries transparency initiative shows that in 2019-20, ExxonMobil received £117 million in total from HMRC, while Shell got £110 million and BP received £39 million. What are the Government going to do about those tax reliefs? Can we have an answer to that? What was the total expenditure forgone in tax reliefs in 2020-21?

Households will continue to struggle unless the Government get a grip. The behaviour of the oil and gas companies only goes to show that we cannot rely on the sector alone to deliver net zero in the time available. We need to take action. The Government really do need to take action. They need to get a grip on this issue, because people out there—our constituents—are struggling and challenged.

Finally, we have heard the outrageous suggestion that no one supports a windfall tax. May I remind—or bring it to the attention of—Conservative Members that 75% of Tory voters support a windfall tax?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so succinct. As Members can see, there are 12 standing. I advise them to speak for no more than five minutes, then we will be able to get everyone in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I will make a bit more progress.

We will see commitments from industry that will achieve a 60 megatonne reduction in UK greenhouse gas emissions, including 15 megatonnes through the progressive decarbonisation of UK production over the period to 2030, which puts the sector on a path to deliver a net zero basin by 2050.

I turn to the contributions in the debate itself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made an excellent speech. He said: please can we burn our own gas, rather than importing it? That is a really strong point, not just in terms of jobs in this country but for our energy security as well. It makes no sense for us to be importing, beyond what we have to, expensive volatilely priced foreign hydrocarbons—hydrocarbons that come with a significantly increased emissions content. LNG has up to two and half times the emissions content compared with natural gas produced in the UK. He also made strong points about tax revenues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) knows oil and gas better than anybody in the House. The sector is hugely important for his constituency, as I saw when I visited in December. He talked about the punitive intervention that Labour is proposing. He also rightly pointed out that renewables have increased by four times under Conservative Governments since the right hon. Member for Doncaster North was Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) talked about the unintended consequences. He is right that in the transition we need the oil and gas sector to co-operate with the offshore wind and hydrogen sectors. He is the living embodiment of transition, representing both the older and newer energy industries.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) made an excellent speech. He praised British business and discussed how Labour is giving up on Aberdeen. Mr Deputy Speaker, you, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, the Labour Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell), and I were here in the days when Labour had two Members of Parliament for Aberdeen. It has now totally given up on the North sea and the North sea transition deal, and the jobs that it represents. My hon. Friend’s excellent speech was about how Labour is giving up on Scotland. We have seen the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) implicitly doing a deal with the SNP—it was implicit in one of his rare visits to Scotland just this last week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) made another excellent speech, rightly pointing out that energy prices are rising due to world economic recovery and praising the work of this Government on job numbers and economic recovery. I agree with him. The North sea is a great British success story. He also made a really strong point about nuclear energy.

I want to correct a few points made by Labour Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) made an extraordinary speech. He seemed to be saying that companies cannot make a loss without going bust. That is extraordinary: of course companies can make a loss without going bust. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) made some important points about the supplier of last resort processes. If she has constituents whose credit balances are not being transferred from their previous suppliers to their new suppliers, could she write to me—or even better, to Ofgem—with details? I am sure we could look at that.

The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made his usual quality speech. He said that there are not enough heat pumps—of course there are not. The role of the Government, though, is not to provide a heat pump for every home but to stimulate the private sector heat pump market, so that it can provide that solution. He asked where our plan was for 10, 15 or 20 years’ time. The answer is the net zero strategy, which we published back in October and which the Climate Change Committee says is a leader in the world.

We then heard from the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). I am afraid his nice words about oil and gas are at odds with his party overall, which has a nonsensical energy policy. The people of Scotland will be relieved that energy policy is reserved.

Not only is the SNP anti-nuclear, cheering the closure of plants such as Hunterston and Chapelcross and reportedly telling Rolls-Royce that its small modular reactors are not welcome in Scotland, but the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues and the Scottish First Minister seem to be opposed to new gas licences off the Scottish coast. They want to close oil and gas down. They say they want a windfall tax—just not the same windfall tax that Labour wants. They are still on a mission of trying to close down the industry. The SNP is against Scottish energy consumers, it is against Scottish energy jobs and it is against Scotland’s energy transition.

To finish off, Labour is still in a state of confusion. This time, the motion is not four pages. It has been shortened to around 100 words—or perhaps 280 characters; I am not quite sure. Where Labour has cut the words, however, it has not made up for them with any numbers. The motion includes no costings. There are no numbers in it at all. We have no information about this windfall tax and no information on the package of support for families and businesses. There is no detail there, but still a lot of confusion. There are no impact assessments on the taxes raised, on jobs—there are 40,000 jobs in north-east Scotland and 195,000 jobs in all—on fuel bills or on gas production.

Labour has split energy from climate change; the right hon. Member for Doncaster North is the person who combined them, and now the Labour Front Bench has split them, which means inevitably it is following a policy of hammering business. Labour is not the party of business; it is the party against business. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who often makes quite acerbic interventions on other Opposition parties’ policies—I sometimes wish he would probe his own party’s policies as well as he probes those of others—asked whether the Labour Front Bench had spoken to anybody in the sector, and there was no answer. We did not hear anything about whether it had engaged with anybody in the sector.

Does Labour agree with our ground-breaking North sea transition deal? No answer. Its solution is, again, to hammer domestic UK continental shelf production and increase imports, reducing our energy security and increasing our emissions at the same time. Labour’s approach is confused and misguided. It is not a plan, it is a motion for less energy security, higher emissions and higher fuel bills. I urge the House to stick with our approach: North sea transition, support for households and the UK’s remaining open for business.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The Question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say “Aye”—[Hon. Members: “Aye!”] Of the contrary no—I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. [Interruption.] I am sorry, you had the opportunity to do it then, and nobody shouted “No” when I put the Question. Do you want me to put the Question again? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Can you be a little more prompt this time, please? Do not forget that your votes should follow your voices.

Question put.