House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I should inform the House that, after calling Question 1, I will leave the Chamber to represent the House at the Commonwealth service in Westminster Abbey. The Chairman of Ways and Means will take the Chair.
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
You have impeccable timing, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Workplace pension participation rates have more than doubled since the introduction of automatic enrolment under the coalition Government in 2012, rising from 42% in 2012 to 85% in 2018. In West Worcestershire, my hon. Friend’s constituency, 9,000 eligible jobholders have been automatically enrolled, and thanks are due to the 2,600 local businesses that are supporting them.
Harriett Baldwin
This has truly been one of the great policy successes of the last decade, but many would argue that people are still not saving enough for a comfortable retirement. Does the Minister plan to use other nudge techniques, such as automatic uplifts whenever a person gets a pay rise, to encourage saving for old age?
Guy Opperman
We have the 2017 review, which we continue to monitor and will implement going forward. Automatic increases are not part of the Government’s present plans, but I am actively looking to learn from private sector companies that are carrying out similar initiatives. I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest and would be happy to discuss this in more detail.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Auto-enrolment, the creation of the last Labour Government, has transformed the lives of millions, with 10 million more now saving into a workplace pension, but 5 million people are still not covered because they are too young, because they earn too little or because they are self-employed.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) is right that 8% cannot be the summit of our ambition to ensure security and dignity in retirement. Does the Minister agree that 8% cannot be right, and will he agree to cross-party talks on putting right that wrong?
Guy Opperman
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we frankly speak far too often—virtually on a weekly basis —to ensure a cross-party approach to pensions policy. He is right that automatic enrolment was conceived under a Labour Government, implemented under the coalition and brought forward by the Conservatives. I accept that 8% is not enough going forward, but we await the 2017 review, the implementation of that review and further discussions on an ongoing basis.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
This Government need to demonstrate that they stand on the side of self-employed people. Given that millions of self-employed people are not saving enough for their retirement, what update can the Minister provide the House on the incentives and encouragement we are providing for self-employed people to pay into a pension?
Guy Opperman
As a formerly very fat, self-employed jockey and a self-employed white-collar barrister, I fully appreciate the issues concerned. I agree with my right hon. Friend that these are issues we have to address. He will be aware that we are trialling self-employment matters on an ongoing basis with the National Employment Savings Trust and a variety of private sector organisations. We welcome unions and other organisations that wish to be part of that, and it is front and centre of what we are trying to do.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Too many young people do not save for their pensions, so how can the Minister ensure that young workers are better represented in workplace pension schemes?
Guy Opperman
The statistics are actually getting better by the minute. In 2012, only 35% of young people aged between 22 and 29 saved into a workplace pension. Now 85% of 22 to 29-year-olds save, but there is more we can do, including for the self-employed. The 8% that is being saved has made a transformational difference, and the opt-out rate among the young is the lowest of all the cohorts.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The Department is working with a range of organisations to support claimants who are transitioning to universal credit. Help to Claim, which is being delivered by Citizens Advice, is working effectively for claimants, and we are in the concluding stages of detailed discussions for a second year of delivery.
Giles Watling
On a recent visit to my local jobcentre, it was clear that we have excellent staff and that they support universal credit. Will the Minister outline what plans are in place for outreach services for those who might be intimidated by a visit to the jobcentre or, indeed, who want to access support online?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for visiting his local jobcentre. All jobcentres have wi-fi and computers available for claimants to access the internet. For those who are still unable to access or use digital services, or who are not able to travel, assistance to make and maintain their claim is available via the freephone UC helpline. As I mentioned, Help to Claim offers tailored practical support to help people make a UC claim.
Sara Britcliffe
As universal credit is rolled out, I welcome the use of new technology to help applicants, particularly in Hyndburn. What support is available to make sure applicants make the best use of the new systems?
Will Quince
Universal credit has been designed to be as quick and easy as possible for the user, ensuring claimants receive money at the earliest available opportunity. It is designed to be a digital-first service, ensuring we make the best use of technology to design a modern and effective working-age welfare system. It is important to note that our UC claimant survey found that 98% of claimants have internet access and have claimed online.
Karl MᶜCartney
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that in Lincoln we are pleased that the claimant rate is as low as 4.4%, which is a vast improvement on what it was when I was first elected in 2010? Will he outline what other initiatives his Department is undertaking, as well as the local jobs fairs that Conservative MPs organise in their constituencies, to assist the 2,500 or so claimants in my constituency?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all the work he does in this area, and I welcome him back to his place. In recent years, the Government have made significant investment to improve work incentives, including the reduction in the UC taper rate from 65% to 63% and an extra £1.7 billion a year put back into UC to increase work allowances for working parents and disabled claimants by £1,000 a year from April 2019. That provides a boost to the incomes of the lowest paid and results in 2.4 million families keeping an extra £630 a year of what they earn.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said last week that any workers who need to self-isolate because of the coronavirus and who are not eligible for statutory sick pay could claim UC. However, people have to meet a work coach at the start of a claim for UC, there is a five-week wait for the first payment and anyone asking for an advance also has to go to a jobcentre to have their identity verified. So how will people who have to self-isolate be able to claim UC?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As the Prime Minister set out last week, we will introduce, as part of the Department of Health and Social Care’s emergency Bill, provisions for statutory sick pay to be made from day one. Employers have been urged to make sure they use their discretion and respect the medical need to self-isolate in making decisions about sick pay. People not eligible to receive sick pay may be able to claim UC and/or contributory employment and support allowance, and staff at our jobcentres are ready to support people affected and can rebook any assessment or appointment that is necessary.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
That just does not answer the question, does it? Will the Minister therefore outline what happens where someone on UC has to self-isolate but has to go through work searches and is unable to attend a jobcentre? Will he expect that person to be sanctioned if she cannot turn up?
Neil Gray
The Minister said last month that he of course thought that improvements could be made to UC. I agree, so perhaps he could outline some, starting with ending the two-child cap, ending the five-week wait and fully restoring the work allowances. Have those conversations been had between his Department and the Treasury, ahead of the Budget?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are a Government who listen. Let us look at the improvements that have already been made to UC: increased advances, of up to 100% of a full monthly payment; cutting the taper rate, so people keep more of their salary; increasing the amount someone can earn before their UC is reduced; scrapping the seven-day waiting times; introducing a two-week overlap of housing benefit; and, as of July, we are introducing a two-week overlap of various legacy benefits. There are lots of improvements to be made. They do, of course, require Treasury approval, and I am looking at these in a lot of detail.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), I recently visited one of the jobcentres that serves my constituency—it was in Grimsby and, along with the ones in Immingham and Barton-upon-Humber, it serves Cleethorpes. The staff there do an excellent job and they are very positive about UC. Will he congratulate the staff and do what he can to reassure those who are having problems transitioning to UC that the Government will be working to solve any of the existing problems?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for visiting the jobcentre, and he describes the same feedback that my Front-Bench colleagues and I receive when we visit jobcentres. UC is a modern, flexible, personalised benefit, which reflects the rapidly changing world of work. Conservative Members believe that work should always pay and that we need a welfare system that helps people into work, supports those who need help and is fair to everyone who pays for it. I can certainly thank the staff at that jobcentre for all the work they do.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
A major cause of difficulty in transitioning to UC is the five-week delay between applying and being entitled to benefit. The Work and Pensions Committee, at its first meeting last week, chose to make this the subject of its first major inquiry, and I am grateful to the Minister for the conversation we have already had about this. Will he confirm that the Department will do all it can to assist the Select Committee in its inquiry?
Will Quince
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his question. I start from the premise that we do not believe anybody has to wait five weeks for a payment under universal credit. Advance payments are available at the beginning of a UC claim and budgeting support is available for anybody who needs extra help. We have the two-week roll-on of housing benefit, and as of July this year we will also have the two-week roll-on of other legacy benefits. I will of course look carefully at the findings of the report by the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The Government recently announced that anyone reaching state pension age while claiming universal credit can receive a run-on until the end of the assessment period in which they reach state pension age. This removes any potential gap in provision, with such pensioners receiving, on average, an additional £350.
Mark Tami
The announcement in the written statement on Thursday was extremely welcome and a great victory for hundreds of thousands of pensioners throughout the country. I thank all Members from all parties who signed early-day motion 129, which highlighted the issue. As it was clearly a bad policy in the first place, what redress will the Government offer to those pensioners who have already suffered loss?
Will Quince
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for all his work in this policy area. As he rightly pointed out, the change does remove any potential gap in provision, with people reaching state pension age and leaving universal credit receiving an additional £350 on average. I stress that the process is already in operation on an extra-statutory basis, ensuring that nobody loses out on reaching state pension age. Legislation will be amended accordingly later this year.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister outline to the House what steps his Department is taking to support those citizens who have fallen into problem debt?
Will Quince
Certainly—the breathing space policy is a prime example. If my hon. Friend would like to meet me or, indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who is the Minister for Pensions, we would be happy to do so to set out in more detail the action that the Government are taking.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Government are committed to seeing 1 million more disabled people in work between 2017 and 2027. We support disabled people to return to work through our work coaches and disability employment advisers. This is achieved through programmes such as the Work and Health programme, Access to Work and the new intensive personalised employment support programme.
Angela Richardson
I welcome the news that 16,000 employers have signed up to participate in the Disability Confident scheme, which a fantastic initiative that helps employers to unlock the talent of workers with disabilities and is changing attitudes for the better. What plans does my hon. Friend have to expand the scheme further and encourage more businesses to sign up?
Justin Tomlinson
I am pleased to report that as of last month we are at 17,353. We use Disability Confident to empower employers of all sizes to share best practice. Only last week, I met all the Health and Work programme providers to look at how they can work with those businesses that have signed up for Disability Confident to offer more opportunities for disabled people.
James Sunderland
I thank the Minister for his response. What is being done to support ex-forces personnel, who may have physical or mental disabilities, into employment, perhaps even through the auspices of bringing the armed forces covenant into statute?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who is the Minister for Welfare Delivery, has been doing a huge amount of work in leading on that issue. We are making sure that we offer resettlement support; support from our armed forces champions, for which posts there is a £6 million package of support; and early access to the Work and Health programme. The Office for Veterans’ Affairs is committed to putting the armed forces covenant on a statutory footing and it will have our full support.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
We all want to see more disabled people supported into work, but it is also vital that they receive the support that they are entitled to through employment and support allowance and personal independence payments. It has recently been reported that vulnerable and disabled people who have appealed against decisions to deny them those benefits are being pressured to accept unrecorded telephone deals that pay thousands of pounds less than they may be legally entitled to. The Minister’s Department is accused of telling some people that the offer would be withdrawn if they did not accept it within minutes. How can that practice possibly be acceptable?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue, which was covered in the media. It is not something that should be happening. We have changed the mandatory reconsideration process so that we can try to support claimants who are challenging a decision to gather the additional written and oral evidence at that stage, rather than their having to wait for the lengthy independent appeal process. Stakeholders and charities are extremely supportive of that process, which is new and making a significant difference, but I am disappointed to hear that in some cases it has not been of the standard that it should be. We will review that.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The trouble with many people who have had brain injuries, particularly traumatic brain injuries, is that the nature of their condition is such that it varies considerably from day to day, week to week. They can suffer from phenomenal lassitude, making it almost impossible for them to get out of bed—not out of laziness, but because their brain and their body will not work in that way. How can we make sure that everybody who is working for the DWP, whether they are assessing a person for a benefit or trying to help them into work, fully understands brain injury?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member who has been a long-standing campaigner in this very important area. We work with claimants, charities and stakeholders in all areas to improve the training and awareness that all our health professionals and frontline staff have, and this is a very important area of work.
Mr Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
There are 743,000 fewer children in workless households compared with 2010. The evidence shows that work is the best route out of poverty, and a child living in a household where all adults work is about five times less likely to be in poverty than children in households where nobody works.
Mr Morgan
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. The Child Poverty Action Group has published a study that detailed the lives of children who go hungry and the impact on their health, education and friendships. It showed that some were ashamed to invite friends home because they have no food to offer them. When will the Government give child poverty the priority that it needs?
Dr Coffey
I am conscious of CPAG’s report, which tends to use the relative “after housing costs” poverty measure. However, it is important to say this about the relative element; if we go back just over 10 years, we can see that just having a recession reduces relative poverty. We need to keep focused on what is really happening to families. That is why, if we use the absolute poverty measure, we will see that fewer people are in poverty than was the case 10 years ago. We will continue to work with parents to ensure that they try to earn the amount of money that they need so that they can continue support their children.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Childcare costs place a huge strain on family finances. Will my right hon. Friend outline what help is being given to families with up-front costs of childcare?
Dr Coffey
The way universal credit works is for people to have payments in arrears, but 85% of eligible childcare costs are covered, compared with 70% under the legacy system. It is also important to stress that the flexible support fund can be used to help with those sorts of costs, but we need to ensure that people are paying according to their salaries, as opposed to our simply giving grants up front.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
According to the Department’s own figures, the majority of households hit by the two-child limit are in work but on low incomes. This policy pushes working families further into poverty, when our social security system should be giving people a route out. Will the Minister have a strong word with the Chancellor and end this pernicious policy in this week’s Budget, and why not support the Daily Mirror’s “Give Me Five” campaign while he is at it?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that child benefit continues to be paid for all children, as well as an additional amount for any disabled children. He is hitting the wrong note here, as is the Daily Mirror, when it comes to the “Give Me Five” campaign, as this is not a targeted policy to reduce child poverty. I simply say that, by keeping the two-child policy, providing support for a maximum of two children ensures fairness between claimants and those who support themselves and their families solely through work.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Department is prioritising a full review in this vital area, evaluating how the benefits system supports people nearing the end of their lives and those with severe conditions. We are making significant progress on this, having engaged with claimants, clinicians and stakeholders to bring forward options.
James Wild
I thank the Minister for that update and the Government for taking the initiative in reviewing these rules. My North West Norfolk constituents suffering terminal illnesses want to see the six-month rule scrapped, so will he continue to work with Motor Neurone Disease Association, Marie Curie and others to find a solution that works for all of them?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Absolutely. The reason we commissioned the review was that the status quo needs to change. We recognise that, and I wish to pay tribute to the organisations that have been supporting a thorough review, including the MND Association, Marie Curie, Hospice UK, Macmillan, the Royal College of Nursing, Sue Ryder and NHS England.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Scotland has already shown what can be done when a Government put dignity and respect at the heart of their welfare policies—for example, by removing any time qualification for people who are terminally ill. Why has the Department for Work and Pensions not yet followed Social Security Scotland’s lead and what are Ministers waiting for?
Justin Tomlinson
My understanding is that that has not yet been changed in Scotland. We are working with our Scottish colleagues and looking at all options. As I have said, our review will conclude shortly. Having consulted extensively with stakeholders, claimants and clinicians, and having looked at the international evidence, we will not be having the status review; we will be looking to improve the case for people towards the end of their life.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Although face-to-face reassessments are very important in the normal processing of claims, do the Government accept that people living with and suffering from terminal diseases should be exempted from the stress that such reassessments impose?
Justin Tomlinson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can typically turn around those applying under the special rules for terminal illness process within six days, ensuring that those who are most in need of support get it as quickly and as swiftly as possible.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is inappropriate for terminally ill people who do not qualify for universal credit under the special rules for terminal illness to have to go to their jobcentre to discuss their career when they may not have very long left to live?
Justin Tomlinson
As part of this review we are looking at consistency across DWP work, as well as working with the NHS and hospices to try to have a more consistent and sympathetic approach. Where claimants do struggle to get to jobcentres, there are always opportunities for home visits.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I work closely with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor as does the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). The Under-Secretary also works with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). We have visited HMP Downview to see at first hand the excellent work of our prison work coaches, of which there are 130 based across the country. We have identified prisons that currently do not have a work coach as part of delivering on our manifesto commitment to break the cycle of crime.
Sir Robert Neill
I am grateful for that progress, but can the Secretary of State tell me when we will be in a position where all prisons will have this provision? Will she also tell me what progress there has been in ensuring that all prisoners are able to claim universal credit before the end of their sentence, because it is well established that access to a job or honest, legitimate benefits is one of the best means of preventing reoffending?
Dr Coffey
The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, is working carefully on the pilot scheme that is currently being rolled out in certain Scottish prisons, and we are working with the Prison Service to ensure that universal credit claims are made in a safe way. This includes booking appointments at the jobcentre in advance by using a telephony-based system to avoid the risk of IT crime that could happen as a consequence.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that many prisoners have conditions that are not seen as a disability upfront. For example, they might be on the autism spectrum or have special educational needs—indeed, they may well not be numerate or literate. As someone comes up for release from prison, could the Department work to identify the real talents that many of these people have and support them in these?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is primarily the role of the Ministry of Justice to consider these issues and help people to prepare for release. We are keen to have a work coach in every prison so that when people do leave they can get back into the world of work as quickly as possible. This issue is very much front and centre, and the Prime Minister has set up a specific taskforce, which he chairs, to ensure that we try to crack this cycle of crime, especially when people leave prison.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Supporting people into self-employment and backing them to grow their businesses is a priority for me, as the employment Minister. Since 2011, the new enterprise allowance has resulted in nearly 131,000 new businesses. We expanded this provision in 2017 to include universal credit claimants with existing businesses and provide them with specialist support to boost their earnings.
Michael Fabricant
That is very encouraging news indeed. As my hon. Friend will know, it was Adam Smith, not Napoleon Bonaparte, who said that Britain is a nation of shopkeepers. That is especially so in the west midlands, in that people have small businesses that expand into large businesses. When will she meet the Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, to discuss how we can stimulate the economy there still further?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. In fact, later today in the Chamber the west midlands will be standing proud as we see the debate on the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill. The legacy around jobs and skills from that will be very welcome indeed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting Andy Street this Thursday; I am sure that everyone will be delighted about that. I recently held a roundtable to redesign how we look at self-employment going forward, listening to people across the country talk about how they can build, create and boost their businesses.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am very interested to hear about the Minister’s roundtable, because one of the great barriers to people in self-employment, particularly women in freelance-type occupations, is the fact that, unlike employed people, they cannot share their parental leave with their partner. Will she, as part of her roundtable discussions, and discussions with other Ministers, ensure that the Government change the system so that self-employed freelancers can share parental leave?
Mims Davies
Women were 41% of those taking up the new enterprise allowance recently, moving from table-top to large businesses. That is brilliant news and it is very encouraging. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that I was in north Wales to see about pop-up businesses, with many women involved in trying to move from ideas into successful businesses. We are redesigning this at the moment. I would be very happy to meet and hear from him.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. I know that other Members across the Chamber will have met constituents around this issue, as indeed I did on Friday. There are over 5 million people who are self-employed at the moment, with a huge amount of people coming into this area, which we are trying to boost, as I mentioned earlier. I am sure that as we go into the Budget, the new Chancellor will be listening to her very carefully.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Reducing end-to-end customer journey times for PIP claimants is a priority for the DWP. We continue to work closely with both assessment providers, amending and refining current processes.
Dr Evans
Constituents in my patch of Bosworth can face up to 42 weeks for clearance of their case—that is, processing and determining the tribunal hearing either in Leicester or Coventry. The national average is 30 weeks. What steps can the DWP and the Ministry of Justice take to ensure that the process is swift and that claimants are kept up to date during this time?
Justin Tomlinson
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has developed a new digital system, and it is increasing the number of judges. This goes hand in hand with our changes to the mandatory reconsideration stage whereby we are proactively contacting claimants who are seeking to appeal their decision to see whether we can help to identify additional written or oral evidence to correct the decision at that stage, reducing the number of claimants who then need to enter the independent appeal process.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
As the Minister will be aware, PIP assessments can be incredibly stressful and traumatic for claimants. That is why I am working with Disabled People Against Cuts to provide recording equipment for anyone living in Hull West and Hessle who is going for an assessment. But it should not be down to individual MPs to provide that. So will the Minister look at providing recording equipment for every PIP assessment that takes place right across the country to improve transparency and fairness?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Member has raised a very fair point. We have been piloting both audio and video recording of assessments. That pilot will be coming to a close soon. I certainly have a huge amount of sympathy around making sure that there is provision in place for audio recording for claimants.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Government are committed in legislation to undertake a review of state pension age every six years. The 2017 independent review was by John Cridland. The next review will be conducted by 2023 and will give consideration to the latest life expectancy projections. The latest Office for National Statistics projections of cohort life expectancy, published in January 2020, showed that it is projected to continue to increase, and the WHO Global Health Observatory data show that people in the United Kingdom have better life expectancies than European or world averages.
Joanna Cherry
The new Marmot review has shown that a decade of Tory policies, from cruel benefit cuts to the unfair treatment of the WASPI women, have stalled life expectancy and increased the years spent in ill health for the poorest in our society. Which Tory policy would the Minister reverse first to begin to undo that damage?
Guy Opperman
I am afraid that the hon. and learned Lady is wrong. I will quote from the Marmot review, which says on page 13 that
“Increases in life expectancy have slowed since 2010”,
but then adds at page 15 that
“Life expectancy at birth has been increasing since the beginning of the 20th century.”
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
As our manifesto set out, we are committed to reducing the number of assessments that disabled people face. That will build on improvements already made, including reducing the frequency of assessments for those with severe or progressive conditions and removing regular reviews for PIP claimants over pension age.
Mark Fletcher
I thank the Minister for his response. A number of constituents with severe conditions that are not reasonably expected to improve have contacted me with concerns about the current process. What reassurance can he give my constituents that their predicament will be given consideration as part of any future changes that the Department makes?
Justin Tomlinson
In the coming months, we will launch a Green Paper that will look at claimants’ experience, trust in the process and allowing claimants to lead full and independent lives. We will be doing a full review, working with stakeholders, claimants and charities to identify further areas of improvement on top of what we have already done.
Mark Jenkinson
I welcome the Department’s announcement last week that it will create a single, integrated service for PIP applicants and users. Can my hon. Friend confirm that that will make the application process much smoother for my constituents in Workington?
Justin Tomlinson
It will give us greater flexibility to try out new ideas that will be identified in the Green Paper, ensuring that we put claimants first.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Before Errol Graham was found dead after his employment and support allowance was stopped, he wrote a letter to the Department for Work and Pensions, pleading with officials. He said:
“Please judge me fairly. I am… overshadowed by depression.”
That letter was revealed to the public weeks after the National Audit Office published a damning report showing that the Department has investigated 69 suicides linked to social security, which are just the tip of the iceberg. Will the Secretary of State finally make a statement on that report, and will she now commit to an independent inquiry into the deaths related to social security?
Justin Tomlinson
The Secretary of State is absolutely passionate about the need to make improvements in this area and is leading very important work. On the specific point of the NAO report, we are working at pace to drive forward improvements and learn the lessons from any cases. We have already improved support and guidance for staff on how best to support vulnerable people. The NAO report notes action that the DWP is already taking, but we are now carefully considering the NAO’s findings and how they can help to further improve our excellence plan.
Mike Amesbury
That passion certainly does not seem to be demonstrated in recent tribunal cases—the Department for Work and Pensions has lost more employment tribunals for disability discrimination than any other employer in Britain. Is the Secretary of State shocked by her Department’s own disability tribunal record, given that it should be, as the Minister said, leading by example? What will the Secretary of State do to rectify that?
Justin Tomlinson
Fair and respectful treatment is a right, and we do not tolerate discrimination in any form within the workplace, including within ours. We have instigated a review of our processes and actions to ensure that all employees are treated fairly and with respect. I am proud that, as a Department, since 2014, when 6.8% of our workforce were identified as having a disability, we are now at 15.3%, which is well above the civil service average of 11.7%. We are keen to be a fully inclusive and diverse workforce to benefit from their full potential.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Many of my constituents reduce the number of assessments they face by discontinuing their applications themselves, because they find it far too traumatic to have to repeat their life story over and over again to every public body they come across. When somebody dies, the Government have a “Tell me once” principle to help bereaved families cope by only notifying a public entity on a single occasion. As the Minister draws up his Green Paper, can he look at whether we can have one single source of truth for each claimant to reduce the trauma they face in going through this process?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot-on. This comes up time and again, and it is driving our desire to bring forward the integrated assessment: where a claimant has already secured sufficient evidence, with the claimant’s permission, and only with the claimant’s permission, that information can be used to increase the chance of a paper-based review and reduce the need for a full face-to-face assessment for other benefits.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
For a decade, disabled people and disability organisations such as the Disability Benefits Consortium have highlighted the absurdity of testing people with learning disabilities and progressive conditions every six months, as well as the stress for them and the cost to the taxpayer and the NHS. The Minister says those assessments will be reduced. When can they expect them to be reduced?
Justin Tomlinson
We have already made changes—for example, in the PIP process, where we no longer routinely assess those of pensioner age and those with the most severe conditions—and that work will continue to be brought forward as our knowledge of different conditions improves. As part of the ambitious and exciting Green Paper we are bringing forward in the coming months, claimants, charities and stakeholders can further identify how we can make the claimant experience much better. I know that the hon. Member has done a huge amount of work in this area, and I hope he will contribute to the Green Paper.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his passion and work on this particularly important issue. The year 2020 is crucial for our work on disability with not only the Green Paper, but the cross-Government national strategy. Of course, I will continue to speak to my Cabinet colleagues about supporting people with disabilities into work, making them wealthier in their own right and helping them live fulfilling, independent lives.
Robert Halfon
What assistance are the Government giving to apprentices with disabilities to help them with their travel costs or any other costs they may incur, and what are the Government doing—specifically and currently —to get more people with disabilities to do apprenticeships?
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend may not be aware of this, but people with disabilities undertaking an apprenticeship can receive assistance from the Access to Work scheme to overcome workplace barriers. In addition, our flexible support fund can support eligible claimants with a variety of the costs associated with starting work, whether initial travel costs or, indeed, things like clothing.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The benefit freeze will end next month, and working age benefits will rise with inflation. We will spend an additional £1 billion on working age benefits in 2020-21.
Kirsten Oswald
A 1.7% increase in working age benefits does not make up for the damage caused by the four-year freeze: affected benefits and tax credits will be about 6% lower in 2020-21. If austerity was really over, the UK Government would be making up the shortfall. Has the Secretary of State asked the Treasury to make up that shortfall?
Will Quince
As I have just said, the Government have already announced that working age benefits will rise in line with inflation next month. As the hon. Lady will know, the Secretary of State has a statutory obligation each autumn to conduct a review of pension and benefit rates for the following year. This review will begin in October for implementation in the following April.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Changes to state pension age were made by successive Governments from 1995, including the Labour Government from 1997 to 2010, and addressed the long-standing inequality in pension age. This includes the Pensions Act 2007, which I believe the hon. Lady supported. Women continue to have the same eligibility for support from the welfare system as men with the same date of birth, and this country presently pays more in welfare support than ever before.
Mrs Hodgson
Approximately 6,100 of my constituents have been affected by the equalisation of the state pension age, and many have told me of the financial hardship that they and their families are suffering because of the change and their inability to work any longer. Last week, there was another lobby of Parliament that I, together with lots of people who will be in the House today, attended—it was packed. Another one is coming up soon. These women stressed to me last week that they are not going away and are not going to give up, so what is the Minister going to do to give some justice to those amazing women?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Lady will be aware that full restitution would cost something in the region of £215 billion and that a case was before the courts last year: on all grounds, these ladies lost their case. Clearly, that matter is subject to appeal, but the case was lost in respect of every ground, including notice.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The coronavirus is currently dominating my work at the DWP. The Department is fully prepared for all eventualities and has conducted extensive planning against reasonable worst-case scenarios. I have been in discussions with the Chancellor and will continue to work across Government to prepare. If claimants cannot attend their jobcentre appointment in person because of self-isolation, work coaches can exercise discretion, so claimants should engage with them—they will not be sanctioned as long as they let us know before the appointment.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out last week, nobody should be penalised for doing the right thing. That is why the Government safety net also extends to those who are self-employed or who work in the gig economy. They can apply for universal credit or new-style ESA, and advances are available for universal credit immediately. These are exceptional circumstances and we will support workers to do the right thing for the protection of their health and public health.
Vicky Foxcroft
The local housing allowance is designed to cover the cheapest third of rents, but in Lewisham claimants face on average a shortfall of £40.22 per week between their rent and their benefits, and that is the case up and down the country. Has the Minister made any representations to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget to ensure that the local housing allowance once again reflects the true cost of renting?
Dr Coffey
LHAs will of course go up by 1%; I signed that off last year. The hon. Lady will also be aware of the discretionary housing payments that we have been making widely available to councils across the country. But let us face the reality: the Mayor should be building more homes in London.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
As my hon. Friend will be aware, this was introduced in 2012 and has been a cross-party success story. It is fantastically good news for her constituents in Kensington, where 39,000 residents are signed up to an 8% automatic enrolment. Due thanks need to be given to the 5,300 local businesses who are supporting individual constituents, who are receiving 8% per annum workplace savings.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Government tried to justify introducing the new bereavement support payment in April 2017 on the grounds that it modernises support, but couples who are not married or not in a civil partnership are not eligible. Last month, the High Court in England found that that is incompatible with human rights legislation and discriminates against children of unmarried parents. The Prime Minister has admitted that that is an injustice, so when will the Government put it right?
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Dr Coffey
I have tried to make clear to the House that people will not be penalised for doing the right thing. It is important that people have that conversation with their work coach. As I emphasised to the House, work coaches can exercise discretion but the important thing is a claimant’s ongoing conversation with their work coach.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Dr Coffey
We are working, right across Government, on a number of different scenarios. We are preparing guidance carefully and I assure the hon. Gentleman that rapid progress is being made. The Government will always be guided by the advice of our chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, particularly on self-isolation.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The average time is 14 weeks. We continue to review the process. As I set out earlier, with the forthcoming Green Paper we will be looking to identify further ways to improve the claims experience and make it easier to get supportive evidence that increases the likelihood of a paper-based review without the need for a face-to-face assessment.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for raising this matter. If he wishes to share the details of the case with me afterwards, I will be happy to look into it. Without the details, I can only give a broad answer. We are doing additional work on the management reconsideration stage to ensure we can help all claimants gather the additional written or oral evidence that could help to change the claim, so that they are less likely to be in the long independent appeal process.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Advances are an important tool to help the most vulnerable claimants receive the money they need to live on. As part of the application process, proposed repayments and advance payment are explained. All claimants are advised to request a level of advance that is manageable when considering the repayments required.
We have announced that from October 2021 the repayment period will extend to 16 months, but I am very sympathetic to extending it further and am looking at that in detail.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who is the Minister with responsibility for welfare delivery, and I regularly meet and work with Macmillan, which is a brilliant organisation. I am disappointed to hear that it feels it is proving too difficult for some claimants to access a home visit. We will take up that matter and look into it.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I recently met jobcentre and citizens advice bureau employees who expressed their grave concern about personal independence payment assessors. Can the Minister give me an assurance that the scheme’s assessors are of the highest calibre and able to judge each case on a proper basis?
Justin Tomlinson
We strive for 100% accuracy with high quality, objective, fair and accurate assessments. All our assessors are health professionals and experts in understanding the effects of a health condition on an individual’s daily life. They are occupational therapists, level one nurses, physiotherapists, paramedics or doctors with at least two years’ experience. We continue to monitor performance, share best practice, and work with claimants, stakeholders and charities to improve training and guidance.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady will be aware that the £118 a week is an average over eight weeks, and it will swing about whether people are eligible or not. I have tried to make it clear to the House, reinforcing the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Health Secretary, that people who are working will not be penalised because they cannot work in this regard. We continue to work across Government to bring forward the necessary legislation or other changes required.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
It was encouraging to hear about the work coaches programme in prison. Do Ministers agree about the importance of independent civil society organisations, as well as DWP staff, in supporting prisoners who are preparing for release? Will they work with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that more prisons can give access to local community groups?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. When it comes to jobs, community progression and our jobcentres, working through outreach with civil society and local charities is absolutely vital. My hon. Friend in the other place, the good Baroness Stedman-Scott, is very keen to continue doing this, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) is very keyed up on it. We will not waste time and we will get on with it as soon as possible.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The gap between local housing allowance rates and average rents for a two-bed property in Southwark is now over £1,000 a month, and raising the local housing allowance in line with the consumer prices index will do almost nothing to close the gap. By continuing to ignore the issue, the Secretary of State is continuing to contribute to entirely unnecessary homelessness. If the Government are serious about ending homelessness, will the Secretary of State urge her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use this week’s Budget to re-link the LHA to the bottom third of rents?
Will Quince
As the Secretary of State said a moment ago, local housing allowance rates are not intended to meet all rents in all areas. The LHA is designed to ensure a fair balance between supporting vulnerable people to meet their housing costs and public spending. From April 2020, LHA rates will be increased by inflation, but I join the Secretary of State in urging the Mayor of London to do far more in terms of supply.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
In 2015, our election manifesto rightly committed us to halving the disability employment gap. By 2019, unfortunately, we had watered that down merely to reducing it. 2015 was also the last year that we published Fulfilling Potential indicators, allowing us to monitor the gap. As the Minister pulls together his new national disability strategy, I urge him to reinvent the wheel and provide robust statistical indicators to allow us to monitor the narrowing of the gap.
Justin Tomlinson
In the last six years alone, there have been 1.4 million more disabled people in work; in the last two years alone, there have been 404,000 more disabled people in work, bringing the figure to 54.1%—a 9.9 percentage point increase in the last six years alone. The disability employment gap has fallen by 5.6 percentage points in the last six years. We are making progress and we continue to be ambitious about unlocking everybody’s potential.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State ensure that during the coronavirus epidemic, any social security claimant who fails to attend a work capability or work-related activity assessment will also not have their social security support stopped?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My constituent, Jennifer Bell, was made redundant following the collapse of Thomas Cook, but secured a job with Jet2 late last year, which fell through given the DWP’s refusal to pay for a training course. She has now landed a job with Virgin Atlantic, which involves five and a half weeks’ training in Crawley. However, her application to the flexible support fund at Renfrew jobcentre for accommodation costs has been denied, despite other former colleagues having secured funding at other jobcentres. Will the Minister please look into this discrepancy for Jennifer?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which came through to us in jobcentres after the collapse of Thomas Cook. I am happy to take it away as a learning point. We are doing all we can on the Flybe issue, and I urge anybody affected to go to their local jobcentre and ask for support and benefits.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Four out of 10 older people say that the TV is their main source of company, yet as a result of Government decisions, millions of older pensioners are about to lose their free TV licences. The Budget is the last opportunity for the Chancellor to step in and overturn this unfair policy. Will the Secretary of State urge him to do so?
Guy Opperman
As the right hon. Lady knows only too well, this is a BBC decision. The Government remain very disappointed at its decision and urge it to think again.
Coronavirus
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the shadow Health Secretary to ask his urgent question about the coronavirus, I draw to the House’s attention the fact that it is being streamed live with accompanying British Sign Language interpretation, which means that people will have to be very careful what they say and how they wave their hands around during this important piece of business.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will update the House on the coronavirus outbreak.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The coronavirus outbreak continues to advance around the world. The number of cases in China and South Korea keeps rising but at a slowing rate, but the outbreak in Iran, Italy, Switzerland and now France and Germany is growing. In Italy alone, we have seen 1,492 more cases overnight and 102 more deaths. Here in the UK, as of this morning, there were 319 confirmed cases. Very sadly, this now includes four confirmed deaths. I entirely understand why people are worried and concerned, and we send our condolences to the families.
The UK response is guided by our four-point action plan: we continue to work to contain the virus, but we are also taking action to delay its impact, to fund research and to mitigate its consequences. Throughout, our approach is guided by the science; that is the bedrock on which we base all our decisions. Our plan sets out what we are prepared to do, and we will make the right choice of which action to pursue at the right moment. The scientific advice is clear that acting too early creates its own risks, so we will do what is right to keep people safe. Guided by science, we will act at the right time, and we will be clear and open about our actions and the reasons for them. These are the principles that underpin the very best response to an epidemic such as this.
On research, I can report to the House that we have made available a further £46 million to find a vaccine and develop more rapid diagnostic tests, and we will continue to support the international effort. Here at home, the NHS is well prepared, with record numbers of staff, including nurses and doctors. I thank all those involved for their work so far. The number of calls to NHS 111 has increased—we have now added an extra 700 people to support that effort—and 111 online is now dealing with more inquiries than the voice calls.
To date, Public Health England has tested nearly 25,000 people, and the time taken to test is being reduced, as we are bringing in a new system for faster results, but of course responding to coronavirus will take a national effort; everyone must play their part. Of course, that means Government, and it also means everyone washing their hands more often and following public health advice, but there is much more we can all do, through both volunteering and supporting the most vulnerable. We will shortly introduce legislative options to help people and services to tackle the outbreak. The Bill will be temporary and proportionate, with measures that will last only as long as necessary in line with clinical advice. I can also report that over the weekend, we initiated action to help 120 passengers on the Grand Princess cruise ship off the coast of California to return home.
We will stop at nothing to get our response right.
Jonathan Ashworth
Our thoughts are naturally with the loved ones who have sadly died of covid-19. Let me also record, again, our thanks and gratitude to our hard-working NHS and Public Health England staff.
May I press the Secretary of State a little further? He will know that we have called repeatedly for an emergency funding package for our NHS, he will know that the NHS is short of 100,000 staff, and he will know that critical care beds were at 81% capacity during the week for which the latest figures are available. The Chancellor has said that the NHS will receive whatever it needs. Does the Secretary of State agree that in this Wednesday’s Budget we need to see significantly more resources for the NHS, not just rhetoric?
Scaling up and freeing up capacity in the NHS is now urgent. What is being done to scale up intensive care beds in the NHS, what is being done to expand access to the oxygen and ventilation machines that will be needed, and what is the current capacity of extra corporeal membrane oxygenation beds? We welcome the distribution of personal protective equipment to NHS staff, but does the Secretary of State agree that GPs and social care staff also need access to that equipment?
Those in receipt of social care are some of the most vulnerable, and could be affected extremely badly by this virus. Indeed, many who work in social care are low paid, and if they have to go on sick leave there are huge implications for the delivery of social care. What advice has been given to social care providers and, indeed, local authorities to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected, and what plans are in place to protect staff and increase the number in the social care sector?
Public health directors are expected to play a leading role in local preparations. They need to make decisions about deploying staff—Public Health England, for example, has asked for staff to be seconded—yet they still do not know their public health allocations for the next financial year, which will start in three weeks’ time. We are begging the Secretary of State: please tell local directors of public health what their Budget is for this coming April.
We are still officially in the containment stage. At some point, we presume, we will need to move into the delay stage, when we understand that social distancing measures will be necessary. Many of our constituents are now asking—and I think it would benefit the House if the Secretary of State could explain to them—why we are not yet considering more home working, whether we should be asking those over 65 to isolate themselves, whether we should be cancelling larger events, and whether those returning from northern Italy, for instance, should be quarantined. I think it would help our constituents if the Secretary of State ran through the medical advice, although I understand why he has made the decisions that he has made.
Can the Secretary of State also confirm that once we move into the phase in which measures of this magnitude are proposed, he will come to the House, explain why that has happened, and allow Members to question him? He has hinted, or suggested, that we will need emergency legislation for the mitigation stage. As a responsible Opposition, we would like to sit down with him in order to understand the content of that legislation, because we want to work on a cross-party basis; but let me leave him in no doubt that we also want statutory sick pay for all from day one. Asking people to wait five weeks for universal credit is not a serious solution.
Will the Secretary of State update the House on food supplies and the conversations that he has had with supermarkets? Can he reassure us that our constituents do not need to be panic-buying, as we saw people doing on social media in some parts of the country over the weekend? Finally, does he agree that whatever happens, we must find a way for Parliament to continue to hold Ministers to account so that we can ask questions on behalf of our constituents? However, we continue to offer to work constructively with the Government, because the public health interest and the safety of our constituents must always come first.
Matt Hancock
Let me start by concurring with what the hon. Gentleman said about the legislation. It should be taken through on a cross-party basis. I should of course be happy to talk to him about the proposals in that legislation, and also to ensure that the clinicians are able to explain why they are necessary and proportionate. I am grateful for the tone that he has taken throughout, recognising that our responses are led and guided by the science.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the NHS and its preparedness. There are record numbers of nurses and doctors, as I said. The 8,700 increase in the number of nurses over the past year is welcome in this context. We are, as he said, scaling up intensive care beds, and making sure that we have as much availability of ventilation equipment and, crucially, the skilled and trained people to use it, because ventilation equipment, without trained people, is dangerous. On that subject, we are making sure that we have the oxygen needed to go into those ventilation kits, working with oxygen suppliers to make sure that that is available.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether GPs would have access to the protective equipment that they need, and the answer is yes. We have stockpiles of protective equipment and, again, we will release it at the right time. I am working closely with NHS England to make sure that that happens.
The hon. Gentleman asked about social care. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of making sure that the staff in social care are well enough supported, including if they are sick and, critically, because many people in residential social care are some of the most vulnerable. Those living in the community in receipt of social care are likely to be vulnerable, whether because of prior health conditions or because they are elderly, or both. That is an area of significant attention, and we will update the existing guidance this week with further information for social care providers.
The hon. Gentleman asked about public health budgets which, of course, are going up. He also asked about home working and the cancellation of large events. We are not at this stage proposing the cancellation of mass events, because we are following the scientific advice that that is not what is proposed at this stage. Home working and flexible working are things that, in many cases, are advocated anyway. People will make their own decisions as to when that is appropriate. What we are saying from the Government point of view is that people should follow the public health advice so that, for instance, if they are returning from an affected area and they have symptoms they should stay at home, and that means home working. Over the weekend we added northern Italy to the list of places to which the Foreign Office does not recommend travel except in exceptional circumstances. We recommend that people returning from northern Italy self-isolate if they are symptomatic.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the food supply. We are confident that food supply will continue, even in our reasonable worst-case scenario. We have been talking to the supermarkets for some time about this scenario. I appreciate that on Friday there was discussion about whether every single supermarket executive had been involved in those talks. If any further supermarket executive wants to be involved in those conversations they should get in contact, but those conversations have been ongoing, and it is important, especially as we ask more people to self-isolate and stay at home, that we can ensure that we get supplies that are needed to the people we are asking to stay at home.
The hon. Gentleman asked about statutory sick pay, and I can confirm that we are proposing to put changes to statutory sick pay in the legislation, and I am happy to go through the details with him in the talks that I mentioned at the beginning of my response.
Finally, on Parliament, of course, this is a matter for the whole House. I know that the Commission met this morning, and I think that parliamentary scrutiny of decisions of the magnitude that we are having to take in response to coronavirus and their novel nature is incredibly important, and I will do all that I can to ensure that Parliament remains open.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I commend the Health Secretary for the way in which he is handling the crisis and ask him to reflect on what we now feel we have learned from the situation in China, given that yesterday was the first day when reported new cases in the UK exceeded reported new cases in China. The chief medical officer told the Select Committee that he hoped that a smaller proportion of the population in the UK would get the virus, given what we can learn from what happened in China, but one of the reasons for growing concern among our constituents is that the only number out there is the 80% reasonable worst-case scenario. Is it not time for the Health Secretary to share his central estimate of what proportion of the UK population he thinks will get the virus, even though we would all understand that that estimate might change over the passage of time?
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee for the way in which he has handled this—for instance, in demonstrating the need for transparency in the questioning of the chief medical officer last week. I will take away his point on the need for a central estimate. The figures out there relating to the proportion of people who will get the virus are a reasonable worst-case scenario. On the central estimate, there are still things that we do not know about the spread of the virus through China—in particular, whether the degree to which the slowing of the increase in cases in China is because the virus has reached a large proportion of the population and there is a large proportion who are not symptomatic, which would mean that the mortality rate was lower than otherwise thought; or whether the significant measures that the Chinese have taken are having a significant effect, and that therefore, as and when they are lifted, the virus will continue to spread. Either of those options is possible, and we do not know which one it is, but whichever it is, the approach that we are taking in the UK is the right response to both of those scenarios.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
There seems to have been some media confusion in reports that the move from the contain phase to the delay phase will involve an instant flick-of-the-switch moment. Will the Secretary of State assist us by confirming that that is not the case and that any move will involve a phased transition? Another area of particular vulnerability is the UK prison system, which is extremely short-staffed and stretched. What measures will he be taking following reports of riots and deaths among inmates in Italy’s prisons to ensure that our prisons remain under control during what will be a period of heightened tensions and frustrations as restrictive measures are introduced? Will he also confirm that he is aware of the latest workplace advice from Health Protection Scotland, which was published today and which urges routine cleaning of phones and keypads and says that food should not be left open for people to share? Will his Department be making a similar recommendation for England?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Member is absolutely right to suggest that the transition to the delay phase is indeed that: it is a transition. We will not give up hope of containing this disease while we can still take containment actions, and many of the actions that are needed to contain it are also effective for delaying. Of course, the primary action is that everyone should wash their hands, but there is much more than that. He asked about the advice from Health Protection Scotland. We are working very closely with HPS, and Public Health England will shortly be bringing forward further updated guidance that we have been working on over the weekend, not just on social care, as I mentioned earlier, but more broadly, including for businesses, employees and others.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He will know that the number of cases in Hertfordshire is now into double figures, and that it is a county with some very large businesses with an international footprint, as well as many commuters going into London. Has the time come for discussions with those large businesses on how to reduce the number of international visits that are made, perhaps through more teleconferencing, and also on how to allow more people to work from home when possible and to reduce the number of visits backwards and forwards that might be affecting the spread?
Matt Hancock
An awful lot of companies and other employers are taking these steps. Teleconferencing is usually cheaper and also better for the environment than travel, so there are good reasons to use it anyway.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State made it clear in his answer to the urgent question that parliamentary accountability is fundamental—that is evidenced by so many Members on both sides of the House rising to raise myriad issues —yet despite that acknowledgment we are hearing reports that after Easter the House might be suspended until September. Will he give an undertaking that that will not be the case? Will he recognise that, as a big organisation of 650 MPs and thousands of staff, we can play our part in containment without opting for the nuclear option of closing down accountability altogether? Other measures could be considered, such as using Westminster Hall on a UQ basis, so that we have continuous accountability for what the Government are doing through Parliament, albeit in a different form.
Matt Hancock
I have not seen those specific reports, but I know that the House of Commons Commission met this morning. Parliamentary accountability is incredibly important. I will be doing all that I can to ensure that Parliament stays open through this process, and that we follow the clinical advice on how that can happen so that we keep that parliamentary accountability. It is a decision for the House, but my position and that of the Government is clear.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Government are absolutely right to be putting a lot of public money into research on a possible vaccine, but the Secretary of State will know that research is no good unless we can produce vaccine at scale, and this country is not great at doing that. What can he do to ensure that we grow indigenous capacity very quickly so that the public, and particularly key workers in our health service, do not have to wait in line when a vaccine becomes available?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We do have significant vaccine capabilities, and not only in research, where we are world-class, but in some production, for instance in Hamilton in Scotland. The broader point is that investment in the whole production chain and not just research is critical.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Government have outlined emergency legislation that will extend new powers to the Welsh Government. Council representatives I have spoken with are concerned that there are currently legal obstacles hindering the swift deployment of emergency staff, for example in relation to vehicle insurance and limits on working hours. That applies particularly to social care staff, of whom there is a shortage in Wales and, I believe, across the UK. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Government to ensure that there are clear guidelines for emergency implementation in the care sector?
Matt Hancock
We have ongoing discussions with the Welsh Government. For instance, the Welsh Government joined the Cobra meeting this morning—in fact, they have been present at all the Cobra meetings—and we have had very good engagement on the Bill. I will look into the two specific points that the right hon. Lady has raised and will talk to my Welsh colleagues about them.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
May I thank the Health Secretary for the way he is managing this crisis, and for how frequently he has come to the House to answer questions? Pregnancy is a time of great joy, but in the context of coronavirus it can also be a time of great worry. Is there any specific advice from the chief medical officer for ladies who are expecting or who are considering starting a family?
Matt Hancock
I am glad to say that the evidence so far indicates that there is not a particularly raised concern. Nevertheless, I entirely understand the level of worry that getting coronavirus might cause somebody who is pregnant, so we are researching this very carefully.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
A study of 52 critically ill patients at Jinyintan Hospital in Wuhan has found that more than two thirds required invasive breathing support, and last Monday, as the Secretary of State will know, the World Health Organisation urged all countries to stock up on ventilators. Given that around 5% of those with coronavirus might require critical care, what is his current best estimate of the number of ventilators that would be required to meet that demand, bearing in mind his earlier point about having sufficient staff to operate the ventilators?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the specific answer to his question, but the general answer is more, and, frankly, as many as possible. We are buying ventilators—we have a commercial strategy on that—and, of course, we are training people to use them.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, vaccines are the long-term solution to tackling the virus. Can he give the House a bit more detail on what work is being done and on the potential timings for new vaccines and home tests? More importantly, will he keep under active review the balance between the efficacy and safety of vaccines and the public health impact they could have?
Matt Hancock
The critical point about vaccine development for coronavirus is that if we cannot be sure that a vaccine is safe, we cannot put it into large numbers of people for a disease with a mortality rate of around 1%. This is different from a disease like Ebola, where the mortality rate of around 70% is so high that it is worth taking the risk.
The broader point about the response to this virus is that it is very different from Ebola. It spreads in a different way and its mortality rate is very different, so it is very important that we fight this disease rather than fighting the last war.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The other day, the Prime Minister said on morning television,
“perhaps you could take it on the chin, take it all in one go and allow the disease to move through the population without really taking as many draconian measures.”
Can the Secretary of State advise the House that that is not the Government’s official position?
Matt Hancock
No, it is not the position. The Prime Minister was explaining why we have taken the decisions that we have.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
This is obviously a particularly worrying time for our elderly population who are, by all accounts, more likely to suffer badly from the disease. What advice would the Secretary of State and, indeed, the chief medical officer give to the elderly, their families and their neighbours about how best to protect them? What actions should they take to ensure they are not exposed to this disease?
Matt Hancock
That is a really important point, and the advice now is, as for everybody else, that they should wash their hands, follow the public health advice and catch sneezes and coughs. We do not rule out changing that advice to advising measures that help protect either the elderly or more vulnerable people who have pre-existing health conditions, because an approach that treats them differently is appropriate given that the disease treats them differently.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. A lot of people are standing, and I cannot really let this business run much past quarter past 4. People are being quite brief and the Secretary of State has been brief, but I give notice that not everybody will be called.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I press the Secretary of State on this matter? Yes, it is very important that we follow good science, but we also need good management. It is all right having a national Cobra, but what about local Cobras? Every community and every local authority has to deliver on the ground as this gets worse, and that needs partnership across health, the police and local authorities. Is he sure that is in train?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. This is a national effort, and a national effort involves the Government, the NHS, every single individual, local authorities, local resilience fora and local police. It is a national effort.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Can we have net figures that take account of recoveries? It is very alarming simply to be given cumulative deaths and cumulative cases.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is not just coronavirus and dealing with it that needs parliamentary scrutiny. The Government cannot continue levying income tax unless we have another Finance Act, and they will not be able to use emergency powers under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 for longer than 28 days, so Parliament will have to keep on sitting, won’t it? The Secretary of State is wrong, as it is not for the House authorities to decide whether this House sits. The only person who can table a suspension of Parliament is a Government Minister, so will he just rule it out now?
Matt Hancock
As I said, we see no purpose for suspending Parliament, and parliamentary accountability is very important, as is the legislative power of Parliament.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
On the day Carillion collapsed, all the UK banks, through UK Finance, agreed forbearance on the loans and overdrafts of small businesses affected. Has Cobra obtained the same assurance from the banks in respect of businesses affected by the coronavirus?
Matt Hancock
Those sorts of discussions are going on, led by the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Millions of people in this country live alone, and many elderly people rely on their relatives visiting them to keep them able to live in their own homes. This activity may well be disrupted if people get ill or have to be isolated. How then will those vulnerable people, who rely on outsiders to be able to live, get their food delivered and be looked after, possibly cope?
Matt Hancock
This is an extremely important consideration, because in keeping people safe from coronavirus we also need to support people to live their normal lives. Many people rely on support from others who come to them, whether through social care in the formal system or, as in many cases, through informal care and support. We may need to see more of that, but it will have to be done properly in order also to protect the people involved from the coronavirus.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Last week, I met officials from Durham County Council, and part of our discussion turned to council preparations for coronavirus. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and with local authorities to ensure that we are fully prepared?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we are working with all the local resilience forums and the local authorities, which are crucial parts of them.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The director general of the World Health Organisation has called on all Governments to develop all-of-society and business continuity plans. What is the Minister doing in respect of two groups: the street homeless, and the staff and volunteers who work in homeless shelters; and small businesses? Specifically, in a worst-case scenario, would the Government, under contingency plans, underwrite the three biggest costs facing small businesses—staff, rent and business rates?
Matt Hancock
MHCLG is working on and leading on the first of those, which is very important, and the Treasury is leading on the second.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the wearing of gloves on public transport or in other public places make any difference to the dangers of acquiring or transmitting the disease?
Matt Hancock
I am tempted to give my right hon. Friend a clinical answer, but instead I will ask one of the chief medical officer’s team to write to him.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On Friday, I met the chief executive of my local council, where four cases have been identified. She told me that the council is not able to obtain information from Public Health England about where those four individuals are self-isolating, and that is a concern in managing community relations and information. Of course we appreciate the need to protect patient confidentiality, but will the Secretary of State discuss with colleagues the need for information to be shared with specific council officials, on a need-to-know basis, so that they can manage the protection of the whole public?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. There should not be data protection problems here, but sometimes there are perceived to be, so cracking through those is important as well.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I echo the concerns about suspending Parliament? Whatever the threats and the challenges we face in this country, Parliament must continue to do its business and do its duty. The Secretary of State has a responsibility, and the Government have responsibility for the people in the UK and for those overseas. How is he working with the Ministry of Defence on the support it might provide, both domestically and internationally, in looking after our citizens abroad?
Matt Hancock
I agree with my right hon. Friend wholeheartedly on the first point. On the second, it is absolutely true that the MOD is working alongside the Department for International Development, and of course the Foreign Office, to support Brits overseas.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Returning to the issue of statutory sick pay, can the Secretary of State confirm that all the relevant Departments are in agreement that SSP should be paid to self-employed people who are told to self-isolate?
Matt Hancock
We are all in agreement that nobody, including those who are self-employed, should be penalised for doing the right thing. How we get that support to them is a different question, because SSP is paid by the employer and the self-employed do not have an employer. We will bring forward a solution to that particular policy conundrum.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Grand Princess cruise ship will finally dock in Oakland today, allowing 140 Britons, including at least four of my constituents, to disembark. My right hon. Friend mentioned a few messages about the support that will be given. A lot of the Brits on the ship feel that the UK has not responded as strongly as the Americans. Will he use this opportunity to say a little more, or will he perhaps get the Foreign Office to contact constituents on the ship directly?
Matt Hancock
The Foreign Office will be putting out more information, because it leads in that policy area. We will be repatriating the Brits and we are working with the Americans to ensure that we can get them home safely. We have full confidence that the American public health system will be able to help those individuals off the ship and on to planes to come home.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that services and advice may not be accessible to those for whom English is not their first language? Will he ensure that the Government make instructions and advice available in a range of languages, including Braille?
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Members of the Procedure Committee are, like many in the House, concerned about how we make sure that we properly represent our constituents if either Members of Parliament or their staff have to self-isolate. The Committee is meeting regularly this week to discuss the changes that might be needed to our procedures in that event. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will work with us to ensure that all parliamentarians are able properly to represent their constituents?
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
To follow up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), there are 4.7 million self-employed people, and currently they will not be entitled to statutory sick pay or contributory jobseeker’s allowance. The company Hermes, working with the GMB, has already said that it will offer support to its workers who cannot come to work because they have to self-isolate; other companies have not. What pressure are the Government putting on businesses such as Uber, Deliveroo and DPD to ensure that the people who deliver their services will be able to self-isolate?
Matt Hancock
I urge all companies, especially the large companies that, as the hon. Lady said, use an awful lot of self-employed workers to deliver their services, to look at what Hermes has done and appreciate that their part of the national effort is to help everybody to make sure that they can go home and stay at home if they need to stay at home to keep themselves and others safe.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I have a practical question for the Secretary of State. Many of my colleagues who work in the health service are keen to come forward and do their best. Their big concern is: should schools close, who would care for their children when they run forward to help in the NHS? Are the Government considering any plans to support frontline workers?
Matt Hancock
We absolutely are, not only in terms of any measures that we take and how they might have to be amended for key workers, but also because, critically, when it comes to school closures, one reason why closing schools is not a cost-free option is that it takes away some of the very staff whom we need to be able to respond to the crisis.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been approached by some parents who want to know what option they may have to withdraw their children from school for a short period, perhaps prior to the Easter break, if they wish to do so, and agree with the school an arrangement for a period of home study. Is the Secretary of State working with his Department for Education counterparts on any contingency plan should home schooling become necessary?
Matt Hancock
The most important thing is to follow the advice from Public Health England. We now have in place well-established routes to ensure that all headteachers get the appropriate advice. Ultimately, it is headteachers who are currently responsible for such decisions.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Home working is all but impossible in the early years sector, in which employers tend to be small and medium-sized enterprises and employees tend to be women. I have been contacted by nursery owners in my constituency who are extremely concerned that the advice they are getting from Government helplines is not consistent. I urge the Secretary of State to make sure that the information provided to these essential businesses in a crisis is consistent and kept up to date.
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely, and if my right hon. Friend could bring the individual concerns to my attention, I would be very happy to look into them.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
My constituents of Inverclyde are expecting 80 visits from cruise ships during the sailing season, which starts in April, including from the Regal Princess, which is due in on 10 May. What plans do the UK Government have in place should there be an outbreak on a cruise ship in UK waters?
Matt Hancock
We are, of course, working with Public Health England on making sure that we have the right answers should this happen. Looking into what happens on cruise ships and what advice will be given with respect to people going on future cruises is a critical piece of work that we are undertaking.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Today, we had the first acknowledgement that there was a case in Herefordshire and yet I am still waiting to hear from the Government about the 70 children who are planning to go to northern Italy to ski. Can we make sure that airlines are giving these parents their money back?
Matt Hancock
We advise against all but essential travel to northern Italy, and I do not regard skiing as essential.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The adult intensive care unit at Nottingham University Hospitals Trust was at over 100% capacity on 76 occasions in the past year. An expansion of critical care will add a further eight beds. What is the Secretary of State doing to expedite this expansion? How many additional intensive care beds does he believe can be created and how soon?
Matt Hancock
We are working very hard right across England and I know that my Scottish and Welsh counterparts are working right across Scotland and Wales to ensure that we get that expansion of critical care beds as much as is possible.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their help for all patients who have been diagnosed with covid-19 in the south-west, but, as he knows I have a highly rural community. Can he please just elucidate as to how he will be able to provide further action and help for those in rural communities?
Matt Hancock
This is a very important point. One thing we will be doing during this period is encouraging people who need to see their GP or to have an out-patient appointment for something that is not to do with coronavirus to do so via Telemedicine if it is both clinically and practically possible. That is even more important in rural areas, and absolutely critical for reducing the amount of infection through GPs.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Before I entered this place, I worked as an emergency planner for the NHS. I would like to pay tribute to my former colleagues and to say that I am pleased that the Secretary of State is following their expert advice. Most people will not go into hospital or go to their GPs; they will be supported in the community. Critically, they will be supported by the wider services of local government and the voluntary sector. Will the Secretary of State expand on what conversations he is having with his counterpart in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support the wider public health and social care provision of local government?
Matt Hancock
We have extensive work under way to provide exactly that support. It is also available through the Office for Civil Society, and through volunteers as well. It is very important that we offer the opportunity for people to volunteer in these difficult circumstances, but we have to do so in a way that the voluntary efforts can then plug in and add to the professional efforts that are, as the hon. Lady says, providing a great service to this country.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I was deeply saddened to find out that the fourth case has died in my constituency in Wolverhampton North East. I offer condolences to the victim’s family and friends. Our thoughts also have to be with the staff at New Cross Hospital. I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any special advice for those with relatives in New Cross Hospital or the attending staff members, because I know that people are greatly concerned.
Matt Hancock
I add my condolences to the family and loved ones of the patient who has died at New Cross Hospital. I want to thank the staff at the hospital who have acted in an exemplary way and to reassure other patients at the hospital that the steps that are necessary to ensure that the hospital is safe have, of course, been taken and that my hon. Friend’s constituents can be confident that her local NHS has risen to this task.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On the point about people who have booked holidays and cruises and who are perhaps doing the right thing by considering not going on them, I have to say that, even though they are insured, they are not always covered to do so unless they have been specifically told not to travel to that country. What are the Government doing to assist people in that sort of situation?
Matt Hancock
We constantly keep travel advice under review, and have made covid-19 a notifiable disease. Both those measures will help with the circumstances outlined by the hon. Gentleman.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
On behalf of those who have already been affected in West Sussex, may I thank all those who have been working extremely long hours to deal with this crisis? Will the Secretary of State remind everyone involved that this is a marathon, not a sprint, and that pacing is incredibly important in dealing with any crisis? I urge him to use the innovation, capacity and capability of business as we move through this situation.
Matt Hancock
Yes, I agree with all of that. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Critically, as the scientists have advised us, getting the timing of the interventions right is crucial for getting the best possible response as a nation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If Members continue to be pithy, we will get everybody in.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Last week I asked the Secretary of State about the advice given about coronavirus to DWP decision makers. We were not particularly reassured by the answers given by Department for Work and Pensions Ministers this morning, and that advice has still not appeared in our inboxes. Can he please follow that up?
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
My local authority of Kensington and Chelsea has eight confirmed cases—the most of any local authority in London. We have a lot of international visitors. My constituents are very concerned that people are continuing to arrive from north Italy, and they are only being told to self-isolate if they have symptoms, but we all know that the symptoms can often come late. Will my right hon. Friend think about testing at airports or mandatory quarantining?
Matt Hancock
We are increasing the amount of information that is available at airports, but the evidence from other countries that have tried temperature testing at airports shows that it is not effective and can actually be counterproductive to the effort because it leads to lots of false positives.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Industries such as the hospitality industry employ people on zero-hours contracts, and I know of one major hotel that has laid off a number of people. What can the Secretary of State do to ensure that people are not left in financial difficulties due to their employers taking these decisions?
Matt Hancock
This is a matter that the Chancellor is considering ahead of the Budget.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and his team for the way in which they are being guided by the science and medical advice. My constituents in the Colne and Holme valleys, and Lindley, are keen to do the right thing and to do their very best to contain the outbreak. What specific advice would the Health Secretary give my constituents who are organising community events over the Easter period and over the May Day weekend, particularly events that will have large attendances from those who are most at risk—the elderly?
Matt Hancock
We are not currently advising the cancellation of mass events, but we are considering closely providing further advice and strengthening advice to those in the vulnerable and elderly groups.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
King’s College Hospital in my constituency has the highest level of debt of any hospital trust in the country. It also has a new 60-bed intensive care unit, which has been much delayed in its opening. Can the Secretary of State confirm what additional resources will be made available to King’s to ensure that those beds can open—fully staffed and fully equipped—as soon as possible, and to ensure that this challenged NHS trust has all the resources necessary to deal with the additional needs presented by coronavirus?
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
In May and June millions of pupils, including in Eddisbury, will be sitting important public exams. Although I accept that my right hon. Friend is doing the right thing by following the scientific evidence, may I encourage him to do everything possible to ensure that those exams go ahead, and to put in place clear contingency plans in the event that they do not?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. This is a lead for the Education Secretary, but he and the Schools Minister are working very hard on it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Churches in my constituency took precautions yesterday. Those who need to self-isolate are having food supplies delivered, and are receiving regular phone contact to stave off the feeling of being alone. Does the Minister accept that the ability for churches to meet for fellowship and prayer is essential for a lot of people’s mental health and spiritual welfare, and that churches remaining open for as long as possible is as essential as schools remaining open?
Matt Hancock
I emphatically agree. I should, of course, have added churches and other religious groups to the long list of organisations that can—and I hope will—participate in this national effort, so that the country can get through this situation as well as possible.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Good communication is obviously key, so, first, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his regular updates? Secondly, will he join me in praising the staff and management at Royal Stoke University Hospital, who have treated a case recently and have communicated very clearly with the local community in Stoke and in Newcastle-under-Lyme?
Matt Hancock
Yes, all the staff at the Royal Stoke have done a brilliant job. I worry that they will no doubt have more cases to deal with, but the work they have done so far is something that we should all praise.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has called for a national effort on a number of occasions. What is his take on the request from the TUC, which has called for a joint emergency taskforce between trade unions and businesses to make sure, for example, that statutory sick pay issues are addressed as well as keeping public services afloat?
Matt Hancock
Of course trade unions have an important role to play in this as well, and that is something we absolutely should consider.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
The Secretary of State is no doubt aware that one of the four deaths that he referred to in his statement was an elderly patient with underlying health conditions in Milton Keynes University Hospital. What steps is he taking to ensure that hospitals like Milton Keynes University Hospital and others are open, safe and clean?
Matt Hancock
All of the hospitals that have so far dealt with cases—and, indeed, the four confirmed deaths—have protocols in place to ensure that the hospital remains a safe place to treat everybody else. The evidence so far is that that has worked well, but of course we keep working at it.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
Many careworkers are on zero-hours contracts and work for multiple providers. This means that they may struggle to prove that they are eligible for statutory sick pay, forcing them to choose between protecting their clients and paying their bills. The Secretary of State mentioned statutory sick pay earlier. What is he planning to do to help care staff who are not eligible for statutory sick pay or who might struggle to prove their eligibility?
Matt Hancock
I am working very closely with the Work and Pensions Secretary to address this exact point.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Over the weekend, Leicestershire had its first confirmed case of coronavirus, while a number of European countries moved to ban large public events. Will the Secretary of State explain why the timing of such social distancing measures is so crucial, and at what point and on what basis he will decide if they are necessary?
Matt Hancock
The first question we must ask is, “How effective is this measure—is it effective?”, and the second is, “Are we going to get unintended consequences from people acting differently in a way that actually hinders the overall effort?” It is for the scientists best to explain the reason why they have scientifically come to this advice. But it is clear that there are other measures that we can take that are more effective and have fewer negative side-effects.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My constituents in Kettering are struggling to understand why we are not banning flights from quarantined areas of north Italy.
Matt Hancock
The reason is that there are many UK citizens in that area who may want to come home. Also, crucially—this is very important—the evidence shows that banning flights from affected areas does very little to protect us. Indeed, Italy was the only country in Europe that banned flights from China earlier in the progress of this disease: it did not work, and now Italy is the epicentre of the European outbreak.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
We have just heard about the death in Wolverhampton. I have had a lot of constituents talk to me about safety in schools. The Secretary of State has updated the House on this, but there are hundreds of school trips planned over the next three months all over the UK and Europe, so what is the advice around that?
Matt Hancock
The advice around school trips is to follow the Foreign Office travel advice—so, as of this weekend, not to take a school trip to north Italy, and otherwise to follow the travel advice.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
As a former journalist, I know the temptations of a dramatic headline, but does my right hon. Friend agree that in this case there is an onus on the media to report responsibly and not engage in scaremongering?
Matt Hancock
I strongly agree. I would say that largely the media have been responsible, but there have been a couple of exceptions. I hope that the media play their part in this national effort in reporting the facts and what the Government are thinking of doing, especially with the transparency that we are providing, but do so responsibly and thoughtfully as to the consequences of the way that this virus is portrayed.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
If large numbers of elderly and vulnerable people have to self-isolate, the statutory system will simply not be able to provide them with all the support they need at home. May I urge the Government to work with not only local authorities but civil society groups, to ensure that people get the social and practical support they need?
Matt Hancock
I emphatically support the call for civil society groups to play their part in the national effort. My hon. Friend knows more than most about the work that they do and can do, and I would be grateful to work with him on how to ensure that this is best done.
Point of Order
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been several references today, including from the Secretary of State, quite rightly, to the House of Commons Commission meeting that was held earlier, jointly with the House of Lords Commission. Many of us are meant to have visits in Parliament from schools in the next couple of weeks, as well as from international delegations; I think there is one group coming from Croatia next Monday. It would be helpful if there were a means of the Commission updating the House and perhaps answering questions, and I wonder how that might be achieved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I know that this issue is being discussed on a daily basis and taken very seriously, but I also know that Members have constituents or delegations coming here—some of them travelling many miles—and they will want to be informed. I do not sit on the Commission, so I do not know how the deliberations went this morning, but I will ensure that his request is passed on to the Speaker when he gets back.
Bills Presented
Hate Crime (Misogyny)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wera Hobhouse, supported by Sarah Olney, Christine Jardine, Layla Moran, Munira Wilson, Wendy Chamberlain and Stella Creasy, presented a Bill to make motivation by misogyny an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing; to require police forces to record hate crimes motivated by misogyny; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 107).
Hate Crime (Misandry and Misogyny)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Philip Hollobone presented a Bill to make motivation by misandry or misogyny an aggravating factor in criminal sentencing; to require police forces to record hate crimes motivated by misandry or misogyny; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 108).
Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [Lords]
Monday 9th March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 View all Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Feb 2020)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before Second Reading, I should tell the House that Mr Speaker has certified clauses 13 to 19 and 23 of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [Lords] as relating exclusively to England and Wales on matters within devolved legislative competence, and clauses 25 to 29 of the Bill as relating exclusively to England on matters within devolved legislative competence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Today, on Commonwealth Day, I rise to open the Second Reading debate on the Commonwealth games Bill. The 2022 games, held in Birmingham, will be the biggest sporting and cultural event that the city and the region have ever seen. With an estimated TV audience of 1.5 billion people, it will showcase Birmingham, the west midlands and the entire country as an amazing place to live, work, study, visit and do business. It will coincide with the platinum jubilee and Festival of Britain, crowning a year of celebration. It will be the most inclusive Commonwealth games in history. For the first time, a major multi-sport event will feature more women’s than men’s medal events, along with the largest ever integrated para-sports programme.
The benefits of the games will be felt for many years to come. It will accelerate new housing, create new jobs and provide improved transport and new community sports facilities for the people of the west midlands. There will be a new Commonwealth games village, supported by £165 million of Government funding, which will support the long-term regeneration of Perry Barr. A £70 million refurbishment of the Alexander stadium will turn it into a world-class athletics venue, along with new community sports facilities, and we are building a brand new aquatics centre in Sandwell, the site of which I had the pleasure of visiting only a couple of weeks ago. I saw how that development is already having a positive impact on the local economy, with anticipation building to welcome some of the world’s best swimmers and divers. A world-class leisure centre will also leave a legacy for decades to come. It was fantastic to hear about these plans and to see the palpable excitement of local school children.
However, the Commonwealth games is not just about sport. This will be a global games, kicked off with Her Majesty the Queen’s baton relay. It will be accompanied by a vibrant cultural programme that will showcase the best cultural artists from across the city, the region and the Commonwealth. We will see a huge programme of visits, with Heads of Government arriving from all over the Commonwealth.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
The Minister is correct in identifying the Commonwealth games as an opportunity to rejuvenate the Commonwealth family and large parts of Britain’s second city, but does he share my concerns about some of the overspending to do with the village by the local council and the extra complexities caused by the demolition of the Perry Barr flyover, which experts say will not impact traffic flows at all? We want Birmingham 2022 to have the same transformative effect as Manchester did, not the financial hangover—for those old enough to remember it—of Montreal in 1976.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for those comments. He is aware that we are having these games in record time—considerably shorter than the usual seven years—but we are conscious of that in terms of cost containment, because we are not building new facilities from scratch, or not all of them, and that has helped with the finances.
All the stakeholders and all the partners are well aware of their financial responsibilities, and we are working with them. I shall address some of the transport concerns and the flyover issues later, but again we are working with all the partners involved to make sure we can come to a suitable outcome.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend very much for giving way on what I think is his first outing at the Dispatch Box, which is already going extremely well. As he would imagine, we are very much looking forward to the games coming to the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, and in particular to the appearance of part of them in the Royal Sutton park.
May I, however, emphasise the importance of the point made by our hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee? The Government, the Mayor and the West Midlands authority have been generous and very supportive on the financial side. While I do have some sympathy with Birmingham City Council, it is essential that my hon. Friend, on behalf of the Government, makes it absolutely clear that it must show greater financial control.
A particular example has been mentioned by our hon. Friend, but there are other worries to do with contingency funding. Obviously, I expect the Government to be generous and supportive, but Birmingham City Council must show financial rigour, which has not been a feature of that council. If it does not do so, I hope the Minister will make it clear that the Government will not tolerate any question of failure in these games, and that Birmingham City Council will be removed from the management of them if it does not demonstrate such control.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I can assure him—I will come to this later in my speech—that the financial governance of the games is very strong. Again, we are working with all stakeholders to make sure that we can deliver on time and on budget—both on the time commitment and on the financial commitment.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
In the spirit of this debate and the cross-party nature of the spirit required to ensure the success of the games, I hope the Minister will at some point in his remarks reflect on the extraordinary strength of character required for a council that has lost £700 million of funding over the last few years to deliver the games not in the usual seven years, but in four and a half years. Let us unite around a shared endeavour to make this a success.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the right hon. Member for his comments. Indeed, I think we have seen a spirit of cross-party co-operation already and that we will continue to see it throughout the delivery of the games and beyond. We are absolutely seeing that on both sides of the Chamber in both Houses. Long may that continue—I will certainly play my part in ensuring that that is the case. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) mentioned, that does not mean that we should not hold all stakeholders to account on the promises they have made, and we should continue to do so.
We are expecting Birmingham 2022 to create 41,000 games-time roles, and a procurement spend of about £350 million, from which local and regional government suppliers will all benefit.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
There is already a lot of excitement about the games in my constituency, particularly in the local schools, but one worry is that because we are not actually hosting an event—the Minister is touching on the opportunities of that—we might not get the same opportunities in our local area. Can he assure us that those opportunities will be opened up to people across the whole of the west midlands, particularly those in North Warwickshire and Bedworth?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments; as a west midlands MP myself, I have some skin in the game as well. I can give him those assurances: it is absolutely the intention that the benefits of the games —in the run-up, during the construction and from the legacy—be felt throughout the entire west midlands and indeed the country.
On procurement, anybody can sign up to birmingham2022.com; businesses can sign up to the business portal to have the opportunity to bid for many of the procurement opportunities. A whole host of other opportunities to do with legacy will be felt right across the west midlands.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
One of the reasons why the Manchester Commonwealth games in 2002 was so successful is that it took the best from the Sydney Olympics and transferred that to Manchester, particularly on volunteering and bringing the whole city together. We also saw that in London 2012. Is my hon. Friend making sure that we also learn from the central importance of bringing the city together through volunteering, and that right across the west midlands people will feel that they are connected to the Commonwealth games?
Nigel Huddleston
Absolutely—volunteering is at the heart of these games; it always has been and I am sure always will be. We saw that in the fantastic Glasgow Commonwealth games, and indeed in the Olympic games. We are expecting around 10,000 volunteers, perhaps substantially more, and excitement is already building, particularly among schoolchildren in the region, about the opportunities to participate. More news about those opportunities will be coming in due course.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the Minister on getting his position; I look forward to his contributions on many occasions, all positive, in this House.
Does the Minister agree that the exclusion of shooting sports from Birmingham 2022 will have a negative impact? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has always excelled at shooting, and Commonwealth countries have followed the United Kingdom’s lead in that. Does the Minister share my disappointment that those in that most law-abiding and responsible section of the community have been excluded? Can the Minister confirm that his job in the future, if he still has this position—I hope he does—will be to ensure that shooting sports are included in the next Commonwealth games?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening. It would not be a debate without his intervention; I am just surprised that he was not first.
On the shooting championship, I think we have a reasonable compromise that everybody—or most people—are quite happy with. The Commonwealth games are happening in summer 2022, and the championships for shooting and archery will take place in the January. The events will be separate, but at the end of the games there will be a Commonwealth sport medal table. I think that is a reasonable conclusion to what has been quite a challenging situation; I do not know whether it will set a precedent for future games, but I think that in these particular circumstances we have come to a reasonable conclusion.
Julian Knight
Part of the arrangement made with India on shooting is that we now have women’s T20 cricket in the Commonwealth games, and I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome that. There is a great deal of excitement in my constituency and around the west midlands about making such a fantastic mark in sport.
Nigel Huddleston
Again, I could not agree more. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is fantastic that we have more women’s games than men’s in the Commonwealth games. That is a first.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
On the subject of specific sports, the Minister will share my pleasure that seven-a-side rugby is a fundamental part of the Commonwealth games, with games being played at the Coventry stadium. Does he agree that it will be great to see those players coming to the birthplace of the game during the tournament?
Nigel Huddleston
Indeed, there are many fantastic places around the west midlands where we can—
Mr Mahmood
I thank the Minister for giving way. We have just sent to Pakistan an England kabaddi team to play in the competition there. Will he consider in the future introducing kabaddi as a national sport here as well?
Nigel Huddleston
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is giving me powers I do not have. He knows that these decisions are made elsewhere, but I am sure he will continue to make his case. He has already made it to me personally and he has now made it again in the Chamber. I will continue with my speech for a few moments now.
The Birmingham Commonwealth games will have been successfully delivered in a much shorter time than other games: in just four and a half years, rather than the typical seven. Just as for the London 2012 Olympic games, a pre-games Bill is essential if we are to support the successful delivery of such a landmark event. On that occasion, the House came together to approve a vital Bill. I am sure that the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill will be no different. The Bill contains four important measures, the first of which relates to transport.
Putting in place effective transport provision is a crucial part of any major sporting event. I know that Andy Street, the Mayor of the west midlands combined authority, is strongly focused on that so that athletes, officials and the 10,000 volunteers can get to their events and shifts on time, and, crucially, so that residents can also move around easily. The measures will make sure we can do just that. They will allow temporary changes to road use where needed, so that anyone travelling to and from the games, and around the region, can do so safely and with minimal disruption.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Many of the facilities, for example the aquatic centre in Smethwick, will be used after the games have ended. Is there not a need for consideration of longer-term changes to transport arrangements? Will they be included in the legacy plans to ensure such facilities are properly used and enjoyed in the future?
Nigel Huddleston
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The integration of transport and the co-operation of all stakeholders in the run-up to the games, as well as during and after, is being considered by the organising committee and other stakeholders, including the Department for Transport. That is a key factor that we hope will ensure the legacy of the games.
The Bill will also set a statutory basis for a games transport plan and provide the Secretary of State with a power of direction to safeguard the delivery of essential road regulation measures. I can assure the House that any road regulation measures will be kept to a minimum, so we can run a safe and efficient games. Local residents and businesses will be consulted and kept informed of the proposals.
Secondly, the Bill will work to protect the commercial rights of those who invest in the games as sponsors. Securing commercial sponsorship is critical to staging a world-class event and maintaining investment in the games. That can be achieved only when the rights of sponsors are protected. The Bill introduces measures, similar to those for the Olympic games in London and the Commonwealth games in Glasgow, to protect against unauthorised association. That is not designed to stop the many local residents and community groups who will want to show their support for the games; in fact, the organising committee wants to make it easier for them. Last week, it launched its new community programme, United by Birmingham 2022. Community projects that share the vision and mission of the games can apply to join.
The provisions are instead aimed at stopping commercial infringements, where a business is claiming an association with the games without making the commitments required of an authorised business. The Bill places a duty on the organising committee to produce guidance to ensure that everyone is clear about what activity may constitute an infringement. It introduces restrictions to advertising and trading in and around games locations. Again, they are in line with the approach of previous games. The restrictions will ensure that trading does not obstruct easy movement in the vicinity of games locations and will provide a consistent approach at each venue.
Regulations will set out the detail of when and where the temporary and proportionate restrictions will apply. They will be driven by the particular usage of each games location. The organising committee will be required to produce guidance on the effect of the advertising and trading restrictions, which local authorities will share with traders that may be affected. That will help to ensure that traders likely to be affected will be aware of what they need to do.
Thirdly, there are provisions on ticket touting. There is a role for a responsible secondary ticketing market for those who are genuinely no longer able to attend events, but professional touts are a scourge on any major event. They make tickets more expensive and make it harder for fans to see the events they love. We have already legislated to ensure there is a responsible market, from strengthening requirements on secondary platforms to banning touts from using bots to dodge security measures. Those measures received the support of both sides of the House. These are robust powers that stop online touts hoovering up large numbers of tickets for profit and help consumers to make informed choices when buying tickets on the secondary market. However, these games are a global, multi-sport event underpinned by significant public investment, so we want to go even further so that fans can buy tickets, confident that they will not be funding unscrupulous touts. That is vital if we are to act as a powerful deterrent to touts and protect the integrity of the games. Only those vendors authorised to sell tickets by the Birmingham 2022 organising committee will be permitted to do so, meaning that buying tickets will be clear, simple and affordable for genuine fans.
The Bill will create an offence that will apply to any unauthorised attempt to sell tickets for profit in the course of business or in a public place. Over 1 million tickets will be available for games events.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The measures that the Minister is announcing sound as though they will go some way towards achieving what we all want: to ensure that tickets end up in the hands of the fans at the price intended, not at vastly inflated prices. To ensure the enforcement of what he hopes to achieve, will he consider extra funding for National Trading Standards so that it has the resources to enforce what he has put in the Bill?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Member for that point and praise her for the work that she has done on unscrupulous secondary ticket sales. She makes a fair point. The dynamics and details of sales and enforcement relating to tickets have still to be determined, and I am sure that everybody has heard her comments.
The organising committee’s ticketing strategy will be underpinned by the values of fairness, affordability and accessibility. That will help to ensure that everyone who wants to experience the games will have an opportunity to do so.
Finally, the Bill contains measures on the funding of, and reporting on, the games. The organising committee has been established as a non-departmental public body. It is subject to standard controls on public bodies and will provide regular budgetary and financial updates to Parliament over the life cycle of the games. Indeed, the organising committee’s first annual report and accounts were laid in Parliament in September last year, and the report for the year 2019-20 is due to be published this coming July.
The Bill contains a technical measure that makes sure that financial assistance given to the organising committee continues to comply with financial propriety rules. Alongside that, the Bill also requires the organising committee to produce an annual report on its delivery of the games. However, those interested in the delivery of the games will not need to wait for a statutory report. The organising committee already produces quarterly updates on its delivery; the next one will be available shortly and will be published on its website. Indeed, I met the CEO of the organising committee, Ian Reid, during my recent visit to Birmingham and came away with a really strong sense of confidence that the games will be a huge success.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend probably already knows that people who exercise for 150 minutes a week are likely to live seven years longer than more inactive people. In my area in mid-Wales, my local health board says that only 50% of our young people are reaching that goal. Does he agree that with so many people inspired to get active after the Commonwealth games, it will be vital to meeting our public health challenge?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. She hits on a very important part of the games’ purpose, its legacy, and indeed, the Government’s sport strategy. We will be working much more on the issues that she raises to encourage more young people to participate in sport at the right level. The Youth Sport Trust and many other bodies play a key role in delivering that, as do our schools. Those of us who are parents have a responsibility too, but the games are a key chance to make sure that we double down on those opportunities and inspire young children to get involved in sport at a very early age, with the huge mental health and physical health benefits that come with that.
Mr Mitchell
Inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), I thought I would rise to my feet again. Before the Minister finishes, will he say a word or two more about the issue of legacy, which is so important? I had the privilege of sitting on Lord Seb Coe’s International Inspiration, which took forward the legacy from the Olympic games in London. Will he confirm that legacy is about international, national and local objectives and that it is a very high priority for the Government to build on Britain’s experience under Lord Coe’s leadership?
Nigel Huddleston
Legacy planning is already taking place. There is already a team within the organising committee focused on legacy, not just the physical legacy, important though that is—the physical assets, the new sports facilities, the new village and homes—but the long-lasting legacy in terms of inspiring people to travel and invest in the west midlands. The tourism, trade and investment opportunities will be a core part of this. We have learned the lessons, both the positive lessons and where we can improve, of the Olympic games and the games in Glasgow, and I am confident that we will continue to make those very important legacy decisions.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that one way we should evaluate the success and eventual legacy of the games is by how successful they are at getting jobs, skills and volunteering opportunities to those furthest from the world of work? He will know that my constituency has the highest rate of unemployment in the country and that many other Birmingham constituencies are afflicted with the awful problem of long-term, systemic worklessness. The games are an incredibly important opportunity to turn this around. Does he agree that this must be front and centre of all decisions when it comes to the jobs and skills the games will provide?
Nigel Huddleston
I agree with the hon. Lady. These issues were raised when the Lords considered the Bill. Front and centre of the social values charter in the Bill are things such as skills, opportunity, sustainability and a host of other important aspects. We must ensure these live not just when the games happen but for many years after, and I am sure we will debate this matter much further. I would encourage all colleagues to visit the organising committee. They would be very welcome. When I went up, I left inspired and confident that those issues—the longevity, the focus on skills, the opportunities for regeneration—were front of mind for everybody involved.
In conclusion, the Bill will help to deliver a Commonwealth games where transport keeps moving, commercial rights are protected and fans can be confident about the tickets they buy. It is critical that we get this right because the Commonwealth games are an important milestone for the region and the country. Just as we did in London, we will show the world that we are a hospitable, warm and tolerant country that is proud to host world-class sport, and we will leave a lasting legacy for Birmingham, the west midlands and the whole UK. That is what the Bill will do, and I commend it to the House.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to open this important debate for the Labour party. It feels particularly apt to be debating the Commonwealth games on Commonwealth Day. Today we mark the strength and diversity of the Commonwealth while recognising the substantial challenges still facing people in many parts of the Commonwealth. While it is a shame the Secretary of State is not in his place this afternoon, I congratulate his understudy on his fine performance so far.
In what I hope is a sign of things to come, the Opposition agree with much of the Bill. We agree across the House that the games offer an enormous opportunity to the west midlands, but the House must ensure that the games organisers make the most of those vast opportunities. That is what we are here to debate today. I hope to take up the Minister’s offer and to visit the sites ahead of the games, perhaps with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), if the people of the west midlands are sensible and put their faith in him to be their Mayor later this year. I hope to see for myself a bigger and bolstered Alexander stadium, the new aquatics centre in Sandwell and the countless other stadiums and venues that will be the envy of many nations.
I look forward to athletes competing in just over two years, hopefully winning an impressive haul of medals for all the home nations. As many will attest, the games have the potential to transform communities in the way the Olympics did for London. The new athletes village in Perry Barr, with the associated transport improvements and investment in public services, will provide good-quality homes for thousands of residents and create a new community in the heart of the city. I recognise that the Bill is a vital part of ensuring the fair and proper organisation of the Commonwealth games in 2022 in Birmingham and a step towards the games delivering for the people of the west midlands.
I particularly welcome the steps in the Bill to prevent ticket touting. All Members will agree that the games should be open and accessible to as many members of the public as possible. Strong steps to prevent exploitative and unfair ticket touting are needed to avoid the scenes that we have witnessed during other sporting events in recent years, and to guarantee that the people of the west midlands can have a fair chance to enjoy the sport on offer.
I am, however, disappointed that the Government have not used the opportunity presented by the Bill to ensure that Birmingham 2022 is truly game-changing for the region—the opportunity to showcase the truly transformational potential of the games. In that regard, they could go further. I know that the organising committee has done good work to be an inclusive and progressive employer, but more could still be done. The west midlands has one of the lowest levels of living wage accreditation among the UK regions, and the Bill could have given the Government the ideal opportunity to set down a marker by ensuring that the committee followed the lead of Labour-run Birmingham City Council and became living wage-accredited. Not only would that have helped so many who are directly involved in the delivery of the games, but it would have served as an example of good employment practice for businesses across the region, and become a catalyst for further improvement in the income and living conditions of people throughout the west midlands.
Sadly, the Bill also contains no provision to bar gambling companies from sponsoring the games. Although I know it is unlikely that the organising committee will enter into an agreement with a gambling company, I firmly believe that the Government should declare that as a matter of principle. We know that too many children and young people in the UK are already addicted to gambling, and we need to ensure that the Bill will protect them. A specific pledge preventing any form of official gambling support might just make those companies understand our concern about how best to protect casual gamblers who enjoy a flutter so that their enjoyment does not slide into destructive gambling addiction.
On a similar note, the Bill could have gone further to ease the financial pressures on Birmingham City Council, about which we have already heard. It could have opened up further funding streams so that the council would not have to face difficult choices when considering sponsors and partners.
It is fantastic that so many additional tourists are expected to visit Birmingham, but a hotel levy of £1 per room per night would go some way towards raising the additional revenue needed to fund the successful delivery of the games, and easing the pressure on council taxpayers. Such levies work in many cities across the world; why should they not work in Birmingham? The leader of the city council, Ian Ward, has been vocal in calling for this for some time. I urge the Minister to reconsider, and to add that provision for a hotel levy.
I should also like the Minister to give further assurances about the climate change impact of the games. I know that both the council and the organising committee are going to great lengths to showcase sustainable aspects of the games, and I welcome the council’s commitment to sustainable transport improvements in the athletes’ village.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that, while the council is trying to ensure sustainability for the games, it has voted to build on 8 hectares of parkland every year within the city boundaries? Will she condemn that blatant hypocrisy?
Tracy Brabin
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I am sure that his constituents have heard what he has said, but my understanding from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill is that 51,000 homes need to be built, primarily on brownfield sites. Birmingham’s planning conditions and responsibilities are not my area of expertise, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to take the matter further, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will discuss it with him outside the Chamber.
We need to do more to tackle the climate emergency that we all face. All the expert advice suggests that we have about 10 years in which to prevent it from getting out of hand, and this is the Government’s opportunity to showcase a lead in that very respect. Before, during and after the games, we can show that we are serious about the need to take action, and to do all that we can to have a sustainable and environmentally friendly games. Birmingham cannot achieve that on its own.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The Mayor and the West Midlands Combined Authority are trying to introduce a bendy bus under the current diesel structure that would cost £35 million just in the Perry Barr area. Would it not be more constructive to have electric buses running for that price, along with normal buses to make environmental changes for Birmingham?
Tracy Brabin
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I hope that the Government will step into discussions about how we make more vehicles electric—surely that is the way forward. The Government were leading on some of this, with electric buses and cars, and we need to make sure that that filters through to all opportunities on this. The Minister has heard my colleague’s comments, and I am sure that in Committee we will take that forward in more detail.
I welcome the Minister’s assurances that his Department will work with Birmingham City Council and the organising committee to ensure that the games are a shining example to the world in how to deliver a green, sustainable and forward-looking major sporting event. Finally, I urge the Minister to ensure that these games work for local people, and that his Department make every effort possible to provide for a long-lasting and tangible boost for grassroots sport for local people in the west midlands. When the Minister responds, I would love him to mention doing all that he can to ensure that as many people as possible watch the games on free-to-air channels with their family, without committing to buying a subscription service. It is not fair that we say that people should have access, but then they have to pay to watch.
We all know the power of sport to change lives, and Birmingham 2022 has the potential to inspire and radically change the lives of people in the west midlands. For an area with high levels of social deprivation and poor health outcomes, this could be absolutely game-changing for confidence, mental health issues and obesity, and it could transform the life chances of many people, but only if we get the decisions right now. One of the biggest lessons of the 2012 Olympics in London is that, sadly, we failed to capitalise on the immense interest in sport that the games ushered in. We need to ensure a legacy of sporting participation for the people of Birmingham and the surrounding areas.
Inevitably, the drastic and disproportionate cuts to local councils played a key role, with councils forced to concentrate on their core services. We cannot risk a repeat when it comes to Birmingham 2022. Every child who goes to bed dreaming of one day winning a gold medal—I once did that in gymnastics; unfortunately I did not get it and I am here instead—or even adults who are simply inspired to get fitter or try something new must have somewhere to give it a go. The power to change lives via the games is enormous, and the Bill takes the necessary steps to ensure that we can make the most of that opportunity. Yes, there are things that I should like to see tightened up or improved in the legislation, but I hope that overall the House today finds much more to agree than to disagree on. I look forward to the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Usual courtesies, please, for the maiden speech of Jacob Young.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and happy Commonwealth Day. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I would like to start by mentioning Johanna Jackson who, like me, is a born and bred Teessider, but unlike me, won the gold for the 20 km walk in the 2010 Commonwealth games in India. Jo Jackson, from New Marske, completed the walk in just one hour, 34 minutes and 22 seconds, which is about the same amount of time that it takes me to walk here from my office in Norman Shaw North.
I am immensely proud to be in this place, representing my community. I have lived in Teesside my whole life, and Redcar is where I went to college, trained as an apprentice and cut my teeth in the chemical industry. For a lad from Teesside to stand in the House of Commons is all a bit overwhelming. Most people down here think PPE is a degree course; where I come from, it is what you wear to work. Indeed, to the envy of George Osborne, I believe I am the first MP to wear a hard hat in the photo on his parliamentary pass.
I stand here by the grace of God. My constituents have put their trust in me and, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I know that their votes are only lent. During my time here I will work hard to make my community proud to have elected its first Conservative Member of Parliament.
Our constituency is Redcar, but it is not just Redcar. It is Eston, South Bank, Marske, New Marske, Ormesby and Nunthorpe, to name but a few. Over the years the Redcar constituency has had many different names. From 1290 to 1832, it was part of the Yorkshire constituency. After that it was the North Riding of Yorkshire, and before it became Redcar it was Cleveland, but many of my hon. Friends will now know it as “Bluecar”.
As well as being proud Yorkshiremen, we are proud Teessiders and sit as part of the Tees valley in England’s north-east. We are a people with an affinity for industry and an economy based on hard graft and global trade. Although the villages of Marske, Nunthorpe, Lazenby, Lackenby and Kirkleatham go back as far as the Domesday Book, life in the Redcar constituency as we know it today started in 1841 with the discovery of iron ore in the Eston hills. Suddenly, the sleepy fishing village of Redcar and its neighbour Coatham started to grow into the Redcar town that we know today. This discovery kick-started a housing crisis in the old hamlet of Eston, due to too much employment in our now booming industry. This prompted a new neighbouring settlement to be formed, named California. Perhaps it was a sunny day in Teesside.
A number of other new areas were formed at this time, including South Bank, Normanby, Grangetown and Dormanstown, which was named after the steelmaker and former Conservative candidate, Arthur Dorman. It was these thriving towns, alongside a growing Middlesbrough, that led the parliamentary titan and free trade pioneer William Gladstone to call us the “infant Hercules”. From the banks of the Tees came the industrial revolution, and Teesside became an exporting capital that built the world. From the Sydney harbour bridge to Lambeth bridge and from the Indian railways to the London underground, cities, towns and communities around the world exist today because of Teesside steel.
Our area has moved on from ironstone mining, and our steelworks closed in 2015, but industry remains our flesh and blood. Our chemical industry in Teesside still employs more than 7,500 people locally. The Wilton International site forms part of the largest chemical cluster in the UK and the second largest in Europe. At this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must declare an interest, having worked and trained in the Teesside chemical industry for the past nine years. I left a job as a single-use plastics producer to become a politician. I am not sure which is more popular right now, but I am sure I will find out.
We do not just make plastics. We are home to world-leading innovation centres, including the Materials Processing Institute and the Centre for Process Innovation. We are the largest producer of bioethanol in the UK, and we also notably produce more than half of the UK’s commercially viable hydrogen, which is why I am pleased to be chairing the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen as we look to further the hydrogen economy in the UK. For the people of Redcar and Cleveland, industry is our past and our present, and it will be our future. It will not be coal-fired or carbon-heavy; it will be the clean, green industry of the 21st century.
In this decade, I want Redcar to become home to sustainable steelmaking again, and I am supporting Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen’s pledge to bring a clean electric arc furnace to Redcar so that the people who made steel for the World Trade Centre and the Shard can make steel for the world’s next great buildings. In this decade, I want Redcar to become home to the world’s first industrial-scale carbon capture, utilisation and storage project—Net Zero Teesside; a power plant that will not only provide net zero carbon power to millions of homes but show the country and the world how to safely remove carbon emissions from industry. In this decade—indeed, in this parliamentary term—I want Redcar to become home to one of the UK’s first post-Brexit free ports. We have the deepest port on the east coast and the largest brownfield development site in Europe. We have the land, we have the plan, and we have an oven-ready free port deal ready to go. This is why I stand in this place today: to champion industry, to champion global trade, and to champion my community.
Above all, my community is important because people are important. Across my constituency I have met some fantastic people, such as Sandra Smith from South Bank, who started the South Bank Credit Union in 1989 and has dutifully served her community ever since; or Frankie Wales, who stood against me at the general election and who runs a boxing club in Redcar, giving young working-class lads purpose and self-esteem; or Norah Cooney, one of just two Conservative councillors in my constituency, who has given more than 40 years of public service to the people of Marske and New Marske.
I would also like to thank my predecessor, Anna Turley, for the work that she did for our community and for this House. Her work to bring about tougher sentences for animal cruelty is particularly commendable, and I am pleased to be supporting the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder).
There is a lot more that I wanted to mention—parmos; lemon tops; Redcar racecourse; the Zetland, which is the UK’s oldest lifeboat; Winkie’s Castle, which is a cottage turned folk museum; and Ben Houchen saving Teesside airport—but I will have to save it for another time, as I want to use my final few moments to mention Redcar’s famous MP, Mo.
Dr Marjorie Mowlam was one of the political giants of our age. To this day she is well thought of in Redcar by people across the political spectrum—I cannot count the number of times I have been told, “Mo was the best MP we ever had.” She had an ability to see through the fog of partisan politics and recognise good intentions and great achievements on all sides. In fact, in the BBC’s “100 Greatest Britons” competition, it was her advocacy for a Conservative Prime Minister that gave Winston Churchill his rightful place as our greatest ever citizen. Her co-operative spirit is something that British politics is sorely lacking today, and something that I will do my hardest to emulate.
Therefore, to finish in the spirit of co-operation, I offer my new colleagues, of all parties, some slightly paraphrased advice from the great Mo herself. There is more hope than despair, and by working together we can overcome many obstacles, often within ourselves, and by doing so we can make the world a better place.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) making his maiden speech. He has shown that he potentially has a long career ahead of him representing Redcar—certainly a longer stint than I hope to have representing my constituency in this place. He mentioned the Domesday Book, and I cannot be alone in thinking that these times of Brexit must have their own chapter in that book. Whatever his political persuasions, I am sure that he is not a single-use politician and that he will have a great career in this Parliament, so I wish him well for the coming years.
I will not detain the House for long, particularly as sport is a devolved matter and Members from Birmingham, the midlands and across England will want to speak. Suffice it to say that the Glasgow games were a world-leading event, as the Minister touched on. They were not only a sporting event but a celebration of the many cultures and people who have chosen to make Scotland their home. I hope that the Birmingham games, in a city that is also renowned for its diversity, will similarly go beyond the purely sporting aspects, cast the net wider afield and use the occasion to showcase their city and their culture.
Glasgow had dozens of giant dancing Tunnock’s tea cakes at its opening ceremony, so I look forward to the sight of scores of pikelets and pease puddings pirouetting under the lights at the Alexander stadium in 2022. My wife and I were fortunate enough to be at the opening ceremony at Parkhead, after she won a pair of tickets in a local radio competition. The hardest part of that day was trying to get away from work in time, but I was lucky enough to do so.
Mr Khalid Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman may not have a direct connection with Birmingham, but I can inform him that the chief executive of the Commonwealth games, Ian Reid, was also chief executive of the Commonwealth games in Glasgow.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because I was not aware of that fact. Birmingham has picked well, because the Glasgow games were a huge success.
My wife and I were lucky enough to enjoy that spectacle, and the weather on that early summer evening was to set the tone for almost the entire tournament. We seem to be allowed roughly one good summer in 10 in the west of Scotland, and it happened to coincide with the eyes of the world, or at least of the Commonwealth, being on Glasgow.
There was a huge feelgood factor across Scotland in the run-up to and, of course, during the games, not just because of the weather or because Scotland was having its best Commonwealth games ever, but because it was like a 12-day party for the nation, and we do like a party from time to time north of the border.
The sunshine may have left visitors with a false impression of the prevailing Glasgow weather, but the good humour and positivity that emanated from the workers, and particularly the 15,000 volunteers—the so-called Clydesiders—left visitors with a genuine, warm enthusiasm for Scotland, the place and its people, which I am sure Birmingham will be keen to emulate.
Typically, the one event for which my wife and I were successful in securing tickets in the ballot—the athletics at Hampden—took place in the pouring rain. As a form of torture, I have subjected my daughter, Emma, to quite a few Scotland games at Hampden, and it is fair to say that she enjoyed the athletics significantly more than she enjoys the football.
Scotland, of course, has a proud history in the Commonwealth games, from the first games in Canada in 1930—then called the Empire games, of course, and there might be a few Conservative Members who wish they were still called that—through to our record-breaking medal haul at Glasgow 2014 and our best ever overseas medal tally at the Gold Coast in 2018. I am hopeful that Scotland can beat that overseas mark at the Birmingham games in 2022.
I cannot mention Glasgow’s games without reminding the House that the budget was entirely met from Scottish resources through the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council—not a penny of support was offered from this place. Previous Ministers have stated from the Dispatch Box that Treasury money used to fund Birmingham’s games will be subject to Barnett consequentials. However, there is no reason why those verbal commitments cannot be written into the Bill to ensure that devolved Administrations receive their fair share of funding to support their own sporting excellence, and the investment in infrastructure needed to improve participation still further, without going 10 rounds with the Treasury, and I will seek to amend the Bill in Committee accordingly.
The Glasgow games cost £543 million, whereas the Birmingham games are reported to cost around £780 million, some 44% more, and some reports suggest that that figure may be soft. There may be strong infrastructure and regeneration reasons for that large increase, and I certainly will not second-guess the games organisers, the local council or the Government on that, but strong controls and top-level planning resulted in a £37 million underspend of public money on the 2014 games in Scotland, which allowed the money to be returned to the public sector. The Scottish National party urges the organisers to look to Scotland’s best practices to deliver similar value for money.
I hope that both the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the organising committee will liaise closely with their counterparts involved in the Glasgow games on the lessons, both good and bad, that can be learned from our hosting in 2014. The Glasgow games were widely seen as an overwhelming success for the city and for Scotland. Any event with 5,000 athletes, 15,000 volunteers, 17 sports and half a million meals served will have its issues, and I hope Birmingham will learn those lessons ahead of 2022.
In closing, I would like to add our best wishes to Birmingham. I very much look forward to the games, which may well serve as a warm-up for Scotland’s first Olympic team in 2024.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I call Simon Jupp to make his maiden speech.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
First, let me take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, Sir Hugo Swire, for his service to East Devon and this House. Sir Hugo served the constituency and his country with distinction. He held several influential roles in government, including Minister of State at the Foreign Office. I count Sir Hugo as a friend, as do many in East Devon, because his efforts helped many people I meet across the constituency every week.
This House is a broad church of opinion, skills and expertise, no matter which rosette was worn on a dark and cold night in December. Party differences should be cast aside as every Member of this House comes together to back Great Britain as we become a truly global Britain, and the Commonwealth games is a superb opportunity to demonstrate the values we hold dear: freedom, democracy, tolerance and decency. Seventy-one nations will come together in Birmingham to celebrate their vibrant cultures and community spirit, with a fair bit of friendly competition.
As we spread our wings and embark on a new journey as an independent nation, we must always remember the rallying cry in 2016 from communities who felt left behind—many still do. I am incredibly humbled to stand here as the Member of Parliament for East Devon. My constituency boasts vast swathes of the Jurassic coast, rolling countryside, Georgian seaside towns and beautiful villages—and you are never too far from an honesty box or a farm shop. I was born in Devon, and my family have lived in the county for generations, with some hailing from Cornwall—we will not talk about that. Devon has given me some incredible opportunities during my career. I was part of the launch team for Radio Plymouth, a truly independent radio station for my home city. It is still going strong 10 years later, and I was delighted to attend its birthday celebrations last month. However, my career in journalism and politics took me away from my county, family and friends. London and the south-east continue to lure our home-grown talent, many of whom never return. That must change, but it is possible only if Devon speaks up, with one voice. Devon has largely backed my party for many years, and that loyalty must be rewarded. I look forward to working with the Government on repaying the people’s trust in us. Throughout the election campaign, people on doorsteps across East Devon told me they wanted to get Brexit done. We are getting it done, but we must deliver more.
Although many people flock to Devon for our stunning coastline and countryside every year, it is clear that our transport network leaves a lot to be desired, and never more so than now. Until last week, Exeter airport, based in my constituency, provided regular flights across the UK, the Channel Islands and Europe. The collapse of Flybe is devastating for Devon, and my thoughts are with those looking for new jobs. I went to Exeter airport on Friday to speak to staff and offer my support. I saw many brave faces that day, and I want them to know that I will do everything I can to support the future of Exeter airport.
Now is the time to invest in the south-west. Never again can our main railway line, connecting Devon to the rest of the country, be literally washed away. So, we must, to coin a phrase that I hope will catch on, “Get Dawlish Done”, and that is not all. The A303 is a main artery route into the south-west. It is the road that passes Stonehenge, and many of us are treated to that historic view for considerably longer than we anticipated. It is time we saw action, not just proposals and plans. I would take great delight in getting access to the Government’s PayPal account. Alas, I fear the password may contain the words “Powerhouse” and “Northern”. Nevertheless, I know that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet fully understand the opportunities and challenges facing Devon. “I’ll do it dreckly” is a phrase heard regularly in my home city of Plymouth. It means that we will get around to doing something, at some point, maybe, in the future—a Janner’s mañana, if you will. But we do not have any time to waste—we must deliver for Devon, now.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp); he spoke with wit and flair and it was good to see him put Ministers on notice that he will be a doughty fighter for his constituency. It was good, too, to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young). We Opposition Members miss his predecessor greatly, but I know that Mo Mowlam would have appreciated the humanity and humility that he showed in an excellent maiden speech.
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, because in a Second Reading debate we debate the principles of the Bill, and we cannot debate the principles of this Bill without debating the ethos of the games that we wish to host. The ethos of the games is generosity, which is why I shall start with first things first, and put on record the gratitude that the House feels not only to the chairman of the games, John Crabtree, and the chief executive, Ian Reid, but to Ian Ward and the team and officers at Birmingham City Council, along with Yvonne Davies and the team at Sandwell Council, for working miracles to step in when the bid from Durban failed. They have tried to do something spectacular, which is to put together a plan for the games in four and a half years, when normally it takes seven. The thanks of this House go out to everyone in the west midlands who has been involved in pulling together the plans for what will be the seventh Commonwealth games held on these islands. The games that we plan to showcase will be the greatest Commonwealth games in history—and not just because they will be held and showcased in the most diverse, innovative and creative heart of the Commonwealth: in the west midlands and in Birmingham.
The investment brought to our region is desperately needed. Some £800 million, about a quarter of it raised locally, is desperately needed. The facilities that have come are very welcome: I was delighted to look around the fantastic new Alexander stadium with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West); there is the fabulous new aquatic centre, which will be built in Smethwick; and of course there is the extraordinary new village that will be built in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), with 1,500 new homes—the down payment on an extraordinary new development of 5,000 homes—that will, in total, bring to the great, lucky constituency of Perry Barr some half a billion pounds of investment. Let no one go away from this debate without understanding clearly that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr is the greatest negotiator in this Chamber on behalf of the people he serves.
Our challenge is not simply to deliver the games and to deliver the investment, but to ensure that what is a great festival of sport is also a great festival of and a great renewal of our civic spirit. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and a generation should be lifted by opportunity—lifted out of poverty, out of unemployment and out of under-investment. We Opposition Members will fight like tigers to ensure that the games are a hand up for a community and not a handout for corporate sport. The Opposition know that our success will be judged not simply by the medals that we win, but by the lives that we change. We on this side of the House know that this festival of the Commonwealth games must be a festival of the civic gospel, too, which is why I turn to the father of the civic gospel: Mr George Dawson.
The story of George Dawson is not so well known today. He was a radical preacher—born in Portsmouth, I believe—who in the late 19th century made his home on Edward Street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). From the pulpit he preached with extraordinary power, but he was the father of civic inventiveness in our city of Birmingham. He founded the arts club and the free Birmingham Daily Press. He was the driving force behind the Shakespeare Memorial library. He was determined to ensure that our new city of Birmingham was not simply a city that was a democracy, but a city that had a democracy of culture. That inspired the great words that still sit above the free Shakespeare library:
“The time has come to give everything to everybody”.
That democratic ethos is what should inspire our approach to the games.
George Dawson had an extraordinary congregation: around 12 of them went on to be city councillors and around six of them went on to be lord mayors, including one Joseph Chamberlain. Together, they ensured that at the end of the 19th century our city was known as the best-governed city in the world. That is the ethos that should shape our approach to this Bill. With that in mind, what would George Dawson say about the Bill that the Minister has presented to us this afternoon? Well, the first thing he would say is that the games should be built in a genuinely inclusive way. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) says that we will try to amend the Bill to include our determination to ensure that the Commonwealth games is an accredited living wage employer. Why is that important to us? It is because, across our region, 571,000 people are paid less than what they need to live on. That is one in four workers in our region. Only one in 1,000 businesses in our region is actually accredited as a living wage employer. That is why we are determined to make sure that ours is the first living wage region in the country, and why we want to see the Commonwealth games lead the way. I hope that the Minister will agree to the amendment and not seek to have it voted down by Members on his Benches.
I hope that the Minister gets a chance to discuss this matter with Mr Lee Barron, our fabulous general-secretary of the TUC in the midlands, who is bringing together a Commonwealth collective to argue the case for a much stronger social charter, but accreditation of the living wage is absolutely front and centre of our demands.
Secondly, I hope that the Government will bring forward a report that ensures that, in the village, we will deliver at least 471 homes for social rent. Why is that important? It is because the number of homes that we have built for social rent in our region has fallen by 80% since 2010. We are building council homes so slowly that it will take us until 2052 to clear the council waiting lists. That is why I hope that, when the Minister comes to Birmingham, he will meet Saidul Haque and the Citizens UK team, which has been defining some of our demands to make sure that the village that we build on the games site is genuinely a village of homes that everyone can actually afford.
The third thing that I think George Dawson would have done in this debate is to quiz the Minister on how we make sure that the Commonwealth games genuinely creates a new foundation for disability sports. We are so proud that the Commonwealth games is coming to Birmingham, and we are also proud of the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, which sits just seven miles south of the Alexander stadium. I hope that, when the Minister next comes the Birmingham, he will ask for meetings with people at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine and with the Commonwealth games team to inquire how we can create a genuine foundation for the Invictus games in our city for years to come. The Commonwealth games has a proud record of inclusivity, but we want to use it as a catalyst for transforming the strength, power, depth and stretch of the teams and the facilities that we have in our city for disability sports.
Fourthly, let us try to make sure that the legacy of our Commonwealth games is not simply nice new facilities, but lives and a generation that are changed once and for all. Crucially, how do we use the games to bring forward a new generation of leaders? We have had cuts to the youth service in our region two and a half times harder than anywhere else in the country, so let us look at the money that the Chancellor announced for youth services— some £500 million over the years to come—and have £100 million of it in the west midlands. Let us put it together with the legacy team from the Commonwealth games and create a young Commonwealth leaders programme where, in every single ward in our region, we equip, train and give a platform to a young leader to show how we can bring together communities for the future, animated by that spirit that we have more in common than that which divides us. Let us bring forward the investment in a generation of young leaders who not just bring our community closer together, but strengthen the links between our region and those of Commonwealth countries.
Mr Khalid Mahmood
I appreciate what my right hon. Friend is saying about the young leaders programme. We have more than 160 nationalities living in Birmingham. The Commonwealth programme will be hugely welcome and hugely appreciated, but, more importantly, it will provide the leadership for the next generation, and I thank him for raising that.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who represents one of the youngest constituencies in our country. His constituency has suffered greatly as a result of cuts to youth services over the past few years. Let us use the possibilities of the Commonwealth games to begin turning that around. The final thing I think Dawson would say if he were here is that we should use available tickets to reward our local heroes. That has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, and is one of the great ideas to come from the hosting of the Olympics. We in the west midlands would appreciate having the chance to honour the people who make the world of difference to the city and region that we share.
We are so proud to be a poster child of a diverse community that lives together well. We are so proud that we will have the eyes of 1.5 billion people on us. We want to dazzle them, not simply with the greatest Commonwealth spectacle of sport that the world has ever seen, but with the kind of society that we have helped to build—a society that is dedicated to the Commonwealth principles of democracy, tolerance, inclusivity and peace, a society that we will have built not just with words, but with deeds.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after the maiden speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for East Devon (Simon Jupp) and for Redcar (Jacob Young), who both delivered passionate, powerful and sometimes humorous speeches.
I am delighted to speak in this debate for several other reasons, and not just because it is about the west midlands. I have always been a keen sportsman, but would I call myself an athlete? I do not think I would fit into that category. However, in preparation for the London marathon—I am running for the Good Shepherd Ministry in Wolverhampton—I have experienced training on a low level, and I can only be inspired by the athletes who are coming to take part. Also, as a soldier I served alongside many outstanding service personnel from the Commonwealth and forged relationships in hard times that will last a lifetime. I support the Royal British Legion’s “Stop the Service Charge” campaign; the brave men and women from the Commonwealth who have served should have their service recognised and should not have to pay for visas.
Earlier in the year, I delivered my maiden speech in the debate on global Britain. I now find myself speaking in a similar debate. The Commonwealth games will host 71 nations and territories, bringing with them 6,500 athletes and officials to showcase to 1.5 billion people. This is clearly a demonstration of global Britain. In the Olympics, we saw how well the country can do; now we will see how well the west midlands can do. Economically, the games are huge for us in the west midlands. We will benefit from just under £800 million of sports investment and £300 million of contracts, of which an estimated 4,000 are expected to be awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises. This will clearly be welcomed in the region.
I certainly would not be doing justice to my constituency as the MP for Wolverhampton South West if I did not mention our great city. I firmly believe that Wolverhampton has been left behind for decades, and that it needs levelling up. I am glad to see that it has recently got off to a great start with £390,000 for investment into homelessness in the city, £20 million for disabled access at the train station and £45 million from different funds for our high street, but more will be asked for. With three quarters of a billion pounds coming to the west midlands for the games, Ministers can be assured that I will be banging the drum for Wolverhampton.
The west midlands will be delighted to host visitors from all around the world for this event, but we need to ensure that we have everything we need to deliver it. The impact of the games on local transport infrastructure should not be underestimated. West Midlands Mayor Andy Street has produced an outstanding transport plan on connecting all areas of the west midlands over the next decade. I know that this will not be in place for the start of the games—it is not intended to be—but some work can be expedited. Funding should be brought forward for developments such as Tettenhall railway station, which would result in less traffic on the roads, and would assist supporters going to and from the games.
It would be easy to see the focus as being on Birmingham, but the west midlands will stand strong together and we will see that a world-class event is hosted. There are many great parts of the region. I do not think that anyone could visit the games without tasting Black Country battered chips or seeing the “Man on the Oss” in Wolverhampton. It all adds to the experience.
I want to ensure that I do not digress too far from the sporting legacy that we have in Wolverhampton. With Denise Lewis, Elvis Gordon, Tessa Sanderson and Vikram Solanki, we know how to deliver great athletes. So that I do not upset other hon. Members, I will not even start on the great run that the mighty Wolves are having at the moment. With pedigree like that in and from Wolverhampton, it would only be right that part of the games is hosted in the city. We have a great facility in Aldersley Leisure Village—one that I think of fondly because it is where I was announced as the MP for Wolverhampton South West. Or how about having some of the events run through the roads of Wolverhampton and experiencing some of the hills that I found in my marathon training?
There are many opportunities to showcase the whole of the west midlands at the games. It would surely be sad if Wolverhampton and all the other locations were not included in some way—and we want to make sure that we are not short-changing the visitors. It is evident that the Commonwealth games will showcase not just a truly global Britain but an outstanding west midlands, and that is why I will be supporting the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Navendu Mishra to make his maiden speech.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to start by congratulating the hon. Members for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for East Devon (Simon Jupp) on their excellent maiden speeches.
It is the greatest honour imaginable to serve the people of Stockport. I am indebted to the residents of my constituency for believing in me and for giving me their support at the ballot box. I am also grateful to my family for their love and encouragement over the years, without which I would never have been able to stand as a candidate.
My predecessor, Ann Coffey, served Stockport from 1992 to 2019. Her work in the all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children and adults is admired on both sides of this House. As a former social worker, she campaigned tirelessly against child sexual exploitation, and her work on this very important subject has left a lasting legacy for the better. I wish her luck with her future endeavours. I would also like to thank Andrew Bennett, the former Member for Stockport North and then for the neighbouring Denton and Reddish seat. Andrew was a source of great advice and inspiration during the general election campaign.
If the House will indulge me, I would like to mention another fellow Stopfordian: Samuel Perry, who attempted unsuccessfully to become the MP for Stockport and was subsequently elected as the Labour/Co-op Member for Kettering. Samuel is famous for his work as national secretary of the Co-operative party and as the father of another famous Stopfordian—Fred Perry, the Wimbledon champion and founder of the iconic clothing brand.
I am incredibly grateful to my election agent, Mr Chris Gleeson, and all those in Stockport Labour party for the hundreds of—often unsocial—hours that they dedicated to my campaign. In the Labour movement, we believe in the collective, and I am very lucky to have such a hard-working and dedicated team around me.
My constituency of Stockport is a beautiful part of the world, and, in my unbiased opinion, the jewel in the crown of our beloved north-west region. It has many iconic buildings and structures—and, of course, some of the warmest people in the world. Many people know Stockport because of our train station and the famous Stockport viaduct. At the time of its construction, it was the world’s largest viaduct and a major feat of Victorian engineering, and it is, to this day, one of the world’s biggest brick structures, with around 11 million bricks. It is an iconic feature of the Stockport skyline, and has inspired authors and artists alike. L. S. Lowry seems to have been haunted by the viaduct; it features in several of his works from the ’50s and ’60s. The paintings and drawings evoke a thriving, if grimy, industrial town.
Author and theorist Friedrich Engels described the viaduct in his book “The Condition of the Working Class in England”. Although many across the globe admire Engels’s political analysis, I do not share in his bleak and unflattering description of Stockport. In 1844, Engels wrote:
“Stockport is renowned throughout the entire district as one of the duskiest, smokiest holes, and looks, indeed, especially when viewed from the viaduct, excessively repellent.”
I am glad to report that, while Engels’s analysis of the capitalist exploitation of working people remains true today, his words about Stockport do not. These days, the smoke-belching chimneys are a thing of the past. In recent years, Stockport has had the fastest-growing economy in the north-west, with relatively high-value jobs. It is a brilliant place to live and to represent. The historic town centre, featured on film and TV, is a great place to be, especially if it is Foodie Friday.
Stockport is a varied and diverse place to live, but like many similar working communities across the UK, it is a tale of two towns: the haves and the have-nots. If you live in Heatons South, you can expect to live a lot longer than if you live where I live, in Brinnington and Central—10 years longer if you are a man, and eight if you are a woman. And it is not just how long you live; your chances of living with serious illness also vary enormously across the constituency.
Our town has a proud 400-year-old hat-making heritage. I was delighted to learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) about the history of hat making in her constituency, but I am pleased to share that Stockport’s Hat Works is the only dedicated hat museum in the UK.
Although Stockport trumps Luton in terms of hat museums, both our local football teams are known as the Hatters. Recent performances in the national league give us hope that we will soon be returning to the football league. My local football team, Stockport County, was founded in 1883 as the Heaton Norris Rovers, and changed its name in 1890. The club has a long history that includes the wonderful seasons in the early ’90s when it was managed by the revered Uruguayan Danny Bergara. I have made a commitment to help promote our local club and look forward to working with the fans and the new owner in the coming years.
Stockport is a vibrant market town with a lively town centre. We have a thriving civic society, and our people take great pride in their community. It is those people working and volunteering in our third sector who are the backbone of our community. We have some excellent local organisations that support people from across the north-west, and I want to use my maiden speech as an opportunity to highlight just a few of them.
I have been lucky enough to visit the Wellspring centre several times and see the work they do. Over the years, they have helped over 1,500 rough sleepers into accommodation. Their annual rucksack appeal helps people in need with warm clothes, food and other essentials in the winter. Jonathan and his team of staff and volunteers inspire me every day, working hard to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
I have also had the wonderful opportunity to visit Smart Works in my constituency, a registered charity that supports women with interview preparation and professional clothing. I met some of the staff and volunteers based in Stockport, and I was pleased to learn about the number of women who have had support over the years. The appalling rise in inequality and poverty is illustrated by the alarming increase in the use of food banks in my constituency.
One of my main priorities for my constituency is housing. All those years ago, the poor quality of housing impressed itself on Engels. These days, the situation is different, but the legacy of the right-to-buy policy and demographic and financial changes have resulted in huge pressures on housing in Stockport. We need to make sure that Stopfordians do not get priced out of living and thriving in our town. I want to ensure that high numbers of good-quality social and affordable homes are built in Stockport.
Another important pledge in my campaign was bringing high-quality green jobs into Stockport, to make sure that people have access to good jobs locally, rather than having to travel long distances for work. Improving public transport is also an issue close to my heart. We need reliable, affordable and frequent bus services, as well as the Metrolink tram brought back into our town. The leader of Stockport Council, Elise Wilson, is a long-standing campaigner for better public transport, and I look forward to working with her to ensure that this issue gets the priority it deserves.
Yesterday was International Women’s Day, so it would be remiss of me not to mention Suffragette Square in Stockport, which was named to commemorate four important women in Stockport’s history: Gertrude Powicke, Elsie Plant and Hannah Winbolt were Stopfordian women who were all active in the suffrage movement, and Elizabeth Raffald was a pioneering Stopfordian from the 1700s. Another woman who has inspired me is Mrs Jayaben Desai, of Indian heritage, who famously led the Grunwick dispute of mostly women workers, which was a landmark strike in the fight for fairness and equality in Britain.
Stockport and the north-west have a proud history of radicalism and protest—whether it was the Chartists, who fought for working-class rights and influence; the suffragettes, who campaigned for women’s right to vote; the Kinder Scout mass trespass, which helped to establish the right to ramble; or those who marched for democratic rights at St Peter’s field and were slaughtered at the Peterloo massacre. People often think of Byron or Shelley when they think of poetic accounts of Peterloo, but Samuel Bamford was at St Peter’s field on that bloody day and captured the struggle of ordinary Stopfordians in his 1816 poem “The Fray of Stockport”.
The brave workers at the Roberts Arundel engineering works in Stockport fought for the right to organise against poverty wages and an oppressive employer. The Roberts Arundel dispute started as a local strike involving 145 workers, but became a dispute of national significance as millions of workers threatened a concerted solidarity strike across the north-west. Hugh Scanlon, the late president of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, said that
“the Roberts Arundel dispute in Stockport had a small and seemingly ‘parochial’ beginning, yet exploded into an issue that had great repercussions for the Labour movement nationally and internationally”.
I would like to pay tribute to the late, great AEU Stockport district secretary John Tocher, who fought on behalf of workers in my constituency all those years ago, and his comrade David Heywood, who continues to be a source of advice and inspiration.
As socialists and representatives of the trade union and labour movement, we stand on the shoulders of giants. One such giant was my dear friend and Salford councillor John Ferguson, who would be delighted to see me in this place making my maiden speech. Sadly, he passed away just before the election. John was a giant of north-west Labour politics and a lifelong trade unionist, and he always had the wisest of words to offer when the going got tough.
Personally, I owe so much to the trade union movement, which has supported me throughout my working life. From courses on workplace representation to political education, my union Unite has always stood with me. In fact, my maternal grandfather, Mr Awadhesh Pandey, was involved in the All India Railwaymen’s Federation, and active in the 1974 national railway strike, standing up for better pay and conditions for his fellow workers. I hope to do justice to my grandfather’s memory by standing up against exploitation. The history of our movement shows us that we can achieve so much when we stand up collectively to fight for what is right and just. We owe so much to the social movements that won us fundamental rights. Yet, unfortunately, the injustices, inequalities and exploitation that inspired these movements remain.
Public services in Stockport have been decimated by a decade of Government cuts and brutal austerity. Over £100 million has been stripped from our council’s budget. Our local NHS trust has been underfunded by £170 million, and there is an £8 million funding shortfall in our schools. Austerity was not inevitable; it was a deliberate choice by the political elite to make ordinary working-class people pay the price for an economic crisis they did not create. As Stockport’s new MP, I stand with these ordinary working people. I vow to continue our town’s proud tradition of radicalism and protest, and to stand up for hope, equality and justice. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make my maiden speech.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for East Devon (Simon Jupp) on their excellent maiden speeches, and it is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). It may not surprise him to learn that I do not quite share his conclusions about the relevance of Engels today, but it was a very passionate and informative speech about the history of Stockport, and I look forward to hearing more contributions from him in his time in this House.
With the sometimes unsettling news around us, including talk of self-isolation, it is very pleasing that I can speak in a debate that will celebrate and look forward to a time when lots of people, from far and wide, will meet to cheer on international athletes who have travelled to this country to achieve their personal best. The return of the Commonwealth games to the United Kingdom so soon after the Glasgow games is exciting and full of promise—so exciting, indeed, that this committed east midlander finds himself thrilled for the people of the west midlands.
As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) identified, we are hosting these games without the usual lead-in time. Durban had been awarded the 2022 games by the Commonwealth Games Federation, but this offer was withdrawn after Durban failed to meet several obligations in its bid. That said, I believe that we are in a very strong position to host the games. The Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002 demonstrated to the world generally, and to the International Olympic Committee in particular, that the United Kingdom was capable of hosting a large-scale, multi-nation sporting event. This was, I am sure, one of the key factors in London’s success three years later, when it won the bid to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. I see that this Bill will create an organising committee along the same lines as the organising committee created for London. This model worked very well then, as it later did in Glasgow, and I trust that it will also be a success in Birmingham.
I am, alas, not a natural sportsman, but my enthusiasm for these games is personal. In 2011 and 2012, I was employed by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. For 18 months, I had the privilege of working alongside colleagues from across the globe, helping to stage what is widely regarded as the best-organised Olympics games ever. This enthusiasm was widespread: for the first and I think last time, I saw strangers on the London underground excitedly chatting to one other during those games. My own team, which included 50 volunteers, ranging from students to lawyers and diplomats, gave up hours of their time and worked hard but unwaveringly to make the games a success. I have no doubt that the army of volunteers soon to be recruited for Birmingham will have a similarly deeply rewarding experience.
I was lucky enough to be the person who handed the Union flag to Sir Chris Hoy before he carried it into the Olympic stadium at the opening ceremony. At the closing ceremonies, I handed the Olympic and Paralympic flags to the then Mayor of London, before he handed them over to the mayor of Rio. These experiences enabled me to see, at close quarters, the power of the games: the ability to draw people together in a unifying national moment; the way that the games inspired the public, especially children; and, of course, the regeneration of east London. I look forward to seeing the Birmingham games do for Perry Barr what the London games did for Stratford—transforming the area with desirable housing, as well as the planned creation of thousands of new jobs.
If I may, I will turn very briefly to the substance of the Bill. The restrictions on advertising and trading might appear draconian, but they are needed. These sporting events do rely on corporate sponsorship to succeed, and without the kind of brand protection envisaged in the Bill, the games would not be possible. Similarly, the creation of a games transport plan with dedicated games lanes, might appear onerous, but they are necessary. As a games lane user myself during London 2012, I saw how they are vital for the delivery of a large, multinational sporting event—something that I understand was learned from painful experiences in previous games.
Finally, I am pleased that this Bill has broad cross-party support. The guiding hand of Tessa Jowell is sadly no longer with us, but I think the fact that she was one of those who, along with Lord Coe and others, demonstrated to the world that we can do this sort of event and do it well means that Birmingham 2022 will be part of her legacy. The motto of London 2012 was “Inspire a Generation”, and it did. The motto of Birmingham 2022 is “Are you Game?”, and we are. I wish the Bill and these games every success.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will briefly pay my respects to Councillor Keith Linnecor, whose funeral I attended this morning. He served in my constituency for 24 years, and he was a great stalwart and a great local councillor. The only currency he believed in was his shoe leather, and he spent a huge amount of it in the constituency and in his ward. I express my condolences to all of his family.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this debate on the Commonwealth games. As a number of colleagues and friends have mentioned, I am the Member of Parliament in whose constituency most of the games will take place. I was the first Member of Parliament in Birmingham to call for the Commonwealth games to be brought to Birmingham, before we actually got them. During the initial competition for the games I raised the issue, but I got slightly non-committal responses from a lot of the leaders across Birmingham. I thought it was a fantastic opportunity, because I believed it would give us a huge opportunity for investment in my constituency. I wanted that to happen because it would give us a chance to celebrate the many cultures we have across Birmingham, and as I have said, I wanted that investment in Birmingham and my constituency.
The Minister has raised most of the issues, and I had the privilege to meet him beforehand to discuss some of my concerns. The first point he raised, among others, at the start of his speech concerned the road regulations for the games and effective co-ordination between the relevant transport and traffic authorities. I accept that the other points were also very valid, but I would like to look at that issue. It is very important because we have had a number of significant meetings in my constituency.
I am a trainee of another famous Brummie, who came from Norwich. Sir Richard Knowles was a great local government leader who managed under the Conservatives to be able to get the NEC, the International Conference Centre and the National Indoor Arena; he was a great Brummie—an adopted Brummie—who believed that the best possible way to negotiate was to move forward and to be able to do what is right for the people of Birmingham. He knew how to get the best possible deal for the people of Birmingham. He did that during the huge demise of the great industries that we had; in Birmingham we had over 1,001 trades, but unfortunately they are not there now as much as we would like. I am grateful in my constituency to what used to be the EEF—the Engineering Employers’ Federation—for our engineering and manufacturing training school. It is flourishing: there are three times more students than seven years ago, and it is doing a fantastic job.
We are concentrating today on skills—on the skills needed for the housing programme in relation to these changes. I wholly welcome the 1,000 houses and the promise of a further 4,000, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) mentioned. I strongly support that, but I a ask that there be more social housing. We are hugely underserved in terms of housing; we want more housing to be built and we want to support that programme. One of the reasons why I originally pushed for the Commonwealth games to be held here is the huge investment in terms of housing that it would give.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—for the royal borough, or town as he calls it, of Sutton Coldfield—spoke about the legacy. I wanted there to be a huge legacy for my constituency; that is why I pushed for this originally. I wanted a legacy that was positive and that would lead my constituents to prosperity, and the whole of Birmingham to prosperity—and Sandwell and the rest of the adjoining areas.
However, there is a sad tinge to that. My constituents currently feel that they are being pushed not towards a legacy but towards strife: the strife that they will face locally on a daily basis—the work they will have to do to overcome some of the road infrastructure changes being proposed. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—who is not here—have had a number of meetings and we have had over 400 people coming to them. That is unprecedented, and this has gone on for over a year and a half—two years, almost—ever since the initial plans came up. I want to support Birmingham City Council and I want to support the games. I have had a very good and positive relationship both with the chairman of the games and the chief executives. We have regular meetings to discuss some of the issues, including the integration of the local community in carrying out some of the work and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill said, how to look after the youth.
The games organising committee is very supportive of that and so is the executive structure within it. But the trouble I have at the moment is twofold. The first is with Birmingham City Council in terms of trying to knock off a flyover—I use that term advisedly. It is the thoroughfare from Birmingham city centre to the M6 and Walsall, crossing West Bromwich East just slightly on the left-hand side—I see the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) in her place. There is huge concern, certainly from the hon. Lady, the Members for Wolverhampton and me, about the transport infrastructure that will be put before us, because it will isolate my community. It will create a number of issues that I want to address.
The community is so concerned that the A34 safety action group has put forward a pre-litigation letter to the council—to the leader and the cabinet member—on particular issues that it is not happy about. For instance, there have not been any road safety audits. The usual procedure is to look at the displacement effects and the effect on traffic safety and traffic flow. I have taken the time to go and look at the modelling that Birmingham council has produced. I still await the figures on how the modelling was developed, however, because the modelling it showed me bore no relation to the traffic in that area, and it was very difficult to see how that traffic would be managed. A direct access out through the flyover is being removed and solid traffic lights are being put in, and access is being restricted to the One Stop shopping centre. That is a huge issue, because that centre is essentially an island: we have a railway line on one side, and it is landlocked on the other. The main road is the only access, so if work is started to remove the flyover, there will be problems.
There will be issues getting business through my One Stop shopping centre, which is essentially the town’s shopping centre so far as we are concerned. Many good brands have come in, and they have done so because of the huge trade they do. Its Asda is one of the largest trading Asda stores in the west midlands, and we also have Clarks and Marks & Spencer, and a number of banks and other institutions, but we also have some very good local traders, and their livelihoods will be put at risk because of the roadworks that need to be done to deliver this. It is therefore very important that the Minister looks at the consequences. We are talking about legacy, but there will not be a positive one, certainly not for the shopkeepers or other people who will have to use it afterwards. The modelling shown to me is, I believe, not accurate in any sense at all.
No value-for-money analysis has been done, and the litigation process that my constituents have put through shows how desperately they feel. In any procedure there would be a value-for-money analysis. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill: Birmingham has been deprived of funding. During the past 10 years Birmingham was deprived of funding and has lost over £700 million. I accept that, but if Birmingham then goes ahead with this folly, spending much more money, my worry is where that money will come from. Is the Minister prepared to underwrite that money because of the Commonwealth games? I have been told that the Government will underwrite the money for that. I do not want more money coming out from the already-deprived citizens of Birmingham, so it is very important that I get some answers.
There has been hardly any constructive consultation on this issue. A number of people have been trying to get information. The initial consultation was very narrow, covering literally just 50 yards off the highway, and most of that was industrial areas that those conducting the consultation wanted to consult on. This is not a model consultation. Also, the initial consultation was done in July and August, which is of course a very good time to do a consultation for those who do not want to hear what people are thinking: the majority of parents and others are on holiday and will not be present.
Referring to the geographical areas of my constituency, there was no consultation at all in Handsworth, Newtown, Kingstanding, and Boldmere and Pheasey, and very little consultation in Birchfield, Lozells and Aston, the areas immediately surrounding the flyover and the centre as well.
The Labour party regularly does an equality impact assessment for the BAME community, and indeed we should do that, but there has been no equality impact for the BAME community in that area. We rightly asked the Government when the changes are coming in and what the assessment is of the effects on the BAME community. The ward of Aston, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), is 85.5% BAME, Birchfield ward in my constituency is 79.2%, Lozells in my constituency is 88%, Newtown in the constituency of my right hon. Friend is 70%, Handsworth in my constituency is 80%, and Handsworth Wood in my constituency is 80%, Perry Barr in my constituency is 48%, Soho in my right hon. Friend’s constituency is 60%, Oscott in my constituency is 30% and Kingstanding is 30%.
I believe the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) is still a councillor for that area. I congratulate him on the sturdy work he has done on this matter to support his constituents. All those issues have not been dealt with properly and that will leave a huge bad taste in the mouth at the election.
The aggravation for my constituents is such that they are prepared to demonstrate—the elderly, single mothers, people who are ill, those in wheelchairs, parents and individuals. I have been to a number of their meetings. People who have served in the police force and as civil servants are all prepared to act because they believe that this is not the right way to treat the people of my constituency. I am sad that I have to stand here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill says that I am a good negotiator. I hope that raising these issues on the Floor of the House will bring those points to the fore. There has been no work on compensation if this is to go ahead. The livelihoods of smaller tradespeople in the One Stop Shopping centre and across the area will be hugely affected. That is not the legacy I want for my constituency.
My constituents, including the A34 safety action group, are also concerned about the new Sprint bus service—the bendy bus, as we commonly call it. It has essentially failed everywhere in the country. It was stopped in London in 2004-05. It did not work. The buses were over 57 foot long. They used to be called the free bus: they were stopped in part because people would get on through the back doors and not pay for their journeys. The buses that Transport for West Midlands and the Mayor are considering will be diesel, and this is where we have a real issue with the environment. I am very concerned. We need to reflect on why the Mayor and Transport for West Midlands are adamant about pushing that. The effect, particularly on Walsall Road, which is a run-through and has parking bays, will be that the infirm, the ill, the elderly and young children will not be able to get a bus to their homes. There has been no consultation and only one meeting with the Mayor. He did not come back again. We took a number of key people to a meeting with the chief executive of Transport for West Midlands. She has not come back to us or to me. I managed to steal another meeting while she was meeting my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South. The proposal now is not to move the bus into Walsall South, but to keep it in Perry Barr.
We have an excellent bus service called the X50. If Transport for West Midlands has the money, I would prefer it if it made the buses electric. They would run faster than the proposed Sprint bus system it wants to introduce and they would be much cleaner. Their frequency could be increased. With the money the Mayor will have—some £110 million across Birmingham—fares could be reduced. If we want better, cleaner air in the centre of Birmingham, we should have green buses and affordable fares for families, people not in work and the elderly. We want to support them by having clean air in Birmingham by changing our transport system from diesel to electric. That has been my argument throughout, but the Mayor and the chief executive of Transport for West Midlands have not bothered to listen to a single word from my constituents.
Those are the two key issues I wanted to raise, because they are important to my constituents. It is important that the Commonwealth games is not shown in the media with people protesting across the A34, which is next to the Alexander stadium. I do not want to see that. I want to see a happy and joyous coming together of the Commonwealth community. I want the people of Birmingham and the people of my constituency to be proud of their heritage and to be part of a legacy that increases the local economy, housing and so on. There is a transport obligation on the Government, so if these issues are not looked into, I will be looking to table an amendment in Committee.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise to support this important and necessary Bill. I do so as a Black Country MP and as chair of the all-party group for the Commonwealth games. It is a particular pleasure to speak after so many excellent maiden speeches. I am sure the grandfather of the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) would have been prouder than he could imagine to watch him making his maiden speech. There were also excellent maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for East Devon (Simon Jupp). My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon made the rather brave confession that some of his family hail from Cornwall. It is very much in that spirit that I make my own confession: I am a very proud Black Country man, but I was in fact born in Birmingham—in the old Sorrento hospital in Moseley.
As 10-year-old Dudley schoolboy, I remember watching in October 1986 with my classmates and the teacher the announcement that Birmingham had sadly missed out to Barcelona on the chance to host the 1992 Olympic games. Finally, 30 years later, we have an opportunity to bring one of the world’s biggest and greatest multi-sport events to the west midlands. We need to ensure that the games will be a success. We know that they will be a sporting success. We know that the organising committee will be led by Ian Reid. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) mentioned, he has some experience in this area. I think he was actually chief finance officer of the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth games, rather than chief executive. However, having done so much to help to make Glasgow 2014 such a success, I am confident that the sporting organisation of Birmingham 2022 will be in the very safest of hands.
More than sporting success in summer 2022, what modern sporting events on this scale are judged on is the legacy they leave behind after the sportsmen have gone. It will be fantastic to welcome 6,500 athletes and officials from 71 Commonwealth nations and territories. They will be watched by 1 million spectators in the stadium, in the other venues and on the roadside, and by 1.5 billion people worldwide. However, what will make a real difference for my constituents and for people across the west midlands is creating a Commonwealth games legacy. Since the Manchester Commonwealth games in 2002, the economic legacy built up and left by Commonwealth games has increased at a rapid pace. The 2014 games in Glasgow are understood to have brought £740 million to the regional and national economy—in Glasgow and wider Scotland—while the 2018 Gold Coast games are projected to have delivered a £1.3 billion boost to the economy in Queensland. That is the economic legacy that we want for Birmingham, the west midlands and the country as a whole.
However, more than just the economic legacy, we are looking for a sporting legacy, with greater participation, greater interest and greater levels of activity. Speaking as the father of two school-age children, I know that someone being able to see sporting success when they are growing up—particularly when that sporting success is happening just down the road—is a major contributing factor to their interest in competitive sport and their inclination to get involved and compete at whatever level. It is great that we will see the refurbished Alexander stadium and the new aquatics venue in Smethwick, but we want the sporting legacy to be spread out across the west midlands.
It was good to see the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), on the Treasury Bench earlier in the debate, because I know how much work he has done with Halesowen athletic and cycling club in his constituency. We are proud of it across Dudley borough—it is genuinely one of the great cycling clubs in the country. It has produced former Olympians such as Jess Varnish and Helen Scott, the Paralympic, world and Commonwealth games multi-gold medallist. It is an exceptionally well run club, which engages the community right across the borough and beyond extremely well, and its level of success deserves the very best facilities. It is about time that we had a world-class cycling facility—a world-class velodrome—in the west midlands. The campaign has been run by David Viner of Halesowen cycling club, and my hon. Friend has been doing so much to support it. I very much hope that the Government, the games organisers and all those involved in planning how to secure this sporting legacy will give the most serious consideration to how they can help make a world-class velodrome happen.
Beyond the sporting legacy, we have the opportunity to transform so much of the regional economy. In terms of the direct investment in the games, £300 million-worth of contracts will be available, 4,000 of which will have values of less than £175,000 to allow a greater range of small and medium-sized enterprises to bid, get involved and get a share of the economic value of contributing to the west midlands’ first major multi-sport event. I very much hope that a large number of those contracts will go to west midlands SMEs, so that as well as the sporting legacy and the direct investment legacy, we can attract the high-quality jobs and develop the high-quality skills that the Black Country and the wider west midlands need and local people deserve.
This is an incredibly ambitious programme. It will help to move people into real jobs and will offer experiences that will be beneficial to their long-term career prospects. Beyond that, it will be beneficial to raising aspirations relating to what it is possible for young people leaving school and people training now in the west midlands to achieve, and what they can hope to build in their careers. We can do so much to shape that.
The games will be a huge showcase—not just a sporting, but a cultural showcase. They will be a trade and investment showcase not just for Birmingham but for the Black Country and the wider west midlands, and they will be a showcase for the 1.5 billion people watching. We have to get this right. The Bill is necessary for us to get it right, and it has my complete and absolute support.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to discuss the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill as a Birmingham MP, and as someone who has been excited about the games since they were first awarded. This morning, in front of the iconic Birmingham library, the official Commonwealth countdown clock was unveiled, revealing the 870 days remaining until the opening ceremony. I cannot wait for 2022, when the people of Birmingham will warmly welcome thousands of people from around the world to our wonderful city. We will have the eyes of over 1 billion people on us as we deliver what I am sure will undoubtedly be one of the greatest Commonwealth games ever.
As I am sure the Minister knows, I have been working closely with the leader of Birmingham City Council, Ian Ward, the chair of the games organising committee, John Crabtree, and Ian Reid, the chief executive. I have been really impressed with their desire to produce a games that delivers for everyone and I look forward to continuing to work with them to bring this vision to fruition. I am proud that my constituency will play host to some of the events, and I look forward to cheering on our athletes at the University of Birmingham, which is providing venues for squash and hockey, and the world-famous Edgbaston cricket ground, which is hosting all the women’s cricket matches.
The potential legacy impact cannot be overstated, and we have already seen plans for new homes. More sustainable transport links are being developed and built.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some extremely important points. As a neighbouring MP in the west midlands, I welcome the games coming to our region. She talks about Edgbaston being a world-leading cricket venue. Leamington, of course, is the world-leading venue for lawn bowls—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I thank hon. Members for their encouragement. While we welcome the event coming to Warwick and Leamington, sustainable transport is one of the issues that we face. Does she agree that we need to see this as a fantastic chance to invest heavily in restructuring the sort of transport links that we need for the future?
Preet Kaur Gill
My hon. Friend makes a really good, important point, and he reminds us of the game of bowls in the Commonwealth games, which is very important too.
The Commonwealth games provide the chance for local residents to gain skills and vital employment opportunities, and they are an opportunity for other positive social changes as well. The west midlands has one of the lowest levels of living wage accreditation in the country. Birmingham City Council has been accredited by the Living Wage Foundation since 2012. The games have the opportunity to deliver good-quality, well-paid jobs by following suit, and I am really pleased that this is being championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), Labour’s metro Mayor candidate for the west midlands, who we heard earlier making a fantastic speech.
While I support and welcome the inclusion of promoting sustainability in the annual reporting requirements of the organising committee, I urge the Minister to amend that to include specific mention of the sustainable development goals. Tokyo’s sustainability concept for the Olympics this year specifically aims to
“contribute to the realisation of Sustainable Development Goals…through the delivery of the Games.”
This is a real opportunity to do the same with the Commonwealth games, using them as a call to action to eradicate poverty and inequalities and improve health and education, alongside sustainable economic growth and tackling climate change.
The additional costs of delivering many of the services and infrastructure around the games will have to be met by local authorities, and unfortunately, the Bill does not contain any information about steps to raise additional revenue so that the cost of the games is not passed on to the people of the west midlands, either in increased taxation or in a reduction in service frequency or quality. What assessment have the Government made of other forms of revenue—for example, a hotel levy—during the games to counter the additional pressure that attendees and visitors will put on local services? Many cities around the world already do this.
I hope the Minister will take on board my suggestions. As a strong supporter of the games, I would welcome the opportunity to meet him to discuss these ideas further to ensure the games are the best they can be, both for the three weeks they are held and for the legacy that Birmingham and the wider west midlands deserve.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I still serve as a Birmingham City councillor. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) about the late Councillor Keith Linnecor, whom I have known since I was 15; he was a good guy, a stalwart of local politics in Birmingham, and will be sorely missed. I saw a picture on Twitter earlier of some flowers at his funeral with woolly hedgehogs on them. He would have loved that as he had a nigh on obsession with hedgehogs. I also congratulate those hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today, the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and my hon. Friends the Members for East Devon (Simon Jupp) and for Redcar (Jacob Young); they were excellent first contributions, and I look forward to many more to come.
I am proud that the Commonwealth games are coming to my home city of Birmingham, the city where I have lived my entire life, and I recognise the enormous positive contribution they will make to the city for years to come, in terms of jobs and skills, housing and health—I personally hope to benefit from the latter in the coming years—but I have huge concerns about the athletes village, which is the element of the games that is solely the responsibility of Birmingham City Council. I know the area fairly well as I went to university there. It is the site of the old Birmingham City University. It has now been flattened. When the games were touted a couple of years ago, the leader of the city council, Councillor Ian Ward, in order to get the idea through his own group, said in a crunch meeting that it would have no impact on the revenue budget of the city council. Unfortunately, we now find that it will have an impact of £2 million a year for the next 40 years—and that is before the new business model is released tonight, in time for next week’s cabinet meeting. I urge the Minister to look closely at this when it is published, as it is important that the council leader and the council keep their word and that services on the frontline are not disrupted by their financial mismanagement of the athletes village in Perry Barr. Some 93% of the construction budget has already been allotted to only 72% of the bed spaces, and that is before a single brick has been laid. I have huge concerns about this. Also, just next door is the former National Express depot. In the original budget, the cost of moving it just a couple of hundred yards down the road was put at £2 million. Thanks to the council’s mismanagement, that has spiralled to £15 million.
An equally controversial element of the games in the city at the moment is the removal of the Perry Barr flyover, at a cost of £27 million.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Birmingham City Council should listen to residents from across the west midlands, including mine in West Bromwich East, who know that the demolition of the flyover will cause nothing but chaos in the area and that this is not the legacy we want in Great Barr from the Commonwealth games?
Gary Sambrook
That is perfectly true. It will have a huge impact and ripple effect in the local area. The council needs to listen to local people, including the 15,000 people from Birmingham alone who have signed a petition, and those in neighbouring authorities who have also complained to the council that it will have an adverse impact on transport.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My hon. Friend, who is making a powerful speech, mentions neighbouring authorities and transport. Wycombe lies between London and Heathrow and Birmingham, and I am slightly concerned that the powers in clause 26 to put in place temporary prohibitions or restrictions on roads are drawn very widely. Would he join me in inviting the Minister to say that there are no plans to restrict the M40 between London and Birmingham? We would not want any unintended costs to fall upon the people of Wycombe, who like me, I am sure, are looking forward to watching the games.
Gary Sambrook
I was worried for a moment that my hon. Friend was about to quiz me on my knowledge of clause 26—I was starting to panic—but I am sure the Minister will have heard his intervention.
As well as the neighbouring local authorities, Highways England has also complained about the impact the removal will have on local people. This is not just a party political point, or opposition for opposition’s sake; as proven by the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, this is a cross-party issue that is really impacting on Birmingham. It is literally the only source of negative publicity around the games and unfortunately the only bit that is wholly the responsibility of the city council.
I am also concerned that the village will not provide enough social and affordable housing locally. The last figure I heard was that only 4% of the housing on the site was to be social housing, which was six percentage points lower than the 10%—
Gary Sambrook
I thank the right hon. Gentleman—I will have a look afterwards. A couple of months ago, the figure was only 4%, but I will have a look at that.
Gary Sambrook
I will do.
In conclusion, we need to ensure that the legacy of the games in Birmingham includes that ripple effect of regeneration around the city as far south as my own constituency and provides the jobs and skills we desperately need. Let us hope that the legacy does not include 40 years of debt for the city council because unfortunately it has been unable to manage a budget yet again.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook) and to have listened to some excellent maiden speeches. I am pleased to take part in this debate, not least because I had an important statutory instrument Committee on coronavirus at 6 pm, so had to slip seamlessly out of and back into the Chamber. I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the fact that the 2022 Commonwealth games will be held in Birmingham. It is a brilliant opportunity for the country, especially the west midlands—which, I am sure hon. Members have noticed, I am not from. I wish to focus my remarks on part 3 of the Bill, specifically with regard to ticket touting. As the House will know, I have campaigned against abuses in the secondary ticketing market for over a decade, and it can rest assured that I will not stop until fans stop being ripped off. We have had some notable achievements, in the last 18 months especially, but we are not there yet. The Bill provides the Government with an opportunity to address some of the issues relating to the secondary ticketing market. The Minister outlined some of those in his opening speech and I will be excited to see the detail when it works its way through the House.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The hon. Member is making an excellent point about ticket touts. Does she agree that it is very important that people across the UK can attend the games, no matter their socioeconomic class or how much money they have in their pocket, and that the organisers take ticket pricing extremely seriously?
Mrs Hodgson
I totally agree, and I shall say more about that shortly. I know that the Minister and, in particular, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State share our passion for fairness in this regard, and I hope that the Bill will be a strong instrument in sorting out some of the worst aspects of touting in the ticket marketplace.
Part 3 says that touting tickets for the games will be prohibited. Hear, hear: that is excellent news. It will help the organising committee to ensure that tickets are both accessible and affordable for genuine fans, and I welcome that aim. The ethos of the sporting industry is to give people who will not necessarily ever have attended a sporting event—people who are typically young, or from a low socioeconomic background—access to affordable tickets, so that they can attend events and engage with, and potentially take up, the sport involved. They may then become the grassroots that can keep a sport alive. It is outrageous that ticket touts, operating outside the law, can take that opportunity away from people who might need it and sell tickets, many times above their face value, for personal profit.
Ticket touting does not benefit the sport, the players, the organisers or the venue; it only benefits the tout. Tickets for the games will be rightly sought after and I am sure that we will all try to get hold of some, so how will the Government enforce the regulations? What support will Birmingham Trading Standards be given to enforce them, in the form of finance and resources, and will West Midlands Police be given additional funds to support Trading Standards? Given that much of the touting activity targeting the games will be online, will the National Trading Standards e-Crime Team receive additional funds to tackle online breaches of the legislation?
Birmingham Trading Standards does not have the expertise or, currently, the trained staff that are needed in this highly specialised area. A Minister in the other place, Baroness Barran, said:
“Enforcement officers already have a suite of investigatory powers available to them through schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2020; Vol. 802, c. 200.]
However, enforcement officers do not have the funding and resources that they need to implement these powers, and the “deterrent” in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not work. I hope that the convictions, just two weeks ago, and the sentencing of two ticket touts in Leeds will deter ticket touts; but they, too, will know that enforcement agencies do not have the necessary resources to do anything about their illegal behaviour. There are simply too many touts for an under-resourced agency to deal with.
Touts have been able to get away with it scot free for far too long, and the Bill must ensure that that is a thing of the past. According to the Department’s press release about the Bill last year,
“buying tickets will be clear, simple and affordable.”
However, the Minister will be aware that Google has allowed Viagogo to have “paid-for ads” for most events at the top of its search engine. Will the Government ensure that Google does not take sponsored ads for games tickets from secondary sites such as those of Viagogo and StubHub? As the Minister knows, ads for Viagogo that appear at the top of Google searches give consumers the impression that this a trusted and verified website, but that could not be further from the truth. Will he please tell us who, if the ads do appear and tickets are found on the secondary ticket websites, will be responsible for reporting the existence of those tickets? The games organisers will have enough to do without having to search and check that there are no fraudulent tickets for sale online. What guidance and support will the organising committee be given to establish a mechanism to reassure those who buy tickets that they are buying them from official ticketing platforms for the games?
London 2012 showed that we can protect tickets for events. That worked really well, and the Commonwealth games, or any other ticketed event, should not be any different. As we saw in 2012, ticketing regulations must be supranational, and ticket touting must be made an offence anywhere in the world. People operating abroad or using servers that are abroad, and selling tickets to the games, must be subjected to these regulations if we are to protect consumers and the reputation of the games. It should not matter where a person is, or where the server that that person is using is: ticket touting must be an offence anywhere in the world.
The Government can and should protect consumers from the abuses of the secondary ticket market. The Commonwealth games need not have a special status; the Government can use the points that I have briefly made as a blueprint for other high-demand music, sporting and theatre events that attract visitors to the UK. I urge the Minister to look into this issue as a matter of urgency. The Government need to fund enforcement agencies properly, so that we can stamp out ticket abuse once and for all.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wear the same badge as the Minister to promote the wonderful Commonwealth games.
This has been an excellent debate, in which we heard several maiden speeches. We heard from the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who has very big shoes to fill, as his predecessor was a force to be reckoned with in the House. We heard from the hon. Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp), who expressed passionate concern for the Flybe staff who had tragically lost their jobs in such a sudden and shocking way. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his passion, and I wish that there had been more support for those staff members. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) described a tale of two towns, and the health inequalities in Stockport. I hope that the Bill will create a vision for dealing with the health inequalities in Birmingham, which, like Stockport, has corners of deprivation that we hope the games will help to address.
What has shone through all the contributions we have heard today is the passion that we all share for the Commonwealth games, and our determination to make a success of this event. Last week I was at the Alexander stadium with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne)—and my, what a fine Mayor he would make! He talked of his vision of an ethos of generosity—I know that the people of Birmingham are extremely generous—and a sense of civic spirit to lift the underinvested corners of the Birmingham and west midlands region and promote the arts more generally. Those who visit Birmingham absolutely must see the best collection of Anglo-Saxon gold in the country, the Edwardian tea rooms, and, of course, the jewellery quarter, which shows off the best of Birmingham.
We know from the London 2012 games—and we can see forward to the finals of the Euros this summer—that, once again, we can show not only that we are fantastic at elite sports and at hosting events, but that we have that “trickle down”. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), there are substantial areas in which the Bill could be improved, but while we seek assurances and improvements, we are in general very supportive of the games.
Let me deal directly with those areas that need improvement, so that the Minister has some homework to do before Committee. First, many Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the living wage. It is important that the games happen not just “in” the west midlands but “with” the west midlands, and we want every contractor, and every sub-contractor, to benefit from an improved hourly rate. What an impact that would have! We know from people who move from the minimum wage to the real living wage what a difference it makes to them not to have to do two jobs, but to do one job and be paid properly for it. I also hope that the Minister will reflect on the concept of young Commonwealth leaders, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby. That fantastic idea would go some way towards replacing the terrible lack of youth work in the Birmingham and west midlands area.
Secondly, the games must be free to air. Contracting them out would be a real mistake, given the excitement that they can generate. If people have to sign on, start logging on and paying extra money, that will seriously detract from the allure of the games. Thirdly, there is the issue of sustainability. I note not only what was said about lawn bowls by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), but what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) said about the importance of high-quality green transport, including an electric fleet. I thought that diesel fleets were yesterday’s transport, not tomorrow’s, so I hope that the Minister will raise the issue with the local contractors.
Catherine West
I will indeed. I was hesitant to single out any one contractor, but as the hon. Member has done so, I remind him that it would be wonderful if National Express shared that vision with us as quickly as possible so that we can phase out diesel and bring in electric vehicles in time for 2022.
The hotel levy was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill)—does not the word “Edgbaston” make you think, “Cricket, fantastic! It will be wonderful to see cricket in the Commonwealth games”? She was right that council tax payers in Birmingham and the west midlands should not have to stump up the extra cash for overruns on the contracts. An element should come from a levy of £1 per night per room, which could bring more money into Birmingham and the west midlands to pay for those tiny overruns that occur at these events.
Finally, I hope that the Minister takes the question of legacy seriously. Tragically, in London, a couple of years after a fantastic Olympic games that had so much magic, the number of youngsters playing basketball, swimming or doing other sport dropped due to cuts to local government. We still struggle with that level of inactivity among young people, which is inexcusable in this day and age. Let us use this as an opportunity for a genuine legacy—not just an elite legacy, but a legacy for all the people of Birmingham and the west midlands, so that they can jump on a bicycle, so that basketball can be played locally, so that swimming can be affordable at the wonderful Sandwell swimming baths when they are open, and so that we end up with a genuine grassroots approach to sport, exercise and fitness, which all means an improvement in mental health.
The facilities used for the games—the bigger and better Alexander stadium, with hugely increased capacity; the Olympic-sized swimming pool; the cycle lanes; the green and sustainable bus routes—all sound wonderful, but in end we want to know whether in 10 years’ time, in 2032, Birmingham youngsters will know the rules of Olympic games. Will they be inspired to swim 50 metres? Will they be able to run round the athletics track, as we hope they will right now? We need a vision for the future. Will they have £1-per-swim, which we had during the Olympic games for every single under-18-year-old, and which has kept going long after the games? We have an opportunity to show off as world leaders in seismic sporting events once again—not just for elite sports, but for each and every one of us.
Nigel Huddleston
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank hon. Members for their remarks and contributions and for the constructive tone of the debate on both sides. I shall endeavour to respond to as many of the matters raised as possible, but some may have to wait for Committee, which I am sure will be exciting.
The UK has a strong track record in hosting successful major sporting events. London 2012 is the most obvious example, but let us not forget that in recent years we have staged the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth games, the 2015 rugby world cup, the 2017 world athletics championships, and the 2019 netball and cricket world cups, as well as the UCI road world cycling championships, to name but a few. I know that Birmingham 2022 will be just as successful and will rightly earn its place on this illustrious and growing list.
I welcome the cross-party support that the Bill and the games have received, both in this House and in the Lords, and the consensus across the House on the need to maximise the benefits of the games for our constituents, for Birmingham, and for the west midlands. We must remember that the games will be staged in record time. The organisers and, indeed, the House, need to be utterly focused on delivery of their contributions, and I am confident that we shall be. We can now all count down to the games in live time over the next 870 days, with the unveiling today of a countdown clock sponsored by Longines in the heart of Birmingham’s iconic Centenary square, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) mentioned.
The games will be a catalyst for change in Birmingham and the west midlands, and the benefits will be lasting—felt long after the 11 days of sport are over. We are working with games partners to secure a lasting legacy from the games that begins to benefit the region right now. In addition to the lasting physical legacy and fantastic facilities that the games will leave, the Government are working with games delivery partners and local stakeholders in the region to harness the power of the games to leave a wider social legacy. As well as being a catalyst for physical change in the city, our mission is to harness the power of the games to bring people together, improve health and wellbeing, help the region to grow and succeed, and put Birmingham and the west midlands truly on the map.
A wealth of opportunities will be created for the people of Birmingham as a result of hosting this event. As well as creating more ways to get involved in sport and culture within the local community, the games will create new jobs, volunteering positions and opportunities, particularly for young people, to develop skills, as mentioned by many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), and my hon. Friends the Members for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), for Dudley South (Mike Wood), and for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook).
The organising committee intends to create a wide range of entry-level positions for apprentices and to establish an in-house training academy, which will host three cohorts from autumn 2020, January 2021, and April 2021. The Department for Education recently announced a £20,000 investment in Birmingham to encourage more young people to become volunteers and coaches in sports clubs and the local community in the run-up to the games. In partnership with the Spirit of 2012, the organising committee recently confirmed the launch of a new £600,000 west midlands challenge fund, which will award grants to local organisations that create projects that bring disabled and non-disabled people together to participate in arts and cultural activities.
The Government and all our games delivery partners are committed to delivering a fantastic, memorable and lasting legacy from the games. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their insightful contributions on this matter. I will keep the House updated on progress. Before I respond to key matters raised in the debate—
Liam Byrne
When the Minister does so, will he clarify for the House whether anyone in his Department has told the organising committee that it should not become an accredited living wage employer? I tabled a parliamentary question on that, and it is fair to say that the answer was not crystal clear.
Nigel Huddleston
I shall indeed come on to those comments, and I am sure that we shall discuss them in Committee.
Before I respond to the questions asked by colleagues, I should like to praise the three maiden speeches that we heard, from my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for East Devon (Simon Jupp), and the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). I hope you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but as a sports Minister, my key comment is “Back of the net, gentlemen!” They did a fantastic job, and their constituents will be proud of what they have done today. They have represented them well, and they were incredibly articulate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar mentioned quite a few things that I was not expecting—California, Winkie’s Castle, and sustainability. We will all remember him forever for his hard hat, which I hope is on his official parliamentary picture for many years to come. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon gave a clear warning that the Treasury can expect many requests for cheques from his constituents over the coming years, and the hon. Member for Stockport mentioned many things in his contribution, including Engels, football and hats. He also mentioned the inequality in his constituency, and I am sure that he will be a champion for his constituents for many years to come.
I turn to other contributions. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) commented on the Barnett formula. The UK Government contribution to the Commonwealth games budget is indeed subject to the Barnett formula, which the Treasury will apply in the normal way, as set out in the statement of funding policy—not in the way he wishes, but in the normal way.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)—not surprisingly, as she is a great champion of these issues—commented on ticketing provision and enforcement. As she knows, the Government are committed to tackling fraudulent practices in the secondary ticket market and support the work of enforcement agencies in that area such as the Competition and Markets Authority, trading standards, and the advertising industry’s regulator, the Advertising Standards Authority.
We are working with the organising committee, local authorities, trading standards and West Midlands police to develop a co-ordinated approach to enforcing the provisions. More generally, the Government are working closely with national trading standards to ensure that they have adequate funding to tackle consumer detriment in the ticketing market. The hon. Lady and I, and others, will work on this phase over the coming weeks and months.
My hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and for Gedling (Tom Randall) mentioned volunteering. Birmingham 2022 is committed to delivering volunteer programmes that are inclusive and diverse and that deliver a real and lasting legacy to the city, the region and the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling spoke powerfully about his own experience in the 2012 games. He also mentioned games lanes. It is too early to say what temporary measures might be needed, but it is possible that temporary restrictions on sections of roads near games locations might be required. Any temporary measures will try to minimise disruption for transport users.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield both mentioned many other transport issues. I cannot answer all of them today and, of course, they know that some of those questions are largely matters for the local council, Birmingham City Council, and the combined authority to consider, but we will facilitate discussions, encourage co-operation where possible and engage with the Department for Transport and other bodies where appropriate.
With regard to the velodrome facilities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), I understand that British Cycling is working with Birmingham City Council on research into the overall cycling facility needs in the west midlands. That research will be published in the coming weeks.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and several others mentioned broadcasting. We know that the Commonwealth Games Federation and Birmingham 2022 are committed to ensuring that as many people as possible can access the games via their TV, mobile phone, computer screen and tablet. As it is a listed event, broadcasting rights for the Commonwealth games must already be available to the qualifying free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters. The games have had excellent live coverage for many years on free-to-air television. The organising committee is in the middle of a competitive commercial process with potential rights holders that cannot pre-empt the outcome of those negotiations.
Many Members raised the question of a hotel tax. As they would expect, there is a constant dialogue between Government and the council on all aspects of the games, including the budget. Birmingham City Council is committed to meeting its financial contribution for the games budget and it has published a plan for doing so without the need for a hotel tax. This will obviously be an ongoing debate, but it is worth noting that any new tax is ultimately a decision for the Treasury. It would also set a precedent, which we would have to consider carefully. Any such tax would also need to be balanced against the additional burdens on businesses in the hospitality sector, which, as we know, is facing challenging times at the moment. With my tourism hat on, I have to say that I am not convinced of the argument for a hotel tax at the moment.
With regard to the games village, we have confidence that all the games partners will play their part in delivering a truly world-class Commonwealth games in 2022. Birmingham City Council is currently finalising its full business case for the village, and a review of anticipated expenditure and funding arrangements is due for discussion by its cabinet on 17 March. I would like to reassure the House that we continue to work closely with the council and the rest of the partners to ensure that we have a great games.
Several Members raised the question of the living wage. I am confident that the games are already setting an excellent example on fair pay. The organising committee’s pay scales are set in line with civil service pay rates and all direct employees of the organising committee will therefore be paid above the level of the Birmingham living wage, and of course, all organisations awarded games contracts will be required to pay at least the Government’s national living wage. I am pleased to say that the national living wage is set to receive its biggest cash increase, rising by 6.2% from 1 April. Alongside this, we also need to consider the wider picture, which I have mentioned earlier, and we are ensuring that there will be lasting benefits for those living and working in the region, with many skills-enhancing opportunities.
There is a real commitment to ensuring that sustainability is a key pillar of the planning and delivery of the games. The organising committee has signed up to the UN sports for climate action framework, which aims to combat climate change and raise global awareness and action through sport. This is a proud first for the Commonwealth games movement and a key commitment to working towards our global climate change goals. The organising committee is in the process of developing its sustainability strategy for the games, and it will be released in the spring.
Regarding sponsors, the House will agree that it is critical that we raise sponsorship for the games in order to manage the public sector investment. Securing sponsorship and granting authorisations to associate with the games are a matter for the organising committee. It is still early days in terms of securing sponsorship partners, with three announced to date, but I would like to provide reassurance that my Department is in active discussions with the organising committee on the importance of promoting the games and their value through its sponsorship programmes. All potential sponsors will have to demonstrate their alignment with Birmingham 2022’s vision and mission, and an ongoing commitment to social values set out in the organising committee’s social values charter.
This is clearly a great opportunity for the United Kingdom. There is already great excitement and interest in the games not only in Birmingham and the west midlands but right across the country. We have many matters still to discuss, and I am looking forward to working with Members across the House in Committee to ensure that this important legislation reaches the statute book very shortly.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Monday 9th March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 View all Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Feb 2020)
BIRMINGHAM COMMONWEALTH GAMES BILL [LORDS] (Money)
Monday 9th March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 View all Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Feb 2020)
Commonwealth in 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Commonwealth in 2020.
May I wish you a happy Commonwealth Day, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a great honour to have been reappointed as the Minister for Africa for the UK Government, this time working across Foreign Office, international development and Commonwealth issues.
Since I began working for Barclays in Swaziland—now Eswatini—in the 1990s, Africa has been a huge influence on my life, both personal and professional, inside and outside this place. The same is very much true of the Commonwealth. I have had the privilege of working, living or travelling in 18 of the 19 Commonwealth countries in Africa. I exported my only brother to the Commonwealth: he went to Australia. I met my wife in Eswatini and we travelled on our honeymoon anticlockwise around the outside of Zimbabwe. It was a Commonwealth member at the time we met, and I hope that it will rejoin us. I previously served in the Foreign Office covering the Caribbean, and until recently I was chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the reins of which I assumed from and return to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger).
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his comments, and also for the work he did as chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association over that period. I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), who is now a Deputy Speaker. May I ask the Minister to dwell, at some time in his speech, on the success of the scholars that we bring here from all around the world? I know that he has chaired many conferences. Will he also mention what we do for the young people of the Commonwealth that we bring from all over the world to learn and to exchange best practice with us?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend. The conferences that the CPA runs are superb, and I thank him, the executive committee and Jon Davies, who works tirelessly on behalf of the Commonwealth and colleagues. I was well rewarded for my role as chair of CPA UK, as it gave me this rather nice tie as a leaving gift. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) disapproves of my tie, but he too wears racy ties on occasion—I am glad to see him sporting a slightly more conservative one today.
I was a member of the parliamentary delegation for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2018. Now that I have a role in Government, I am looking forward to delivering some of the commitments made in 2018. I trust that the House understands why it is such a pleasure for me to mark Commonwealth Day on behalf of the Government.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
As a relatively new Back Bencher, I am now able to take part in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations for the first time, so I reiterate the Minister’s point about how worthwhile they are. They should be commended to Members across the House who are perhaps not so familiar with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I recently had the opportunity to travel to Botswana, where we encountered a very enthusiastic parliamentary delegation. These bonds are part of the important underpinning of our Commonwealth.
James Duddridge
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I fondly remember having a tour of the Parliament of Botswana when I worked there a number of years ago. I strongly commend the CPA to new Members, as it is a brilliant way to get to know the Commonwealth—it is also brilliant to get involved in the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has a slightly different remit and does things in a slightly different way. The CPA allows us to reach out beyond the United Kingdom and to understand why we help the Commonwealth in the way we do. Also, in all candour, it allows us to reflect on our positions here and to get to know colleagues from other parties, as we do on Select Committee—the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who is nodding on the Opposition Front Bench, knows me only too well, and not only from CPA visits but from serving on the International Development Committee. On such trips we realise how much we have in common and that in our mission there is more that unites us than divides us, as someone once famously said.
The Commonwealth brings together 54 countries and nearly 2.5 billion people—a third of the world’s population—from every corner of the world. Its value and appeal are not only enduring, but growing. The Maldives re-joined only last month, and a number of countries, including most recently Angola, have expressed their enthusiasm for joining the Commonwealth family and sharing in all that the organisation stands for and delivers.
Some cynics have suggested that it is a cliché to describe such a diverse group as a family, but I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, the Government’s Front Bench is the most diverse in British history, and there we find the reality of what the modern Commonwealth family means for modern Britain. A number of ministerial colleagues have to go back only one generation to show that we in the UK are literally a product of the Commonwealth—from India, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and, in my case, less exotically and interestingly, Bristol.
Commonwealth Day offers an opportunity to celebrate those bonds. It is also a chance to take stock of our co-operation and the opportunities ahead. The Commonwealth charter acts as a guiding light for our shared values. It commits member states to developing free and democratic societies, and to promoting peace and prosperity. The ambition and vision for what we collectively want to achieve are shaped by the Heads of Government meetings, which are held every two years—a number of colleagues will have participated in those.
At the most recent London summit, leaders agreed that the Commonwealth should be a global force for good and should play a full role in tackling the major challenges of the century, from reducing plastic in our oceans to increasing our resilience against cyber-attacks. We have also made major commitments, such as the commitment to 12 years of quality education for all.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
That is all very well, but the vast majority of Commonwealth citizens live in countries where homosexuality is illegal, where they could be sent to prison, and where they suffer all sorts of different forms of homophobia. Why did the declaration that followed last year’s CHOGM contain not a single mention of that?
James Duddridge
The Commonwealth charter refers to rights for all, and that should include rights for sexuality. Some countries in the Commonwealth and internationally have made significant progress, but many have not. Many countries, as the hon. Gentleman knows, throw back in our face the fact that those are our laws from a bygone age. We should do more to encourage people in the Commonwealth and around the world to modernise and have rules that reflect the charter and what we describe here as modern Britain, which should be the modern Commonwealth and the modern globe. I encourage there to be more discussion in Kigali in June specifically on these issues. Like me, he knows that with such matters sometimes a strong voice behind closed doors is more effective than a loud voice in public.
Chris Bryant
I gently suggest that sometimes we want both. I have an idea: why not allow all British high commissioners in Commonwealth countries to fly the rainbow flag when there is a pride demonstration going on in that country?
James Duddridge
I used to fly the pride flag in my office when I was a Foreign Office Minister, and I think that was done at the discretion of the local ambassador and high commissioner. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that has stopped. I think we should probably review that again because it was a good policy, so I will look into why there has been a change. We should do more in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who I do not think is in the Chamber, will be twinning people who are either from the LGBT community or supportive of it with each country in the Commonwealth and globally so that we have that connection, parliamentarian to parliamentarian, which I think will be very effective.
At CHOGM 2018, the Heads of Government agreed a range of actions to build a Commonwealth that is fairer, more prosperous, more secure and more sustainable. As chair-in-office, we have worked closely with member states, accredited organisations and the secretariat to drive co-operation to achieve those goals. We have focused our efforts in four key areas: delivery, reform, solidarity and voice.
Delivery is about implementing each and every one of the commitments that we have made, and more than £500 million has been set aside to support that work. Our funding not only boosts our trade, safeguards our oceans and enhances our cyber security but promotes equality, inclusion, democracy and good governance, which the hon. Member for Rhondda touched on.
Our reform agenda is about ensuring that the Commonwealth secretariat is as effective and transparent as possible, liaising with all other Commonwealth organisations. Solidarity is about increasing the collaboration between member states in international organisations, which I know my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is keen to see more of through the CPA.
The Commonwealth represents a quarter of the UN’s membership, so we will have more influence in New York if we work together more. That is why the UK has initiated monthly briefings for Commonwealth member states to come together at the UN to share ideas and understand each other’s priorities.
Our fourth focus is on ensuring that the voice of the Commonwealth is projected and heard on the international stage. As a global organisation representing a diverse range of countries, the Commonwealth is well placed to give a voice to the marginalised, and we have real clout when we speak as one. That is why we want to amplify the voices of smaller states, at the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, at which we represent quite a large bloc.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the Minister refer to smaller states and marginalised voices. How can the overseas territories, the Crown dependencies and other external territories be represented more forcefully in the Commonwealth, because at the moment they have no status, which I think is an oversight? In today’s world surely Bermuda should have as much of a voice as Tuvalu, which is a much smaller nation state. Is there some way we could work on that to ensure that such places are properly represented?
James Duddridge
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for the overseas territories, and I was glad to see some of them at the margins of the last CHOGM with observer status. As he knows, there are significant issues in recognising them as countries at either the Commonwealth games or CHOGM, but we want to ensure that we engage as closely as possible with our overseas territories and the broader Commonwealth family. I will personally strive to do that, as will other Ministers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the Minister agree that Her Majesty the Queen’s reference to diversity and its strength is duly poignant? As we launch into a new Brexit world, the strength of the Commonwealth can and will be the cornerstone of a future built upon the foundations of the 54 Commonwealth countries.
James Duddridge
Absolutely. I will touch on the opportunities for projecting our global vision beyond our exit from the European Union and for looking to some of our traditional friends and neighbours that are further away, rather than some of our less traditional, closer European partners.
When the Heads of Government come together in Kigali, we will have to make sure that our co-operation remains strong. This will be a great opportunity to develop relationships with each of the Commonwealth countries in line with the global Britain that the hon. Gentleman highlights. We considered the potential of the Commonwealth when we considered how we will upgrade our new embassies and high commissions. For the first time, we have a high commission in Samoa, which I am pleased to report has had a wonderful day. Samoa’s Prime Minister went to celebrate Commonwealth Day in that newly opened high commission.
In 2018, when he was Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced his intention to expand our presence with eight or nine embassies, which are now functional. Not all of them have been officially opened, but those bricks and mortar demonstrate that our commitment is both genuine and enduring. I look forward to returning to Eswatini to open the high commission formally, and I will be returning to formally open the high commission in Maseru, Lesotho later this year.
Commonwealth citizens are rich in talent and ability. We also share a common language, which places Commonwealth citizens very well in the new points-based immigration system. We will be able to attract the brightest and the best from around the world, including scientists, innovators and academics. The points-based system supports the English language, which most of the Commonwealth have as one of their main languages.
The UK Government’s commitment to the Commonwealth and its shared values remains as steadfast as ever. Of course, no one can surpass the commitment of Her Majesty to the Commonwealth. I believe she was at Westminster Abbey today alongside Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Commonwealth to celebrate all things Commonwealth. It is a great convenor. Alas, in my preparation for this debate, I was unable to go myself, which is ironic given that I was able to go last time when I was not a Minister. I will rectify that next year, whatever I am doing.
We used the summit to raise our ambitions, and as chair-in-office we have delivered the commitment to expand the diplomatic network. We have also facilitated co-operation and a swathe of mutually beneficial projects and programmes, which I hope we will touch on in this debate.
The Kigali Heads of Government meeting will be a major milestone on the road to achieving the 2030 sustainable development goals, in which the UK is ready to play our full part as a leading actor on the world stage. As we mark Commonwealth Day, I welcome the views and insights of hon. Members as we work to fortify this fantastic institution and network for the benefit of future generations.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister and wish everyone a happy Commonwealth Day. I know his passion for Africa and the Commonwealth from the inquiries and trips we did together on the IDC.
As the shadow Foreign Minister covering the overseas territories, I want to mention their important role in the Commonwealth while highlighting that five of them—these are not even Commonwealth nations—do not recognise same-sex marriage, and it was this Government who, last year, rejected the recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Committee to make Orders in Council to require them to recognise same-sex marriage. If we cannot get it right for even our overseas territories, one wonders if we have any hope of persuading our Commonwealth friends. I will come on to that in a bit.
The Commonwealth is more important than ever as we leave the European Union in a world in which there is currently a grave lack of global leadership, in which the credibility and relevance of our great international institutions are under daily threat and in which human rights and the rule of law are being disregarded by dozens of Governments and deprioritised by dozens of others. In a world like that, we desperately need global leadership and co-ordinated international action, and that is what the Commonwealth should and can offer.
We desperately need a strong and united Commonwealth to demonstrate to the rest of the world why such institutions are so important. We desperately need a Commonwealth that will defend and promote respect for human rights and the rule of law. If the Commonwealth can do all those things, it will remain a vital force for good in our world and a centre point of Britain’s multilateral relationships, because we see the Commonwealth countries not simply as trading partners but as essential partners in the challenges faced by the world and by each of our nations.
With our common history and common future, the Commonwealth should be about sharing our wealth and knowledge, but we cannot deny that much of that history was not of a common wealth but of the UK taking, stealing and mistreating the countries that form most, but not all, of the current Commonwealth. Although we have impoverished those countries, we cannot change history or rewrite the past, but we can do the brave thing and apologise when we need to apologise and, where necessary, make concerted efforts to improve the lives of those who, by our colonial laws, are still discriminated against or who, by our discriminatory payments, lost out when serving to keep our country safe.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Rather than focusing on the far history, perhaps the hon. Gentleman might do better to focus on the recent history in which Commonwealth members joined together to sign up to the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, showing that, actually, this is an organisation that is alive and well and working together on matters of great concern.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised recent things because, even as we promote the Commonwealth now, we must be honest about places that have gone backwards, not forwards, over the past year and more in promoting peace, democracy and human rights—places where the Commonwealth is needed even more.
We think, of course, of the current tension in India and Pakistan and the violence in Delhi over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, but we also think of the democratic instability we have seen in Sri Lanka, a country I must have visited more than a dozen times, and in Nigeria and Kenya in recent months and years. We think of the deteriorating human rights situation in Uganda, Singapore and elsewhere, and the dreadful impunity of the regime in Cameroon. We think of the discrimination that continues against the LGBT community in far too many Commonwealth countries. That is the recent history of our Commonwealth. Of course we must celebrate some of the progress that is made, but we must not have rose-tinted glasses when Commonwealth citizens are being discriminated against around the world, their human rights are being denied them and their democratic participation is being taken away. Therefore, it was a missed opportunity when this Government failed to put the issue of LGBT rights formally on the agenda at the CHOGM in April in London. It was not only a missed opportunity, but a dereliction of our historic duty to right our wrong.
To avoid wasting another opportunity, may I ask the Minister what he has done since Britain became co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition in June to make it a priority to persuade members of the Commonwealth to join that coalition? After all, it cannot be right that the ERC, which exists to promote human rights of the LGBT community, currently has just six of the 53 members of the Commonwealth as signatories to its principles—none of the African, Asian or Caribbean Commonwealth countries have signed. If we are not putting pressure on those other countries to join, is it any wonder that they are doing the exact opposite and seeing how far they can roll back LGBT rights in their countries, including via grotesque proposals to punish same-sex relationships with the death penalty, as in Uganda? I have visited that country a number of times and met LGBT activists there, as many Members have done. Even in countries where the laws are not so draconian, the social situation is dire. In Jamaica last year, the global LGBT+ rights all-party group met many activists. How are those activists getting the support they deserve from this Government to overturn our imposed homophobia?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady will have to move on to the Benches.
Katherine Fletcher
My sincere apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was newbie mistake No. 473. I commend the hon. Gentleman for his concern for the LGBT community, but surely one of the best things we can do is invite the Commonwealth of Nations to this functioning democracy and show everybody that love does nobody any harm, and they can then take those examples back to their communities.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Yes, we did that two years ago, in 2018, at the CHOGM London meeting, but the Government failed to put this on the agenda of that meeting and to include it in the communiqué. I agree that we should be leading by example, but that means that when we have the chairmanship of Commonwealth positions and we do not raise these things, even gently, we are failing.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of what was on the agenda at CHOGM, but does he recognise that the majority of diplomatic work that is done to achieve genuine difference is done behind the scenes? It is not about dragging our partners to the front of the stage and shaming and embarrassing them; it is about working behind the scenes to change their minds, showing them alternatives and working with them to achieve real change, so that they can own that change, rather than having it be seen as imposed as some neo-colonial viewpoint.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I worked with the Commonwealth secretariat and I have worked at the United Nations on these issues, so I know exactly what the hon. Lady is referring to. However, the proof is in the pudding, and I am afraid that the pudding is going rotten—things are going backwards. The situation of LGBT rights in these countries is deteriorating, not improving. If this is all done through private discussions, which are important, those discussions are going very poorly. Perhaps there comes a time when gently—we do not have to embarrass people—we publicly say, “We don’t think enough progress has been made on this, and we would like to move forward.”
It is important to say that all those countries have laws on their statute books because we imposed them. Those laws were not there before colonisation. In many of those countries, there was no legal discrimination and we imposed it. We have rightly seen our historical mistake and we have changed how we do things here, but we have a duty then to support others on the ground. It was right that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), apologised last year. It was a brave thing for the Government to do, but it is time now for actions. Not only did the Government fail to put LGBT rights on the agenda, but the communiqué from London failed to mention them even once. Let us contrast that with what happened at the Commonwealth youth forum, where LGBT rights were raised in the opening and in the calls for action.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I am struggling a bit with the hon. Gentleman’s mental leap. He seems to be saying that we are responsible for all the problems with our colonial past and the laws that were created, and we are equally now responsible—he is lambasting the Government for this—for not forcing other Commonwealth countries to live up to our standards. I cannot see how we are responsible for the former and we are also responsible for letting them have free countries.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Usually, where someone goes into a shop and smashes a vase, they have a responsibility to fix it, or at least to pay for it to be fixed or replaced. If we go around the world smashing some people’s civil rights up, we have a responsibility to help sort it out. The question I asked the Minister was: how are we supporting the activists on the ground in those countries to make sure that they can pressure their Governments on laws that we imposed? I am afraid that if the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that, we are not going to see eye to eye on history or diplomatic relations.
Going back to where there is perhaps a glimmer of hope in the Commonwealth, the CYF brought together 500 delegates from around the Commonwealth, and it started to show us the future direction of many countries. Some 60% of the Commonwealth’s 2.4 billion population are under 30, so what are our Government doing to ensure that those young people’s voices are heard and amplified? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) suggested in the previous debate, we need to start to take Commonwealth youth service seriously, so that we can support those young people to hold their leaders to account. Will the Minister commit to training and funding young people to ensure that they are able to participate in the Commonwealth youth forum at this year’s forthcoming CHOGM? I am talking about supporting people from Britain and from some of the poorest countries from around the world that are Commonwealth members.
I have attended three CHOGMs, and this year’s will be the first to be held in a country that has never been a part of the British empire or part of a realm of the Crown. It will be held in a country where gender equality has been achieved by its Parliament, where the median age is 22.7 and where 69% of people are under 30. The CHOGM in Rwanda provides a real opportunity for gender equality and young people to be at the heart of the Commonwealth, and to put right some of the missed opportunities we had in London.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I had the privilege of being on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association executive and of visiting Rwanda 18 months ago. One concern about the Rwanda CHOGM relates to press freedom. It was alarming that Senators and Members of Parliament, all of whom are very good people and who have made huge achievements on gender equality, including on women’s budgeting issues—I thought that was extraordinary, and we could have done it here many decades ago—still had an issue about allowing reporters and mainstream media into Rwanda, because they believed that those people were not reporting exactly as the President would like. That problem needs to be addressed at the CHOGM in Kigali.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I quite agree. I have been proud to work with the Commonwealth secretariat in promoting press freedom, youth projects and, in particular, the youth development index, which includes an index based on freedom of speech. It is vital that we continue that important work. The Commonwealth Youth Ministers meetings happen regularly, and I have attended the last two. The Government have failed to turn up to a number of them in the past few years. I hope that with a new, revitalised ministerial team, we will see a change in that. Of course, I was personally proud and delighted to attend with Malala Yousafzai, who was honoured at the palace for the work she has done on girls’ education.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The shadow Minister is making an extremely good speech on gender equality. Does he agree that it is extremely important that we encourage and support Commonwealth countries to move forward and make progress on disability equality? That is an issue on which the Department for International Development in East Kilbride in my constituency is working hard. We should do our utmost in Parliament to champion movement on disability equality.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I do indeed agree. When I was at the most recent Commonwealth Youth Ministers meeting in Uganda two years ago, there were extensive discussions on that issue with some of the international disability organisations. I am pleased that in our presidency year London was host to a summit on disability and development. This country and the Government are doing things on disability, and for that they must be congratulated. They must continue that work.
If the Government believe that we need to develop new links around the Commonwealth, now is surely the time for them to develop schemes to make sure that young people and Commonwealth citizens can travel to meet and exchange with each other. A Horizon 2020 or Erasmus scheme for the Commonwealth—not just the poorly funded but very well managed Commonwealth Exchange programme that we currently have—must be on the agenda.
Let me turn to a couple of issues that cause so much pain among veterans in this country and in the Commonwealth. Every year since 2018, we have recruited 1,350 men and women from Commonwealth countries to serve in the British Army. That means that we currently have more than 6,000 Commonwealth personnel keeping our country safe. These men and women have come here, fought for our country and made lives for themselves. After four years, they are entitled to settled status, but they are forced to pay a punitive fee of £2,383, of which a large amount is profit to the Home Office. It is more than it costs to administer. Many of those who have come here have young families; for a partner and two children, they will be looking at a bill for more than £10,000 to stay in the place that they have protected, fought for and worked for, and that they now call their home. How can people who have volunteered to fight for us and our country—who have made their lives here—be treated so poorly? What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues in Commonwealth countries about this issue? Will he speak to his colleagues in the Home Office about the Royal British Legion’s call for the removal of the fees for Commonwealth veterans? It is an issue on which we can probably find agreement throughout the House.
Let me finish by raising another issue. We literally owe an historic debt to members of the Commonwealth—Opposition Members have raised that issue a number of times. As the Minister will know, this time last year it was revealed that when the men of the East Africa Force —hundreds of thousands of black, white and Asian soldiers drawn from the British African colonies—received their demob pay at the end of the second world war, it was strictly calibrated according to their race, with black African soldiers from the same regiment paid a third of the amount given to their white counterparts of exactly the same rank. Many of those soldiers who faced discrimination are still alive today, but they are yet to receive even an apology from the Government, let alone any compensation.
The Opposition are yet to receive any answers to repeated letters asking the Government the following questions. First, how many surviving veterans were affected and are now contactable? Secondly, did the racial discrimination also apply to the demob pay of soldiers of the British Indian Army and the Caribbean Regiment in 1945? Thirdly, if so, do the Government know how many servicemen were affected in total across all regiments, and how many are still alive? Fourthly, what do the Government plan to do in response? They have had a year to provide answers to those questions, so will the Minister update the House on his actions going forward? When can the surviving men of the East Africa Force, and the other affected veterans, expect to receive an apology and acknowledgement? That is the very least that they deserve.
A Commonwealth must be more than just a name and more than just a glint in the eye of the past; it must be about honouring historic injustices, and it must be about a joint history. A Commonwealth must be about honesty if it is about anything at all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call James Sunderland to make his maiden speech.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is the privilege of a lifetime to be elected to Westminster and to take my seat on these green Benches alongside so many new and talented one nation colleagues. While there is some personal irony to being referred to as “the cavalry”—not least because I cannot ride a horse—none of us is immune to the nature of the previous Parliament, nor to the need to make up for lost time now. I express my thanks to Members on both sides of the House for their warm welcome. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts.
Entering Parliament for the first time is daunting: while I am slightly institutionalised by nature, this is a different kind of institution altogether, and I will admit to suffering the occasional bout of imposter syndrome. For those who pause for breath, the Palace is an ancient and inspiring place, full of echoes, whispers and the ghosts of those who have gone before. Indeed, the giants of our political history still sit among us. Who would dare to tread in their footsteps? But we have a chance to be a force for good, and it is incumbent upon us to do so.
It was during the Brexit doldrums of last October that I was fortunate to seize upon a fresh wind—I thank everyone at the Bracknell Conservative association for seeing something in me—and I left the Regular Army after proudly serving my country for 27 years. Handing in your ID card after a long career is no easy feat, but to do it with only six days’ notice was both unprecedented and unnerving. To any veteran who may be listening, I want to tell you that I absolutely get it. But the Army has done me proud, and I am grateful to everyone at the Ministry of Defence for showing me the door so quickly and allowing me to soldier on here.
It is customary at this point to pay tribute to my predecessor, but I would like to mention two, if I may. Andrew MacKay served as the MP for Bracknell for almost three decades before 2010. He was a loyal, much-loved and effective local politician. He is still spoken of fondly on doorsteps today, and has been a good friend to me since I was elected. More recently, Dr Phillip Lee also served this place with distinction, ploughing his own furrow as a man of conviction and always championing the causes dear to him. I thank both men for their huge contributions to Bracknell and for the legacies that they have left.
What of Bracknell itself? Nestled between the M3 and the M4 in east Berkshire, it is a new town, built in the late 1940s to offer an alternative to post-war London. It is characterised by one of the lowest rates of council tax in the country, a buoyant job market, near full employment, high-tech research and development facilities, and an abundance of international companies. It is indeed the silicon valley within the Thames valley, full of optimism for the post-Brexit economy and blessed with opportunity, as symbolised by the superb new Lexicon shopping centre.
It is no coincidence that Bracknell Forest Council has been able to get things done as a unitary authority that always balances its books. It is led by Mr Paul Bettison, one of the longest-serving council leaders in the UK; I commend him and all his staff and councillors. They serve their community with distinction, and I look forward to building a lasting relationship that is based on both give and take. We will also work closely with our friends at the neighbouring Woking Borough Council.
Bracknell is a great place to live, work and play, and has many open spaces that we must preserve from unsustainable house building. As a local boy, I am also fond of its people: they are hard-working, straightforward and blessed with a great sense of humour. During the election campaign, I was proudly informed by one constituent—please forgive me for quoting exactly—that
“you could win in Bracknell by pinning a blue rosette to a dog turd”.
I did, of course, thank him for what I took to be a compliment, but there is a serious point. I hope never to take this support for granted, and I am grateful to the people of Bracknell, Crowthorne, Finchampstead, Sandhurst and the uniquely named Wokingham Without for placing their trust in me.
I was proud, in 1993, to march up the steps of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, in the constituency that I now represent. In that time, I enjoyed some seminal experiences in amazing places with inspiring colleagues. Our recruiters will simply say that they are ordinary people doing extraordinary things, but the reality is much deeper. They come from all over the world to serve all over the world, notably from our great Commonwealth nations. They are multi-faith, male and female, gay and straight, black and white, and bisexual and transgender, and I have been proud to serve alongside every single one. Conversely, for those who have suffered the frustration or indignity of working alongside me, I can only apologise.
Right now, more than 10,000 people are serving in operations across the globe, away from friends and family, doing what they do without fuss and with complete humility. For some, the stakes are high, but military service is not just about fixing bayonets. For our combat and combat support arms, I have the highest regard, but it is also about everyone in the chain doing what they are paid to do. I would like to pay tribute to all those who sustain, particularly to the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the Royal Logistic Corps, my own corps, and our civil service and contractors. More than 230 personnel from my own unit, 27 Regiment Royal Logistic Corps in Aldershot, are today manning the green line in Cyprus, and a further 14 soldiers from 19 Tank Transporter Squadron in Bulford are in Estonia supporting our combat forces. I am proud of the work they are doing and I miss them greatly.
As for the future, our armed forces do not need a magic wand, but they do need to know that they are valued, supported and resourced for what they do. That is why we have a golden opportunity now, with the forthcoming strategic defence and security review, to get this right. Our combat capabilities are among the best in the world, but we also need to tackle the threats that come from the other domains, too, notably space and cyberspace. Greater exploitation of remote technology, information systems and autonomous platforms will be needed, and our surface naval fleet will require more ships if we are to maintain a global presence.
James Sunderland
Indeed. Quantity does, of course, have a quality all of its own. We should also focus on those strategic enabling capabilities that allow us to maintain a fully expeditionary posture, such as additional airlift, transport ships and utility vehicles, plus specialist logistic capabilities such as port and railway operators, movers, drivers, tank transporters and air dispatchers.
Operating freedoms and resilience do come at a price, but—here is the big but—the SDSR, when it comes, must be aligned to a defence industrial strategy, which places British manufacturing at the heart of what we do. We already have some of the best research and development facilities in the world and a coalition of the willing, so let us design British, build British, buy British and sell British. Once we have reassured those who have boldly continued to preserve our nascent defence manufacturing capability, we can transform this impetus to other commercial sectors, too, so that we boost all of our exports and put the UK back on the map.
That is my vision for post-Brexit global Britain—a proud, united, and independent nation with a strong economy based on manufacturing and services trading freely all over the world and creating the wealth that we need to pay for our public services. To protect British interests, we will need an agile and influential Foreign Office, robust defence capabilities and bucketloads of soft power. We already have the right tools for this with our diverse multicultural society, our unrivalled diaspora, our media outlets and our fantastic Commonwealth, but there is a snag. If the Government are to avoid writing foreign policy cheques that they cannot cash, then the Ministry of Defence will need more than 2% of GDP in its account. Perhaps then, by employing the best brains and linking all of these essential ingredients into a single global strategy, we will have a golden thread that should see us right through to the next epoch and beyond.
Here at home, I will, of course, be proud to get behind the blue-collar domestic agenda of our manifesto. I believe that the offer is good for health, education, social care, employment, and law and order. Plus, there is yet more to come across the political spectrum. I look forward to doing my bit for Bracknell, too. Indeed, this one-nation Government will make the UK a better place, boost economic growth, enhance opportunity and preserve the enviable way of life that we have in this country. But not everyone has a house on the hill. In fact, very few do and we have a moral duty to support those less fortunate than ourselves. The scourge of poverty is one priority that we must tackle now, but there are two other areas where we, as a nation, are furthest from where we need to be.
Mental illness is the modern day epidemic and affects more people than we know. Many years ago, I lost my best friend to suicide, when he was just 28 years old, and that trail of devastation continues two decades on. To my mind, it is unthinkable that, in 2020, anybody should feel disenfranchised in our society, not just on the basis of their colour, creed or sexuality, but in the area of mental health. We have work to do to put this right and to overcome the stigma of asking for help. For those affected, it is okay to not feel okay, but we also need to invest more so that mental health gets some parity with physical health. Secondly, our collective approach to special needs education for our children is woeful. As an affected parent, my heart goes out to all those who are waiting for assessments, waiting for educational health and care plans and waiting to be taken seriously. Like mental health, this is the time bomb of our age, and we owe it to every child to see that they fulfil their potential, irrespective of what special gifts they have been given.
If there is a single theme in this maiden speech then it is service. I wish to finish, if I may, by saluting all those who put themselves in harm’s way to serve others. Our police, ambulance and fire services do an amazing job, so please spare a thought for those who watch over us throughout the night as we sleep safely in our beds. I also want to acknowledge the chefs, porters, kitchen staff, cleaners and Doorkeepers in this place—they are the true lifeblood of Parliament. Elsewhere across the UK, our nurses, teachers, careworkers, refuse collectors and other public servants on low incomes do so much for others, and the heroes of the voluntary and charity sector also selflessly give their time for free. It is they who breathe fresh air into our country. To those who do so much in support of the armed forces covenant, I salute you. It is also about parents everywhere. They, like my own, make sacrifices to ensure that their children have a better deal than the one that they had. It is this power of humanity and generosity of community spirit that sets us apart as a nation and truly binds our Commonwealth together.
Finally, what about us as politicians? To my mind, politics is not just about what we achieve, but the manner in which we deliver it. My humble instinct as a new MP is that politics should be about inclusion over exclusion, talent above ambition, friendship above division, and substance over image. We should also perhaps do more to heal those negative influences in society that still exist to undermine us today. The one thing that I do know, and that every single Member of this House shares, is that politics is ultimately about service.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) on a passionate, and in some ways quite prescient, maiden speech. He has picked a pretty appropriate debate in which to make it, and I wish him and anyone else making a maiden speech today all the very best. Some of us were also elected at pretty short notice back in 2015, and it is absolutely appropriate to remark on the welcome we received from the support staff, the Doorkeepers and so on.
It is great that we are able to debate the future of the Commonwealth and Britain’s relationship with the Commonwealth on Commonwealth Day itself, as the service has been taking place in Westminster Abbey and as the House has agreed to the Second Reading of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill. It is great to see the Minister in his place; I was looking back at Hansard and I do believe that he moved the motion in the debate on Commonwealth Day last year in Westminster Hall, as a Back Bencher—a debate in which I responded on behalf of my party. The debate is a little higher in profile today given that it is happening in the main Chamber.
The presence of the Earl and Countess of Dumbarton, making their last appearance in their current roles, has given a bit of added focus to the celebration in Westminster Abbey. We wish them all the best as they move on to pastures new. Another attendee in the abbey, as well as Mr Speaker, was the Speaker of the Malawian Parliament, the right hon. Catherine Gotani Hara, whom I had the immense privilege of meeting when I was in Malawi last year and with whom I enjoyed a very nice lunch this afternoon. The bringing together of such a number of different people from a number of different backgrounds and different parts of the world shows the effect of the Commonwealth.
The theme for Commonwealth Day in the year ahead is “Delivering a Common Future: Connecting, Innovating and Transforming”. It certainly will be a year—indeed years to come now—of innovation and transformation in the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world, and not necessarily for the better. I hope that Scotland’s constitutional future and international relations will also be transformed; I might say a bit more about that later.
It is worth reflecting, as others have, on both the history of and the recent developments in the Commonwealth. Last year’s debate was marked the 70th anniversary. That milestone has come and gone, but the institution continues to demonstrate its relevance and interests to the member states. We welcome, as others have, the readmission of the Maldives to the Commonwealth at the start of this month, following a period of internal democratic reform that resulted in its becoming the 54th member. That shows how the Commonwealth can be a force for good.
The UK’s term as chair-in-office is coming to an end, and the position will be taken on by Rwanda. As the shadow Minister remarked, that is unusual and a first, because Rwanda is not a former British colony. It is also a member of La Francophonie collection of nations, so it has a very interesting dual role.
Like the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), who made a brief intervention, I was on the delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association that was part of the preparatory work for Rwanda taking on the chair-in-office. We noted features of its democracy, including its high level of female participation and representation in Parliament, and its stable and growing economy—remarkable in that part of the world and given the country’s history. But there are also concerns around freedom of the press and freedom of participation, and it is right that such issues should be raised. The delegates at that conference will have much to learn and discuss.
I pay tribute more widely to the role of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I was an executive member between 2015 and 2017, and found it a valuable experience. The CPA plays an important role in connecting parliamentarians, and promoting mutual learning, sharing and partnership. It does not simply say, “Look at what a great example we can set here in the United Kingdom”, but asks, “What can we learn from different Parliaments around the world?” I mean, a number of members of the Commonwealth still include hereditary members of the aristocracy in their legislatures —Tonga, Lesotho and a small island state known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: it is not our job to go and lecture other members of the Commonwealth on the ideal models of democratic participation. We should all be in learning mode.
One of the most celebrated features of the Commonwealth is, of course, the Commonwealth games, which leave a lasting legacy wherever they are held. I was taught to swim in the Commonwealth pool in Edinburgh, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in January. The 2014 games in Glasgow also left a lasting and visible legacy in that city. Over the period from 2007 to 2014, the games contributed £740 million to the city’s gross value added, so Birmingham has very much to look forward to in the years to come. I just hope that it gets weather as exquisite as we had for those two weeks in 2014, which has not been repeated.
As well as looking at the past, I want to look at the future, and how the institution will develop in years to come. I am not sure whether it has been touched on yet, but we cannot ignore questions about how the secretariat is funded, financed and run, because we have to keep the house of the institution in order. Failings in that area might lead some members—there are plenty of voices in Australia, for example—to question the value of the entire institution, which would be pretty unfortunate. That is why we have to look back to the principles of partnership, mutual learning and accountability.
The bigger challenge that the Commonwealth has faced, and which has been touched on, is the difference between the declarations and statements made and the ambitions that the Commonwealth has for itself, and then the reality in many of its member countries. It champions—and we want to champion—democracy and human rights, but there are gaps and standards that are not lived up to, and that is particularly true on the question of LGBT rights, about which the shadow Minister spoke so eloquently; I entirely agree with him.
I admit that Malawi—a country that I have close and fond relationships with—is behind the curve in recognising the rights and freedoms that the LGBT community should have. If the Commonwealth is to be a force for good and make a difference in the modern world, these are the kinds of issues that it must seek to address through its structures and among its membership. That brings me to the role of the United Kingdom and its relationship with the Commonwealth, and how it fits with the concept of a global Britain.
For all the undoubted value that the Commonwealth brings to its members, it can never be a substitute or alternative to membership of the European Union. The fundamental differences are clear even from the names of the organisations. The Commonwealth is about a shared heritage and shared ambitions. The European Union is a political, economic—and, yes, a social and cultural—union. Membership of the EU has delivered economic benefits that are simply not possible for our relationship with the Commonwealth to replicate. The relative size of the economy, the nature of the trade in goods and services, and the sheer facts of geography and requirements of transport, mean that no trading relationship with Commonwealth countries could match what we had with the European Union.
If the Government do want to strike ambitious trade deals with Commonwealth countries, there will have to be arrangements, and give and take, on both sides. India, for example, has already signalled that it would want to see an easing on visa restrictions and travel opportunities. Therefore, although Brexiteers might rejoice in the ending of freedom of movement within Europe, the reality is that modern trade relies on the movement of labour, irrespective of our trading partners. People will still want to travel as a consequence of any future trade deals that might be entered into.
What the Commonwealth certainly is not, and should not be thought of as, is some route back to the bygone days of an empire or Britannia ruling the waves. Even if some of the more extreme elements on the Tory Back Benches were to think this desirable, it would quite understandably be resisted by the other member states. When the UK Government try to brand these islands as “global Britain”, we have to ask how that reality matches the rhetoric, because even for Commonwealth countries—the countries with which we are supposed to have the most historic ties, which so many Brexiteers saw as somehow preferable to our historic European ties—access to the UK is limited and constrained. I, and colleagues who are with me in the Chamber, have repeatedly raised concerns about the ability of artists, academics and businesses to get visas—not to stay, settle down, take jobs away or cream off the welfare state, but just to access the country to attend conferences and cultural events—yet they still face massive and expensive bureaucratic hurdles.
When I was in Malawi last year, we went to visit the British high commission, and it was festooned with “Britain is GREAT” branding, and adverts saying, “Come to the United Kingdom and take part in the Chevening scholarships”. Yet the night before we had been discussing with young Malawian members of civil society the fact that they could not even apply for the Chevening scholarships because they were not getting their visas. We hear time and again of visitors who come here, invited by the British Council and by the Commonwealth Secretariat, and who are denied their visas and access to the United Kingdom. So the notion of Britain being open for business—of global Britain in some new, glorious era—simply does not match reality.
Nowhere is that clearer—again, I echo the shadow Minister on this—than on the issue of the visa charges for Commonwealth citizens who have served in the UK armed forces. When personnel who are Commonwealth citizens leave the UK armed forces and wish to apply to continue to live in the country that they have served for years, they face fees of thousands of pounds to do so. The Royal British Legion reckons that a service leaver with a partner and two children will be presented with a bill of almost £10,000 to continue to live in the UK, despite their years of sacrifice and service. Without leave to remain, these veterans are cut off from being able to access employment or state support, leaving them and their families reliant on charitable funds or facing repatriation to their country of origin. We wholeheartedly support the Royal British Legion and others who are campaigning for these fees to be scrapped for Commonwealth service leavers.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
For the record, there are a huge number of people on the Conservative Benches who entirely agree with that point. We should look after these men. I have served with Fijians of great distinction. They have the right to stay here, and we should not charge them for it.
Patrick Grady
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his comments. Perhaps if we put forward some amendments to an immigration Bill, when it comes, we can achieve some cross-party consensus on this.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
We are hearing from members of the armed forces and the Royal British Legion that these people have been recruited because we are not meeting our own recruitment targets here in the UK. We are going out to these countries and actively recruiting: promising the earth and then delivering very little for their families. It really is not how we should be operating.
Patrick Grady
I entirely agree. My hon. Friend speaks with some experience on these matters. The mismatch between rhetoric and reality is a bit of a theme on a number of issues in this debate, particularly the final one that I want to touch on. Again, this will not be a surprise to the Minister, because we have exchanged words on it in Westminster Hall on many occasions.
The issue is, of course, the UK’s role in the question of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Mauritius, which claims sovereignty and whose sovereignty has in fact been recognised by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, is a fellow member of the Commonwealth. Where is global Britain in all of this? Mauritius has had to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. The UN resolution stated that the United Kingdom should surrender the British Indian Ocean Territory unconditionally, and the deadline for that was breached in November 2019. Where is global Britain in all that? Where is the respect for the partnership of the Commonwealth of Nations?
Patrick Grady
Yes, I happily give way to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on overseas territories.
Andrew Rosindell
I totally understand and accept the points that the hon. Gentleman is making about the Chagos Islands and Mauritius, but will the Chagossians be consulted on whose sovereignty they wish to fall under? As we have that policy with all our overseas territories, such as Gibraltar and the Falklands, which have had a referendum, surely the Chagossians should be the people who should determine their destiny of their own homeland.
Patrick Grady
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I am a huge fan of popular sovereignty and very committed to the concept of self-determination. But I do not want to make light of his comment; he is absolutely right. The point that I am trying to make is in the context of how the UK Government respect the rules-based order and the decisions coming from multilateral institutions that they claim to want to take part in and respect. Absolutely—the Chagossian community themselves should be at the heart of the decision-making process about their future and the future of their islands. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that. It is probably not the last he is going to hear of it, if it falls within his wider ministerial remit.
This is the challenge regarding the question of Britain’s role in the Commonwealth in 2020. The reality that we have experienced with Brexit is that it is a fundamentally narrow, isolationist decision that will reduce the UK’s role on the world stage, and its relationship with the Commonwealth should not be used as a fig leaf to cover that reality. That stands in contrast with the ambition of my party and an increasing number—in fact, perhaps now a majority—of people in Scotland for a Scotland that plays a fuller role on the world stage as an independent country that defines its independence by its membership of supranational, international multilateral organisations like the Commonwealth of Nations, the United Nations and the European Union.
The more the United Kingdom bangs its isolationist drum and sooks up to superpowers at the expense of the established multilateral system, the sooner the day of Scotland’s independence and its membership as the 55th member of the Commonwealth of Nations will come.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
May I first say what a real pleasure it has been to be part of this debate today and to hear the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland)? How welcome he is to this House, and how delighted we are that he is now the new—Conservative—MP for Bracknell. I thank him for his gallant service to Queen and country—particularly, of course, in the Falklands—and welcome him as one of the new vice-chairmen of the all-party parliamentary group on the Falkland Islands. I commend him for his maiden speech today.
It is an honour to take part in this debate about the Commonwealth in 2020. It is right that the Government have made time to debate this. It is very important that we never forget the Commonwealth, because we are the Commonwealth. This is our family, and we should be proud to speak about it more freely and more regularly than we do. It is also vitally important that we celebrate Britain’s special relationship with our Commonwealth friends not just by having this debate here in the House but with ceremonies and commemorations across the United Kingdom. I am looking forward to celebrations that we are having in Romford on Saturday, with a “Love the Commonwealth day” in Romford market when it will be open to everybody to come to celebrate our Commonwealth heritage.
We do celebrate the Commonwealth in my constituency. Last Friday we welcomed the Australian high commissioner down for a tour, a dinner, and visits to churches and local businesses. We are having that huge Commonwealth event on Saturday. Today I am proud to say we once again raised the Commonwealth flag from Havering town hall, with a lot of local community members and representatives of all different Commonwealth backgrounds. I pay tribute to the mayor of Havering—our first British Jamaican mayor, Councillor Michael Deon-Burton—and also to Felicia Boshorin, who runs Havering BME Forum. We have many Commonwealth-themed events. I encourage all Members to promote this idea in every constituency, because it really is truly inclusive for all people. We are very proud to do that in the London Borough of Havering.
I was also proud today to attend the wonderful Commonwealth service at Westminster Abbey in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family—and, indeed, the Prime Minister. It was a wonderful celebration here in the heart of Westminster. The Commonwealth service is an annual event attended by quite a number of MPs, but perhaps more of us should attend next year to show our true commitment to this wonderful family of nations. May I also say what a splendid sight it is to see the fantastic flags flying in Parliament Square? Every single Commonwealth nation’s flag is displayed for Commonwealth Day in Parliament Square. I urge the Minister—please do not take them down tomorrow. Let us see them for at least a week. I really get disappointed when the DCMS officials turn up and take the flags down so quickly. Let us see them flying for at least a week so that people can celebrate the Commonwealth and be reminded of the importance of celebrating our friendships with all the nations and territories of the Commonwealth.
We must not forget the 31 territories and dependencies. We talk about the Commonwealth of Nations, but territories and dependencies are not given proper recognition within the Commonwealth. They do not have their flags flown or attend Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings officially. They do not have full participation in the Commonwealth, and I would like the Minister to take that on board. Too often they are forgotten, left out and missed off, and that is not right. There are 31 external territories, dependencies and realm states within the Commonwealth. Most of them—21—are British, and the others are Australian and New Zealand external territories and realm states. Let us ensure that they are included in all things to do with the Commonwealth.
Bob Stewart
I commend my hon. Friend, who is a really good friend. I have been to his constituency on many occasions for dinners—he is a terribly generous fellow—and every time there have been representatives of the Commonwealth present, including dependencies. He does sterling work in that respect, and the House should commend him for it.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. This is something that we should all do with pride. This is our history—this is who we are. I know there are things that people might say about the past and things that have happened or should not have happened, but overwhelmingly this is a positive family of nations who choose to be together, work together and co-operate. We could do so much more, and I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the House to make that a reality.
As our nation escapes the clutches of the European Union, this must surely be a time to strengthen our global ties with our Commonwealth allies, who we have too long neglected over the past five decades. There is a natural interest in the Commonwealth today because it is Commonwealth Day, but it is an annual celebration, and I hope that our Government will take up the cause of the Commonwealth in a much more proactive way, because there is so much more we can do.
The United Kingdom is the chair-in-office, and we have tried to make use of that period, but we still have a little way to go, and I hope the Minister will ensure that we use the opportunity in the last few months to make an impact. The theme of our period as chair has been “A connected Commonwealth”, and there are so many things that connect the Commonwealth countries. There is our shared history, our shared culture and our reverence for Her Majesty the Queen as head of the Commonwealth, but what I believe most tightly binds us together is our shared values, which are outlined in the Commonwealth charter. Those values of democracy, freedom of speech, human rights and the rule of law are more important today than ever before, and I am proud that this fantastic organisation has done so much to promote and maintain those values among its members. There is a lot more work to be done—I freely admit that—and Britain should be there helping and advising and ensuring that things are going in the right direction. I truly believe that they are going in the right direction and will continue to do so in the months and years ahead with our support.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is one of the key organisations that does so much work to uphold and promote those values—in particular, that of parliamentary democracy, and I stand here today in the mother of Parliaments. As a member of the CPA executive for the past 10 years, I have had the privilege of working with CPA members, in particular the current chief executive, Jon Davies, and his brilliant team. I would like to thank them for all they do at CPA UK. We are privileged to have them work so hard to promote Britain and the Commonwealth in the way that they do.
It is important to recognise the CPA’s work in providing training of parliamentarians and administrators across the Commonwealth and the UK overseas territories. I am involved in the CPA’s overseas territories project—a fantastic operation that assists our territories with good governance, particularly through public accounts committees, which some of them did not have. That has had a huge positive impact, developing good practice across Commonwealth countries. The CPA’s work observing elections, providing public finance scrutiny and lobbying to increase representation of women in Commonwealth Parliaments has had some remarkable successes.
Organisations such as the CPA are what make the Commonwealth so special. It is a truly modern organisation from which other multinational structures could learn a huge amount. Members have no legal obligations to one another, but instead co-operate on the basis of bilateral agreements, human networks and the numerous associated organisations such as the CPA that work alongside Government and Commonwealth structures. These organisations are based on mutual interest and understanding and are often far stronger than some of the outdated, inflexible and undemocratic legal structures of the organisation that we have now left—the European Union. The Commonwealth has a great future with Britain playing a central part within it.
Some have criticised a renewed focus on the Commonwealth as being backward-looking, outdated and looking to empire and “Rule, Britannia!” I disagree with those people; I do not think it is. It is part of today’s world. It may be our past, but it is very much a part of our future, so that could not be further from the truth. We should be proud of what the Commonwealth is today but work to expand it and make it even more successful.
While many Commonwealth countries are former British colonies, I am glad that we have welcomed new members of the Commonwealth such as Rwanda and Mozambique, which have hardly any historical connections to Britain at all. These countries wanted to join the Commonwealth of Nations, and the fact that they have chosen to do so shows how much they respect this organisation on the global stage and how much it can offer its members. It also shows just how important the Commonwealth should be for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Britain must take advantage of these Commonwealth links by pushing an agenda that places the Commonwealth at the heart of global Britain. That means investing even more in the Commonwealth institutions and supporting organisations such as the CPA. We have already built up massive good will in many Commonwealth countries, thanks to our development funding, while helping to save lives, boosting local economies and leaving permanent infrastructure in place. We should strengthen these bodies by creating special programmes in the Department for International Development, with a focus on delivering for the Commonwealth of Nations and the British overseas territories.
Another way to strengthen the bonds between the UK and the Commonwealth is through mutual immigration and the exchange of human capital. We already have so many Commonwealth immigrants living in our country who have contributed a huge amount to the value of our country, as well as creating a permanent bond between their countries of origin and the United Kingdom. But now that we are leaving the European Union, we can finally end the discrimination against Commonwealth citizens, so that everyone can be in this country equally and fairly.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the contribution that so many Commonwealth citizens have made to our country, including of course those who came over on the Windrush. That also includes the 160 Commonwealth citizens identified by the Public Accounts Committee who may find themselves in the same position as the Windrush generation, but whom the Government are refusing to track and contact. Does he not think that we owe it to our Commonwealth brothers and sisters to do that work to make sure they do not have to go through the pain that so many have already gone through?
Andrew Rosindell
I do not think anyone should go through that pain, and what happened with the Windrush generation should never be repeated. I know that the Government are doing everything they possibly can to ensure that that does not ever happen again. If the hon. Lady thinks they are not, then I know the Minister will have heard what she said, and he will take that up with the Home Office Ministers responsible.
I hope that our newly balanced immigration system, along with exchange programmes such as the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission, will allow this dynamic interchange of people between the UK and the Commonwealth of Nations to continue well into the future.
Alongside immigration, the area where we will see the most dramatic change in our relationship with the Commonwealth in the short term is trade. The United Kingdom is becoming a beacon of free trade once again, I am pleased to say—returning to our traditional role as a global, outward-looking, seafaring nation. The Commonwealth countries represent the future of global trade, with rapid economic and population growth being the norm across the Commonwealth. New trade agreements should be struck rapidly with Commonwealth countries to take full advantage of our departure from the European Union.
The United Kingdom has neglected the trading aspects of the Commonwealth for far too long. I was glad to see that the Government recently increased its funding for the Commonwealth Standards Network, which plays a key role in breaking down non-tariff barriers between Commonwealth states. We must support initiatives such as the CSN and continue to promote free trade not just between ourselves and other Commonwealth countries, but across the entire Commonwealth. Free trade is in the interests of all members, and it is clearly in the interests of Britain to promote it now more than ever before.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a great pleasure to call Claudia Webbe to make her maiden speech.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. First, I want to express my deep gratitude to the people of Leicester East for electing me to this place. It is truly an honour to represent the city where I was born and where I grew up—the city my parents made their home. Leicester, of course, is full of surprises. I mean, who would have imagined that it would become home to the most famous car park in the world, where the remains of King Richard III were found, and who would have imagined that Leicester City football club, ranked 5,000-1 outsiders, would be crowned premier league champions in 2016?
Leicester is bursting with talent and inventiveness. We have the National Space Centre on the edge of my constituency, vibrant theatres and concert halls, and our world-famous Diwali festival on the Golden Mile. Leicester’s Attenborough arts centre is one of only five in the country to be purpose-built for disabled artists and audiences. You know, in any fish and chip shop across the country, you will find no better pie than Leicester’s Pukka Pie. There is no better cheese than Red Leicester, no better packet of crisps than Walkers and no better vegetarian curry house than in my constituency of Leicester East.
I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Keith Vaz, the longest-serving British Asian MP, who represented Leicester East for 32 years. The 1987 election, when Keith Vaz was elected, was a watershed moment in the history of race relations in this country. There had been no black MPs for over half a century. Keith Vaz became only the third British Asian ever elected to this Parliament. That election also brought to this House pioneering black MPs Paul Boateng, Bernie Grant and—my inspiration—my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the first black woman ever elected to Parliament. I am proud to be part of the Parliament with the highest number of African, Asian and minority ethnic MPs ever. Over his long parliamentary career, Keith Vaz advanced the cause of representation and race equality while also holding major positions, including Minister for Europe and, famously, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. Keith is of course a passionate campaigner on the issue of diabetes. He also did truly important work in highlighting the UK’s involvement in what he rightly called the “forgotten war” in Yemen. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will join me in wishing Keith Vaz and his family well in his retirement from this House.
As a feminist, it is a privilege to be addressing this House as the first female Member of Parliament for Leicester East. I am also proud to be the first British-born Member of Parliament of African descent from the beautiful Caribbean island of Nevis. My parents came from Nevis to the UK and, remarkably, given a Nevisian population of just 11,000, they met for the first time here. They settled in Leicester, where I was born, so Leicester of course runs through my veins.
I am a daughter of the Windrush generation, and we must never forget the history of struggle of African, Caribbean and Asian people in this so-called United Kingdom, without whose blood, sweat, toil and tears there simply would be no kingdom and no form of modern prosperity. I have no doubt that my ancestors are here with me today. And I share the pain of their suffering because of the historical injustice of slavery and colonialism, but I also share their joy at the liberation that brings me to this place today. Throughout the centuries my foremothers argued for and suffered and died for the freedoms I enjoy here today in this place. With my presence in this House, Commonwealth history and the British empire cannot hide.
We cannot talk about the present without recognition, apology, returning what was stolen and reparations for the past. One fifth of the billionaires in Britain owe their wealth to the transportation of my ancestors, because they benefited from the compensation of the equivalent of £20 billion in today’s value for the “human property” they somehow lost at sea. It is to our shame that Members of this House during the mid to late 1700s represented slave plantations, and let us not forget that British colonialism reduced India from holding 23% of the world economy to 4% by the time the British left.
How many in this House know or care about the British torture camps in 1950s Kenya, where members of the Kikuyu tribe were systematically tortured, starved, beaten, mistreated and raped? How many in this House know or care about the massacre committed by British colonial groups in the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar massacre? And let us not forget that working people here from all over the Commonwealth died in their thousands in both world wars, only to see their descendants shackled and deported in the continued shame that is the hostile environment.
My father, along with his his identical twin brother, worked as an engineer’s hand at the former Wadkin factory on Green Lane in what is now my constituency of Leicester East, but those unionised factories, jobs and industries of the past were destroyed, along with Leicester’s manufacturing base, by Thatcherism in the pursuit of free-market capitalism.
Leicester is considered the home to the garment industry. My mother was a home-worker, skilled as a dressmaker, a seamstress and an overlocker. But in Leicester’s garment industry today many workers, overwhelmingly women, earn well below the minimum wage—as little as £3 an hour in conditions that most people would find unthinkable in modern Britain.
That is the legacy of Tory deindustrialisation, yet Leicester is the place where working women fought back. It was Asian women who went on strike for equal pay at Leicester’s Imperial Typewriter Company factory, and it was those women who led the way in equal pay, race equality, and employment. I pay tribute to them.
I am incredibly proud that Leicester is one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse places in the UK. Our city’s identity is forged from a proud history of immigration from the Commonwealth and beyond. Over two thirds—68%—of my constituents are from an African, Asian or minority ethnic background, and nearly half of our residents were born outside the UK. We are home to 240 faith groups across 14 different faiths and our residents hail from 50 countries across the globe.
This is what makes Leicester East so special. We are the city where the minorities make up the majority, and we are richer for this vibrant exchange of cultures. But racism and the far right have left an indelible stain on the history of my constituency. Enoch Powell’s racist “rivers of blood” speech in 1968 gave rise to the National Front and its message of hatred and intolerance across my constituency, but the history of Leicester’s anti-racist activists, campaigners and organisers who fought back against the rise of organised racism is a source of great pride and inspiration. In April 1979, when the National Front organised a 1,000-strong rally in Leicester starting at Welford Road recreation ground, they were confronted by 2,000 anti-racist protestors who withstood police violence to send the message out loud and clear that racism shall not pass through Leicester. It was a turning point in the decline of the National Front. We even renamed Welford Road recreation ground: fittingly, we renamed it Nelson Mandela Park.
The right for different communities and cultures, and for people of all faiths and none, to live side by side has been won through generations of struggle. I do not take our unity and solidarity for granted. This Government, a Government for the super-rich, the oligarchs the tax dodgers, are still trying to divide our communities based on the colour of our skin, our religion or where we come from. I know only too well the hurt that my constituents feel when the Government legitimise the dehumanisation and marginalisation of African, Caribbean, Asian and minority ethnic communities by deporting our people and embracing institutionalised racism, as was revealed by the Windrush scandal and the hostile environment. The continued detentions, deportations and charter flights are simply barbaric.
In communities like mine, this Government have normalised hunger, poverty and hopelessness. It should be a national disgrace in the sixth richest country in the world for a single person to be without food, and for just one parent to have to choose between heating their home and feeding their children. Yet more and more families in my constituency are relying on food banks every year, and fuel poverty is growing. Nearly 40% of children in Leicester East are growing up in poverty. As the 1% increase their share of the national wealth, our regions are pulled further and further apart in terms of income inequality and life chances.
Leicester was recently shown to be one of the most polluted cities in the UK. I vow to fight for clean air. I vow to fight for clean energy and climate justice, so that my constituents and people across the world, particularly the global south, can have a liveable future. It is vital that those responsible for climate chaos, the fossil fuel companies and big polluters, are not allowed to profit from climate breakdown, and instead pay their fair share so that future generations can inherit a habitable planet.
I am proud of my party. I am proud of the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) in opposing austerity, opposing corporate power, tackling inequality and the climate emergency, and for having rewritten the terms of political debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand before you today in the lineage of people who fought to keep our culture and traditions alive, and to keep the shackles off our feet. I come from a people who survived: survived the evils of slavery. Today, and every day, I am grateful that they never gave up. I vow that as Leicester East’s new Member of Parliament, I too will never give up. I will work hard to protect all my constituents and fight against those who wish to pit our communities against each another.
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make my maiden speech.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) on her maiden speech. She has broken the ice and is on the way. It was a powerful speech with some key markers, so it is going to be interesting to watch her, although I do not quite agree with everything.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) on his maiden speech. Some time back, he said to me, “I’m an Army officer and I want to be a MP.” I said, “Why?” We then discussed why not, and after that, we discussed why he should. I left him walking away with a puzzled look on his face, but he obviously decided that the positive things were the way forward, and he is here.
The first thing I have to do is admit to being a dual national. I carry a New Zealand passport in one hand and a UK passport in the other, and that gives me a special interest in this debate. The Commonwealth works together very hard, and it competes—no more so than in sport and no more so than between Australia and New Zealand, particularly on the rugby field. If people do not come from one of those two nations, the banter between them sounds vicious, but, in fact, it is not. I was a little disappointed when the Minister said that his brother had gone to Australia, and I surmised that it was because New Zealanders would not let him in. I also did not remind him, but I will now, that the venom between the two countries—it is unreal, but joking—can reach quite a pitch, as it did some years ago, when the then New Zealand Prime Minister said that anybody from New Zealand emigrating to Australia lifted the IQ of both countries, but we will not go into that any further.
The amazing thing is that—despite the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) —the Commonwealth works. It is predominantly countries collected in the British empire’s growth and, as has been referred to, it was not always that gentle. Post Brexit, we are looking for a huge expansion in our trade deals, hence Britain is in a unique position as head of the Commonwealth. As the Minister will be aware, Commonwealth states have, for some time, been working on economic connectivity. The goal is to expand investment and boost intra-Commonwealth trade to £1.5 trillion by 2030. Member states are offering capacity building to support trade liberalisation, helping one another to realise the full economic potential and deliver prosperity for all their people. It is what we would expect from a British background.
Considering that we now have the opportunity and desirability to expand our trade, this moment could not be more opportune. Commonwealth states together comprise 14% of global GDP, or over £8 trillion. The Commonwealth’s people, as has been mentioned, make up 33% of the world’s population, of which over 60% are under the age of 30. Factors including historical ties, similar administrative and legal systems and a common language all contribute to what we can call the “Commonwealth effect.” This helps to facilitate trade, accompanied with an ease of doing business between members. Furthermore, as it is desirable for us to reach a trade agreement with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it is extremely helpful to have Commonwealth friends within the TPP.
The Commonwealth brings together a family of 54 diverse member states, all committed to the development of free and democratic societies. We all seek the promotion of peace and prosperity to improve the lives of all our people. We have a Commonwealth charter, which reminds us of our shared language, culture and history and our shared values and principles.
It is worth reminding the House, although it is not necessary, of the huge support Britain and Europe received during the second world war from Commonwealth nations, including south-east Asian nations, Canada, Australasia, the Pacific Islands and the southern African nations. For some of those nations, the losses, as a percentage of the adult male population, were staggering, particularly in my original country, New Zealand. On Remembrance Sunday in my constituency, I frequently attend a service at one of my villages during which the names of those who died from that village are read out. I have also been to a service on Anzac Day—remembrance day—in my wee village in New Zealand where they do not read out the names because it would take too long.
If one is visiting Canberra and Australia, I would highly recommend a visit to the Australian war memorial. The number of names inscribed on the memorial walls of those who lost their lives fighting, predominantly over here, in the second world war, is breathtaking and deeply sad. The explanation for that support, particularly from the Commonwealth nations, lies in the extremely strong kith and kin relationships. As I have said, my direct knowledge is predominantly about New Zealand, although I have lived for longer in the UK—I return to New Zealand occasionally to tone up my language and refresh my accent. New Zealand is a little country, being but 104 square miles greater in landmass than the United Kingdom, with a population of only 4 million, far away the majority of whom live in the north of the two islands. It is in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by amazing oceans, with phenomenal countryside, as anyone will know who has seen the “Lord of the Rings” films. In terms of saving the environment, New Zealanders are extremely green.
It is fair to say, however, that the Commonwealth group of nations also rank saving the earth high on their agenda. In 2018, a key outcome of the Commonwealth blue charter was an unprecedented multilateral commitment by the Commonwealth states to work together on ocean conservation and to meet the commitments for sustainable ocean development, which is particularly important at a time when the threats confronting our oceans are numerous and deadly. Some 47 of the 54 Commonwealth members are coastal states, and they include most of the world’s small island developing states, which are the most vulnerable to ocean degradation and climate change and face the appalling prospect of disappearing under rising sea levels. Together, they cover more than one third of national marine waters globally and are home to 42% of coral reefs. The Commonwealth group of nations do then have a huge stake in the future of our oceans. I rank islands such as the Fiji islands among the most beautiful for idyllic beach holidays. Here, you will be hosted by some of the most lovely and friendly people you could ever hope to meet. Fortunately, Commonwealth member states continue to work together to combat these threats to our marine environment. I hope to see the great promise of this work fulfilled in years to come, and I urge the Minister to continue with it.
It is great to be British—even if my accent is odd—but it is even greater to be British and a member of the Commonwealth.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be here today on Commonwealth Day and the day of the Commonwealth service, when all 53 flags are flying in Parliament Square—a day when the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill was brought before Parliament and the Minister has arranged for us to have a Commonwealth debate.
I think I arranged the first such debate in 2012 as the founding chair of the all-party group on the Commonwealth and, at that stage, Parliamentary Private Secretary to the first of two Ministers for the Commonwealth. It is a great treat to be here with him—the comeback kid of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He puts the “C” firmly back into the FCO: three times returned to the FCO to keep that C flag flying. If he has been to only 18 out of the 19 Commonwealth countries in Africa, surely his officials have an opportunity to arrange a trip to the 19th—we could even have a sweepstake on which one he has not been to.
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), the living symbol of UK-New Zealand partnership in this Chamber. His speech followed two maiden speeches of great distinction. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) typifies the concept of service before self, having moved seamlessly from the Army to Parliament, where I know he will put his constituents first. I shall return to one of his Commonwealth themes later.
We also heard a passionate speech from the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe). I have no doubt that everyone who lives in the Nevis Islands will celebrate her speech and her presence in the Chamber. She shared with us all a vivid talent for focusing on some of the crimes of the past, while perhaps skating lightly over some of the more recent scandals. We welcome her to the House. The Commonwealth is part of her, but it is also part of me, because I am a child of the Commonwealth. I was brought up in Kenya, and the atrocities in Hola to which she alluded were part of my childhood.
In the Chamber, although many of its Benches are empty at this late stage of the evening, people from all over the Commonwealth are celebrating today and what it means. This is a moment for congratulations, but also for us to reflect, each year, on what the Commonwealth means and how it is progressing. I must say that I do not share the intrinsic gloom of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who was ashamed of the past, apologetic for the present, and gloomy about the future. That, I am afraid, is my summary of his lengthy speech. He described finding “glimmers of hope” in the Commonwealth, but I think we can do better than that.
Let me give just one example of the symbol of the success of the modern Commonwealth and the countries within it. The whole business of being able to conduct financial transactions over a mobile telephone was not invented in some rich western country, or even by state-sponsored technology innovation programmes in China; it was invented and formed in Kenya. It is possible to travel over large chunks of that most lovely country and find Masai herdsmen nestling a spear in one hand while looking out over their goats and, with the other hand, transacting their business over their mobile telephones, often returning in the evening to their huts where the telephones can be recharged by a miniature solar panel. There is much to be proud of in all parts of the Commonwealth: there is innovation, and much more than “glimmers of hope”.
There has been huge progress on eliminating malaria and reducing blindness, and on the Prime Minister’s campaign in promoting 12 years of education across the Commonwealth and, indeed, across the world, supported by the Department for International Development. I believe that, in future, this country in particular will be able to offer considerable expertise to help other parts of the Commonwealth to thrive. Cyber-security is incredibly important to us all, and, as we know from what happened in the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa, there are all sorts of reasons why it should be strengthened—not just across that continent, but in other parts of the Commonwealth, including the parts where I spend some of my time nowadays as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy in the far east: Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore, three nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which are members of the Commonwealth.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
May I present another offer of hope, and a glimmer of light from the Commonwealth? Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating Rwanda, where the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting will be held? It has made enormous strides in respect of water and sanitation, which is especially impressive because it is such a mountainous country. Many other Commonwealth countries need to go further in those respects to achieve health and wealth: through the Commonwealth and our work with DFID projects, we can achieve that as well. Water and sanitation need to be part of CHOGM, and part of our work with the Commonwealth.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her considerable intervention, which demonstrated her love of Rwanda. No doubt she has spent a great deal of time there. I am occasionally in touch with a former Anglican bishop of Rwanda, who is equally proud of some of the great progress that has been made in that country.
There is a slight warning note about Rwanda, which is a remarkable member of the Commonwealth. Her history is different, as she joined 28 years ago—something like that—and there is a caveat for all of us: not to put its leader on a pedestal. We are all human, and we all have feet of clay. I remember vividly the disappointment felt by many hon. Members when Aung San Suu Kyi became Prime Minister of Burma, but then presided over one of the world’s saddest periods of internal conflict and possible genocide against the Rohingya people. That was a period in which those who had strongly supported her opening the new Labour offices when she visited London had cause to reflect on the fragility of all of us as humans.
I return to two or three things that I should like to ask the Minister. During our time as the chairing office, various initiatives were launched, all of which I supported strongly—for example, the new business Commonwealth standards network, the world trade-based trade facilitation agreement, the Commonwealth clean oceans alliance, and the marine economies programme. All those were good news, and worthy causes. Will the Minister give us a brief update on how they are doing, and whether the progress made during our time in the chair can be continued?
Will the Minister also consider something else, so that we can end on a note of great consensus among Members all parties in the Chamber, including the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who made a very good speech on the Commonwealth, wrapped in a more traditional speech about the European Union? The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell about Commonwealth servicemen and women having to pay considerable amounts of money when applying for the right to remain here after five years’ service is something about which many of us feel strongly. In fact, I attracted 125 signatures to a letter that I wrote to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), last year. He was sympathetic, as were Ministers in the Ministry of Defence, who said that it was a Home Office decision.
I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to take careful note of today’s debate and the feelings on this issue. I understand that there are problems—there always are—of precedence and cost. There are lots of different problems, as we want those Commonwealth servicemen to be motivated by the concept of serving in our armed forces rather than purely being attracted to the later possibility of being able to bring their whole family here. I understand all those problems, but my hon. Friend, who is nodding from a sedentary position, would probably agree on something about which many of us feel strongly, as does the British Legion. There must be an opportunity for the new Government to do us all a favour by taking a closer look at what can be done to help Commonwealth servicemen and women on Commonwealth Day, in a debate in which there is much good will across the House to make the Commonwealth prosper.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
May I begin by paying tribute to some of the speeches that have been made? My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) spoke passionately about a number of issues, particularly special educational needs, which I am incredibly passionate about as well. We need to make sure that we do something on that in this Parliament, otherwise we will have huge problems as a country. I predict that I will disagree with the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) on quite a few issues in the next however many years, but she made a very good maiden speech. I am not saying that just because it is customary to say so; she is clearly a powerful orator. She mentioned her ancestors, and I am sure that they will be incredibly proud of her and the speech that she made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about the reaction of the Opposition Front Bench to the debate, and the glimmers of hope that he sees. While acknowledging that the history of the British empire was chequered, to say that no positive contribution was made at all is wrong. The incessant need to prioritise apologising for our country the whole time and not saying anything good about us as a country and our history and why we are special is the reason why lots of patriotic voters up and down the country abandoned the Labour party at the last election, because it turned its back on them. By the looks of things, it will continue to do so.
It is a privilege to speak on Commonwealth Day in this debate on the Commonwealth of Nations in 2020. The historic bonds between the 54 countries of the Commonwealth are of immense personal significance to many people in Ipswich, as well as to millions of people across the country and around the world. Unfortunately, however, although those bonds have endured in people’s hearts, this country’s relationship with our Commonwealth partners has been neglected over the decades. As we have been shackled to the European Union and tied into the dogmatic pursuit of ever closer union, we have been drawn away from some of our closest friends and most loyal allies in the Commonwealth. This has left many around the world, including me, with a deep sense of regret.
Before our exit from the European Union on 31 January, we were members of an artificial and Babylonian construct that sought to govern the peoples of Europe and attain the power to coerce their elected Governments. Rather than bringing people together, this form of supranational government often drives people apart. This outdated and undemocratic model—which former European Commission President José Manuel Barroso likened to the creation of a new empire—stands in stark contrast to the values and principles of the Commonwealth. Our Commonwealth of nations is based on a voluntary association of sovereign states, with no country exercising power or dominance over any other. Commonwealth countries retain their right to opt out of any arrangements, and there is no obligation to hand over legal or regulatory powers to unaccountable bodies. This intergovernmental system reflects the sense of security that Commonwealth countries have in their own identities, and the respect that they hold for each other as equal members of our Commonwealth community. It fosters a working environment based on agreement and respect that makes positive and consensual co-operation possible.
Unlike the EU, which is driven by the idealism of an elite few, the Commonwealth is grounded fundamentally in what unites its peoples. These bonds are practical and tangible, but also immensely personal in many ways. They were forged in our shared history, trade, common culture, the language we speak, common law, shared values and the movement of people, and even as brothers in war. These are the elements we must consider as we debate the Commonwealth in 2020 and as we look to our global future.
If we are to reignite our relationship with this modern and dynamic community of countries, free trade must be at the heart of our efforts to make up for lost time. We must not forget that free trade was laid down in the Commonwealth’s Singapore declaration as one of our core common values and goals. Trade between Commonwealth nations is already estimated to be worth approximately £425 billion a year, and it is projected to rise to over £532 billion this year. Some 60% of the Commonwealth’s 2.4 billion population are aged under 30 and it also has some of the world’s fastest growing economies, so the opportunities for mutually beneficial trade are enormous.
Now that we have taken back control of our trade policy and left the stagnant and protectionist EU bloc—which frequently raised tariffs to the rest of the world as it struggled to get its own trade deals over the line—there is no reason why we cannot grasp the opportunities of intra-Commonwealth trade with both hands. The EU has trade agreements with 23 Commonwealth states but those deals represent only a small fraction of what is possible. India-EU negotiations have been ongoing since 2007 without success, and the Canada deal, which did eventually pass, was almost vetoed at the last moment. We could not rely on the EU to prioritise our Commonwealth links.
That is why I welcome the targets set out by the Commonwealth Heads of Government to boost intra-Commonwealth trade to £1.5 trillion by 2030. We must be ready to play a full role in building new trade deals with our partners on the foundations of the legal, linguistic and cultural norms we already share. While these important aspects are already in place, this country must also be prepared, as I have said before in this place, to be nimble, flexible and determined in the world as we seek to free ourselves from the EU’s protectionist customs union. India alone has a population of 1.3 billion, which is double the size of the EU’s. We must have the right tools in place if we are going to embrace our future as a truly global free-trading nation. In the past, Belgium has often traded more to India than we have. The European Union has been a barrier to our embracing the growth that was happening in India. If we are going to embrace this opportunity to trade with the Commonwealth, we must have first-class infrastructure to support ports such as Ipswich and Felixstowe, and to ensure that all parts of this country share in the benefits of increased trade.
If this country is to broaden its horizons to the Commonwealth and the world, we must also have a laser-like focus on the parts of the country that have untapped trading potential. The new role that we can play in the Commonwealth will be determined more than anything by our investment and belief in places such as Ipswich and the east of England.
A great deal of belief and investment in our town has already been made by the great number of Commonwealth citizens and Commonwealth-origin Brits who have made Ipswich their home, and I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to them. Among them are members of the Indian community, who play a vital role in our town, with many dedicating themselves to caring for others by filling many of the roles in our local NHS. We also have a great Bangladeshi community, which has produced some of our town’s most successful business owners and entrepreneurs. Their care for the wider community must not be understated either. The Bangladeshi Support Centre in Ipswich supports not only vulnerable people from the Bangladeshi community, but people from over 50 different nationalities across the town.
I have been lucky during my time as an MP to have many positive interactions with these communities, and of course that has been aided by the common language shared throughout the Commonwealth—I am of course referring to the language of cricket. Some Members might have spotted that I am wearing the tie of the all-party parliamentary group on cricket. We need to have a big screen in Ipswich town centre for the next cricket world cup, and indeed the next time there is an England-Bangladesh game or an England-India game. We need to embrace the festival of cricket to a far greater extent than we have in the past.
Jim Shannon
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand how important it is to support Ipswich Town football club as well. My eldest son supports Ipswich Town, who are well known as the Tractor Boys. They are not doing so well this season, but they are still a team worth supporting.
Tom Hunt
Absolutely. Things are not great at the moment for Ipswich Town—we are 10th in the third division and things look pretty bleak. Only four weeks ago we beat Lincoln 1-0 and we were top of the table, so how quickly things can change—maybe I was a bad omen. Cricket unites Commonwealth citizens across the continents and is truly a great symbol of what we share, as last year’s world cup demonstrated.
Richard Graham
One of the things that I hope the Minister will celebrate when he winds up this evening is the role of the Commonwealth within the United Kingdom today. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, we all have Commonwealth citizens serving in our hospitals and often in our armed forces, as has been mentioned. In many areas of life the children of the Commonwealth are playing such an important role, and we need to celebrate that this evening.
Tom Hunt
I could not agree more. They truly are the best of us, and that needs to be recognised to an even greater extent.
One point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) is the issue of Commonwealth citizens serving in our armed forces. Currently, when Commonwealth personnel have served for at least four yours and wish to continue to live in this country, they face fees of nearly £2,400 per person for indefinite leave to remain. That means that a family of four faces a cost of over £9,500. The House does not need to be reminded of the enormous sacrifices made for us by those countries now in the Commonwealth during the great conflicts of the 20th Century. At least a quarter of those who laid down their lives for Britain’s cause in the first world war were not British. Commonwealth citizens still fill the shortages in our ranks today.
Those who sacrifice so much for our country, and who have travelled far from their families to do so, should not face such exorbitant fees to stay in the country they have served. I urge the Government to waive the fees for brave Commonwealth troops serving in the British military, as they did in 2018 when they waived immigration fees for Afghan interpreters who had aided British forces in Afghanistan. If anybody should not be considered a foreigner in our country, it is them.
This country’s decision to leave the European Union was not inward-looking or isolationist, but an opportunity to pursue a global future as an independent, sovereign country. It is an opportunity because leaving the European Union by itself is just the beginning of that effort. As we take our first steps as an independent country, reaching out to our partners in the Commonwealth should be one of our highest priorities. The theme for this year’s Commonwealth Day is “Delivering a Common Future: Connecting, Innovating, Transforming”. It is a message that we must embrace wholeheartedly. Whether it is trade, immigration, integration or co-operation, so many of the right preconditions already exist to create more Commonwealth success stories. People strongly believe in the Commonwealth links we share, in Ipswich and across the country. Let us act on these human relations and turn them into a reality for this country’s new relationship with the Commonwealth.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I welcome my friend and mentor the Minister to his place, and I welcome his experience and passion. Many have mentioned that this is not his first time at the Dispatch Box in a similar role, and I know he will serve us and our Commonwealth friends diligently.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who does great service to the Commonwealth. If he ever needs an apprentice, he can find one here ready to be put to work.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who spoke so movingly—I am sure his words touched many of us. And I welcome the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), my constituency neighbour. She was heartfelt in her words, and I am sure she will be heartfelt many more times in the Chamber.
There is a hierarchy of countries in this world. There are the big players—we all know who they are—and the smaller states that are too often left adrift, but the Commonwealth is not like that. There are few organisations in the world in which the Prime Minister of Antigua and the Prime Minister of Australia can sit side by side not just as friends but as equals. It is because of that equality that the Commonwealth has, in the words of perhaps its greatest citizen, Nelson Mandela, made the world safe for diversity.
The Commonwealth encompasses the 12th-richest country in the world and the fourth poorest. It includes the world’s largest democracy by population, India, and the world’s largest by area, Canada, which is also the only other country in the world to call its lower House the House of Commons. The Commonwealth Members in this Chamber will also be keen to note that our Dispatch Boxes were a gift from our faraway friends, the Kiwis, which I am sure will hearten my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). When the Commonwealth speaks, the world speaks.
The equality at the heart of the Commonwealth is not a recent innovation but one moulded at its founding in 1867, which was perhaps the first time in history when power was relinquished without a shot being fired. Power was given to the people of Canada in that founding act of 1867, which was followed by Australia’s independence in 1901, New Zealand’s in 1907 and all the way to Saint Kitts and Nevis’s in 1983. That demonstrates a model of peaceful transition based on mutual respect and democratic values, a model of which we can be justly and enormously proud.
However, not all the transitions have been so peaceful, nor has the Commonwealth’s history always been quite so glorious and, if I may, I will take a moment to mention when the United Kingdom itself did not live up to the principles so eloquently expressed in the Commonwealth’s founding documents. Importantly, it was our Commonwealth allies who answered the call as we dragged our feet.
I speak, of course, of our response to apartheid. Although it should still fill us with shame that the United Kingdom was too slow to respond to the depravity and human horror of apartheid, we should be filled with pride that it was our brothers and sisters in the Commonwealth who pulled us out and made us speak truth. Most notably, it was Conservative Prime Ministers, Malcolm Fraser of Australia and Brian Mulroney of Canada, who led the Commonwealth’s opposition to that hateful regime, and I am proud that the United Kingdom has learned from that moment.
The Commonwealth is an equal body when it speaks, and it speaks with uncommon moral force. Seeking unanimity, the United Kingdom led the charge to kick out Zimbabwe in 2003 and to suspend Pakistan after the overthrow of the Government in 1999, to suspend Fiji in 2009, and to suspend Nigeria in 1995 until a civilian President was elected in 1999.
Together with our leadership, the Commonwealth has become one of the great beacons of human rights and a champion of the values that unite us and all the democratic peoples of the world, but we must show leadership again today. LGBTQ+ rights, on which we must fight within the Commonwealth, have been raised multiple times today. We must ensure that we stand strong on domestic abuse and women’s rights, as well as on climate change—my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) rightly mentioned our work on oceans—on disability, as raised by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), and on terrorism. We must stand strong against the shared threat we face.
What is more, the Commonwealth’s ties do not end every other year at the Heads of Government meeting. Together we find common cause at the WTO, in the UN, in the UNHRC and in the Five Eyes network. In every major forum in which the United Kingdom plays a part, our Commonwealth friends are there with us ready to make the case for markets, for democracy, for serving together and for the universal values that make the Commonwealth a great inheritor of perhaps the world’s greatest traditions.
It is also the Commonwealth through which we can tackle shared concerns. The Commonwealth provides a platform to tackle the current divisive rhetoric and actions between India and Pakistan, and it can create dialogue to end division. Here in the UK, as many Members have mentioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), we must tackle our not having given the Commonwealth soldiers who served alongside us the right they deserve to remain in this country, and they should not face exorbitant fees to do so.
Now, as we seek to rebalance our engagement with the wider world—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich for his passionate statement of support for our independence as we leave the EU—the Commonwealth presents us with glorious opportunities. It represents an economy of £10 trillion, which we must tap into if we are to seize the global opportunities afforded to us by leaving the EU. When we negotiate with other Commonwealth members, we will negotiate not only as business partners but as friends. In the sometimes cut-throat world of international trade, that cannot be underestimated. At the same time, we can lead with the island nations on climate change. Many of the most forceful global advocates exist in places such as St Kitts and Bangladesh. The Commonwealth may not be the only place where we can balance the development needs of the global south while recognising the imperative of decarbonisation, but it is perhaps the only place where we can be sure that all voices will be respected.
It is vital that we have a meaningful diplomatic strategy for the Commonwealth, not just a swathe of individual agreements and individual focus, country by country, but an overarching goal and objective, where the Foreign Office works together as one. There may be more effective forums, larger gatherings, more prestigious summits and more exclusive meetings, but in terms of getting the world in a room, with diversity united by shared values, and equality of aim and spirit, the Commonwealth is unparalleled. For our hand in that, we should be justly proud and seize the opportunities it presents. I thank my friends and allies across the Commonwealth for their friendship, and I look forward to our shared future.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
First, I would like to wish everyone a happy Commonwealth Day. I would also like to thank Members for their meaningful contributions in this debate. We have heard speeches and interventions from some 26 Members. Let me also congratulate the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) on making two excellent and passionate maiden speeches.
The Commonwealth is one of the oldest and most diverse political associations. It was established more than 70 years ago and includes 54 member states. Some 2.5 billion people around the world are members, from the Caribbean to the Americas, from Europe out to Asia, Australasia and Africa. But what does it all mean for an incredible collection of people? The core values and principles of the Commonwealth, as outlined in its charter, include democracy; human rights; peace and security; tolerance, respect and understanding; protecting the environment; and gender equality. There is no doubt, however, that the Commonwealth faces a lot of challenges, including human rights abuses, resistance to upholding the rule of law, and persecution of minorities, but it also has a lot of potential and promise, which I will explore.
Given the rise of populist Governments, the need for a strong multilateral organisation is more important than ever. A united Commonwealth that upholds and promotes democratic culture can demonstrate to the world why institutions such as this one are so important. I would like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) in saying that the Commonwealth can remain a vital force for good in our world.
In many ways, I am an embodiment of the Commonwealth, having roots in both Pakistan and India, and having grown up in Britain. The UK is hugely indebted to the Commonwealth. The contributions made by Commonwealth communities are colossal and vast. The military contributions made during the second world war will never be forgotten, and their legacy must be remembered. Indeed, my father served in the British Indian Army. In order to keep these stories alive, will the Minister agree that it would be a good idea to include them as part of school curriculums?
Currently, more than 6,000 personnel from Commonwealth countries are serving in the UK armed forces, with more being recruited each year to fill technical and specialist roles. Despite the sacrifice that the many Commonwealth personnel have made, they are faced with fees of £2,389 if they wish to apply to continue to live in the country that they have served for four years. Speaker after speaker today has touched on that point, and I hope that the Minister will convey the message to the Government so that we can have change. The Government must drop the visa fees for Commonwealth personnel and their families.
With the upcoming Heads of Government meeting in June, we have a perfect opportunity to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the Commonwealth. The theme for this year’s meeting is “Delivering a Common Future: Connecting, Innovating, Transforming”. Five sub-themes have also been identified: governance and the rule of law, IT and innovation, youth, environment and trade.
There is no doubt that the diversity of the Commonwealth is a strength, and our Commonwealth diaspora communities are at the heart of that. As Members have rightly identified, in 2022 the Commonwealth games will be held in Birmingham, a city that is rich in diversity and culture. I remember when Manchester hosted the Commonwealth games in 2002; what a proud moment that was for our city. It brought tremendous opportunity, as I am sure it will do for Birmingham. I look forward to the UK hosting the iconic games once again and celebrating the power of bringing people together and making connections across the UK and the Commonwealth.
Another strength of the Commonwealth is its 1.4 billion young people, who will help to define our future. It is vital that the Commonwealth demonstrates its relevance to the youth by representing their interests and showing commitment to tackling the climate crisis, prioritising girls’ education and ensuring LGBT rights.
The Commonwealth, in all its diversity, champions religious freedom, but the ongoing violence in India and the discrimination against religious minorities in many Commonwealth countries reminds us of our shared responsibility to uphold and protect the fundamental human right to freedom of religion or belief. No one should be persecuted for their faith. The upcoming Heads of Government meeting will provide a useful platform for discussion. It is worth noting that it will take place in Rwanda, where an unprecedented amount of human rights violations have taken place.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is speaking on the issue of freedom of religious belief; it is really important that all the Commonwealth countries respect freedom of religious belief. It is about respect, tolerance and love for all. That is something that we can all take on board, but all countries need to absorb it and live it out, too.
Afzal Khan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I am looking forward to his Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday and hope to join him. I hope that the Minister will commit to raising human rights violations in the Commonwealth at this prime opportunity.
A strong and united Commonwealth must be able to tackle the crisis in the light of the current coronavirus outbreak. Will the Minister tell us what assistance the UK will provide to vulnerable countries in the Commonwealth with insecure health systems?
In conclusion, the Commonwealth is a diverse family of nations that, by virtue of historical and cultural ties and shared values, seeks to find solutions and share common goals. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown highlighted, there is a gap between the Commonwealth’s emphasis on human rights and the reality on the ground in many member states. We should be focusing on promoting democratic values and developing and amplifying the voices of small states; upholding human rights and LGBT rights; and tackling global challenges such as extremism and climate change. The potential for the Commonwealth is vast, but to ensure that that potential is realised, we have a responsibility to promote the common principles throughout the Commonwealth, along with all our other human rights goals.
James Duddridge
Happy Commonwealth Day to you, Mr Speaker. I know that you have been busy at Westminster Abbey and elsewhere carrying out duties, but I hope that you have had time to celebrate Commonwealth Day as well.
This has been a fantastic debate celebrating the Commonwealth from the perspective of Manchester, of Birmingham earlier in the day, and even of Romford, where, if I have no other plans, I will be going to the market on Saturday to join the festivities. I will just have to check my diary to see whether I am free.
The debate has been wide-ranging. I will try to pick up on a number of consistent themes. LGBT rights were mentioned, with a number programmes on which we are focusing. I want to focus on this issue, although it is not directly within my list of ministerial responsibilities. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked specifically about flags. I stated the position in a previous debate and that position has not changed, but I am more than happy have a chat to him about that. The Opposition Front Bench speakers mentioned the issue of youth. The Foreign Office was represented at director level, but I am more than happy to meet youth parliamentarians of the Commonwealth myself next time around. That is a commitment.
Richard Graham
The Minister will remember that a year ago, he and I sat down together and discussed a project, which is now known as CP4G—the Commonwealth Partnership for Good—between the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other partners. As he knows, that partnership has been put together. Its focus is on trying to help youth, women, LGBT and those with disabilities into parliamentary democracy. Does he agree that this helps to answer some of the questions asked by the Opposition, and that it is proving successful?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. It has been a very successful programme, which drills down into specific countries rather than being about generalities, and gives covering fire to discuss problematic issues in those countries under the guise of discussing a whole number of matters.
A number of colleagues and the Labour Front Benchers mentioned the issue of Commonwealth veterans. I have listened very carefully to those comments, and I will be seeking a discussion with the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, who is now separate from the Ministry of Defence and from the Home Office. I was asked to have a meeting with him, and I think that is the right way forward. There is also the issue of the veterans of the second world war. I have not yet received parliamentary questions on that, although I understand that there have been historical questions. I am more than happy to review those questions and to respond to further such questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) was introduced incorrectly, I think, as a new Member of Parliament, so competent and lucid was he. However, I will never ever be able to listen to the phrase “blue rosette on a donkey” or “blue rosette on a monkey” without hearing the example from Bracknell of a blue rosette on a dog turd. I do not thank my hon. Friend for that analogy. I think he is a very modest man—we heard later in an intervention of his service in the Falkland Islands—and a very sensible man from the Logistics Corps who praised in advance the logistics of this House, which serve us all incredibly well.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) pointed out that we have served together a number of times in debates on this issue and will continue to do so. I look forward to working with my Scottish colleagues and will be visiting the joint headquarters of the Department for International Development next week in East Kilbride.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has been an advocate for all things overseas territories and dependencies. I cannot promise him an outcome, but the trajectory of travel is to work closer and closer with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. He raised a very good point about the flags, and he asked me not to take them down tomorrow. I can confirm that I will not take them down tomorrow, and that I will consult Government protocol to find out why they cannot stay up for longer, so that we can celebrate the Commonwealth over a longer period. I know that he has been passionate about flags, and that he has had a big flag raised at the other end of this building, and I am keen to support the celebrations further.
We had an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe). I am not sure what it says about her parents—they spent all that time on Nevis, an island state of 11,000 people, without meeting and then they nipped over to Leicester and suddenly they were together. I am minded to say that there must be something in the water, or perhaps it is the Pukka Pies that she was advocating in her speech. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to wish Keith Vaz a happy retirement from politics and thank him for his service on the Commonwealth parliamentary executive, among his other achievements. I will now also always think of Leicester East as the minorities that make up the majority; that is rather a lovely way of describing an eclectic and interesting constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) explained to me the rivalry between New Zealand and Australia, and I welcome his putting on record that my brother is now an Australian. He also talked of coastal states and small states, and climate change—an issue that we will follow closely as part of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and COP26.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) thanked me for being the comeback kid and for putting the C back into the Commonwealth. I did wonder what he was talking about, and then I realised that the C stood for Commonwealth. I thank him for his experience and passion, and for setting up his all-party group.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) talked eloquently of historic bonds and mentioned the trade benefits from the Commonwealth post EU. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) talked about us coming together as equals in a tour de force of speech. I thought she was going to break the convention of not interrupting a maiden speech; she was writhing in her seat in anger at references by the hon. Member for Leicester East to Pukka Pies, because she maintains that Melton Mowbray pork pies that are the best pies in the whole Commonwealth.
This has been an excellent debate, and I hope it is an annual one. With that, I do not intend to detain the House further.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Commonwealth in 2020.
Business without Debate
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 6 to 9 together.
Ordered,
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
That John Howell be discharged from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and Paul Howell be added.
European Scrutiny
That Margaret Ferrier be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee.
Finance
That Nigel Mills and Sir Robert Syms be discharged from the Finance Committee and Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Dame Eleanor Laing and Tommy Sheppard be added.
Procedure
That Dr Kieran Mullan be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Anthony Mangnall be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills
Ordered,
That Duncan Baker, Simon Baynes, Elliot Colburn, Chris Elmore, Imran Hussein, Simon Jupp, Conor McGinn, Grahame Morris, Jane Stevenson, Julian Sturdy and Suzanne Webb be members of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Flood Prevention: Rainwater Attenuation and Reservoirs
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I rise to speak this evening on the topic of improving rainwater attenuation and storage, and preventing and mitigating flooding. For millennia, we have lived in this country in a temperate climate—a green and pleasant land, according to the immortal words of William Blake. We have enjoyed rain, but what we have seen in recent years and decades is freak weather, increasing rainfall and intense rainfall events. This February was the wettest month on record.
In my constituency, Welches Meadow—a field adjacent to the River Leam—has been under water for many weeks now. When I travel here by train, I pass through Warwickshire and Oxfordshire, and I see so many fields still inundated with water. Across the country, we have seen extraordinary weather events over many months, most recently with Storm Ciara and Storm Dennis, which have brought about so much devastation and damage. There have been winds of up to 80 or 90 mph, and my feelings and thoughts go out to all the communities that have been so affected: the Calder valley, Cumbria, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, the south-west, the south-east, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales—right across the country. We saw the extreme impact of Storm Dennis on south Wales just a few days ago. Back in November, there was flooding across Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire. We were told that this was a one-in-60-years event, according to the experts. But as we saw in Doncaster with 3 inches of rain falling in 24 hours, these events are happening so much more frequently than they were a few decades ago. I think back to 2004 and the terrible flooding in Boscastle—that tragedy when the rivers overflowed and the little town was almost washed away.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important issue. Does he agree that the recent floods have highlighted the fact that there must be a designated strategy—we look to the Minister for that—to deal with overflow? Does he agree that the harvesting of rainwater via attenuation ponds on farmland should be further investigated and initiatives introduced to make this attractive to farmers and landowners as a way forward in solving some of the flooding issues?
Matt Western
The hon. Gentleman makes a terrific point, as always, and I welcome his contribution, as ever. I will come on to those points a little bit later.
In Warwick and Leamington, we have had, over the years, serious flooding events ourselves. Back in 1998 and 2007, we suffered too, so I have compassion—as do, I am sure, my communities—for those who have been affected in recent weeks and months. In the watershed that we sit in of the Leam—the Avon river that feeds into the Severn—we are quite a way upstream and so relatively less affected than places such as Tewkesbury and elsewhere further down in the Severn valley.
Key to all this is managing flooding and the attenuation of the rainwaters, slowing the flow so that rivers, drains and other natural drainage can manage. Most of the time, natural systems can cope well, but when we see these extreme peaks, we need better management. So the priority must be for natural solutions, but they are not enough. Evidently, as we have seen, there needs to be urgent intervention and investment, but also, I would argue, a change to the planning and building regulations and how we use reservoirs.
Let me first deal with planning. Planning is of course critical—what is built where, bearing in mind the topography and the relationship with the watershed. I think back to the national planning policy framework, where too much power was given to developers to use land as the location for housing built at the wrong densities for communities in, all too often, the wrong places. I look to the south of Warwick and Leamington, where I am sure that the new residents who have moved in would have preferred to live in much higher densities with greater services, greater transport infrastructure and so on. Building over so much farmland has reduced the availability of land to absorb these high-rainfall events. Homeowners across the country have had their homes built on floodplains in areas where they can no longer get insurance, or if they can get insurance, the cost is prohibitively high and they are suffering because they cannot afford it. They are almost excluded from having insurance because of its cost.
Let me turn to building regulations. I think back to the Climate Change Act 2008, when we were promised zero-carbon homes by 2016. That was followed by the tragic Budget from the incoming coalition Government that tore up all that vision—that ideal—to see those great new Passivhaus homes built that recognised the importance of the environment in the equation. I am afraid that the Cameron Government of that time presided over the greatest act of environmental vandalism. Millions of homes have been built since, and their owners have missed out on what could have been fabulous zero-carbon or very-low-carbon homes. There was also the failure to recognise the importance of water in our environment. In his April 2011 speech, David Cameron said: “I want to rip up red tape. I want to get rid of that green cack”—I think that was the word. He got rid of the code for sustainable homes and replaced it with building regulations that did not go far enough. He wanted to save his friends the builders more money. He stated that, by changing the regulations, the builders would save £500 a home, giving them £60 million more a year in revenues. We have only to look at companies such as Persimmon, which is the most high-profile example, and the sort of profit it has made since to realise that that was a short-term and disastrous policy.
The building regulations could have included more sustainable water attenuation. Things such as sustainable urban drainage systems have been introduced, but I believe that greywater harvesting could have been the critical difference. Systems for the use of rainwater collected at source and stored are as cheap as chips, and for new build homes, they could have made a massive difference. Built at scale across new communities, they would have provided a huge rainwater storage capacity upstream, controlling the release of water into drains. When I renovated my home 10 years ago, I managed to put in a 1,500-litre capacity. For the 20,000 homes being built around Warwick and Leamington, that would have equated to 25,000 tonnes of rainwater being captured.
When researching this subject, I looked at fabulous periodicals such as Water. An article in July 2019 says:
“Different studies showed that, in urban catchments, the extensive installation of rainwater harvesting tanks could be an efficient support for reducing frequency and peak of stormwater flood.”
It cites some research that was done in the UK, while researchers in China found that
“the system has a good performance in mitigating urban waterlogging problems,”
reducing flood volume of 14%, 30% and 58% in the cases of maximum daily rainfall, annual average maximum daily rainfall and critical rainfall respectively.
Those are impressive figures, but as technology moves on, we see the introduction of smart rainwater harvesting systems. Another paper by academics was produced in Water in November last year. The study concluded that:
“smart rain watertanks operated as a system in real-time during a storm event… can significantly reduce the downstream peak runoff flow rate for a wide range of storm durations”—
30 minutes to 24 hours—and frequencies of between 50% and 1% annual exceedance probability. It went on to say:
“this is the first study to demonstrate that household-scale rainwater tanks could potentially provide peak flow attenuation performance across a wide range of storm event durations for rare events”—
in other words, a 10% to 1% annual exceedance probability. I cite that research to show that these systems are out there; we just have to adopt them as policy. That is what needs to be done, because after energy, water is a massive issue for us.
Per person, we use 142 litres of water per day, and a household uses 350 litres. If we were to introduce rainwater harvesting tanks, we would be able to assist in the demand and consumption within a property, not just the storage, which would help to mitigate flooding. We use 840 billion litres of water a year just for showers, 740 billion litres for flushing our toilets and a further 360 billion for washing machines and dishwashers. Some 25% of total water consumption is used for showers, and 22% just goes straight down the toilet. I see this as a huge opportunity to reduce bills and aid flood management. If we combine the greywater supply for toilets, washing machines and use in the garden, it would account for a third of the total and could save each household up to £150.
The third change I propose is in regard to reservoirs and detention ponds. I urge the Government to provide the Environment Agency with greater powers, to enable it to work more closely with the water utility companies, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) in her Reservoirs (Flood Risk) Bill. Such an approach would allow the water companies to run at lower levels in reservoirs when high rainfall is anticipated, and the trials undertaken by Yorkshire Water at six reservoirs upstream in the Calder valley have shown that this could greatly mitigate flood events if run at levels below 100%. It has trialled it at 90%, and now it is going to trial it at 85%. As I understand it, similar trials and conversations have been happening at Thirlmere reservoir in Cumbria, and at the reservoirs in the upper Don valley and at Watergrove reservoir in Rochdale.
A change in the legislation is needed. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) so beautifully put it, we have huge opportunities, particularly with farmland. I speak to farmers in my local area, and I spoke to those at Canalside—a community supported agriculture project just outside my constituency, with which I used to have a considerable involvement—and they cannot sow or put in onions for the next harvest because the ground is so waterlogged. That is what we are seeing for farmers all over the UK.
To summarise: what we have witnessed—not in recent weeks or months, but actually years—is that we are having more frequent, more intense and more severe weather events than we were having 30 years ago. I lived in London 25 years ago and I now of course live here again, and when I compare and contrast the sort of weather we are having now, I see that the climate has really changed in that 25-year period. It is really quite remarkable.
My thoughts are with all the communities that have been affected by these terrible floods most recently, but we have the wit and the knowledge to bring about change. If we change the planning legislation, do not build on the floodplain, change the building regulations and reintroduce the code for sustainable homes, plus include the fitting of greywater or rainwater harvesting systems, it would be as cheap as chips, as I say, for any new build property. That is what we can do: we can build storage upstream in these communities for them to use the water, or for it to be released when it is the right time to do so, and ease the pressure on the precious infrastructure that we have in our drainage system. At the same time, we could turbo-boost the sustainable urban drainage schemes, and introduce more small reservoirs, detention ponds, swales and infiltration basins.
I also urge the Government to revisit the scheme for an Abingdon reservoir, and likewise in Maidenhead and elsewhere across the country. To my mind, if we are prepared to spend £1 billion a year on flood defence measures, surely a more sensible thought is to spend money further upstream, think about how we can detain the water, think about attenuation systems—I evidenced that through the two academic papers detailing what can be achieved—and, finally, give the Environment Agency greater powers over reservoir management, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, which I believe would be a very welcome amendment to the Environment Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure, as ever, to have you in the Chair for these late-night debates.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate. As he pointed out, it is very timely, given the unprecedented rainfall we have had and the frequent consequent flooding incidents. It is understandable that attention is now being given to how the impacts might be lessened, including the role that reservoirs might play in our water system. He mentioned that at the end, and I will refer to reservoirs quite significantly in my response.
First, I want to touch on the earlier points raised, which are specifically to do with housing. A great many of the issues raised are linked to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because planning obviously comes under that Department. However, the hon. Gentleman made some really interesting points, particularly about sustainable urban drainage. When I was a Back Bencher—I would say a lowly Back Bencher, Mr Speaker—it was actually one of my hot topics, and something I particularly spoke about and was encouraging.
Sustainable drainage schemes are now being given a great deal more attention, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. In the hierarchy of the drainage system, developers are required to explore the inclusion of sustainable drainage schemes in all new developments, so we are definitely moving in that direction. The Environment Agency is working on schemes up and down the country, including some with large-scale SuDS. I visited one in Manchester recently; a huge area had been created that could flood, if necessary, to protect the nearby flats in the event of flooding. It has also turned into a lovely wildlife area and a great place to walk around. So there are lots of spin-offs and benefits.
I also want to mention rainwater harvesting. Many developments are now including rainwater harvesting—what we call grey water—and I believe we will see a great deal more of that going forward. Again, it is very much an MHCLG agenda in the planning guidance.
The question of building on floodplains was also raised. The Environment Agency comments on all applications for development on floodplains. It gives advice, but it is the local planning authorities that make the decisions about whether the housing should go forward, so it is very much a local decision and up to the local authority to have its own plans about what it thinks is correct or not. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington raised some good points on that agenda.
Matt Western
I totally accept that point, and of course it is an MHCLG responsibility, but if the planning authorities had greater powers—I fear that the power balance has shifted far too far towards the developer—we could be building at far greater densities. That would mean that there was not a requirement to build on floodplains.
Rebecca Pow
But it still stands that it is a local planning decision to allow building on floodplains to go ahead, and that is very much an MHCLG agenda.
I want to talk about the reservoir issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. Many people are suggesting that that provides a simple answer to some of our flooding issues and also our water supply issue, but of course they are very complex issues involving a range of stakeholders and they have to be considered in relation to how reservoirs might be managed and operated throughout the year. On that, I must give assurances that flood and coastal erosion risk management is a big Government priority now, with £2.6 billion already devoted to this area in the last spending round up to 2021 and the recent announcement, to be confirmed in this week’s Budget, of funding for flood defences of £5.2 billion. That will be helping a further 2,000 new flood and coastal defence schemes and better protect 336,000 properties across the country.
There are of course reservoirs at the moment that are used for flood risk management. The Environment Agency operates more than 200 reservoirs around the country, especially for flood attenuation. That is their purpose in life and the amount of water in them during non-flood conditions is kept deliberately low in order to maximise the storage available during high rainfall and storm events. Many of those reservoirs have been operated this winter, and, in combination with other flood defence measures in the catchment, have provided protection to a great many people.
Jim Shannon
Farmers and landowners are not averse to the idea of setting some of their land aside for attenuation ponds. Might the Minister and her Department incentivise that with some sort of grant for land set aside for that purpose? It is not just the farmer who gains, but the other people in the area, particularly householders.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman will know that in the Agriculture Bill that has just gone through its Committee stage, farmers will be paid for delivering public goods. Flood resilience is included, so consideration will be given to a whole range of projects, which could include farmers holding water on their land to help with flood alleviation.
I return to the issue of reservoirs; water company reservoirs in particular were mentioned. Our water company reservoirs have a very different purpose in respect of drought attenuation—we must not forget that only months ago we were facing potential drought scenarios. Over summer 2018, the country dealt with very dry and warm weather, with water companies experiencing some of the highest demand for water for their customers. We have to pay as much attention to the risks associated with too little water as we do to those associated with too much.
Rebecca Pow
Water supply reservoirs play a significant role in ensuring that our communities, businesses and public services have ready access to water whenever they want and need it. Water companies must operate their reservoirs to meet that need, including making judgments on how much water each reservoir needs to hold at any time.
As we all know, our weather is not predictable: despite what we have experienced over the past month, the rain to refill reservoirs is never guaranteed. That does not mean that potential opportunities to use all our assets—including reservoirs, as I think the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington was suggesting—for multiple benefits should not be explored. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work that has been done so far in this area. I am personally keen to explore it further.
The Environment Agency is working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ofwat, United Utilities and Yorkshire Water on a project to identify reservoirs that might offer flood management benefits, including exploration into the impact on water supply, safety, legal and environmental requirements. This has included Yorkshire Water’s trial of managing the level of the Hebden group of reservoirs above Hebden Bridge at 90%, which did give positive results during the winter of 2017-18. However, the dry summer of 2018 followed and the levels in the reservoir did not recover until the following April in 2019.
The trial builds on work elsewhere, including in Keswick, where Thirlmere reservoir has supported flood mitigation since September 2008 following the development of a partnership agreement between United Utilities, the Environment Agency and Keswick Flood Action Group, which has been very involved. The experience of drought and flood coming so close together underlines that further trials are needed to help to understand the impact of long-term changes to the operation of reservoirs. Any decisions made by water companies to manage water levels to account for flood risk must be based on supporting evidence—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that—as well as on the effective mitigation of all the risks, including the risks to water supply and the environment. Yorkshire Water has undertaken to continue its trials.
It is not just the risk of drought that might be considered. If we are to use reservoirs for flood management purposes, it is essential that the water levels are managed so as not to add to the flood risk. Drawing down a reservoir ahead of wet weather may make a contribution to the protection of properties downstream, but it is crucial that when that water is released it is done so in a timely and controlled way. We all recognise that timing is everything. To release water when the river levels are already high and the ground is saturated, as it is right now, could have the opposite effect and increase flood risk further down the catchment.
It is true that water companies are not restricted by either current legislation or Ofwat from managing their water resources to provide a range of benefits, including flood risk management. However, as I have already explained, any decision must carefully take into account how a water company can continue to meet its water supply duties as set out in the Water Industry Act 1991. As the regulator, the Environment Agency will have to consider the ability of water companies to continue to meet that duty when making decisions. It is very important to take such considerations into account. They include the funding implications, such as the possible impacts to water companies’ bills in replacing water sources or reducing the security of customers’ water supplies.
The Environment Agency will continue to support and work with the water companies and local partners to further explore this issue, recognising that any opportunities are likely to be very site-specific. I very much look forward to hearing what options might be possible, because we clearly have to think of a wider range of options for all these measures, whether it is about water supply, flood mitigation or trying to achieve both.
Be in no doubt that the Government fully recognise the concern and anxiety of communities affected by flooding, as well as those who might be affected later by drought. We understand why, on the face of it, reservoirs may appear to be an obvious solution for some communities. However, the challenges of using water supply reservoirs to manage flood risk are specific and unique and we should not assume that there are simple solutions to this complex area.
We have changing weather patterns and more frequent incidents, whether they are flooding or drought, together with our growing population and its ever-increasing demand for water—and I absolutely take on board the hon. Member’s comments about the use of water. A consultation has been done recently on water consumption and how much we are all using, with a view to each of us individually cutting down our water usage.
Rebecca Pow
I hope that the hon. Member has a brick in his cistern, so that he is using as little water as possible. I have.
Matt Western
I do not exactly have a brick in the toilet, I am afraid, but as it happens, I have grey water tanks, which we use. I appreciate the points that the Minister is making. I was staggered when I discovered that consumption figure: 22% of fresh, clean, pure water gets wasted by flushing it down the toilet. It is just ridiculous. Think about the nations around the world that do not have fresh water and here we are wasting 22% of it. Worse than that, 20% of the water supply is lost through leakage. That is staggering, is it not? I appreciate what she was saying earlier and I would very much welcome a meeting with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) to discuss these proposals.
Rebecca Pow
We are in agreement on a lot of these things. Down the track, we need to look at the amount of water consumed and indeed, the leakage, which many water companies now have to look at in their water plans. A great deal of work and focus is rightly going on in these areas. The hon. Member mentioned the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has raised issues about the utilisation of reservoirs for flood mitigation and the drought impacts. I hope I have been clear that trials are going on in this area and hopefully some good further opportunities will come out of that. I am very happy to meet the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington to have a conversation about rainwater harvesting, SuDS and all these issues, because they are clearly important to us all—and in agreeing to meet him, I am going to tick a big box with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard).
This has been a very useful debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington for raising these issues, helping to inform the House on this much wider subject. I think it has added a great deal by making us all realise that there is a lot involved in this issue, whether it is flooding, drought or water consumption. It behoves us all to deal with the issue effectively and sensibly. Thank you for being in the Chair tonight, Mr Speaker.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-Rating Regulations 2020.
As hon. Members will know, the Government are committed to delivering a fair welfare system for claimants and taxpayers while providing a strong safety net for those who need it the most. The regulations will ensure that tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance will increase in line with the consumer price index, which set inflation at 1.7% in the year to September 2019.
The effect is to meet the Government’s manifesto commitment to end the benefits freeze, with most elements and thresholds of tax credits and both rates of child benefit being increased. The Government will spend an additional £800 million to support tax credit, child benefit and guardian’s allowance claimants. The proposed legislation increases the rates of those benefits in line with prices. I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting the regulations.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. This statutory instrument will finally bring to an end, in April, the freeze on working-age benefits that has been in place for four years and in that time has caused significant hardship to families. It follows what was, in our view, a deeply politically motivated and unnecessary choice to freeze those benefits in 2015.
To offer some context, in 2017, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that it believed the benefits freeze was
“the single biggest policy driver behind rising poverty in the UK.”
As a result of the four-year freeze, families living in poverty have been left a total of £560 a year worse off on average—equivalent to three months’ food shopping for an average low-income family. It is no surprise that there has been a corresponding and shameful increase in the use of food banks throughout the country in that period. The cost of living has not been frozen for four years. Between 2016 and 2020, the benefits freeze will have affected more than 27 million people, including 11 million children.
The Opposition will not vote against the statutory instrument as to do so would be to oppose the uprating, but I state on the record our belief that the rise is long overdue and will not reverse the damage caused by this especially pernicious strand of austerity. That is not just our opinion. In 2019, Shelter said:
“While the Government may have finally called time on its benefits freeze, the proposed rise in support is so tiny it won’t make a dent in the damage already done.”
Have the Government have made any assessment of the overall impact of the benefits freeze over the last four years? If not, how will they help working-age families begin to recover from the last painful four-year period?
I conclude with an insight from the Resolution Foundation following research published in October last year. It said:
“the real value of basic out-of-work support in 2019-20 is lower than it was in 1991-92, despite GDP per capita having grown by more 50 per cent since then. Even more starkly, child benefit for a second child or beyond is worth less in 2019-20 than when it was (fully) introduced back in 1979.”
Those are astonishing figures and proof that, although the Government may talk of their intention to create a fair system, a rising tide no longer lifts all boats.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The uprating is welcome, but it is too little, too late. If austerity were really over, the UK Government would restore lost value from the benefit freeze and scrap the two child limit and the rape clause. A 1.7% increase in child benefit does not make up for damage caused by the four-year freeze. If child benefit had been uprated in line with CPI, payments would have risen by 6.5% in nominal terms by 2019-20. Instead, child benefit was subjected to the four-year freeze and payments did not increase over that period.
We in the Scottish National party completely oppose the two child limit on tax credits and the associated rape clause. Some 8,500 Scottish families have already had their income cut by the two child limit, and that figure will reach 40,000 upon the full roll-out of universal credit, bringing up to 20,000 children into poverty. It is abhorrent that, to receive benefits, at least 510 women have been forced to disclose that they were raped. I ask the Minister to reconsider both those items.
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Inverclyde and of course I understand the concerns that he has placed on the record. They do not bear directly on this uprating, which I think he will support, but he has made his position clear and it is well understood.
May I focus on the more substantive comments made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde? He suggested that the original benefits freeze was politically motivated. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the economy had a very long period of recovery—I am pleased to say that it has recovered under this Government and their predecessors—and the view was taken that the whole of Government spending ought to be constrained. The reason for that was that between 1997 and 2010 welfare spending had risen by 65%—£84 billion in real terms—and unfortunately, combined with the mishandling of the financial sector that caused the damage from the crisis, when it took place, to be so bad, it cast a very long and quite painful shadow.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned food banks, but may I offer two or three reminders? One is that poverty, as I am sure he would agree—he is a very thoughtful man—is a complex issue. It is not just a matter of income; it is also a matter of costs, such as fuel costs and housing costs, and of childcare. The approach that the Government have taken in many cases is to pinpoint specific concerns—childcare being an obvious example. I am pleased to see that work is being done to assess whether the correct measure of poverty has been adopted, because there is a question not just about the level but about the composition. The Government are looking quite closely at that.
On food banks, let me simply point out that Germany, which on many accounts we would regard as having not merely a much richer Exchequer and more robust economic growth over the last few years—although not at the moment—than this country, and which has a more generous benefits system, has an escalating food bank problem that is every bit as bad as the one that we find in this country.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Chair
Order. Although food banks are obviously related to poverty, I remind all hon. Members of the narrowness of the instrument we are debating. I do not want us all to be tempted into a very worthy, but probably lengthy beyond the time allocated to us, debate on poverty and the definition of it. Can we keep to the narrow confines of the regulations, please?
Jesse Norman
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I am delighted to give way to the hon. Lady, who I know has views on these issues.
Jess Phillips
I do not know whether I have to declare an interest as somebody who, in the era that we are talking about, lived on tax credits. With regard to the Minister’s assertions about Germany as a comparator, does he think that the people who come to my office every single day to ask for food bank vouchers would get much comfort from hearing, “It’s worse in Germany”?
Jesse Norman
Of course not, but the point that I was making was that there is no simple link between income, poverty and food bank usage, and Germany is the example that gives the lie to that claim.
As for an assessment, legislation is of course given an impact assessment when it is introduced, and that is the case here as elsewhere. I remind the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that more than 700,000—I think it is 730,000—fewer children are living in workless households than were in 2010, and that there are more than 1 million fewer people in workless households overall? The Government’s focus on employment and the benefits of employment has delivered that achievement, which is a very important improvement not merely to economic wellbeing, but to people’s social and emotional wellbeing.
Question put and agreed to.
Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 129).
In the time available to me, I will remind hon. Members of the seriousness with which we should address the threat of covid-19, and the context for the Government’s response. I will then explain the workings of the regulations and how they fit into our wider strategy for addressing the outbreak.
On 31 December 2019, Chinese authorities notified the World Health Organisation of an outbreak of pneumonia in Wuhan city, which was later classified as the new disease covid-19. Based on current evidence, the main symptoms of covid-19 are a cough, a high temperature and, in severe cases, shortness of breath. It is a new virus, so there is a lack of immunity in the general population and, as yet, no effective vaccine. This means that covid-19 has the potential to spread extensively in the population, as we are seeing.
As of 9 March, 36 further people in England have tested positive for covid-19, bringing the total cases in England to 280. The total for the United Kingdom now stands at 319, including 23 in Scotland, four in Wales and 12 in Northern Ireland. Fifteen cases have been discharged following two consecutive negative test results, and contact tracing is still under way for all cases, including where the route of transmission is not yet clear.
Although our knowledge is growing by the day, much remains unknown. The four UK chief medical officers have been clear that the disease currently presents a moderate risk to the public, but that planning and preparation for the potential of a more widespread outbreak is sensible. As the Prime Minister made clear, there could be a “very significant expansion” of the number of coronavirus cases in the UK.
Tackling covid-19 requires a robust, integrated and proportionate response. On 3 March, the Prime Minister introduced the UK’s coronavirus action plan, providing the public with information on what the Government have done and plan to do to tackle the coronavirus outbreak. The Government’s approach to tackling covid-19 can be summarised in four succinct phrases: contain, delay, research—this underpins everything—and mitigate. The Government have focused over past weeks on the containment phase, taking measures to limit the spread of the virus as much as possible. A crucial aspect of that is ensuring that people who are contacts of known cases, or who are considered to be at high risk of infection, are isolated from others for a period of time, ensuring that they cannot infect others but can readily access help if they fall ill.
However, we are acutely aware of important gaps in our public health legislation that could undermine the success of this policy. It was to address these gaps that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care laid the instrument before Parliament on 10 February 2020 and made a statement to the House on 11 February 2020 about that action. The regulations provide the power to screen, isolate and detain those at risk of spreading covid-19 and, if necessary, to keep them isolated for a period of time.
I will explain the powers in the regulations for the benefit of the Committee. Regulation 3 places stringent requirements on when the regulations can apply. First, the Secretary of State must declare
“that the incidence or transmission of Coronavirus constitutes a serious and imminent threat to public health”.
Secondly, the incidence or transmission of the virus must be at such a point that the regulations may reasonably be considered effective in preventing further transmission.
Regulation 4 sets out that the Secretary of State or a registered public health consultant may require that someone is detained for screening and assessment, either if they reasonably believe that that person is, or may be, infected with coronavirus and may infect or contaminate others with that virus, or if that person has arrived into England from an affected area. Regulation 5 permits them to impose various restrictions to ensure that screening and assessment can take place. Regulation 6 outlines in more detail what screening may involve. Regulation 7 sets out further restrictions that may be applied, including restrictions on travel, activities and contact with others.
Regulation 8 covers the isolation of persons who are or who are suspected to be infected with coronavirus. Regulation 9 places a requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to the wellbeing of anyone who is detained and to review any continued detention over a 14-day period. Those are important safeguards when imposing restrictions on individuals.
Regulation 10 relates to the application of the provisions to groups. Regulation 11 enables a registered public health consultant or the Secretary of State to apply for a part 2A order for powers to protect public health. Regulation 12 covers appeals, while regulations 13 and 14 enable police constables to enforce detention requirements or to initiate detention if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone is or may be infected with coronavirus. Regulation 15 covers offences, while regulation 16 sets out that the regulations are subject to sunsetting two years from the date of commencement.
The regulations enable the Government to take the necessary steps to minimise onward transmission by individuals who are or who may be infected with the covid-19 virus, and to ensure that those steps are proportionate and effective. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Graham.
I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument and summarising it so clearly. More generally, on behalf of the Opposition I thank the Government for their co-operation on covid-19 and for regularly updating the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). It is very important that we work together as much as we can on this issue and I know that the Minister has been leading that process.
First and foremost, our thoughts are with the loved ones of the four people in the UK with covid-19 who have sadly died and with all those who have contracted the virus. I pay tribute to all health staff, as well as to the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, who have shown exceptional leadership.
Public health and safety must come first, which is why the Opposition will not push for a vote on this SI. We will support and co-operate with the Government where decisions are based on scientific and medical advice, and of course we support the strategy to contain, delay, research and mitigate the disease.
That brings me to the SI that we are considering. I agree that the transmission of covid-19 constitutes a serious and imminent threat to public health, and I know that this outbreak will already be alarming to many people across the country. The Government must therefore ensure that their response is proportionate and timely.
We are not yet at the delay stage, but I understand that we are moving away from the contain stage. We have seen evidence of transmission within communities—that is, a number of people have contracted the virus who have not recently returned from an at-risk country. Given that, is the SI perhaps not already out of date? The Minister said that there will probably be further legislation in the weeks to come, and I am sure that the process will be ongoing. If the virus has already begun to spread, will quarantine alone deliver the ongoing delay that we all hope to see? If we are to move officially on to the delay stage in the coming days, can the Minister please outline what steps the Government will take in terms of emergency legislation?
The regulations mean that any patient who is deemed by a health professional to be at risk of spreading covid-19 must stay in supportive isolation before the quarantine period of 14 days is complete. Can the Minister please elaborate on how that will be enforced on a mass scale? The prospect of staying in quarantine for 14 days can understandably be alarming for some people, not least if they have a family to care for or a job that helps them to make ends meet. I will come on to that point more widely in a moment.
At what point will the regulations be enforced: when someone expresses a desire to leave quarantine, or when they actually attempt to leave quarantine? Will there be police on hand at each isolation facility to ensure that patients do not leave quarantine without permission? If so, have the Government made an assessment of what that will cost police forces? Will the Government be providing extra forces and funding to police forces to carry out that role? What guarantees can the Minister give to health professionals and police officers that they will be protected from the virus during this time?
I am grateful that the SI includes an expiry date, but can the Minister tell the House what assessment was made in choosing two years?
As has been mentioned, many people will be concerned about not only the virus, but the implications that the regulations could have for them. The gig economy, zero-hours contracts and earnings thresholds mean that around 2 million workers are ineligible for statutory sick pay. It is unacceptable that some of the lowest-paid workers who need to self-isolate will be forced to make the choice between health and avoiding financial hardship. What regulation are the Government bringing forward to guarantee statutory sick pay from day one, and will it be backdated for people who have already self-isolated due to covid-19?
The Prime Minister suggested that those not entitled to SSP would be eligible for universal credit, but the Government’s own guidance says that it takes about five weeks to get the first payment. That clearly is unacceptable. As I said during the debate on health inequalities last week:
“The Government’s inaction to improve these inequalities in our society will not only continue to hurt the poorest and most vulnerable; in turn, the rest of society will also suffer.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 945.]
I hope that the Minister can answer those questions. I urge the Government to address the question of statutory sick pay and universal credit as a matter of urgency.
Jo Churchill
I do not know whether I caught every one of those questions, but if I have missed any, I promise I will write to the hon. Lady to fill in the gaps. I will give it my best shot.
The legislation was made to ensure that we had the means of detention there, should we need it. If we go back—I see that one of the hon. Members from the Wirral, or near the Wirral, is here—
Jo Churchill
Liverpool. I will take this moment to put on record how brilliant not only the health service, but the local councils and everybody involved in the self-isolation of individuals at both Arrowe Park and Kents Hill Park have been. However, the need to have a deterrent was made clear during that period. That is why this statutory instrument was brought forward. It was deemed that the powers to invoke section 2A, go to the magistrates and use that route would perhaps take too much time for us to be able to effect what we may—but what, in the circumstances at that time, we did not—need to do. This piece of legislation is there so that we can invoke it.
On the sunset clause, this legislation will drop after two years. That was deemed a suitable period of time, but if during that period it is determined that coronavirus is no longer a threat, the Secretary of State has the power to revoke. The chief medical officer and chief scientific advisers have indicated that we are not totally sure of the trajectory, and it may be that we get another peak later in the year. We therefore have the flex to allow us to invoke these measures. I hope that that provides clarity.
The regulations give public health consultants, public health officers, the Secretary of State and members of the constabulary the power to detain. All appropriate safety measures would be taken if we were to use those powers. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West was rightly concerned for anyone enforcing these measures. Instructions on how people are to behave at the point at which these measures are invoked is covered, with the personal equipment they may need and so on, to ensure that everyone is kept safe. Ensuring population safety and being led by scientific advice is at the heart of the Government’s response to coronavirus.
It may be that we move on from self-isolation and need the regulations for something different. As we move forward, isolation will probably be for different reasons, such as protecting the vulnerable, among others.
I totally understand the hon. Lady’s comments about statutory sick pay and so on, but the Secretary of State answered many of those points during the urgent question earlier. He said that many such challenges have been sorted out, but that some—particularly those for the self-employed—have proved trickier to deal with through the normal channels, because statutory sick pay is normally received from the employer.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Minister may be coming on to this, although she has moved on from the question she was asked about capacity. What are the resource implications if a small but potentially significant number of people need to be detained against their will? Even if only 0.1% of people needed to be detained, that would have significant implications in respect of where they are detained and how that is enforced, as well as for the police. Will she give us some detail on that?
Jo Churchill
On enforcement, the police have powers to take individuals into custody and return them to designated places. Just as we invoked Arrowe Park and Kents Hill Park, we have other facilities around the country to ensure that people can be encouraged to complete their period of quarantine to protect others. That is the point of these powers. It is not envisaged that this would be used for a mass quarantining situation.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I am sure that the Minister is coming to this point, but the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked a question that pricked up my ears, not just as a Member of Parliament but as the proud aunty of a police constable in Kent, about the advice officers will receive about maintaining their own wellbeing in the event of these powers being executed.
Jo Churchill
I am quite happy to write to my hon. Friend on the specifics, rather than give her something that is not correct, because I do not have the exact answers to hand and that is not really in the scope of the regulations. I hope she will forgive me.
Tracey Crouch
I will be happy to receive that correspondence, as I am sure will many colleagues, but it would be reassuring for Members of Parliament—as well as proud aunties—to know that such conversations are taking place with the Home Office and with police and crime commissioners, so that chief constables are getting out to their frontline police officers what protective measures they need to take when dealing with those who may need to be detained because of coronavirus.
Jo Churchill
I hear what my hon. Friend says and I assure her that conversations are under way with all elements of the public sector to ensure that people’s safety is paramount at all times: proud aunties, worried mums, brothers, sisters, all of them. She makes a serious point. We must have adequate information so that those whom we expect to do things feel safe. The same applies to the advice being given right through the health service. All those elements are extremely important.
However, I reiterate the point that this specific piece of legislation is to ensure that an individual can be encouraged to continue and fulfil their period in isolation if we are concerned that they might infect the broader population. The measure is for those single cases. It might not involve a police constable; it could just as likely be another individual if the powers are necessary. I stress that we have not used the regulations since they were laid on 10 February. They have been an excellent deterrent.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose of the regulations. I absolutely understand they might not be needed, because we hope that people will comply with what is best not only for themselves, but for the population as a whole. Unfortunately, this is an instance where human rights have to temporarily take a back seat to the importance of the health of the whole population, including the person concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West has raised specific questions, and the Minister has been very kind in answering them. I have one question that my hon. Friend did not raise about appeals in regulation 12, which states:
“A person in relation to whom a restriction or requirement is imposed under these Regulations may appeal to the magistrates’ court against the decision to impose that requirement or restriction.”
Ditto a person with parental responsibility. I recognise that the Minister might need to get back to me, but what if a magistrate finds in favour of the state and upholds the state’s restriction on that person? Does that person have a right of appeal? If the magistrate finds in favour of the person who is restricted and says, “No, it was not necessary to impose restrictions on you,” does the state have the power of appeal against the magistrate’s decision?
Jo Churchill
If I may, I will write to the hon. Lady with accurate clarification on that, but the move to detain somebody would be when they were known to have the virus, and therefore on the basis of public health and taking the advice of public health officials, they would be a known risk to others. I would therefore argue that what she suggests would not apply. However, I will write to confirm that.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. We must continue to take the most appropriate and effective measures to tackle the new virus. Keeping people safe is our absolute top priority. The regulations are an important part of that work and I conclude that they are essential to support the Government’s response to the covid-19 outbreak. They are, as I have said, time-limited and include safeguards and requirements on those exercising the powers to ensure that they are used only for essential public health measures. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2020.
It is an honour to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. The regulations set the national insurance contributions rates, limits and thresholds for the 2020-21 tax year. They will allow the Government to deliver their manifesto commitment to cut national insurance contributions for 31 million people across the United Kingdom.
National insurance contributions are social security contributions. Payment of NICs determines eligibility for the state pension and other contributory benefits. NICs receipts go towards funding the NHS and those same contributory benefits.
I will first outline the changes to the class 1 primary threshold and class 4 lower profits limit. The primary threshold and lower profits limit indicate the points at which employees and the self-employed start to pay class 1 and class 4 NICs, respectively. These thresholds will rise from £8,632 to £9,500 a year. These changes, promised in the Conservative’s 2019 manifesto, underline the Government’s commitment to ensure that work pays, putting more money into the pockets of hard-working people. They will benefit about 31 million taxpayers, with a typical employee £104 better off compared with 2019-20. Legislating now ensures that taxpayers will benefit from April 2020.
Increases to the primary threshold and lower profits limit do not affect eligibility for a state pension. That is determined by the lower earnings limit for employees and payment of class 2 NICs for the self-employed. The lower earnings limit will rise in line with inflation, from £6,136 to £6,240 a year. The upper earnings limit, where employees start to pay 2% NICs, is aligned with the higher rate threshold. As announced at the 2018 Budget, it will be frozen and remain at £50,000 per year.
The self-employed pay both class 2 and class 4 NICs. The rate of class 2 NICs will rise in line with inflation, from £3 to £3.05 a week. The small profits threshold is the point above which the self-employed must pay class 2 NICs. This will rise with inflation, from £6,365 to £6,475 a year. For class 4 NICs, as already outlined, the lower profits limit will rise to £9,500. The upper profits limits is where the self-employed start to pay 2% NICs. This is also aligned with the higher rate threshold and will remain at £50,000 a year.
For employers, the secondary threshold determines where they start to pay employer NICs. This will rise with inflation, from £8,632 to £8,788 a year. The level at which employers of people under 21 and of apprentices under 25 start to pay employer NICs will remain frozen at £50,000 a year.
Finally, class 3 contributions allow people to top up their national insurance record voluntarily. The rate for class 3 NICs will increase in line with inflation, from £15 to £15.30 a week.
The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 5% of forecasted annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the national insurance fund, if needed, during 2020-21. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
I trust that that is a useful overview of the changes that we are making to bring rates of support and contributions to the Exchequer in line with inflation, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the draft regulations.
First, I want to make clear that we will not contest this measure. Anything that puts more money into struggling people’s pockets is to be welcomed. However, we are concerned about the lack of targeting of the measure and the lack of cost-benefit analysis in relation to other measures. We are concerned about the lack of a forward plan for changes to national insurance thresholds, and about the overall coverage—or otherwise—of the national insurance system in the absence of other support for the provision of social security.
I am sure that the Minister is well aware that the policy will cost about £2 billion a year, but that only 3% of the gains from raising the threshold will accrue to the poorest fifth of households. He referred to an average gain of £104, and that is correct, but on average the highest-income 30% of working households will gain much more than that—£150 per annum—and the poorest tenth of households will gain only about £30.
The reasons are fairly obvious; I am sure that they are obvious to everyone in the Committee. First, many of the worst-off working households did not earn enough to pay contributions to NI in the first place. Secondly, two-earner households tend to be further up in the income distribution anyway, but they will benefit twice over from the policy. Thirdly, many forms of social security are tested on after-tax rather than before-tax incomes. Some interesting analysis has been done by, for example, the Women’s Budget Group, indicating that almost two thirds of those in employment who will not benefit significantly from the change are women. The impact is therefore disproportionate.
There are particular issues for workers and families who need to claim universal credit. As I am sure Committee members are aware, universal credit is means-tested based on net earnings—so, after tax. Such employees, including, incidentally, the majority of national insurance-paying single parents, would have their universal credit reduced by £54 as a result of the policy, which would leave them only £32 a year better off. Have the Government conducted any cost-benefit analysis of the change compared with other income-boosting measures? For example, did they consider increasing the work allowance within universal credit? That would benefit the poorest tenth of working households 15 times as much as the policy in question.
I understand that the Government want eventually to move further—towards increasing the class 1 and class 4 NICs threshold to £12,500. Is there a timeframe for that change yet, or indeed an indication of what will plug the gap resulting from it? I understand that moving up to a threshold of £12,500 by 2023-24 would cost £9 billion and that, unlike the change we are considering, it is not yet funded; there is no indication of how it would be covered. It would be helpful if the Minister could inform us whether he intends to go ahead with that change, and if so how it will be compensated for, or whether it will be paid for through further reductions in public services, beyond those we have already experienced.
Finally, attention has rightly been focused this week on eligibility for statutory sick pay. I welcome the changes that the Government are making, so that there is eligibility for sick pay from day one, but it has been concerning to learn that large numbers of people—about 2 million of them—do not qualify for statutory sick pay anyway. The cut-off is identical, from what I can see, to the lower earnings limit— £118 a week.
I am, of course, just speaking about employees, and not the self-employed. Does the Minister intend to continue raising the lower earnings limit in line with inflation? Does he feel that that is sufficient, given the slow upturn in wages since the financial crisis, and are additional measures needed to ensure that people can contribute towards the social security that they might need—such as the state pension or bereavement support allowance, and so on—which all depend on the lower earnings limit?
Jesse Norman
I thank the shadow Minister for her remarks. She raised a range of issues, and touched first on what she described as lack of targeting. Of course it is the nature of the legislation that it is universal in its applicability. It is not designed to be a targeted benefit, and that is not its function. Its job is to improve the national insurance situation of 31 million people, which it does. The question of targeting is better addressed to many other aspects; it is not actually relevant to national insurance contributions, which for years have been legislated for on a universal basis.
I do not think that the hon. Lady is correct that this change is regressive in the way that it will operate. It is certainly not a tax cut for higher earners. All employees earning above £9,500 will benefit by the same amount, and some 1.1 million people will no longer pay NICs as a result. Those are important properties.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his generosity in giving way. I do not believe that I used the word “regressive”. I made clear that the impact on those at the higher level of the income distribution will be larger, in terms of the absolute amount that they will not pay, compared with those at the bottom of the income distribution. Surely he is not contesting that.
Jesse Norman
If we look in full at the 31 million people affected, we will see that those in employment and earning above £9,500 will receive the same amount. The hon. Lady rightly mentions universal credit, and she understands that its effect is to smooth, via tapering, various cliff edges. That is a helpful and good property—I am sure she does not regret it—and it interacts with this measure. The broad picture, however, is the one I describe.
As the hon. Lady has acknowledged, the measure has elements of a contributory scheme, so it will have effects on people who do not have a full contributions record. On the Government’s future ambitions, she will understand that a statutory instrument debate is not the place to unveil such a strategy, and certainly not in the lee of a Budget two days away. It is the Government’s ambition to increase the threshold to £12,500, and decisions will be taken at future fiscal events. Increasing the NICs threshold to £9,500 this year is a first step towards that ambition. The hon. Lady also mentioned additional measures and statutory sick pay. It would be foolish in the extreme for me to comment on that matter two days before a fiscal event, and I therefore think we should leave it for a future discussion in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2020.
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. This is my first Delegated Legislation Committee as a Minister, and I am immensely excited to be here. I think we have a lot of time—something like two hours—so I will go through the legislation.
We have a small, but crucial piece of parliamentary business to conduct: our annual consideration of the legislation governing the armed forces, the Armed Forces Act 2006. Before I turn directly to the annual continuation of the 2006 Act, let us not forget that our armed forces are without a doubt one of this country’s foremost and precious institutions, being held in the highest regard throughout the world as a benchmark of military excellence to which other nations aspire. Let us never forget the men and women of the armed forces who serve and have served us so well, whether at home or further afield.
This nation owes much to our armed forces and the admirable qualities they espouse: bravery, discipline, professionalism, unflinching and steadfast loyalty to duty and a strong moral compass to do all that we ask of them. Those noble qualities and adherence to duty are all too frequently tested in the most challenging and varied of environments and circumstances. Our servicemen and women therefore deserve our due respect for the manner in which they continue to maintain such high standards and professionalism.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to our armed forces, who perform exceptional feats to protect this country in incredibly difficult circumstances. To support them, we will bring forward legislation to deal with vexatious claims. We will further strengthen the basis of the armed forces covenant, because we are absolutely committed to supporting all in our armed forces community.
Today, we busy ourselves with the continuation of the armed forces themselves. The order will keep in force the Armed Forces Act 2006 for a further year, to the end of 11 May 2021. As I will explain, that reflects the constitutional requirement under the Bill of Rights 1688 that a standing army, and by extension the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, may not be maintained without the consent of Parliament.
Let us not forget that the armed forces cannot exist without the annual consent of Parliament. This is an opportunity for us, in this Committee, to record our thanks by permitting the armed forces to continue for another year. Yearly renewal is rooted in the Bill of Rights. That historical context forms the basis for why the legislation, which provides for the armed forces to exist as disciplined bodies, is renewed by Parliament every year.
None the less, it is important that I explain the legislation that governs the renewal. Every five years, renewal is by an Armed Forces Act of Parliament. The most recent was in 2016. There must be another before the end of 2021. Between each five-yearly Act, annual renewal is by Order in Council. The draft order we are considering is such an order. The Armed Forces Act 2016 provides for the continuation in force of the 2006 Act until the end of 11 May 2017 and for further renewal thereafter by Order in Council for up to a year at a time, but not beyond 2021.
If the Armed Forces Act 2006 is not renewed by Order in Council before 11 May 2020, it will automatically expire. If the 2006 Act expires, the legislation that governs the armed forces and the provision necessary for their maintenance as disciplined bodies would cease to exist. That would have serious repercussions, as the 2006 Act sets out nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system for the armed forces of command, justice and, above all, discipline. It creates offences and provides for the investigation of alleged offences, the arrest, holding in custody and charging of individuals accused of committing an offence, and for them to be dealt with summarily by their commanding officer or tried in the court martial. Offences under the 2006 Act include any criminal offence under the law of England and Wales, and those that are peculiar to service, such as misconduct towards a superior officer and disobedience of lawful commands.
If the 2006 Act were to expire, the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands, and the powers and procedures under which that duty is enforced, would no longer have effect. Commanding officers and the court martial would have no powers of punishment for failure to obey a lawful command or other disciplinary or criminal misconduct. Members of the armed forces would still owe allegiance to Her Majesty, but Parliament would have removed the power of enforcement. After all, service personnel do not have contracts of employment, and so have no duties as employees. Their obligation is essentially a duty to obey lawful commands. The 2006 Act also provides for other important matters for the armed forces, such as their enlistment, pay and redress of complaints.
The continuation of the 2006 Act is essential for the maintenance of discipline wherever service personnel are serving in the world. Discipline in every sense is fundamental and underpins the existence of our armed forces and their success, whether at home, supporting emergency services and local communities, as demonstrated during the recent flooding in Yorkshire and other parts of the country; protecting Britain’s fishing fleet and industry—her waters, as well as her shores—actively safeguarding the world’s main waterways and escorting ships to deter the scourge of modern piracy; playing their part to counter terrorism or to combat drug smuggling and people trafficking; distributing vital humanitarian aid; continuing the war on terror by assisting and building capacity with partner nations to defeat the likes of Daesh in Iraq or Syria and Boko Haram in Nigeria; or maintaining our presence in the Baltic and northern Europe to strengthen our Euro-Atlantic security.
In short, we owe the brave men and women of our armed forces a sound legal basis for them to continue to afford us their vital protection. I hope that hon. Members will support the draft order. I am grateful to colleagues for their support.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Her Majesty’s armed forces represent this country across the world, fighting to liberate civilians from the scourge of trans-national terrorist organisations, providing vital training to other nations, serving on peacekeeping missions, and stepping in to provide humanitarian relief in the wake of hurricanes and other disasters. More importantly, they stand ready to defend our country day and night. I know that we are all, across the Committee, immensely proud of and grateful to our armed forces personnel, and the Opposition will support the draft order. I am sure that that comes as no great surprise.
I wish to press the Minister for greater detail on several matters concerning our armed forces. First, I wish to touch on some operational issues. We know about the Government’s deploying 250 troops to the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Mali, following the end of the South Sudan mission. More than 40 French personnel have lost their lives since troops were deployed to Mali in 2013 on a separate French-led mission. Some 200 soldiers from the UN mission have also died over the same period; indeed, the UN mission in Mali is often referred to as the most dangerous peacekeeping mission in the world. It is important that Parliament can scrutinise the Government on those obligations. I will not ask the Minister to update the Committee this evening, but will he at least commit to a debate in the House on this issue in the near future, so that Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise properly the Government’s decision?
With regard to the ongoing integrated review, I wish to touch on armed forces’ numbers, and the alarming downward trend in each of the services. In 2010, there were 102,000 regulars in the Army, 40,000 in the RAF, and 35,500 in the Royal Navy. Now they are all substantially smaller. The Army and the RAF have been cut by 25% each, and the Navy is down nearly 20%. The trajectory is quite worrying—every single service has fallen over the last 10 years. It is no surprise that the Government have removed the 82,000 regular Army personnel commitment from their manifesto.
Indeed, there have been reports of further cuts to the Army in the integrated review. Perhaps the Minister could outline whether the integrated review will seek to cut the Army further. He may suggest that it is too early, given that the review is expected to be published in the autumn, but the issue is of such fundamental importance, and I know he understands that. We really must know whether such cuts are planned.
I will touch briefly on retention. The steady decline in satisfaction with service life is a significant worry. The proportion of all personnel reporting satisfaction with service life in general was 60% in 2010. In 2019, it had fallen to 46%. As well as its being wrong in principle for the majority of personnel to feel unsatisfied with service life, we simply cannot afford to have servicemen and women choosing to leave the forces because of their view of service life. Will the Minister set out what plans he has to deal with that?
The Opposition have previously expressed our concern about the future accommodation model, and the possibility that it may be used to push more personnel and their families into the private rented sector, with all the associated uncertainty and added cost. Research from the Army Families Federation has highlighted a number of flaws in the information provided on the future accommodation model. Some 48% of respondents said that they have received no information about it at all, with only 2% saying that they had received a great deal. Most of the information has come from the AFF, as opposed to the Ministry of Defence or the chain of command. Uncertainty around the future accommodation model was a feature of the AFF’s comments on previous covenant reports. Will the Minister commit to doing much more to make personnel and families aware of the changes, particularly as the future accommodation model is now in the pilot stage?
We have not been updated on progress in relation to the defence estate for more than a year. It is particularly urgent given that troops will return from Afghanistan within 14 months, following the recent deal. Our troops and local communities need to be kept updated. Again, will the Minister update the Committee on progress with regard to the defence estate? As I said, we will support the draft order, but we would be grateful for some comments on the points that I have raised.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a great delight to see you in the Chair, Sir David, not least because I think you were here when the legislation was introduced. I do not mean the Bill of Rights 1688, obviously; I mean the 2006 Act. I remember it because we were both in the Chamber on Report and on Third Reading, which was quite contentious at the time, because the Act includes substantial measures on desertion and absence without leave. Those were highly contentious issues in the aftermath of the Iraq war. I remember very clearly the current Leader of the Opposition and shadow Chancellor being the most irritating people in the Chamber. I have a slight anxiety that they may go back to that position in a year’s time, when we get to the next round of legislation.
The Minister slightly understates the danger of not passing the draft order: the danger is that it would be illegal for the British Government to hold any form of armed forces—certainly an Army, because that is what is specified in the Bill of Rights, but I would have thought, by extension, any form of armed forces—for the United Kingdom. Of course it is important that the draft order is agreed.
I must say, however, that it is a slightly odd process that successive Governments have decided on to arrive at the piece of paper before us today. The 2006 Act presumed that there would be a 2011 Act, then a 2016 Act and a 2021 Act, and that they would be more or less the same as the original Act, with some bits added. However, in 2011 the Government decided that they would instead insert into the 2006 Act a first clause that said that we could keep on doing it by annual motions, by Order in Council, until the end of 2021.
Personally, I do not think that that really counts as the House of Commons granting consent to the continuation of the armed forces. The vast majority of Members will have absolutely no idea that we are in this Committee Room tonight or have any idea about the debate. I think that is a shame, not because I want to hinder the Government, but because our armed forces frankly deserve, at least once a year, a debate on the Floor of the House in which we decide, as Parliament, that we will positively affirm our support for our armed forces, rather than this kind of up-in-my-lady’s-boudoir affair. [Interruption.] The Whip woke up at that point.
We have a strange system to explain to any ordinary member of the armed forces. I am sure that when the Minister was informed that this was the process that he would have to explain tonight, he was slightly flummoxed by it. The 2006 Act did important things. For a start, it meant that all the services were treated in the same way in legislation from the beginning. It brought in, as I said, measures to do with desertion and absence without leave, but more importantly it made sure that no member of the armed forces could suffer double jeopardy, which was always a danger under the previous law. A member of the armed forces could sometimes be tried in a court martial and then also in the common courts of the land.
There is one other issue, and there is a sadness about the fact that we are dealing with it in this way. Like many other Members, I worry about vexatious claims being brought against members of the British armed forces long after the events took place. This is not an easy issue to resolve. I remember that when I was a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for about five minutes, we faced the tough problem of trying to bring back serious war criminals from countries in the Balkans and make sure that they saw justice. Just having allowed years to pass was not a good enough reason for us not to want to bring them to justice.
The obvious danger is that if we as a country end up effectively outlawing any kind of claim against the British armed forces, we are saying to other armed forces in other parts of the world that are much less pernickety about these matters that they can do whatever they want. In a sense, the fact that we still deal with this issue in this way is a lost opportunity. However, I of course support some of the Minister’s endeavours, and particularly his endeavour tonight. I add that I am still waiting for my meeting with him about acquired brain injury.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It has been mentioned that there would be no armed forces if we did not have this discussion and debate tonight. I think we would still have the Atholl Highlanders, which—as the Minister will know—happens to be the oldest private army in Europe. As a Scottish constituency Member, I think it is important to say that while the Bill of Rights did not cover Scotland until 1707, I agree with the principle of civilian oversight of the armed forces and the role of civilian parliamentarians in maintaining that oversight through the parliamentary process. As the son, uncle and brother of people in the armed forces, I am happy to say that.
There are a couple of issues regarding culture within the armed forces that the Minister may want to touch on—issues that I consistently raised when he and I were both on the Select Committee on Defence—which relate to recruitment and why younger people may or may not be joining the armed forces. The Opposition spokesperson has already mentioned accommodation, and I would also look to the Danish model, where all parties have made common cause to support long-term funding for the armed forces over a six-year period. That gets full support in the Danish Parliament as a model for funding the armed forces and creating an improved culture within them.
Finally, I say one thing with which the Minister probably will not agree. One way to change that culture may be to treat members of the armed forces as the equals of other employees across this country by giving them an armed forces representative body. However, I will certainly support the motion.
Johnny Mercer
If it is not out of order to answer the points in reverse, I will do so. Some really interesting points have been made, which I will speak to in turn.
First, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will know that I am as much of a cheerleader for civilian oversight of the military as he is. In any functioning democracy, it is important for that to be enforced, as Obama did in 2012 when I was serving in Afghanistan: he re-emphasised the control of civilian oversight over the military, which is pivotal to everything we do. It will not be news to the hon. Gentleman that I am not a huge fan of having some sort of union within the armed forces. That is not because I do not believe in the rights of individuals who serve; we work very hard to try to understand how to improve their lives and the offer that we make them. However, I think serving is fundamentally different, but I am always open to a conversation about these things. A modern armed forces should reflect a modern Britain.
I have yet to meet the hon. Member for Rhondda about traumatic brain injury, for which I apologise; I confirm that we will be meeting within the next couple of weeks. It is an important subject, and I pay tribute to him for his work in bringing it to people’s attention.
On vexatious claims, the line is very clear: if someone commits a criminal offence in uniform, they will be prosecuted. Nobody will want to prosecute them more than I will, as the Minister for Defence People who has been charged with ending the ridiculous process of vexatious claims. The inability to hold ourselves to account in every battlefield that we have faced over the past 15, 20 or 50 years has led to a mass market of claims and investigations into people who, most of the time, have done absolutely nothing wrong except for, in the eyes of prosecutors, serving their country. The Government have made it absolutely clear that we will put an end to the industry of claims.
I can confirm that, on 18 March, I will present a Bill that fulfils the Prime Minister’s manifesto commitment to act within 100 days. It is designed to tackle the vexatious nature of the claims system that has sprung up in recent years and continues to blight the lives of some of our most special people, but there will never be a blank cheque or a diminution of standards in the way the UK military behave on operations, or in the opportunities to hold the Government to account. It is simply a question of narrowing the aperture through which human rights lawyers, who go on to commit fraud, exploit the situation and build business empires off the back of operations that the British Army and military conduct. The Bill will be presented on 18 March, and I look forward to it.
To someone who has never done this before, it seems odd that we just sit here and read out a bit of paper, and then the armed forces continue for another year. We anticipate a Bill later this year. The Government have made it clear that some reforms need to take place within the armed forces, and we have also talked about how we will legislate on the armed forces covenant so that no person in this country can be disadvantaged because of their military service. That will be part of the Bill, and I anticipate its being introduced later this year.
I will address in turn the comments of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Mali is another operation that the UK military look forward to taking part in in our global fight to empower nations in that part of the world to defeat terrorism and keep this country safe. There will be plenty of opportunities to engage with and debate, both in public and in the House, the UK’s foreign policy, but I will not go into further detail at the moment, for obvious reasons.
On the number of people who serve, we in this country have to get away from a numbers argument. As a Minister, I will always advocate more people coming to serve, because it is the best thing that young people can do. The thing that defines the military, however, is not the number of people or the proportion of GDP we spend on it, but whether it can meet the threat that we are up against in defending this nation and the way of life that we are so lucky to enjoy. As war becomes more automated, as we develop unmanned vehicles and as our ability to keep people safe and defend this nation continues to improve, it will inevitably lead to a requirement for fewer personnel in modern warfare.
I can assure hon. Members that, on this watch and under this Government, our military’s capabilities will never decrease, but only continue to improve. Depending on how many people we need to do that, our military will be manned accordingly. There was no intention to drop the 82,000 target from the manifesto. We just need to get away from talking about the strength of our military purely in numbers of personnel.
Retention is a huge challenge, possibly our biggest at the moment. We are doing much better on recruitment; we have met our targets two months early for this year through to April, which is a significant achievement by the team, to whom I pay tribute. That is an extraordinary achievement in a time of peace. There is undoubtedly a challenge in retention. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that we will not tolerate any more denuding of the offer to people who are serving, including on pay, welfare, accommodation and families. We face a challenge, but we are well aware that retention is an issue and are working hard on it every day.
The future accommodation model is a big opportunity for those in the military to own their own home earlier and have a degree of independence that people serving 20 years ago did not want. We are currently running a pilot that has been extremely popular where it has been available. We have more work to do to communicate what FAM is and what it means for families.
At the moment, there is a narrative about veterans and we are up against the clock to get the legislation through, but a family member is as important as any other person in the defence family. The armed forces covenant says clearly that no servicemen or their families should be disadvantaged by their military service, and the Government are absolutely committed to following through on that.
I hope that I have answered the questions that were raised. I anticipate and look forward to an armed forces Bill later this year. We have a lot of work to do, but I encourage hon. Members to look at 18 March as a seminal moment when we can finally start to put an end to the ridiculous process of vexatious claims, and build on everything else that we are doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Justices of the Peace and Authorised Court and Tribunal Staff (Costs) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Justices of the Peace and Authorised Court and Tribunal Staff (Costs) Regulations 2020.
Mr Gray, it is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I intend to be extremely brief, because these are technical regulations, which form part of the Government’s implementation of the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018. I can confirm that, in accordance with the requirements of that Act, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, Sir Ernest Ryder, have been consulted, and both have indicated their approval of the regulations.
The regulations are rather technical, but they have the important purpose of underpinning the protection the Act gives authorised court and tribunal officers. It gives them an indemnity against liability for actions they carry out in good faith in the performance of their judicial duties. The regulations specifically outline the procedure to be followed when an order for costs is sought against one of these authorised officers. It is worth mentioning that the Act provides for court officers authorised by the Lord Chief Justice to perform functions that were previously undertaken by a justices’ clerk or an assistant justices’ clerk.
The regulations specify the procedure to be followed when an order for costs is sought against a justices’ clerk. They specify the circumstances in which those costs may be sought and that it is not the justices’ clerk but the Lord Chancellor who will pay those costs—I do not, of course, mean the Lord Chancellor personally, but the Ministry of Justice, although we say it is the Lord Chancellor. The regulations also specify when such a cost order can be made and how the amount to be paid shall be determined. The answer to that latter question is that it is determined by a costs judge—formerly known as a taxing master.
Very simply, therefore, the regulations make provision for the Lord Chancellor to pick up the costs if any cost order is made against a justices’ clerk—now called a court officer—in the discharge of their duties.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Minister has made clear what this measure does, but it would be interesting to know what prompted its introduction.
Chris Philp
Very simply, this measure was first introduced in this form in the Courts Act 2003—of course, the practice predated that, but it was most recently legislated for in 2003, when it applied to justices’ clerks and assistant justices’ clerks. However, in the 2018 Act, those positions were replaced by court-authorised officers, who perform essentially the same function but under a different name. When we say “court-authorised”, it is ultimately the Lord Chief Justice who authorises those officers. This is really a technical change that continues a practice that has been going on for many years. It is really a change of nomenclature more than anything.
Sir George Howarth
The Minister is being admirably clear, but I do not think he has completely answered my question. What prompted me to ask was that I am not clear why these provisions were not incorporated in the 2018 Act.
Chris Philp
Often when we legislate in this House, some of the more technical matters are not put on the face of the Bill. The Government are given regulation-making power the activate or implement powers at a subsequent time—otherwise the Bill would be enormously long. This is one of the many examples where the technical implication of a measure is done via a statutory instrument—in this case, an affirmative statutory instrument—rather than on the face of the Bill. In fact, we were in this very room just a few days ago implementing a similar measure in relation to alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements. This is just one of those measures that are activated by an SI, rather than being on the face of the Bill, to keep the Bill a little smaller.
I hope I have outlined the substance of the matter before us. If colleagues have questions, I would be delighted to answer them—
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
In that case, will the Minister allow me before he sits down?
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. These are obviously necessary procedural regulations, but I draw his attention to paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum, which refers to
“provisions in relation to costs in (the very rare) proceedings against justices’ clerks and justices of the peace.”
Could he give us some indication of how frequently these very rare proceedings have taken place, and what the cost to the taxpayer has been?
Chris Philp
Yes. Saying “very rare” may be a masterstroke of understatement. We have been unable to find any examples of legal action against justices’ clerks as individuals since 2003. However, each year there have been, on average, about 100 court cases where a decision by justices’ clerks has been challenged, although the justices’ clerk themself has not been named in the action. In those 100 cases a year, as far as we can find, there has not been a single example where a costs order has been made against a justices’ clerk that the Lord Chancellor has had to pick up the tab for. As far as we can tell, the answer is that, since 2003, the cost to the Exchequer has been nothing, but it is important to have the procedures in place, in case the need ever arises.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instrument. He will be pleased to know that we are not seeking to divide the Committee on this matter.
I will just touch on a couple of matters that colleagues have raised. First, to answer the question by the hon. Member for Wycombe, I must say that not once in all the years I have practised law did we have a wasted costs order against a justices’ clerk, so I agree with the Minister that it is rare, but it is necessary to have these provisions, just in case errors do occur.
Secondly, the Minister is correct that part of this statutory instrument is just about changing the terminology. Two years ago, the 2018 Act, which I led on for the Opposition, abolished justices’ clerks and replaced them with what are called authorised court officers. That new breed of people was created by the Ministry of Justice to deal with some simple, straightforward, semi-judicial functions.
We objected to the qualification requirements for authorised court officers, but we lost on every single amendment we tabled regarding who these people should be and what their qualifications should be. However, the legislation exists, and to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley about why we need this statutory instrument, it is because authorised court officers were created two years ago and now need to be covered.
The discussion on wasted costs orders was never had at that point, but it is now being addressed in this statutory instrument, and it makes sense to do that so that these people, and any other person operating in the court system, are given cover. We do not object, and we understand the necessity for this statutory instrument.
Chris Philp
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support in the matter before us. Very briefly, on the question of qualifications—I am sure that this assurance was given two years ago, but I will repeat it—before anyone can be a court officer, the Lord Chief Justice has to give authorisation and must be satisfied that the person is appropriately qualified for the task given to them. I am grateful for the support of the Opposition this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
International Trade
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen
What progress has been made in laying the groundwork for a UK-Australia free trade agreement? Is a timetable in place for the commencement of those negotiations?
Conor Burns
This week we have published the proposals for the United States deal, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is ably leading on Australia, Canada, Japan and, potentially, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. She will come to the House in due course, hopefully soon, to lay out full proposals for the terms of those negotiations.
[Official Report, 5 March 2020, Vol. 672, c. 964.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Department for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns):
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen).
The correct response should have been:
Conor Burns
This week we have published the proposals for the United States deal, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is ably leading on Australia, Japan and, potentially, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. She will come to the House in due course, hopefully soon, to lay out full proposals for the terms of those negotiations.
Refugee family reunion
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Free Childcare
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
Before I call Catherine McKinnell, I simply say that Jessica Taylor, the House of Commons photographer, is in the room and will be taking photographs. I hope people do not mind; everyone is looking very good today.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 255237 relating to the provision of free childcare.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to lead the first Petitions Committee debate of this new Parliament. Campaigning on issues that are important to us is a vital democratic right, and for hundreds of years petitions have had the power to connect people with Parliament, to raise awareness of important issues and to help bring about real change for people and communities around the country. More than 23 million people have started or signed petitions on the parliamentary site since it launched in 2015, and it has been inspiring to see so many people getting involved and actively engaged with Parliament and democracy. I am proud to have been elected Chair of the Petitions Committee, and I look forward to taking it forward into the new decade, starting with today’s debate, which has attracted interest from every part of our country.
The e-petition, which is titled, “Provide 15 hours free childcare to working parents for children over 9 months”, was signed by more than 146,000 people, including more than 600 in my own city of Newcastle upon Tyne. It reads:
“After 9 months of maternity leave, most working mums do not receive any maternity pay and need to go back to work. I think all working parents should be entitled to 15 hours free childcare from the time a child is 9 months. It makes more sense to provide this funding from 9 months instead of 2 years.
Many working families struggle week to week due to the cost of childcare. You are required to go back to work after a year of maternity pay however many go back after 9 months due to funds. Once you go back the majority of your wage goes to childcare and in some cases you are better off not working. This should not be the case.”
The creator of the e-petition, Harley Cuthbert, was going to be in the Gallery today to watch the debate and may well join us. I thank Harley for starting the petition. She told me that she decided to start the petition because of her own situation.
For anyone to be left feeling that they cannot afford to start a family due to the cost of childcare is truly heartbreaking. We all want to live in a society where families are able to balance work and family life and are not forced to delay having a family or become dependent on welfare benefits to meet the costs of raising a family. Harley described her situation as being in a middle group of people who earn too much to receive state support, but not enough to be able to afford the cost of childcare. The system should encourage parents to work and contribute to the economy, while also raising a family. The provision of affordable childcare is a key part of that.
Childcare is an issue that interests the British public, and no fewer than 67 petitions in the last Parliament were related to it. They included calls for extra support for parents of multiples, for free childcare to begin earlier, such as at six months or a year, for extra support for parents with disabilities, for special schemes for the families of UK armed forces personnel and for business rates relief for nursery providers.
Ahead of the debate, our Committee reached out to the public online, through Facebook and Mumsnet, to continue the conversation about how childcare issues are impacting on families. The issue affects people in every part of our country and across the income scale, from two-parent families with two good, full-time salaries, to part-time, single-parent families on minimum wage. All said that they struggle to pay for childcare so that they could return to work. I want to share just a few of the contributions to highlight how the issue is affecting working families.
One of the strongest messages from people was that they have to pay to go to work. Jo said:
“With two preschool aged kids I was earning at a loss having to pay for childcare…working and not making money is really bad for a mum’s mental health, the guilt for choosing to maintain a career and not being with your kids is one thing but to do it for no current financial gain is a real mind crusher.”
Katie, who is due to return to work in June, said:
“When me and my partner were looking at me going back full time and putting my child in nursery full time it didn’t make financial sense for me to go back to work. It’s unfair for parents to have to choose between going back to work to break even or in some cases actually paying to work (as nursery fees are above the cost of their wage) or staying at home and having no job and no income.”
A large number of respondents said that they were better off financially not working or working fewer hours than paying for full-time childcare.
Some families are paying the same amount for childcare as they do for their rent or mortgage. Claire said:
“3 days a week nursery is costing us £1000 forcing me to have to go back full time and rely on family for the other 2 days!”
Victoria said:
“The nurseries in my local area have essentially created a fixed price for childcare. Full time nursery 5 days a week is £1500 a month. That is more than my mortgage!”
We know the cost of childcare is a huge expense for families, and the childcare survey, published by Coram last month, reported that the average cost of 25 hours of childcare a week for a child under two in England is £131.61 a week, or £6,800 a year. That is a significant amount of money for families to budget for. Moreover, we know that the cost of childcare is rising above the rate of inflation. Twenty-five hours of childcare for children under two now costs 5% more than it did a year ago, and 4% more for a child aged two. Those ever-rising costs put huge pressure on family budgets and erode the incentives for parents to go out to work when they see most of their wages disappearing to cover the cost of childcare. The financial pressures have a knock-on effect on other aspects of family life.
We have heard from parents whose careers have been permanently disadvantaged. Others must rely on family members to help, particularly elderly grandparents. Some people, such as Harley, have delayed having children or having additional children because of childcare costs. Shannon said:
“I had my baby in May and I’ve had to give up working and rely solely on my fiancé’s wage. My weekly wage before was £250 and my childcare bill would be £200 so I’m out of pocket by the time I’ve filled my car to drive to work and drop my little girl off.”
Rachel said:
“Women like me who then have to stay at home to look after children risk falling behind male colleagues at work, increasing the gender pay gap. Men who don’t have caring responsibilities are able to work those extra years and so earn more overall.”
Sandra, a grandmother, said:
“My daughter returned to work recently. Her older daughter was cared for by me until just over a year ago when she was given a nursery place. I now care for her baby almost 9 months old. I’m nearing 66 with no pension. My daughter can’t afford to pay me as she is on minimum wage. I love my grandson but 4 years ago it was easier with his sister and I now struggle with caring for him. I’m exhausted by the time she gets home, a nursery place would be brilliant.”
Another point, particularly given that we have just had International Women’s Day, is the impact on gender equality and career progression for women. A report by the TUC in 2016 found that fathers who work full time get paid a fifth more than men with similar jobs who do not have children. A wage bonus of 21% contrasts with the experience of working mothers, who the report found typically suffer a 15% pay penalty. The TUC has called for more decently paid jobs to be available on a reduced-hours or flexible-work basis to reduce the penalty paid by mothers and to enable more fathers to fit working around their fathering and parenting responsibilities.
Better childcare opportunities could also enable women who have children to continue working more hours a week, reducing the impact on their career. If we are to tackle increasing rates of child poverty and a lack of social mobility, it is critical that we address the issue. In 2017-18, 4.1 million children were living in poverty—30% of all children—which is a shocking statistic. It is expected to reach 5.2 million by 2022. The two biggest costs putting pressure on family budgets are childcare and housing. When childcare costs are accounted for, an extra 130,000 children are pushed into poverty.
We also know that the attainment gap between disadvantaged and more advantaged children is already evident by the time a child reaches school at age five, with the gap between them equivalent to 4.3 months of learning. The gap more than doubles to 9.5 months at the end of primary school, and then more than doubles again to 19.3 months at the end of secondary school. Increasing the availability of good quality affordable childcare enables more parents to get into or return to work or access education or training, while also improving the educational outcomes for their children.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does she agree with me that the current system is under huge pressure? In my city of Cambridge are two nurseries: one maintained and one private. One is slashing services and the other is telling parents that services will stop within weeks. Does she agree with me that the current system is not financed properly by the Government?
Catherine McKinnell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to make that very point in more detail.
The issue is not only a problem for individual families; it is critical to our whole economy and productivity levels. Early years education has proven to be a positive benefit to our children, too. The Department for Education’s study of early education and development—SEED—longitudinal study, published in 2018, found that increased hours per week spent in formal early education, such as day nursery, between the ages of two and four resulted in non-verbal development and better socio-emotional outcomes. The Education Committee’s inquiry into tackling disadvantage in early years found that early years education for children below the age of four has a positive impact on the life chances of disadvantaged children. However, it also found that disadvantaged children currently spend significantly less time in pre-school than children from more affluent backgrounds.
Britain has long had a publicly funded education system because successive Governments have recognised that such a fundamental service should be provided by the state and be available to all. Just as we accept the principle that family income should never be a factor in whether children receive a good school education, the same must be said of early education, which is equally as crucial. We often look to Scandinavia for ideas on effective family policy; countries there have long recognised the value of early education and have invested in it extensively.
Finland provides free universal daycare from eight months until the start of formal education at age seven. In Sweden, parents have a universal entitlement to a guaranteed childcare space, and the fees for using it are capped. The system is so accessible that 85% of children under five years attend pre-school. Parents are entitled to 16 months’ parental leave, with the first year paid at 80% of their salary. They also receive a monthly child allowance that can be used to significantly reduce the cost of pre-school. In Denmark, the cost of childcare to parents is capped at 30% of the actual cost for nurseries. Norwegian parents are entitled to a flat-rate child benefit allowance. The result is that Scandinavian countries consistently rank among the best internationally on all the indicators of children’s wellbeing. Rates of child poverty are also among the lowest in the world.
The provision of free part-time childcare places for all three and four-year-olds in England was introduced in the early 2000s. Tony Blair’s Labour Government recognised that the modern welfare state needed to adapt and do more to support parents to raise young families and balance home life with work. The introduction of free childcare, alongside tax credits, was part of a package to give parents—particularly mothers—more choice over returning to work and having more children. I am pleased that the principle of investing in early years support has received cross-party backing. There have been some positive developments from Governments in recent years. Working parents of three to four-year-olds now receive 30 hours of free childcare, and those of disadvantaged two-year-olds can receive 15 hours on a means-tested basis.
However, although the headline picture is of a Government that continued Labour’s investment in early years, beneath the surface services have been squeezed and vital early intervention support has been cut. Across the board, spending on Sure Start and early years services in England has decreased by 39% since 2014-15, and almost £1 billion was slashed from Sure Start spending between 2010 and 2018. Free childcare, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has pointed out, has been underfunded; additional funding has not been allocated to cover the cost of minimum wage rises for nursery staff. Take-up of the two-year-old offer among children who receive free school meals varies significantly across the country, with analysis showing that in major metropolitan areas they are among the key disadvantaged groups. Access to places and differences in the types of placement on offer varies a lot, too, and can limit take-up in some areas. That is why, in 2018, the Treasury Committee conducted an inquiry, which I was pleased to be part of, into childcare policy and its influence on our economy.
I was really pleased to see the Committee—for the first time chaired by a woman—investigate the economic impact of childcare as a key aspect of our national infrastructure, in recognition of the fact that our economy is driven not only by trains, roads and IT, but by parents’ ability to go to work knowing that their children are happy and well cared for in high-quality settings. We therefore looked at the overall package of Government initiatives in this area and their effectiveness. Our cross-party review found that the Treasury had made little effort to calculate the economic impact of the Government’s childcare interventions. However, the evidence available suggested that the biggest impact of the Government’s childcare schemes may be to make childcare more affordable to those who receive support, rather than bringing parents back into the workplace.
The Committee also found that parents may need to retrain in order to return to work, but the free childcare scheme did not support that. We recommended the removal of age restrictions on childcare support for parents undertaking training or education, which would have the greatest impact on productivity. We also identified design flaws in the current schemes. The requirement in the childcare element of universal credit for parents to pay childcare costs up front before seeking reimbursement is really unhelpful to the lowest-paid parents. Moreover, the fact that the entitlement to 30 hours of free childcare only begins the term after a child turns three means that if a parent is offered a job in January, their entitlement will not begin until the summer term; that can make a critical difference to some parents’ livelihoods and decision making. If the current system of support is the starting point, the flaws need to be addressed for free childcare schemes to support people into work effectively.
Another area that has proven to be a challenge is the way in which providers are funded to deliver the schemes, and any uplift in free childcare must be accompanied by the additional funding required to make it viable. Coram’s childcare survey found that around a third of local authorities thought that the 30-hour extended entitlement had caused prices to rise for those aged three to four outside the funded entitlements. Half thought that there had been a negative impact on the financial sustainability of childcare providers. Purnima Tanuku OBE, chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association, has said:
“High quality early education positively impacts on a child’s development and therefore their lifelong education and opportunities—it cannot be done on the cheap...By short-changing childcare providers, the Government is selling families short on their promises. Parents are seeing fees for additional hours and for under threes go up as a result.”
The Treasury Committee report estimated that the average cost per hour of providing childcare is £4.68, but the average rate that the Government passed on to providers for 2017-18 was £4.34. Some providers are left with insufficient funding to cover their costs and therefore have to cut back on the service provided, including by restricting times, reducing child-to-staff ratios and charging for services such as food and activities. In this situation, providers in higher-income areas can mitigate those funding shortfalls much more easily than can providers in deprived areas, who have much more to gain from these schemes. That undermines the potential for early education to reach disadvantaged children, who are in the greatest danger of falling behind.
The Education Committee’s inquiry into tackling disadvantage in the early years made similar observations. It found that rather than closing the gap, the Government’s 30-hour childcare policy was entrenching inequality by leading to financial pressures on nurseries, providing more advantaged children with more quality childcare and putting stress on the available places for disadvantaged two-year-olds. The Government must pay providers a rate that reflects the full costs; otherwise, the full benefits for those who are eligible will not be realised, particularly in our most disadvantaged communities, and the overall cost of childcare will be pushed up further.
Of course, investing in childcare costs money. Any policy proposals, however effective they would be, are shaped by the available financial resources. The cost of funded childcare places for three and four-year-olds stood at £3.3 billion in 2018-19, which is equivalent to £3,650 per eligible child. Overall, the Government now spend about £6 billion on all funded childcare, despite the limitations and restrictions in the current model. If free childcare were to be expanded to all children from nine months old, as the petition requests, there would clearly be significant cost implications. Labour’s manifesto proposals to reform childcare provision and make high-quality early years education available to all, regardless of income, would amount to a £4.5 billion investment. We know the value of investing in early education to tackle entrenched disadvantage and gender inequality, and there would be longer-term cost savings and a productivity boost from targeting this investment at the early years. Although this would involve a significant cost, politics is the language of priorities, and measures that tackle poverty, support families and boost the economy should be at the top of the list.
There is clear cross-party support for improving childcare, as evidenced by commitments in the manifestos of the three main parties at the last election. Labour pledged the extension of paid maternity leave to 12 months; the introduction of 30 hours of free pre-school childcare for all two, three and four-year-olds; and the extension of provision for one-year-olds. The Conservatives pledged a £1 billion fund to help to create more high-quality affordable childcare, including before and after school and during school holidays; and the Liberal Democrat manifesto included a commitment to offer 35 hours of free high-quality childcare to every child aged two to four, and to children aged between nine and 24 months whose parents are in work.
It remains to be seen whether the current Government have the political will to deliver the support that is needed. Childcare is an issue that affects families right across our country, and there is a widespread belief that the Government could be doing much more to support people to work while also raising a family. I thank everyone who signed the petition that led to today’s debate, and I thank all members of the public who have been in touch to share their views. I hope that by the conclusion of the debate, we will have represented their views and experiences effectively, and that the Government will reflect on this discussion and have a serious think about what support they can provide, particularly given this week’s Budget, which is very timely.
I will finish by asking two questions that I hope the Minister will pledge to consider. First, will she commit to a review of the economic and social impact of various levels of free childcare, so that its effectiveness can be independently verified? Secondly, will she commit to exploring the expansion of free childcare as requested by the petitioners, including the benefits of such a scheme and how it might practically be delivered with sufficient childcare places and funding to make it viable? Today, the Government have the opportunity to give a clear expression of their commitment to supporting families, supporting social mobility and supporting women and families in the workplace by pledging to investigate this issue. On behalf of the petitioners, I urge the Minister to do so.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I now have the pleasure of inviting David Simmonds to make his contribution.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Davies. I crave your indulgence: this is the first time that I have contributed to one of these debates, so please forgive me if I do not follow the protocol exactly. I am sure you will be quick to draw to my attention any failings on my part, as the Minister was when she kindly pointed out that I had sat on the wrong side of the Chamber when I came in.
This is a timely opportunity to discuss these issues. As one of the many parents directly affected by them—I have two nursery-age children—when I heard the list of issues that the Government need to consider, it resonated with me. Having had those discussions about how best to allocate the cost of childcare, what impact the costs would have on two working people, and whose salary and career prospects would be most impacted, those issues feel very personal, and I know they are on the mind of my constituents in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I will reflect back some of the solutions and points that arose in my time in local government, as I was responsible for this issue both in my local authority of Hillingdon and, to look at the bigger picture, at the Local Government Association, which represents local authorities.
I will start with the cost and its impacts. When the free childcare policy was first implemented, one of the debates that local authorities had with the Department was about the fact that, as is clear from providers’ feedback, the funding that comes through this mechanism is unlikely to be sufficient to ensure that childcare is always free to the user. I have spoken to a number of the Ministers who have been responsible for this area over the years, and they have been very candid about this. The fact that the commitment was in a Bill meant that they needed to speak of that childcare as free, but providers recognised that there was scope to charge for elements of childcare, such as nappies, food and trips—elements quite explicitly laid out in the legislation—which those of us paying the monthly bills would assume were part of the overall cost. That made it a slightly different conversation.
It is fantastic that the Government have invested in providing what is, in practice, a massive subsidy for childcare—about a 90% subsidy in most places. However, there will always be an ongoing debate when, although we talk about something being free, families have to pay an additional contribution to secure the hours—although for most parents, the funding covers the cost of the care that, in the Department’s analysis, it is intended to cover. My children’s nursery and many others, recognising the fact that the free element is term-time only, have spread that time out, so that in practice it becomes a subsidy over the course of the year. That is extremely welcome, given the overall cost of childcare, but clearly it leads to this dilemma whereby people expect it to be free but it is not, although it is heavily subsidised.
It is important to consider this in context. I was the local authority’s lead member on this during the previous Labour Government, when the tax-free voucher schemes were being rolled out and accessed through many employers, particularly large ones such as local authorities. The Government have maintained some of that momentum by seeking to make the benefits of those voucher schemes available to a much larger cohort of people through the tax-free childcare programme, which is at the very minimum a significant subsidy of the cost. The roll-out of those programmes has not been without teething troubles—I am one of many parents who experienced frustrations in accessing the tax-free childcare service and making sure that payments due under that scheme were made on time—but they have been of significant benefit to many mums and dads the length and breadth of the country, and reflect the Government’s considered policy position, which is to ensure tax-free childcare arrangements are focused on supporting people who are accessing work. I hope that gives the strategic picture on financing.
I turn to the local authority sufficiency duty, what it means in practice and how it affects the market. For a long time, local authorities have played a significant role in the provision of high-quality childcare at a local level, going back to the neighbourhood nurseries initiative in the late 1970s. Currently, that role is expressed via the sufficiency duty. It is important to be clear that the duty involves the planning rather than the provision, although many local authorities, including mine, both provide childcare under the policy and work with local providers to ensure that sufficient places are available.
A number of challenges arise from that, especially for children who have special educational needs and disabilities. As I know from personal experience, it is often only through the local authority that children with significant medical conditions can access nurseries, because it has sufficient resources in the background to provide the training, and the experienced staff who know how to deal with complex medical conditions in a way that a private profit-making provider may struggle to within the funding envelope.
The Department’s finance guidance clearly expresses the expectation that there be a minimum pass-through rate of funding of 95% for local authorities. In many cases, local authorities passport a significantly higher rate of funding; in Kent County Council, the rate is 99%. In a number of local authorities, 100% of the funding from the Department is expressed in the funding rate paid per hour to providers.
There is a challenge around that. It would be helpful for the Minister to consider in the round, although not necessarily straightaway, the role of schools forums in the distribution of funding. The early years block is one of the three main components of the ring-fenced dedicated schools grant. The local authority is not permitted to deduct resources from the grant, although schools forums have some discretion in how the 5% for overheads may be used. In most cases, because of the capacity and planning issue, it is used to ensure that free training in paediatric first aid and resuscitation is available to local nursery providers. It may also be used for up-front grants for nursery providers who are seeking to expand, and who need money ahead of time to recruit staff, so that they have enough people, under the child-staff ratios, to take extra children into that setting.
As any local authority will say, schools forums tend to be dominated by the voices of large secondary schools. For the most part, the early years sector is fragmented and made up of many small private providers, so it is hard for it to bring the leverage to the discussions that secondary headteachers can bring, who are supported by large unions and research organisations. In practice, therefore, many debates at schools forums focus on how to distribute the secondary school money, with only a passing glance at what happens in early years. The view among secondary heads is often that an early years underspend is good, because if that persists, it justifies the redistribution of money into secondary school budgets.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I spent some time with the Children’s Commissioner’s early years board in the last couple of weeks. The importance of making a great start and having a cohesive response, from a nursery or somewhere else, was heavily emphasised. I ask the Minister to understand the number of families with children in the gap between nine months and two years, and how many are directly affected before the Government funding kicks in, and to examine the opportunity to provide targeted support in that area to troubled families through family hubs or children’s groups.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I will touch on in my concluding remarks. Too often, that issue has been absent from schools forums’ deliberations about the distribution of funding. We hear repeatedly from primary and secondary heads that they would like more to be invested in the early years, but when it comes to the practical decision-making that would ensure that money got to the sharp end to deliver the benefits that she touched on, the drive is often absent.
It is important that the Department’s guidance and messages to schools forums appropriately consider the value of early years education. Money spent there has the biggest impact on a child’s life prospects, and the arguments about disadvantage have been well rehearsed, so I will not cover that. In the language of priorities, childcare can be expressed as an issue about enabling people to access work—as purely economic: “money in, productivity out”—or, which is more complex, as something through which we seek to measure the impacts that specific early interventions have on a child’s life.
Anecdotally and from research, we know that access to high-quality early years education is hugely beneficial over a child’s life, more so than money spent on young people of sixth-form age. It is harder to identify, however, which specific interventions yield the most value. From my experience as a trustee of the Early Intervention Foundation, which I have been at since its inception, although I have now stepped down, I know that a challenge of the Sure Start programme was that money was spent on many things that were popular and well-received by parents, but there was a real lack of evidence that they effectively tackled the issues in the communities for which the money was provided. As a result, there has been a growing interest in identifying through research, by using the gold standard of a randomised control trial, which interventions should be chosen by an individual centre or by a local authority when it is planning that provision in a local area. As we begin to look at the development of family hubs, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) referred, we need to identify the things that not simply were popular and well regarded in the past, but will actually change outcomes for children in the medium to long term.
The work of the Early Intervention Foundation and the other What Works centres founded by the Department to look at each of the different life stages gives us the opportunity to make much better decisions than in the past about how the Government deploy those resources. As a Conservative, I am interested in the efficiency of public money, but having been there from the inception of Sure Start, through its implementation and the days when it was extremely well funded, back to now, when we are looking at winding back some of that activity, I would like there to be a focus across the activity of the Department and the Government on demonstrating what leads to an improvement in outcomes.
I hope that gives a flavour of what I learned in the world of local government. The Minister is listening attentively, and I know from discussions with the Department that it is an area of great interest for a variety of reasons, so I look forward to her response.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), the Chair of the Petitions Committee, on brilliantly articulating the problems that families face in deciding when to start a family; the costs involved, including the 5% increase in childcare costs in one year, which is concerning and incredibly shocking; and the impact on women and the gender pay gap. I look forward to the Committee’s future debates and its work under her brilliant chairmanship.
I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and agree that those additional costs are not often initially considered when discussing free childcare. I particularly note his concern about the adequate provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities, which is an issue up and down the country. As someone has who worked in children’s nurseries, I congratulate him on his two youngsters being at nursery. I have first-hand experience of how delightful, curious and playful they are at that age, and I am sure that he is kept busy when is he at home in his constituency.
I also thank the nearly 150,000 people who signed the petition and, by doing so, brought this important debate to Parliament. How best to provide for children in the first two years of life and to support their parents to work is an issue that we should debate far more often and take far more seriously, if we are to tackle inequality in our society. It is a shame that today’s debate unfortunately clashed with the urgent question on coronavirus; I am sure many more Members would be present if that was not the case.
Sir Michael Marmot described the early years of a child’s life as the time when inequalities have the greatest impact on their life chances, and when interventions to disrupt those inequalities make the biggest difference. All the evidence shows that the foundations for a child’s future prospects are laid in the critical 1,000 days between conception and the age of two. A report last year by the Health Committee argued that:
“Investing in the early years is the best investment any government can make”.
As my hon. Friend said, the poorest children in this country are already 11 months behind when they start school. As a former infant teacher, it was something I saw at first hand.
Over 4 million children live in poverty—an increase on 10 years ago. Sir Michael’s report on health inequalities, published this month, showed that we have gone backwards in key measures of early development as a result of policy choices in the past decade. It is not just young children who have been let down by this failure; entire families are struggling to cope with the lack of support available for the early years. According to the OECD, we have the second most expensive childcare system in the world. Extortionate childcare costs force parents who want to spend more time with their children to work long hours away from home, and they force mothers who want to work to have to stay at home.
In 2018, there were 870,000 mothers who wanted to work but could not for financial reasons. Research conducted last week by Pregnant Then Screwed, which is an inspiring organisation that campaigns for mothers who are unfairly treated, found that just over a third of those who return to work say their earnings are either completely used on childcare, or do not cover the cost of it. Previous research by Pregnant Then Screwed found that 62% of parents work fewer hours as a result of high childcare costs. Report after report has shown that by increasing female employment and ending the penalties on women for returning to work, we could boost GDP by billions of pounds. However, economic benefit is not the main reason we should do this; the overwhelming evidence should give us pause for thought about why it is not happening already.
On providing support for families in the first two years of a child’s life, we are clearly getting things badly wrong. It is our job to debate the solutions and put the situation right, and we already know some of the solutions. Improving education, health and family support services for all young children and their families, and bringing them under one roof, dramatically improves the outcomes for children and takes pressure off struggling parents. That is exactly what the last Labour Government did with Sure Start. By 2009, there were over 3,500 Sure Start children’s centres providing support to families, which transformed lives. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it saved the NHS millions of pounds. Since then, we have lost over 1,000 children’s centres, and spending on such services has fallen by over 60%.
There is also the issue of maternity pay. At the moment, mothers are allowed to take only a year off work after having a child, and they only receive statutory pay for the first nine months. I was proud to stand at the last general election on a manifesto that promised to extend maternity pay for a full year and to double paternity leave. From many of the comments shared on social media ahead of the debate, I know that the low level of maternity pay can cause huge problems. Employers should see the statutory maternity pay as a starting point rather than the maximum amount, and we need to consider encouraging employers to view it in that way.
Flexible working is also crucial for supporting families with young children. There are excellent companies and organisations such as Transport for London, which is leading the way on flexible working, but the share of people working flexibly increased by just 4% from 2005 to 2017, and we still have a long way to go. A right to flexible working in large companies would give thousands of mothers who want to work the opportunity to do so, and we should legislate for that as soon as possible.
However, early years funding is the key to the challenges we face, for two reasons. First, the amount of money that childcare providers receive from the Government has a direct impact on how much childcare they can offer, and at what cost. The annual survey by Coram Family and Childcare, published earlier this month, showed that average childcare costs for children under two surged twice as fast as inflation this year. It also found a postcode lottery in the quality and availability of childcare, with just over half of local authorities having enough places.
We know that childcare costs are particularly high in London and the south-east, but they are also very high in the place where I live—up in the north, in Hull. We can see that from the number of people who signed the petition right across the UK. In fact, nearly 500 people in my constituency signed it. The crisis of childcare costs affects the whole country, which is why it is important to give parents access to affordable, subsidised childcare rates outside their free childcare entitlement, and to end the needless complexities and fragmentation of the current system by funding providers directly.
The second reason why early years funding is so important is its impact on the workforce. The Marmot review argued that a highly educated, well-paid childcare workforce is essential in order to tackle health education inequality. Under this Government, however, early years staff suffered a real-terms pay cut of nearly 5% between 2013 and 2018, and nearly half of childcare workers currently claim universal credit.
We know that low pay is driving childcare workers out of the sector, and research published last week by Ceeda showed that staff shortages in nurseries are forcing them to offer fewer childcare places, depriving children of education and making it harder for parents to work. That particularly affects younger children, who require more restrictive adult-to-child ratios in childcare settings, which is why we are committed to tackling the early years recruitment crisis, with national pay scales, better career progression and a minimum wage of at least £10 an hour. If we accept that caring for young children is important, we should accept that people need to be paid properly to do the job. The UK spends just 0.1% of GDP on early childhood education and care, compared with the OECD average of 0.7%. We have all seen the consequences of that appalling choice in our constituencies, and it is time the Government started to invest in the early years.
I turn now to the specific policy suggested by the petition: giving 15 hours of free childcare to working parents with children aged between nine months and two years. Labour’s manifesto pledge was to extend childcare provision for one-year-olds, in addition to offering 30 free hours of childcare for two, three and four-year-olds. We should continue to debate how we can better support parents of one-year-olds. As neither the UK, Scottish nor Welsh Governments are extending free childcare entitlement to under-twos, the debate should be relevant not only to English MPs; it should be about debating as a United Kingdom how we can support such children.
We need to look at childcare provision holistically. The Conservatives have shown that better outcomes for children and parents cannot be achieved just by expanding free childcare entitlements, especially if they are not funded properly. Almost all childcare providers in England are experiencing financial difficulties as a result of the Conservatives providing 30 free hours at a time when early years has been so badly underfunded by the Government. In fact, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner highlighted some of the additional costs that parents have to meet from their own pockets.
Many childcare providers choose not to offer the full free entitlements because of the financial hit in doing so. We on the Labour Front Bench support the expansion of free childcare entitlements, but it has to go hand in hand with sufficient funding. The all-party parliamentary group for childcare and early education found a £63 million shortfall in the funding given to childcare providers. As a result of the shortfall, many have closed and many more face closure. Research has shown that providers in deprived areas are twice as likely to close as those in affluent areas. Indeed, a report from the Education Committee—I was a member when we wrote it—found that the Government’s approach to free childcare was
“entrenching inequality rather than closing the gap”.
That is from a cross-party Committee with a Conservative Chair. This is not about party politics, but about supporting young children. Whatever approach we take, we must avoid such outcomes at all costs.
We must address important questions about childcare provision for under-twos, and I want to ask the Minister a few questions. First, ahead of the Budget on Wednesday, what representations has she made to the Chancellor about increasing early years funding? Secondly, what steps is she taking to tackle the unaffordability of childcare, particularly for parents with children under two, and to address the variation in availability and quality? Thirdly, how does the Minister plan to tackle the recruitment crisis in the early years workforce and improve staff qualifications so that we can provide more and better quality childcare?
We must all do more to give our children the best start in life and to support mothers who want to go back to work. I hope that we can all work together to find solutions to the important question raised by the petition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for opening this important debate, and I congratulate her on her new role as Chair of the Petitions Committee. I also congratulate Harley Cuthbert on starting the petition, which has sparked so much interest. In my remarks, I will address the issues that hon. Members have raised.
The debate is most timely and allows me the opportunity to set out clearly the Government’s position on childcare and our commitment to helping working families with accessible, affordable, high-quality childcare. As the new Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for children and families, I thank all who work in the early years sector and who dedicate their time, effort and skills to providing high-quality early years education and childcare. They all do an excellent job in helping our youngest children to learn and grow. That is essential to those children’s development and to ensuring that they are ready for school.
A child’s early years are a crucial time for their development. We are already doing more than any previous Government to ensure that as many families as possible can access high-quality and affordable childcare. The good news is that that work has made a difference not only for families but, crucially, for children. The latest early years foundation stage profile results show that the proportion of all children achieving a good level of development is improving year on year, with 72%—nearly three out of every four children—achieving a good level of development in 2019, compared with 52%, or one in two, in 2013. There has been some discussion of the attainment gap. Since 2013, the attainment gap between children who are in receipt of free school meals and their peers has narrowed, in terms of outcomes at the age of five. The difference in their attainment of a good level of development was 17.8 percentage points in 2019, compared with 19 in 2013.
Emma Hardy
I am sure that the Minister is as aware as I am of the report published last year that showed that the attainment gap, having started to narrow, has now widened and that, on our current trajectory, we will not reduce the gap until at least 2050.
Vicky Ford
I am aware of that report, but it is extremely important that we give credit to the early years workforce for ensuring that the attainment gap at the start of the school years has narrowed, because when there is a gap, there is a risk that it will widen during each individual’s school years.
The early years workforce plays a key role in the delivery of high-quality early education and childcare. It is a testament to that workforce that 96% of childcare settings—or 19 out of 20—are now rated “good” or “outstanding” by Ofsted; that represents an increase from 74% in 2012. Our investment in the early years entitlements not only allows us to support high-quality early education, helping children to thrive in the crucial early years, but helps us to make childcare more affordable, supporting more families to work. We are continuing to increase our investment in childcare to support parents to work.
The Government plan to spend more than £3.6 billion on the early years entitlements in the coming year. That includes the universal 15 hours of childcare for all three and four-year-olds, which was introduced in the early 2000s; the entitlement to 15 hours of free childcare a week for disadvantaged two-year-olds, which was rolled out in 2013 under the Conservative-led Government; and the additional 15 hours for working parents of three and four-year-olds, which was introduced in 2017—again, under a Conservative Government. Those entitlements save parents up to £5,000 per year in total if they use the full 30 hours of free childcare available. The Government’s manifesto at the last general election committed to investing a further £1 billion to create more high-quality wraparound and holiday childcare places. I have noted the challenges of holiday periods that hon. Members have mentioned.
All three and four-year-olds, and the most disadvantaged two-year-olds, benefit from 15 hours a week of free early education, regardless of whether their parents are in work. The entitlement for two-year-olds is in place to help to give the most disadvantaged children a great start in life by closing the attainment gap between them and their better-off peers.
The Department for Education’s study of early education and development, or SEED, and the study of effective primary, pre-school and secondary education, or EPPSE, are clear that good-quality early education at the age of two has a variety of positive benefits for children. I believe in evidence-based decisions, however, and evidence from the EPPSE also indicates that children who start pre-school under the age of two do not show more positive outcomes than those who started between the ages of 24 and 36 months, which is why we targeted the policy at the most disadvantaged two-year-olds. It is extremely encouraging to see that more than 850,000 two-year-olds have benefited from an early education place since the scheme began in 2013.
Achieving a good level of development is important. It is excellent news that three out of four children are reaching that level, because children who do not are more likely to have an education, health and care plan or to become children in need. That is why we have announced a range of initiatives to support disadvantaged children, including a significant investment in professional development for early years practitioners and the development of the evidence base for what works in the early years. I hope that that addresses the point raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), about the importance of supporting professional development in the early years sector. A range of initiatives are under way.
Capital funding is also important. We have allocated £24 million to build more school-based nursery places in deprived areas. That supports our commitment to social mobility, ensuring that we provide more quality places for those who will most benefit.
Early language has a major impact on all aspects of young children’s non-physical development, contributing to their ability to manage emotions, communicate feelings, establish and maintain relationships, think symbolically, and learn to read and write. The evidence is clear that children who start school behind stay behind. Children with poor vocabulary skills at the age of five are twice as likely to be unemployed when they reach adulthood, and three times as likely to have mental health problems.
We want to enable more parents to support their child’s early communication, language and literacy development at home. The Department for Education has launched the hungry little minds campaign, which I hope all hon. Members present will help me to champion. That three-year campaign aims to encourage parents to chat, play and read with their children to help to set them up for school and beyond.
As part of that campaign, the Department for Education recently awarded a quality mark to eight early years apps with a focus on literacy, language and communication. That comes after new data revealed that three quarters of children aged five and under had used smartphones or tablet apps at least once in the past six months to learn. A panel of experts recommended that the apps should be accredited to help parents to make informed decisions about the use of technology in creating a positive learning environment at home.
As well as improving children’s outcomes, the availability of high-quality childcare is a key factor in enabling parents to work, a subject that has been raised a number of times today. The 2018 Office for National Statistics report on families and the labour market in England shows that many parents return to work and need childcare when their child turns three.
The primary focus of the 30-hour childcare entitlement is to support all working families with the cost of childcare, and to support parents to go back into work or to increase their working hours, if they so wish. As I said, 600,000 three and four-year-olds have benefited from a 30-hour place in the first two years of delivery, helping parents to keep more of their salary through the doubling of free childcare. According to the Department’s independent year-one evaluation, the 30-hour policy is making a real difference to families’ lives, with many parents reporting that they now have more money to spend. In our most recent parent study, which was published last December, the vast majority of parents—80%—said that their family’s quality of life was better since using the 30 hours. We are clear that the 30-hour offer aims to support working families with the cost of childcare and to support parents to go back into work or to work more hours, should they so wish.
A point was made about gender pay equality and support, especially for mothers returning to work. The Government’s parental leave, flexible working and childcare policies all work together, and they have supported a closing of the gender pay gap. Back in 1997—that was before I had my first child—the gender pay gap was 27.5%. The last number we have is for 2018, when it was 17.9%. Over the past two decades, there has been a really significant improvement in employment for mothers. The maternal employment rate has gone up from 62% in 1996% to 74% in 2018. There is more to do, of course, but I ask Members to please recognise the huge improvements that have been made with the gender pay gap and maternal employment.
Early years entitlement supports families with two, three and four-year-olds to work more hours and supports their children’s development. Other childcare offers across Government support families with younger children. It is important to enable parents to spend more time with their children in the very early months and to allow families more flexibility to find the right balance for them. That is why the Conservative Government introduced shared parental leave in 2015. It has given parents the chance to share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of parental pay in the first year following the child’s birth or adoption.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) raised the issue of family hubs. I am positive about family hubs and, in fact, visited the hub in my constituency last Friday. I was deeply impressed with the support that it gave to families across a wide age range, and for the nought to three-year-olds especially. I would like to see more family hubs opening across the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) made a large number of really important points, as ever. He brings great experience to this House. First, he spoke about special educational needs and disabilities. He knows that we are in the midst of a review of the entire SEND system, but our disability access fund is worth £615 per eligible child per year. All local authorities are required to have special educational needs inclusion funds for all three and four-year-olds with SEND who are taking up the early years entitlement. A two-year-old in receipt of disability living allowance or an EHCP—education, health and care plan—would also be eligible for the universal 15-hour entitlement.
David Simmonds
The Minister covered a number of the key issues in her speech. Does she agree not only about the benefit from the early years pupil premium, which helps to boost the funding rate, but that it is important for the Department for Education to put pressure on the Department of Health and Social Care? One of the consistent issues for children with special educational needs and disabilities is that local authorities have for many years been doing statements for children with special educational needs and are used to that process, but local NHS colleagues who are required to contribute towards the clinical and medical aspects of a child’s early years experience do not have any history of doing so at the local level. In fact, I am sure that many Members find, when we investigate SEND casework in our constituencies, that the blockage behind getting a child what is needed sits with the local NHS provider, rather than with the local authority.
Vicky Ford
My hon. Friend absolutely hits the nail on the head. I have been in my role for two weeks and one day, and the issue of education, health and care plans has been raised a number of times. SEND review is right at the top of my list of priorities. The plan is meant to cover education, health and care—that was a huge step forward in the 2014 reforms—and it needs to ensure that they are all delivered. I have a meeting scheduled with my counterpart, the Health Minister, but the Health team seems rather busy at the moment. However, it will happen, and we will look at those plans as part of the review.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issues of the school forums, which I will look into, and of tax-free childcare. I was quite disappointed that neither of the two Opposition speakers mentioned tax-free childcare, because it is an important introduction that helps up to 1.3 million families whom we estimate could be benefiting.
Vicky Ford
Let me go through the availability for the record. Tax-free childcare is available for all parents who work more than 16 hours at the national minimum wage or above, and who earn up to £100,000. For every £8 that parents pay into an online account, the Government will pay £2, up to the maximum contribution of £2,000 per year for children aged under 12. Parents with disabled children will receive extra support worth up to £4,000 per child each year until their child is 17. More and more families are benefiting annually from tax-free childcare. I asked to be updated on the latest numbers. The numbers benefiting have more than doubled since this time last year: 205,000 families used tax-free childcare for 243,000 children in December 2019, compared with 91,000 families for 109,000 children in December 2018. I accept the points made about the bureaucracy sometimes, but the scheme is more targeted and fairer.
Catherine McKinnell
To correct the record, I did not specifically reference the tax-free childcare scheme; I referenced the Government’s interventions, which very much included the tax-free childcare scheme. The Treasury Committee’s conclusions were that the scheme is not as targeted a use of Government resources as it could be; it results in those already in work benefiting much more than those looking to re-enter the workplace, and that is the subject of the petition.
Vicky Ford
I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the news that the number of people using the tax-free childcare scheme has more than doubled. The scheme benefits the parents of very young children, which is the entire point of the debate, and it is more targeted and fairer. Unlike vouchers, which were mentioned, it is available to everyone who meets the eligibility criteria, including those earning the minimum wage and the self-employed. Often, vouchers were available only to those employed by larger organisations. This scheme is available per child, whereas childcare vouchers were available per parent. Therefore, parents with younger children, disabled children or multiple children, whom the hon. Lady mentioned and who are likely to have higher childcare costs, will be better off under TFC.
Catherine McKinnell
Clearly, any support for childcare is welcome, but the Government’s so-called tax-free childcare scheme benefits most those who are wealthier and earn more. The petition focuses on those on lower incomes who consider themselves to be caught in the middle: people who do not earn enough to get the maximum benefit from that scheme, but who are not eligible for the free element of childcare. It would be helpful if the Government recognised that squeezed middle.
Vicky Ford
Let me get on to those who are sometimes on lower incomes. As I hope the hon. Lady is aware, eligible families can now get help with 85% of their childcare costs through universal credit, compared with 70% under the previous tax credit system. That is the highest ever level of support. Furthermore, we committed in our manifesto to creating a £1 billion fund to help with high-quality, affordable, wraparound childcare for the holiday, before-school and after-school periods. We have already started working on the details of that, which will be rolled out from 2021.
I understand that some working families who contribute hugely to our society face additional pressures. I am thinking in particular of people such as nursing students, who work shifts, and armed services families, many of whom move around regularly. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care has already announced that, from September this year, it will increase the parental support allowance for students of nursing, midwifery and allied health professions from £1,000 to £2,000 per year. That is on top of the additional £5,000 that all students on those courses will get access to, whether or not they have children.
The Ministry of Defence is setting up a childcare support team, the aim of which will be to work at fulfilling the manifesto commitment and ensuring free wraparound childcare for four to 11-year-old eligible children from armed services families. That team will also look at other areas of potential disadvantage that service families face when trying to access appropriate childcare, whatever the age of their children.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North for raising this important issue. I listened carefully to the debate and noted all the contributions. I am honoured to be responsible for this extremely important part of the Government’s agenda to support parents and children. I am proud of the significant range of childcare support that the Government offer families, and of the improvements that have been made over the past decade. As Members will know, a spending review is due this year. I cannot make any commitments ahead of that about the shape or amount of the Government’s childcare funding, but I will ensure that the points raised today feed into the Government’s evidence base for that spending review.
Geraint Davies (in the Chair)
I invite Catherine McKinnell to wind up the debate. We have a little longer than normal, but I do not expect you to take the whole hour and 45 minutes.
Catherine McKinnell
Thank you, Mr Davies. This has been a wide-ranging debate. We had the opportunity to put on the record a range of concerns and to consider the range of measures that successive Governments have put in place to try to tackle this issue. The one point I must make is that, clearly, this is not job done. The petition would not have been signed by 146,000 people if families out there felt that their childcare requirements were already being met and they were able to pay for it.
Emma Hardy
I want to correct something I said in my intervention on the Minister. The report I mentioned was by the Education Policy Institute, which found that the attainment gap had widened by 0.6%. I said that that gap would not be closed until 2050, but the report shows that it will take well over 100 years for the disadvantage gap in maths and English to close. I just wanted to clarify that.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, which very much goes to my point that this is nowhere near job done.
I congratulate the Minister on her appointment to what I agree is a vital part of Government. I hope it will be central to the Government’s offer, so that, by the end of this Parliament—I hope we can assume that that will be in 2024—families are better placed to pursue their careers and to ensure that their children are well cared for, happy and educated, and arrive at school on a more equal footing.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on his first speech in Westminster Hall. My first speech in Westminster Hall was back in 2010 in a debate on volcanic ash. I do not wish to diminish the importance of that crisis at the time—Newcastle airport is in my constituency—but I must say that his contribution was vital and will be of long-standing importance to the work of this Parliament.
Clearly, this is a complex issue to which there is no one solution. There are important elements for families, children, social mobility, wider society, our economy, our productivity and our gender equality, and for the progress we must make as a country on all those fronts. I welcome any support for childcare that the Government can offer, but they must recognise that the support available at the moment is not sufficient. In too many cases, it does not keep pace with inflation. People are working harder and feel ever more squeezed and compromised when it comes to meeting the costs of childcare and making choices for their families and their careers.
I thank the petitioners—Harley, who started the petition, and the 146,000 people who signed it—for bringing this issue to Parliament’s attention and ensuring that the Government are tasked with considering not only what has been done to date but what more they can do, in particular to support families who feel a bit squeezed between the support available for very low-income families and the support that many more affluent families are able to take advantage of.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 255237 relating to the provision of free childcare.
Written Statement
UK's Future Relationship with the EU: Negotiations
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Negotiators from the UK and the EU met in Brussels on 2 to 5 March 2020 for the first round of negotiations on the UK-EU future relationship.
The negotiations were formally launched by the UK’s chief negotiator, David Frost, and by the European Commission’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, in a plenary session on 2 March.
The substantive discussions then took place within 11 separate negotiating groups, as agreed between the parties and as set out in the terms of reference. The session closed with a further plenary on 5 March.
Both sides presented their positions as set out in the EU mandate and in the document “The Future Relationship with the EU—The UK’s Approach to Negotiations” (CP211). The UK’s team made clear that on 1 January 2021 the UK would regain its economic and political independence in full, and that the future relationship would need to reflect that reality.
Discussions in some areas identified a degree of common understanding of the ground that future talks could cover. In other areas, notably fisheries, governance and dispute settlement, and the so-called “level playing field”, there were, as expected, significant differences.
The next negotiating round will take place on 18 to 20 March in London. The UK expects to table a number of legal texts, including a draft FTA, beforehand.
[HCWS153]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are in session, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bells.
Gambling Act 2005 (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Gambling Act 2005 (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 2020.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, Section 99 of the Gambling Act 2005 imposes monetary limits on the per-draw and annual proceeds of any lottery promoted in reliance on a lottery operating licence. This order will amend the per-draw sales limit from £4 million to £5 million. As a consequence, the maximum prize limit will increase from £400,000 to £500,000, due to the rule that the prize must not exceed 10% of per-draw proceeds. This order also amends the annual sales limit from £10 million to £50 million.
In July 2019, the Government announced proposals to help society lotteries: that is, fundraising lotteries run by charities and other non-commercial organisations such as sports clubs or local community groups. Last year, society lotteries raised over £330 million, in support of a diverse range of charities, including hospices and air ambulances, which so many in this country rely on. The current annual sales limit has been in place since it was implemented in 2007, and the per-draw sales and prize limits have been in place since 2009. Indeed, the issue was looked at by the DCMS Select Committee in 2015, which recommended that the department and the Gambling Commission examine the sector in some detail. This led to the 2018 public consultation. I am grateful to the committee for raising this important issue.
I know that stakeholders on both sides have strong views, evident in the 1,600 responses the department received to its consultation. A key consideration in developing the changes being debated today has been the relationship between the National Lottery and society lotteries. Together they raise around £2 billion a year, improving our communities and life in this country in countless ways. It is imperative that any changes enable both to grow, and that society lotteries’ growth is not at the expense of the National Lottery. As Minister for Civil Society I can say that this is particularly close to my heart, as the sector benefits considerably from funds raised by the National Lottery.
I can assure the Committee that we have considered in detail the relationship between society lotteries and the National Lottery. The final package is underpinned by independent, evidence-based advice from the regulator, the Gambling Commission. It has advised that the changes I am bringing forward today will preserve the balance in the sector and maintain the key distinction between the National Lottery, which offers the largest prizes in support of many good causes, and society lotteries, which offer smaller prizes with a focus on a specified good cause.
I say very deliberately that society lotteries should have a clear focus on the charitable and not-for-profit purposes they support, and it is of the utmost importance that players know which causes they are supporting with their ticket and how much of the ticket price is going to support the cause. I am therefore delighted to see that the Gambling Commission is currently consulting on additional transparency measures for society lottery licences. I take this opportunity to thank it for its consideration of the issue and I look forward to seeing its conclusions.
The most significant change is the increase to the annual sales limit to £50 million. The current limit of £10 million is restrictive for larger society lotteries wishing to grow. Some have set up additional lotteries or an umbrella structure to facilitate growth, which incurs high administrative costs and can be bureaucratic to operate. For large charities operating at or close to the existing limits it is costly to add additional licences, either within an umbrella structure or a multiple-society structure. For example, in response to the consultation, Cancer Research UK estimated that moving to a multiple-society model would cost around £345,000 to set up, with additional annual running costs of around £130,000, thereby reducing the proportion of income for its charitable purposes.
For most societies, a £50 million limit would mean that they no longer need to hold more than one lottery operating licence, leading to cost savings and higher returns to good causes. It also means that society lotteries approaching the current annual sales limit can continue to grow and raise valuable funds for their beneficiaries without stopping or slowing their draws, as some do at present. This order includes transitional provisions to allow licence holders to benefit from the increased limits straight away on a pro rata basis, rather than having to wait until the beginning of the new calendar year.
For the vast majority of the sector, increasing the per-draw sales limit incrementally from £4 million to £5 million, combined with the new annual limit of £50 million, will provide both the headroom for further growth and the flexibility to increase the size and frequency of draws as operators wish. Where individual per-draw lottery sales exceed £250,000, the maximum prize cannot be more than 10% of the proceeds of that lottery. The maximum prize limit will increase from £400,000 to £500,000. We know that most society lotteries only offer relatively small prizes compared to their sales, but this change will allow for some additional flexibility, while remaining distinct from the largest prizes offered by most National Lottery games.
The Gambling Commission will be monitoring the impact of the changes carefully and the Government will keep a keen eye on progress, in particular to ensure that additional funds are directed to good causes and do not lead to an increase in administrative expenses. To satisfy ourselves in this regard, the Government will review the impact of the changes 12 months after implementation, looking at new data and evidence that has emerged over the course of the year. As part of this, we will look again at the case for a £1 million prize, as well as the link between sales and the maximum prize, and returns to good causes. Once we understand the impact of the current changes, we will also look at the case for a £100 million licence and any additional conditions that may accompany that.
To conclude, by increasing the limits we will enable society lotteries to raise even more funds for the causes they support by reducing burdensome administrative costs. Recent research published just last month by the Gambling Commission shows that the National Lottery and society lottery sectors are both currently growing, with participation up two percentage points for both, meaning that overall funds raised for good causes are growing. I welcome this approach. It is clear that society lottery funding brings tangible benefits. The Carers Trust stated in its response to the consultation:
“Unrestricted funding gives us the flexibility to allocate funds to projects and posts which are harder to fundraise for, and contribute towards our overheads and running costs.”
I look forward to seeing the impact of these changes on organisations working in my sector, and I commend the order to the House.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I apologise, but this is not quite as simple a statutory instrument as the Minister has said. There are a number of issues and questions that I want to put to her. I was delighted that, on 19 November last year, we were able to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the National Lottery and the staggering £40 billion that it has been able to give to good causes since it was introduced by John Major in 1994. Equally, we should celebrate the incredible work done by small-scale society lotteries that have provided funds for hospices, schools, clubs and many other good causes alongside the National Lottery.
My concern is that the original, untaxed society lotteries were characterised by relatively low prizes and generally limited distribution footprints. Those factors traditionally differentiated them from the National Lottery and, as the Minister said, that distinction helped them both to thrive and funds to go to good causes because they were not in competition.
However, then came the idea of grouping together a number of these society lotteries under a single umbrella; two key examples are the People’s Postcode Lottery and the Health Lottery. I have argued on many occasions that, although both of them undoubtedly do good work, they are being allowed to operate contrary to the concept of there being a single national lottery.
As I intend to demonstrate, notwithstanding what the Minister said, they are already having a damaging impact on the National Lottery. Currently, they are run by private external lottery managers and their revenues have increased dramatically, from £179 million to £736 million over the last 10 years. The measures in this statutory instrument look set to cause even greater damage to the National Lottery than has already been done. We must gauge the measures being proposed against the impact that they will have on the National Lottery.
Your Lordships’ Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry, of which I am a member, has already taken evidence on some of these issues. From that, we know that running concurrently to the legislative process we are discussing today—the Minister has already referred to this—is a public consultation by the Gambling Commission in response to concerns about transparency raised by the previous Lotteries Minister.
Public trust and confidence are vital to preserve the integrity of both the lotteries and the charities that operate and rely on them. Where sales are in the hundreds of millions of pounds and the purpose is charitable, it is only right that the levels of transparency are high—higher than they are now. Players should be able easily to find out how often prizes are awarded, how good causes are chosen and how their money is spent.
For example, we know that the National Lottery has operating costs of about 5% of revenue but, as the Select Committee heard in January when both Camelot and the People’s Postcode gave evidence, the People’s Postcode Lottery has operating costs of 28%; it spends almost as much on operating costs as it does on giving to charitable causes—in marked contradiction to what the National Lottery does. I also understand that the Health Lottery spends more on expenses than it returns to good causes, although this information is not easy to ascertain. Indeed, DCMS noted that
“the two sector leaders currently return amongst the lowest proportion of revenue to good causes.”
So, the Minister says how good these society lotteries are—indeed, the individual small ones are—but we discover that the amount of money that these combined umbrella lotteries give to good causes is almost similar to the amount they spend on administration. I hope that the Minister can assure us that she will watch this issue carefully so that we can make changes leading to higher returns to good causes. As a first step, and before any result of the consultation is seen and any major final decisions are made, can the Minister at least ask those two umbrella lotteries whether they will make public the information on the various issues that I have just raised?
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I have no difficulty in agreeing entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Foster, has said about some of the questions that do, and must, remain under review. Certainly, the hardest thing of all is the balance between the interests of the National Lottery and the society lotteries, and this statutory instrument seeks to establish such a balance. It is clear from the supporting documentation and the National Lottery’s responses to these proposals that the National Lottery does not feel terrifically positive about that as far as its own interests are concerned.
The present limits on prize money and amounts to be raised were set 15 and 12 years ago, and therefore for me—and, I think, for my party—at this stage it seems reasonable and proportionate to contemplate an increase from £4 million to £5 million, with the same percentages for the top prize money. I do not think that anyone on our side wants to oppose this SI, but we urge that close attention be given to how it all works out.
This is a more satisfactory statutory instrument than some of the ones that I have stood here to ask about. There has been a consultation and an attempt to work out some of the likely impacts of the proposals. The proposals in this statutory instrument seem okay, but we should take with a pinch of salt the suggestion that we might go rather quickly towards much higher totals. We would need robust evidence that the pace of increase was proportionate and appropriate—so that hint ought to be squashed straightaway. As and when it is time to look at further increases, let us do so, but let us not give that hostage to fortune within the proposals before us now.
The umbrella lotteries have been amply referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Foster: I understand that the Minister will clarify that and I shall see whether my thinking on this is right. But one of the objects of moving the figures upward is to make these umbrella lotteries less necessary, and therefore to avoid duplicating administrative costs because of the multiplicity of bodies that come together to form the umbrella. I do not know whether metaphorically you can bring bodies together to form an umbrella, but noble Lords will know what I mean. It would be very good to have a word of clarification on that. Will there be a material reduction in administrative costs? That would go some way towards meeting the point raised, properly, by the noble Lord, Lord Foster.
The extra transparency that the Gambling Commission and committees of the House are looking at has been hinted at. We certainly need to have some answers to the questions that have been raised, and I hope that we will. It is important to note that there has been cross-party approval and support for these proposals, including from the Liberal Democrats—or, at least, named Members in the paperwork that I have received.
Finally—there is no need to say more than needs to be said—a proper process has taken place and a proportionate set of suggestions about increasing the amounts seems to be contained within these papers. I would be very careful about giving a hostage to fortune regarding further increases at the moment, although perhaps later that could be brought to our attention as a separate matter. I would like to know how these umbrella bodies will be affected by the increases in administrative costs that we are talking about. With all that said, we do not want to stand in the way of this SI being approved.
Baroness Barran
I start by thanking both noble Lords for their careful scrutiny of the instrument that we are discussing, and for their questions. Perhaps I might start by trying to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I spend my life trying to reassure noble Lords, but I will try again. Our clear aim is to set a framework that encourages both the National Lottery and society lotteries to thrive. We will monitor the impact of the changes very carefully, and we will not allow the growth of society lotteries to come at the expense of the National Lottery. I hope that that goes some way towards confirming our intent.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, said that part of the purpose of the instrument was to remove the pressure to create umbrellas out of bodies. None of us is quite clear about that; it feels uncomfortable. But, by raising the limit to £50 million, all the current society lottery providers, with the exception of the People’s Postcode Lottery, will be able to move from an umbrella structure back to a single structure. This goes back to the point raised by Cancer Research UK in its response to the consultation: that that will remove some administrative costs, which will allow more money to go to good causes. I think that all of us can align on that. I understand that the People’s Postcode Lottery has also indicated that it will seek to reduce the number of lotteries under its umbrella. So I hope I have addressed that point.
More broadly, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, questioned whether the changes could have a negative impact on the National Lottery. As the noble Lord knows, the Gambling Commission has advised that changes to the limits will have minimal impact on the National Lottery. The reforms are designed to allow society lotteries to raise more money for the good causes they support, but they take very careful account of the relationship between the society lotteries and the National Lottery. The distinctions remain in terms of the size of prizes and the frequency of draws, so we continue to believe that substitution between the two is likely to remain minimal.
The noble Lord cited the Camelot report in terms of the negative impact on National Lottery sales. Again, I can only reiterate the Gambling Commission’s advice, which was based on independent research. It does not believe that it has had a negative impact, and obviously that impact will be carefully monitored. The latest research, published just last month, shows participation in the National Lottery and society lotteries going up by about 2 percentage points. I believe that that evidence was given to the committee that the noble Lord sits on.
The noble Lord also asked about reasonable costs. Obviously with the National Lottery there are economies of scale, but the noble Lord will also be aware that society lotteries have been in existence for a lot longer, and we have a diverse range of business models. The minimum acceptable return that has been agreed with society lotteries is 20%, but obviously the average is 45%. The People’s Lottery is at 32%, but we know that it hopes to increase that. Again, the one-year review will look at this in detail.
Lord Foster of Bath
I vowed I would not intervene, but on this I really must, because it is incumbent on the Government at least to define what they mean by “reasonable” in this context. For example, does the Minister think it is reasonable that the People’s Postcode Lottery is spending on advertising 75% of what the National Lottery spends? Is that reasonable when the People’s Postcode Lottery is currently only 5% of the size of the National Lottery?
Baroness Barran
I am sure the noble Lord will understand that the decision on what the People’s Postcode Lottery spends on its marketing budget is for it. What we look at for reasonableness is the growth in money going to good causes, and, given that both parts of the sector are increasing at the moment, we are comfortable with that, but we will keep it under close review.
On transparency, which both noble Lords raised, and the consultation that the Gambling Commission is undertaking at the moment, the Government absolutely agree that society lotteries need to demonstrate the highest levels of transparency. The consultation seeks views on new guidance which will allow society lottery operators to provide players with more information about their odds of winning a prize, how good causes are selected and the breakdown of lottery proceeds. I know that my honourable friend the Minister here would not be afraid to legislate if there were concerns about transparency.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, asked about reintroducing the expenses cap. He will be aware that that was removed in 2005 and, since then, the approach has been to focus on the minimum return of 20%, with flexibility for operators to split the balance. Obviously, the return is currently significantly higher than that, so there are no current plans to reintroduce the cap. The Gambling Commission consultation will also make players aware of how to access information about the breakdown of proceeds before they buy a ticket.
Returning to the noble Lord’s question about reasonably incurred levels of expenditure, I should have added that that is handled by the Gambling Commission, as the regulator for the sector.
Turning to taxation models for the National Lottery, we have discussed them, and options for changing to a gross-profit tax model, with the Treasury, but that remains a matter for the Treasury to decide on.
Lord Foster of Bath
I apologise profusely, but too often we hear from Ministers that decisions on taxation are a matter for the Treasury. I entirely accept that that is true, but there is a duty on, in this case, her department to provide evidence to the Treasury to suggest that it should seriously consider making a change to taxation that would, in this case, benefit good causes and the Treasury itself. My question now is simply: has her department recently provided any of the clear, detailed research evidence that shows that a change would make the benefits that I suggest? Has it done it or not? If it has not, will it agree to so do?
Baroness Barran
The answer is yes. As the noble Lord is aware, the fourth national licence competition will open in April, and both my department and the Treasury have been looking at the case for how the taxation system should work. I have managed to reassure the noble Lord on one thing, which I shall regard as a triumph.
As we have all agreed, the National Lottery is a uniquely important part of British society. Each year, it raises about £1.6 billion for good causes in the heritage, arts, sports and community sectors; that has amounted to an impressive total of £40 billion over its 25 years. Society lotteries raise more than £330 million a year for good causes, and that amount is increasing year on year. It is right that we do everything we can to support both sectors to grow, thrive and optimise the contributions they make to funding good causes across the country.
Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2020.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I venture to suggest that this order is straightforward and uncontroversial. It designates the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—for ease, I will refer to it the institute—as an approved regulator under the Legal Services Act 2007 for the reserved legal activity of the administration of oaths.
In summary, the order, if approved, will allow the institute to authorise and regulate individuals and firms administrating oaths within the scope of the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889, the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1891 and the Stamp Duties Management Act 1891.
As the Committee is aware, the Legal Services 2007 Act defines six reserved legal activities, which only individuals and firms regulated by one of the 11 approved legal regulators can provide to the public. The administration of oaths is one of these activities.
The institute is already an approved regulator and licensing authority under the 2007 Act, but only in respect of probate activities, which is also a reserved legal activity. It regulates more than 300 firms providing probate services and wishes to expand the range of legal services its members can provide. As such, it made the required application to the Legal Services Board, seeking to expand its functions. Following a recommendation from the Legal Services Board, the then Lord Chancellor confirmed in May 2019 that he agreed to make an order to designate the institute as an approved regulator for the reserved legal activity of the administration of oaths. It is envisaged that expanding the institute’s remit will improve consumer choice, enhance competition and enable firms who are regulated by the institute to expand their practice.
This order fulfils the statutory objectives in the Legal Services Act 2007 and is supportive of better regulation in the consumer and public interest. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has just pointed out, this is uncontroversial. I have no objection to it. It took me back to my years as an articled clerk in the late 1950s and early 1960s when the perk that one had was to take clients to another solicitor who would administer an oath on probate papers. This would cost the individual 10 guineas, and the shillings in those guineas were for me. There were only 10 shillings, but at a time when I was earning £4 a week, which was extended to £5 a week when I got married, that was quite a considerable sum.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I agree that this is straightforward, uncontroversial and a perfectly appropriate exercise of the relevant power. I am afraid that I have no anecdotes, questions, guineas or shillings, or any other contribution.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am most obliged to noble Lords, if only for their brevity. I am not certain what happened to the shilling or the guinea, but I understand that the practice remains that, where the oath is to be taken, it is taken by a lawyer in a different firm or entity.
The noble Lord referred to the administration of oaths by accountants. That is not necessarily the case. The institute will be the regulator, but it will regulate, in due course, alternative business structures that will include lawyers. Generally speaking, it is to enable those lawyers to be engaged in this reserved activity that this order is being made.
Legal Services Act 2007 (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) Order 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Services Act 2007 (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions) Order 2020.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I venture that this is also a straightforward and, I hope, uncontroversial measure. The order relates to the functions of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives which, for ease, I will refer to as CILEx. In summary, the order—if approved—enables the First-tier Tribunal to hear and determine appeals against CILEx in its role as a licensing authority.
As the Committee is aware, the Legal Services Act 2007 defines six reserved legal activities that only individuals and firms regulated by one of the approved regulators can provide to the public. CILEx is an experienced regulator under the 2007 Act and authorises and regulates individuals and firms in respect of five of the six reserved legal activities: the conduct of litigation, rights of audience, reserved instrument activities, probate activities and the administration of oaths. In February last year, an order designated CILEx as a licensing authority as well as an approved regulator. This meant that, as well as regulating individuals and firms, it can now license alternative business structures. ABSs are legal firms that are partly or wholly owned or controlled by non-lawyers. They were introduced by the 2007 Act to encourage competition by allowing, for the first time, lawyers to join with non-lawyers, for example accountants, to raise external capital. Notable ABSs include Co-op Legal Services and the big four accountancy firms.
ABSs have been permitted by the Legal Services Act 2007 since October 2011, and there are now over 1,300 in England and Wales. Most of the other legal services regulators, including the Law Society and the Bar Council, are already licensing authorities. The 2007 Act stipulates that there must be an independent body to determine appeals against decisions of licensing authorities, and this order enables the General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal to fulfil this role.
Over the last 12 months, since CILEx became a licensing authority, there has been an interim appeals procedure—agreed by the Legal Services Board—in place. However, it is more appropriate that the First-tier Tribunal determines any appeals against CILEx in its role as a licensing authority. The First-tier Tribunal has judges with experience in considering regulatory appeals.
Furthermore, similar orders have been made in the past in respect of appeals against decisions of the Bar Standards Board, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, when they are each designated as licensing authorities.
I assure the Committee that, although Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service will face additional costs associated with the potential increase in cases to be determined by the First-tier Tribunal, CILEx will meet the set-up and operating costs, so there will be no net financial impact on the public sector.
In conclusion, this statutory instrument is necessary to regulate better in the consumer and public interest. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I support the order. I declare an interest in that a close family member is a judge in the First-tier Tribunal—but not, I believe, in the General Regulatory Chamber.
I have been a strong supporter of CILEx from its inception. Indeed, I addressed some of its early conferences due to, as I mentioned in relation to the previous order, my experience 50 years ago of the integrity and probity of legal executives who needed a body to represent their interests in the way that that has happened. I am delighted to see that it has been given this particular power. The strange thing is that there was a temporary appeals provision with a panel set up by CILEx itself; clearly that was unsatisfactory. Far better that it should go through the tribunals system. What are the fees of the tribunal likely to be? Will they be more expensive than the present appeals system, unsatisfactory as it is?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, again I will be completely uncontroversial, and I can be very succinct: the First-tier Tribunal is undoubtedly more appropriate than the interim arrangement.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I agree with the observations of the noble Lord as to the importance of CILEx as an institution. I recently met with its representatives, as I do on a regular basis; they bring to regulation a degree of innovation and forward thinking that is to be welcomed.
On the potential cost, fees will be set by the Courts Service. Generally, there are only about 10 of these appeals each year. I do not anticipate the level of fees being an inhibitor to the discharge of these functions.
Extradition Act 2003 (Amendments to Designations) Order 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Extradition Act 2003 (Amendments to Designations) Order 2020.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this order is essential for the UK to fulfil its obligations under several treaties. It is required to implement an extradition agreement between the EU and Norway and Iceland to which the UK is party during the transition period, and to implement bilateral extradition treaties with Kuwait and Morocco. I shall explain in a little more detail why these changes are being brought at this time and the effect that they will have on our extradition arrangements.
First, the first part of this order will replace the designation of Norway and Iceland as category 2 territories, currently based on the European Convention on Extradition. It makes it clear that Norway and Iceland become territories designated under category 1 of the Extradition Act, based on the surrender agreement between the EU and Norway and Iceland, which entered into force on 1 November 2019. The agreement will facilitate the exchange of warrants between judicial authorities, which is executed through a simplified decision-making system.
In short, this will mean that Norway and Iceland will be treated in a similar way to EU countries for the purposes of extradition. However, there are some differences. Notably, parties can refuse to extradite their own nationals and can refuse extradition on the basis that the offence concerned is “political”. This agreement also allows parties to require that an extradition take place only where the offence concerned is a criminal offence in both countries—something known as “dual criminality”.
As the Committee is aware, during the transition period, the EU justice and home affairs tools that the UK has opted into, including this agreement, will continue to apply. The legislation will ensure that there is no disparity between our international obligations and domestic law, which could result in legal uncertainty and impunity for wanted fugitives.
The second part of this order will implement the extradition treaties concluded between the UK and Morocco in 2013 and the UK and Kuwait in 2016. The designation of these countries under category 2 of the 2003 Act will allow the UK to process extradition requests from Kuwait and Morocco in line with the obligations of these treaties. Both treaties set out a timeframe in which a full extradition request must be provided to the UK by Kuwait and Morocco when an individual has been arrested on a provisional arrest warrant.
This order therefore also ensures that this is reflected in our legislation by setting out that, in the case of Kuwait and Morocco, the judge must receive the papers within 65 days of the person’s provisional arrest, in line with standard practice. This allows for the countries to provide the request to the Secretary of State within 60 days, as the treaty provides for, and for the Secretary of State to have five days to certify the request and send it to the appropriate judge.
Once the designations have been made, the Kuwait and Morocco treaties will be ratified. The introduction of the formal bilateral basis for extradition for conduct covered by these treaties will lead to a more efficient and effective process for extradition between the UK and the respective countries. Morocco and Kuwait are important partners for the UK, and these treaties will enhance our ability to work in close co-operation with them on important issues.
I urge the Committee to consider the amendments made by this statutory instrument favourably to ensure that the United Kingdom can comply with its obligations under the relevant international extradition arrangements. When considering any request for extradition, our arrangements are balanced by the provisions in the Extradition Act 2003, which serve to protect an individual’s rights, including their human rights, where extradition is not compatible with our law.
Extradition is a valuable tool in combating cross-border crime, and offenders should not be able to escape justice simply by crossing international borders. No one should be beyond the reach of the law. Having efficient, clear and effective extradition arrangements is vital for safeguarding our security and preventing fugitives escaping justice. I commend the regulations to the Committee and beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. Kuwait and Morocco both still carry the death penalty; according to Human Rights Watch, there were seven executions in Kuwait in 2017, and I understand that it outlaws same-sex relations. Does the Minister have any information about seeking assurances in the past from these countries? She says that they are important partners, but are they trusted partners—as regards their judicial system or how politically expedient their approach to these matters sometimes is?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for explaining the order. I have no particular comments to make in respect of Norway and Iceland becoming Part 1, and no longer being Part 2, territories other than that, for me, it illustrates what a stupid decision it is no longer to take part in the European arrest warrant procedure. That is obviously for another time but I think that it will benefit nobody but criminals; I am sure that we will come back to that in other debates.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, outlined, there are some concerns about Kuwait and Morocco. In respect of Kuwait, the treaty was signed in 2016 but, since then, it has resumed executions and is now talking about lowering the age at which someone can be executed. There are genuine concerns about that and it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could explain what the process will be. We are genuinely worried. We do not support the death penalty in any circumstances and it would be very worrying if people could potentially be sent back to face it. In addition, Kuwait outlaws same-sex relationships, with a maximum prison sentence of seven years, so, again, we would be very worried if someone in that situation were to be extradited to Kuwait.
It would be useful to hear from the noble Baroness whether the Government have received any assurances from the Kuwaiti authorities since the treaty was signed in 2016 and since that country changed its laws regarding executions. In this respect, in 2018, my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury tabled a Motion that was debated on the Floor of the House. It would be useful to know whether anything happened following that Motion being debated. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s reply.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for the questions on this statutory instrument that they have rightly asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether our intention in the future is to remain part of the ECHR. At the moment, that is our intention, although, as she acknowledged, I cannot speak about what will happen in the future.
The question that I thought might be brought up was about the death penalty in Kuwait. It is important to make it clear at the outset that extradition is prohibited by statute if the person concerned might face the death penalty, unless the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed. The UK Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. As we all know, it undermines human dignity and there is no conclusive evidence that it is a deterrent. Any miscarriage of justice leading to its imposition is clearly irreparable, so extradition from the UK is not possible where the person has been, will be or could be sentenced to death, and that is made explicitly clear in the Extradition Act.
Extradition is obviously a very important tool in bringing perpetrators to justice. We can maintain extradition relations with countries that have the death penalty while making it absolutely clear that we will never allow a person to be extradited from the UK if they will face the death penalty elsewhere.
Kuwait and Morocco are not listed as priority countries in the FCO’s human rights report. Therefore, no explicit exchange of human rights assurances was sought in addition to those that make up the extradition treaty. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is all the more reason for us to be explicit on extradition and the death penalty.
Our very good relations with both Kuwait and Morocco provide further comfort, so we can raise a range of human rights issues with them. We do so in the context of ongoing bilateral dialogue.
On LGBT status, it is important to note that the same standard of safeguards applies to UK extradition relations with all Part 2 countries. Whether a request is compatible with a person’s human rights is assessed by the UK’s judiciary in extradition cases. If a court found that a person would, for example, be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment as a result of their extradition, they would not be extradited. I hope that provides the comfort that the Committee rightly seeks on this statutory instrument.
Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are introduced under the powers in Section 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. They provide an important right of appeal against immigration decisions on citizens’ rights. The regulations are required to meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement.
The Government have been clear in our commitment to protect the rights of EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens who have made this country their home. They are our friends, our family and our neighbours, and we want them to stay.
The EU settlement scheme makes it easy for EU citizens and their family members who want to stay in the UK to get the immigration status they need. As announced last month, we have already had more than 3.2 million applications, with nearly 2.9 million people granted status. If an applicant disagrees with the decision in their case, they can apply again to the scheme completely free of charge and they have until 30 June 2021 to do so. They can also apply for an administrative review, meaning that their case is reviewed again by Home Office caseworkers, if they are refused on eligibility grounds or granted pre-settled status rather than settled status. The fee for this service, which is £80, will be refunded if the original decision is withdrawn due to a caseworker error. These appeal rights provide further reassurance to EU citizens that they remain welcome and can continue to live and work in the UK and that we will uphold our commitment to guarantee the rights of EU citizens.
The regulations basically do two things. First, they establish appeal rights against a wide range of decisions affecting a person’s right to enter and live in the UK under the EU settlement scheme. This includes those refused leave under the scheme or those granted pre-settled status rather than settled status. It also includes those refused entry clearance in the form of an EU settlement scheme family permit or travel permit. The regulations provide an appeal route for those whose rights under the scheme are restricted; for example, where their status is revoked or curtailed.
Secondly, the regulations ensure that existing rules and procedures are applied to the operation of appeal rights. They go further than required under the agreements by providing appeal rights in line with the UK’s more generous domestic implementation. This means that anyone who can make an application under the scheme, including non-EU family members, will have a right of appeal if refused or granted pre-settled status.
Appeals under the regulations will follow the same process as current immigration appeals. They will be heard by the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. With permission, there will be a further onward right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal on points of law. The exception is where the decision is certified on national security grounds or where sensitive information cannot be made public. As with current immigration appeals, these cases will be referred to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
The regulations are undeniably complex. This is because of the number of situations requiring a right of appeal under the agreements. There is also a need to apply existing rules relating to appeal rights, which are themselves complex.
However, we are committed to making the appeals process as simple as possible for applicants. The decision letter will tell them whether they can appeal and will direct them to the relevant information on GOV.UK. There is also support available by phone, in person or in writing for those who do not have access to online facilities or who need additional assistance.
These regulations ensure that we comply with the requirements of the agreements and are an essential part of our commitment to protecting the rights of EU citizens. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. She mentioned administrative review. I want to take this opportunity to ask her about the experience so far. I came across a blog, although I cannot remember whose. I think it was a barrister’s. It seems to have become the custom for members of the Bar—I am very glad of it—to blog as their way of advertising their services. I will probably get some complaints, having said that. This blog said that, following a freedom of information request, the inquirer found that 89.5% of applications that had gone for administrative review were successful.
The noble Baroness mentioned refunds. Does she know how much has had to be refunded, what the associated costs of doing so might be and whether the Home Office has a view about why this is happening with so much success at that stage?
Since the order came into force on 31 January, when will time start running in the case of decisions made before today or before the matter goes to the House—in other words, before the SI is approved?
I confess to having some concern about Regulation 14, which allows for an appeal from outside the United Kingdom. Will it not be the case that many appellants will have been required to leave? Concerns have been expressed in other parts of the immigration forest about the difficulties of appealing from abroad.
Am I right in thinking that this SI will be the basis for any claim with regard to invalidity—for instance, if the Home Office has said that the applicant is not an EU citizen and is therefore not in the settled status scheme?
Given the number of grants of pre-settled status that have been made, has the Home Office made any assessment of the numbers of appeals against that status from people who think that they should have been granted full settled status? It seems to me that there could be an early and considerable spike in the work.
The Minister mentioned the considerable help currently available from a number of organisations that have received grants to assist applicants for settled status. The EU Select Committee—it may have been the EU Justice Sub-Committee—heard from some of the organisations a couple of weeks ago. At that stage, they were waiting to hear whether their funding would continue after the end of this month. If she has any news on that, the Committee—and, even more so, the organisations concerned—would be glad to hear it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for explaining the regulations to the Grand Committee this afternoon. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised all the points I was going to raise—
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
It is absolutely fine. I shall not repeat them because it would detain the Committee longer than necessary, but the noble Baroness has raised some very important points. I support the regulations and we are pleased they are here, but our concern and worry is that the people who are vulnerable are those who have not picked up on the need to use this system. If they do not use it, they will find themselves, in June 2021, to be in the UK illegally, even if they have been here for many years. That is what we are worried about.
The other point of concern is that there have been a few issues in the Home Office in terms of appeals and other problems in the past. We are very worried that someone might find themselves in difficulty, so what we are looking for from the Minister is some reassurance about that and about how people will be treated. What will the Government do to ensure that people know they need to apply for this? It may well be that some of those people who are here from elsewhere in Europe are in quite low-paid jobs, do not have a lot of money and are just not picking up on it. What we do not want is a situation where people do not understand that they need to apply and find themselves in difficulty with the authorities and potentially being removed from this country when, had they applied, they would have been given the right to stay here. That is the reassurance every noble Lord here is looking for. In principle, I am very happy with there now being a right to appeal, so I will leave it there.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points. I thought this would be the easy SI and that every noble Lord would be so happy with the appeal processes. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked why so many appeals are successful. An appeal may succeed where new information is provided.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise. I meant that an administrative review may succeed when new information is provided. I understand that about 900 applications for the admin review have been received. The noble Baroness asked when it starts—I am assuming 31 January.
On what happens if people miss the deadline, we have been very clear that where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline people will be given a further opportunity to apply.
Baroness Hamwee
I am sorry; I did not think I had asked terribly difficult questions. On my question about the time running, there are time limits for appeals, but we have gone beyond the point when the SI is effective because that date is 31 January. I am not clear whether the time from 31 January to now is taken off the time available to an appellant to get the appeal in. This is quite a practical point. I will go on rambling so that the Minister can talk to her officials and is able to get this on to the record as I think that would be helpful. Perhaps I was clear in my question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We have some clarity now. It will run—is the noble Baroness asking me how long it will run for?
Baroness Hamwee
No. I am asking whether the period between 31 January and whatever the date is in March counts for the period towards the number of days within which an appeal has to be lodged because the order is in force but people will presumably will not be making applications under it until has gone through the parliamentary process.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On pre-settled status appeals, there are 900 applications for administrative review, but whether they are for pre-settled status I do not know. If I have the figures, I will provide the noble Baroness with them. On her question about immigration control, this is not for the purposes of immigration control. I thought the noble Baroness might be concerned about that. The funding for the groups that are helping runs through the financial year.
Baroness Hamwee
I am sorry for treating this as a conversation, but I understand that their funding goes to the 31st of this month, but they need to know, if they do not know already, whether they will be able to employ people to continue the service.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I understand that when this came up in the Commons the Minister said the thing should be resolved in a couple of weeks. That was a week ago.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That is because we will be announcing the arrangements for the financial year 2020-21 shortly—in the Budget, I am guessing. I hope that rather clumsily answers the noble Baroness’s questions.
Baroness Hamwee
I wish to make it clear from these Benches that we do not think that is satisfactory. We understand about financial years and so on, but for a small organisation, or a medium-sized or quite large organisation, which does not know whether it will be able to continue the service it is pretty difficult that it will be within a couple of weeks of the end of the year.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally understand that point. It is frustrating for any group or organisation waiting for future funding announcements to be in this position right at the end of the financial year; I really get that. I just want to answer the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on vulnerable people. As he knows, we have set out some funding for organisations who will help vulnerable people. I think they are the last cohort of people on whom our attention will need to focus: as he says, people who do not even know that they must apply. That work is well under way across the country and, given the number of applicants, which is 3.2 million, it is clearly going well for most people, but he is right to raise that final cohort.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am glad that the noble Baroness has recognised that point, but can we have an assurance that the Government will look at them sympathetically? There will be people who do not know that they have to apply and, in a few months’ or a year’s time, find themselves illegally in this country who thought they were here legally. I hope that, at that point, the Government will treat people reasonably and understand that it may well be through no fault of their own—they have not picked it up—they are in these difficult situations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Totally, and that is what this reasonable grounds process is all about. We actually want to find reasons to grant people settled status, so the point the noble Lord makes about not being harsh on people is absolutely right. The other day, I came across a Romanian lady who did not know what to do. I helped to point her in the right direction of applying. Yes, those people who still do not know now will need that extra bit of help. I beg to move.
Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, in the time available to me, I would like to remind your Lordships of the level of seriousness with which we should address the level of Covid-19 and the context for the Government’s response. I will then explain the workings of the regulations in detail and how they fit into our wider strategy for addressing the outbreak.
On 31 December 2019, Chinese authorities notified the World Health Organization of an outbreak of pneumonia in Wuhan City, which was then classified as a new disease, Covid-19. On 30 January 2020, the WHO declared the outbreak of Covid-19 a public health emergency of international concern.
Based on current evidence, the main symptoms of Covid-19 are a cough, high temperature and, in severe cases, shortness of breath. It is a new virus, so there is a lack of immunity in the population and, as yet, no effective vaccine. This means that Covid-19 has the potential to spread extensively in the population.
As expected, case numbers are increasing, but the UK remains well prepared for such outbreaks. As of 9 am on 9 March 2020, 24,960 people had been tested in the UK, of whom 24,641 were confirmed as negative and 311 were confirmed as positive.
Although our knowledge is growing by the day, much remains unknown. The four UK Chief Medical Officers have made it clear that the disease currently presents a moderate risk to the public, but that planning and preparation for the potential of a more widespread outbreak is sensible. As the Prime Minister has made clear, there could be a very significant increase in the number of cases of coronavirus in the UK.
Tackling Covid-19 requires a robust, integrated and proportionate response. On Tuesday 3 March, the Prime Minister introduced the UK’s coronavirus action plan, providing the public with information on what the Government have done and on their plans to tackle the coronavirus outbreak.
The Government’s approach to tackling Covid-19 can be summarised in four phases: contain, delay, research and mitigate. The Government have focused hard over the past weeks on the containment phase, taking precautionary measures to limit the spread of the virus as much as possible. A crucial aspect of that is ensuring that people who are contacts of known cases or are considered to be at high risk of infection are isolated from others for a period of time, ensuring that they cannot infect others but can readily access help if they fall ill.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive explanation of the order. When I started to read the policy background, it all came flooding back to me, having sat in his position in 2008 dealing with amendments put forward to modernise the legal framework for health protection and considering what powers were needed. My first question, therefore, is, why is the 2008 Act not sufficient to cover the eventuality of this virus, when these regulations relate to the 1984 Act? It is just a technical, anorak-type question and I am interested to know the answer.
I have given the Minister notice of my other questions, the first being about the differing legal structures in the United Kingdom, particularly between England and Scotland. Where are the regulations being considered? Are they being considered? Have they already been adopted by the devolved Administrations?
Echoing the brief discussion we just had in the Chamber, a further question relates to when this becomes a serious and imminent threat. In our scrutiny, we need always to focus on whether the orders and the Bill about to come before us give too much power or just enough power to a Secretary of State.
The statutory instrument refers throughout to detention or isolation. Can the Minister explain the difference between them? Is detention where somebody is arrested and detained, and isolation where they stay in their home? What would compel them to do that? I would like that to be unpicked.
Will the measure add significantly to the workload of magistrates’ courts? Has some estimate been made of that, and will it be properly funded?
My next question is about police involvement if people will not take the precautions required of them by law. Can we be assured that the police will be protected appropriately if they have to be involved in arresting or detaining people? That goes for other people involved in incarceration of any sort, because prisons and so on are contained environments that pose their own questions and dangers.
Finally, given that we do not know how long the coronavirus outbreak will last and what will happen, is two years too long a time for these regulations? Would not one year be more sensible?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of the regulations. I too have warned him in advance of an area on which I want to focus.
In general, we are content with the principles and are reassured that the Government have made it plain that the measures are a last resort when people will not co-operate and public health is seriously at risk. The points that we are raising are more about the detail of how things will work.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, as I understand it, this is the first opportunity that we have had, outside of UQs and Statements, to fully debate this whole issue. I want to speak at a little greater length on this matter because I think that we are entering a crisis which perhaps we have underestimated at this stage.
As I understand it, these regulations apply where the Secretary of State makes a declaration that the incidence or transmission of coronavirus constitutes a serious and imminent threat to public health, and that the incidence of coronavirus is at such a point that the measures outlined may reasonably be considered as an effective means of preventing the further transmission of coronavirus. I will argue in my contribution that, prior to the use of regulations, advice should be given in the form of information—far more information than is available at the moment to the public—to help individuals avoid contamination and infection.
Before I start, I need to declare an interest. Some years ago, I had surgery on my lung to remove a tumour, leaving me with half a lung and with COPD on the remaining two lobes. As a result, I have major breathing difficulties. I also want to make it clear that I am not speaking only on behalf of myself; I approach this whole debate as one among the many hundreds of thousands who are in the vulnerable group described as “persons with pre-existing conditions”. Before moving to the thrust of my case—on the provision of information, which is what I want to concentrate on—I want to make three points.
First, the use of the terms coronavirus and Covid-19 is unhelpful and confusing. We need single-term terminology in the public debate. Secondly, repeating the statement that masks are of little value and are no defence, which we hear repeatedly on television, is irresponsible. Masks protect others from infection by those who are unaware that they are carriers. If they are so ineffective, why are doctors, nurses, health assistants, virus-testing personnel, ambulancemen, laboratory assistants, research chemists, health professionals generally and even undertakers worldwide all wearing masks, as can be seen on every television screen in the country, every day and every night on every new bulletin?
Thirdly, I am curious about the statistics on mortality rates, particularly among the elderly. The way this debate is being presented, it is as if 1%, 2% or 3% of those who are stricken with this condition may die, but that confuses groups of people, including the elderly and the young. I understand that the real figure for people in the 70 to 80-plus age group is appropriately 15%, which is substantially more. We need clarification on that.
In my view, the public should ignore the advice on masks and follow the practice of health professionals. I understand that this mistaken advice is being given to avoid panic among the wider population. It will do the reverse, as such advice emphasises in the public mind the distinction between the no-panic case from government and the reality of the practice of healthcare professionals on the ground in the real world that they can see on television every evening.
I turn to the provision of information. The best way to secure public co-operation in the avoidance of infection is to provide authoritative information. That is the story behind the calls for freedom of information legislation in the late 1980s. I was at the heart of that debate in the Commons, and our mantra was “information influences conduct”. To avoid infection, we need information from authoritative sources that is regularly updated as more information is made available to government. When the public have confidence in the scale of transparency and the source of the information, individuals are more likely to act responsibly. Apart from providing information, the state can do only so much, as is the case with the National Health Service and local authorities. The less information it provides, the less it will influence conduct. The less it provides, the more the fake news merchants will dominate the debate and the more they will influence public reaction and conduct. Inadequate and confused messages from government will lead only to a mix of panic on one hand and resigned inertia on the other. We need more than “Wash your hands, cough and dispose and do not touch your face”. It is simply not enough. If you provide more information, the public will make far more realistic assessments of the actions that they need to take. The terms contain, delay, research and mitigate are important, but they are meaningless to Joe Public. In fact the public will not even know what they mean. As contain morphs into delay and further morphing goes on, the message will become even more confused and obscure. The public want authoritative messages and updated and detailed information on where the dangers lie, in particular to elderly groups.
I have spoken to a number of people in my former constituency over the past week, and I will now set out what I believe the public want to learn and know. These are questions being asked by the vulnerable groups; they want authoritative information and answers.
We are told that the research money has been increased to £40 million. Reuters put out a very interesting article the other day. It reported:
“A global coalition set up to fight epidemic diseases issued a call on Friday for $2 billion … to support the development of a vaccine against the new coronavirus that is causing COVID-19 infections around the world. Describing the outbreak as an ‘unprecedented threat in terms of its global impact’, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) said that while containment measures would help slow the spread, a vaccine was key to longer-term control … ‘It is critical that we ... invest in the development of a vaccine that will prevent people from getting sick.’ … But on Friday it said these funds would be fully allocated by the end of March. ‘Without immediate additional financial contributions the vaccine programs we have begun will not be able to progress and ultimately will not deliver the vaccines that the world needs’.”
Those were the comments of Mr Hatchett, CEPI’s chief executive. On Friday, the British Government announced another £20 million of additional funding. The total is now £40 million or £50 million; I am not absolutely sure about the final figure. The point is that the budget is insufficient. What pressure are we putting on other countries to contribute to this budget to make sure that it meets the demands of those people who believe that it is necessary if a vaccine can be found in the foreseeable future?
Further, is the virus affected by temperature? We read all sorts of things on the internet. If so, at what temperature is it destroyed? That is the first question on my list of questions about the detail.
Should a vulnerable, at-risk person use public transport, be it a train, Tube train or taxi? The public are asking these questions. Should the elderly be using these facilities?
Can the virus survive any of the following circumstances: a hot drink; water; fruit juice; milk; beer or wine; a drink with a high alcohol content; an ice cream; a burger; takeaway food; or a restaurant meal? In each case, what is the lifespan of the virus? Again, the public are asking these questions, each of which should be answered separately.
What general information do we have on the lifespan of the virus? Can a fish, bird, animal or any other species catch the virus? The internet is full of explanations from people who cannot be described as authoritative sources for this information. Of course, the reference behind that is to pets. To what extent can a pet potentially be dangerous?
Can disposable polyurethane gloves be reused following washing? If so, in what fluids? Tens of millions of them are being sold on the internet. The question is, will they be effective if they are used more than once in contaminated circumstances? Will they wash in hot water? I know that these questions may seem naive to some but they are the kind of questions being asked by the general public.
Can a pair of gloves, whether they be made of fabric, leather, plastic or another daily wear material, pass on the virus? If so, can the gloves be decontaminated and reused? Can a simple face mask made of plastic be used repeatedly? Can it be washed for reuse? Is there a difference in terms of efficacy between a single-fabric face mask and a filter mask? I have two such masks here. The question is, are they in any way of use in the circumstances I described at the beginning of my contribution?
What antiviral substances are effective in killing the virus? Also, what substances are ineffective? Is there a base alcohol requirement in any decontaminant? Can the virus survive on any of the following inanimate items and, if so, for how long? Again, we have seen material on the internet, but we have nothing authoritatively on whether and how long the virus can survive on: a light switch; a newspaper; a piece of correspondence; a letter; a fabric, such as clothing; furniture; metal items; glass; a milk bottle; a plastic container; a piece of china; cutlery; a coin; a bank note; plastic packaging on food; a cash machine; a computer; a mobile phone keypad; a handle; handles on public transport, such as on a Tube train; a handkerchief; a toilet seat; a toilet chain; a towel; or a petrol pump nozzle. There is no authoritative information on these items, and we are getting into a dangerous period.
I have listed some of the items that I have been asked about—and there are more. The public will want clear advice and individual answers that identify the likelihood of contamination for each listed item and, crucially, the length of time that the virus could survive under such inanimate item headings.
What advice can be given on the possible contamination of food, such as cold meat, cooked fish and poultry, raw meat and fish, fresh vegetables and salads, fruit, cheese, and spreads, including butter? It might be that the process of vacuum packing affects contamination one way or another—who knows?
Will the Government publish the stats on the age of persons, which I referred to before, who fall under the following categories: in hospital care and deceased—which I referred to before?
Finally, is Worldometer a good source of information? It seems to be the primary source for the public of information on this matter on the internet.
In conclusion, I fully understand that to some, many of my questions may appear to be simplistic, naive and an indicator of my own ignorance. Such criticism is of no concern to me. These questions will stand the test of time. There are 67 million people in the United Kingdom, and these are the kinds of questions many of them are already asking on the internet and in public meetings. We are Parliament and it is our role to secure answers on these from the Government. I do not expect answers to them today, but only after they have been fully considered. I hope that they are made public and are widely circulated to counter misinformation. I can only repeat that, when the public are told the full truth and given the full information in an authoritative form, they will respond positively and constructively. Until that happens, there will be nothing but panic, confusion, upset, frustration and, in some cases, dangerous indifference, particularly among the elderly and the vulnerable groups, who are the focus of my contribution today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, first, I apologise to the Committee that I came in late. The business proceeded slightly faster than I realised, but I am most grateful to noble Lords for allowing me to intervene briefly.
The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, clearly illustrated the need for messaging out to the public. One of the difficulties is that the answers to many of his questions are just not known scientifically. It is a range of probabilities only; the way the virus behaves on different surfaces and with different substances is different. The infectivity may vary with the viral load to the individual as well as the individual’s own immune system. That makes it really complicated in terms of defining. You cannot give a false sense of security to people by saying, “Well, you are fit and well, and your immune system is okay”, because those people may become very ill, particularly if they have a large viral load. We saw that with the Chinese doctor who initially highlighted the problem. Tragically, he died.
I take this opportunity to ask a few questions. This order refers to Public Health England but we have devolved Administrations, and Public Health Wales and Public Health Scotland operate differently. Some aspects of this statutory instrument concern the police and justice, yet the Ministry of Justice and its overarching responsibilities are not devolved, so there is a difficult interface between the devolved and non-devolved competencies. Can the Minister provide some reassurance on the daily round-table consultations that are going on to make sure that decision-making is absolutely seamless and that the devolved Governments are taking forward—and, I hope, mirroring—such legislation so that we do not end up with different systems operating across what are effectively artificial borders? In areas such as Shropshire, there is a huge amount of cross-border flow between England and Wales. Linked to that, can the Minister clarify that equipment, and its distribution to where it is needed, is also part of the consideration of the protection of the public so that we do not have an outcry if one part of the country cannot access equipment as well as another?
Testing is difficult: it is a complex and finite resource, and it takes some hours to run the test. A lot of the public do not understand that it is not like a pregnancy test; it is not a quick dip and a quick answer. With such a finite resource, will the Minister clarify where the governance sits for the management of negative results? One of my anxieties is that people may have a false sense of security from a negative result, because they may get the infection the day after it and subsequently become positive. Although it is helpful to confirm positive cases, a negative result does not mean that you are not going to get the coronavirus infection further down the road.
Linked to the cross-border issues, can the Minister also confirm that the use of beds and the availability of things such as ITU beds and ECMO are being considered across the whole country? I worry that difficult decisions are going to have to be made and it will be very important to have clear standards against which to make them. If it looks as if we are becoming like Italy, that will certainly more than stretch services to the limit; it will take them beyond it.
Will we need additional statutory instruments for the reregistration of people with healthcare professional qualifications of any sort? If so, when will we see them? I was rather hoping that it might be today. This relates to my earlier question about registration on specialist registers. Is the GMC working to find alternative ways of putting those who have completed training on the specialist register without bringing them all together in an exam hall, which seems to be an unwise move when their competencies have already been assessed through training?
That concludes my questions, but I thank the Minister for his clarity, for explaining things really well, for answering questions on the Floor of the House and for answering unanswerable questions with such honesty. It is terribly important that he and those advising him try to be very clear and open about the things that we do not know.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I will start by talking about two matters that are not central to the regulations but which are important pieces of context. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for his incredibly candid and heartfelt comments, which none of us here could help but be moved by. I would also like to express sympathy for his personal situation. We all know friends, relatives and people who are in a vulnerable position. While the CMO’s advice is that for a lot of us the virus does not present a huge risk, for some people it does. That cannot but be on their mind and we think about them a lot, so I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing that message of seriousness and his personal testimony.
I will also address directly the noble Lord’s questions. I am afraid that I cannot answer the important technical questions he asked; I am grateful for his appreciation of that fact. However, I reassure the Committee that our approach is to seek to be as transparent as we possibly can be. In answer to the noble Lord’s question, there is a daily update on the PHE website, where all the figures that we know and can prove are published—they go up at 1.45 pm every afternoon. That is a serious matter, and we are looking at ways of making that a more easily accessible dashboard with a deeper set of numbers that you can look at locally; we could then publish as reasonable and proportionate an amount of figures as possible while keeping secure the anonymity of those involved.
The other part of our approach comes very much from the spirit of the CMO himself, whom many of your Lordships will have met. He is an enlightened character who is extremely committed to evidence-based policy recommendations. We all plague him with questions much along the same lines as those the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked, seeking from him reassurances about particular technical questions. He is able to speculate and to say, “Maybe this or maybe that, but I can’t give you any clear reassurance on that because there is no data on it”.
One of the things about trying to preserve the pact with the public that our decision-making is supported by evidence is to avoid going into the kind of tempting speculation that the situation draws you into. There is temptation there, but, as a cardinal rule, we have to apply a self-restraining ordinance on trying to give people the answers and the speculation that, emotionally, they naturally want. The questions of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, are exactly right, and I reassure him that battalions of scientists are trying to get to the bottom of those answers. Lots of evidence is being worked up, and I believe that answers to many of those questions will be forthcoming. However, until they have the sign-off from the scientists, it is not right for us to indulge in speculation. That is the foundation of our approach, which I mentioned earlier. Although it is incredibly frustrating, from a public policy point of view it is the right approach. However, I will try to address just a couple of the questions that the noble Lord asked, without falling into my self-defined bear trap.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked about masks. Broadly speaking, except for the most comprehensive hazmat suits that cover you from head to toe, masks are mainly used to limit the number of germs that you emit rather than that you consume. I think we are all interested in the work going on in Taiwan, where all schoolchildren wear masks, not to protect them from the germs but to try to stop them infecting the people next to them. That is an interesting insight, but it is not the approach that the CMO has recommended.
On the delicate issue of mortality rates, I completely sympathise with the noble Lord’s point that there is wild speculation on these numbers, and it would be fantastic to have a more reliable set of figures. I will say only that it is extremely difficult to know mortality rates, because you simply do not know how many people have the virus in the first place. Large numbers of people are infected and infectious but completely asymptomatic and never go near a test kit, so we cannot know what the mortality rate is at any age. I recommend that the noble Lord treats all mortality rates data with great suspicion. It is not the way we are guiding ourselves.
Baroness Brinton
In the past they have been on that register, and the big concern is the move from one department to another. If I am being told that that is not the case, that is not the feedback I am getting from directors of public health. As the Minister knows, I have other concerns about the relationship between Public Health England and directors of public health, which is why I asked for clarification.
Lord Bethell
I completely understand the point of clarification. If there is information available on what proportion of directors of public health are also public health consultants, we will share it with the noble Baroness. However, the way that the regulations are drafted at the moment means that the powers in the regulations are held not by directors of public health but by public health consultants.
Baroness Brinton
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again but the point is not about the register kept by Public Health England. My point concerns the definition of public health consultant—I am afraid that Hansard now has the relevant document, otherwise I would quote from it—and most directors of public health have to do that qualification because the job description, which is in the statutory guidance, says that they must be registered. That is my problem, and I know that it is clearly a problem for some of them as well. There is a bigger issue here. Should this become a pandemic and we see a large spike in numbers, we will need everyone qualified in public health to be able to do this, and there seems to be a problem in excluding the people at the heart of managing coronavirus within their wider communities.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness makes a very reasonable point. My understanding is that this decision was made not on a personnel basis but on an administrative basis. We are seeking to restrict the number of people who are able to execute these potentially quite serious powers. Having a list of available people is a legally clear and responsible way of doing things, but creating a new administrative definition goes beyond the powers of these regulations. However, I have already taken on board the noble Baroness’s points about the role of directors of public health in this epidemic. Those points have been listened to and are being followed up, and I will continue the dialogue that we already have in place on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked why the 2008 powers are not sufficient. The answer is that it is mainly for practical reasons. The 2008 Section 2A powers give local councils powers but mobilising local councils to do things, sometimes at the weekend, sometimes at ports where they are not necessarily administratively present and sometimes overnight, is administratively a challenge. We found that in practice during the containment at Arrowe Park, it was really Public Health England officials on the ground who dealt with the situation and who needed these powers both in their back pocket and in their administration of the situation. That is why we have sought to do this. It is fair to say that a lessons-learned review is expected in the years to come and this will be the kind of issue that we will look at again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked what the difference is between detention and isolation. Although I do not have the legal definitions in front of me, my understanding is that isolation can be in someone’s house—literally holding them away from the rest of society—whereas detention involves confining someone to a place that they cannot leave, such as a police cell or a jail. Both are covered in these regulations. It is worth saying that you could, for instance, seek to isolate someone in a hotel room near the Arrowe Park facility and that would be covered.
The noble Baroness also asked about magistrates’ courts. I reassure her that MoJ colleagues were fully consulted on this and they did not see a problem. The objective was to try to create a low bar for an appeal to make the appeal process as easy and accessible as possible, recognising that these are very serious powers and we want to make them as sensitive as possible. In terms of police involvement and whether the police would wear suitable suits, they absolutely would. Police officials are highly protective of their workforce. Public Health England is working closely with the police to ensure that they have both the guidelines and the kit necessary to protect the workforce.
On the term of the regulations, I agree with the noble Baroness that two years is longer than we hope or pray this virus will continue. However, the advice from the CMO was that we cannot necessarily plan for that. Viruses sometimes last longer than expected; they can create multiple strains, and it may take time to have the lessons-learned review and to bring in new powers. That said, it is also possible that a coronavirus Bill that overtakes these regulations will be brought to the House later this month and the sunset clauses would necessarily be included in that.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Will the Minister reconsider something that he said to me? He said that he could not answer many of the questions that I asked. Almost all of them were to do with contamination, and virologists can answer them—I am told by a virologist that they can all be answered; we went very carefully through them. Can the Minister take each of the questions that I asked and answer them individually on the basis that virologists will be able to give him the information that he requires?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is entirely right to press me on this. I should be honest: obviously, I am not a doctor. However, we have arranged for another briefing from the Chief Medical Officer in Room G at 4 pm tomorrow. He is the epidemiologist who can convey to the noble Lord both the extent and limits of current understanding of the virus. I have sat with him sufficiently long to have the impression that a lot of speculation, guidelines and history are associated with such viruses that we might reasonably apply to this one. However, its behaviours are not fully understood. Although the genome is broken, we do not fully understand its genetic makeup. The advice from the CMO generally is to hold back on pretending to understand things that are not yet fully explored.
Baroness Thornton
I say to my noble friend that I would not use the internet as my source of information on any of these issues. I would use the BBC, which has been running extra programmes—in fact, I have just received an email from the head of the World Service listing all the extra programmes that the BBC is producing which will give us lots of advice. Its website is useful. I want to put it on the record to my noble friend that I would steer clear of those sorts of discussions on the internet and look at the BBC’s websites.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The great majority of the British population will not go into some of the technical areas that my noble friend would go into. That is why I am trying to find a single source of information for people to be able to go to which is authoritative and gives answers, with the latest information and knowledge available, on each of the questions I have asked. I persist in believing that the Government should arrange for this information to be made part of the public debate, because it would be helpful to everyone concerned.
Lord Bethell
I understand the point and will take it back to the department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about testing. She is entirely right to focus on that, because we are at the stage of the cycle when questions about testing are very much on our minds. She asked where we were focusing our testing. The most important area for testing is those people who are most vulnerable but who might have the virus. She is entirely right that someone who tests negative today may well test positive tomorrow. Where that is most dangerous is within hospitals. Hospitals are centres of infection. It is one reason why, if you phone 111, they recommend that you do not go to your hospital or your GP. Therefore, testing within hospitals is where we are focusing our resources.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that we are moving incredibly quickly to increase capacity of ECMO beds. There will be a huge amount of pressure —we cannot hide that—but those most in need are being prioritised. Training is going on to support those with the technical knowledge of how to run the equipment and purchasing is going on to create new kit.
On reregistration of clinical professionals, all the concerns raised in Committee and in the Chamber about the provenance of people seeking to reregister are fully understood. Provision is being made to make sure that criminal record checks and competence checks are in place. However, these remain incredibly valuable and skilled people who can support us, so we are determined to mobilise them if possible.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I referred to difficult decisions possibly being made. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that the Government are working with the heads of all the royal colleges—particularly their ethics committees—to make sure that unified guidance is going out to commissions across all the disciplines? Unfortunately, the different colleges have at times a tendency to work in their own silo, but this will be across all of them. It will have to go across the professions, rather than across the individual trusts and internal organisations. Therefore, a round table or regular consultation with them to make sure they all give the same messages is important, and it would reassure the public.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, makes an important point. The CMO currently has a weekly call with all the presidents or relevant members of the royal colleges, and there is an incredibly energetic interface between officials at PHE and the colleges. New guidance is being drafted at the moment. As our understanding of the epidemic increases so the CMO’s certainty and confidence about the advice he is giving will be clearer. We are therefore seeking to publish really good guidance for employers, voluntary organisations and all the groups who need it. The CMO also works closely with the CMOs of the other three nations, and I understand that is an incredibly healthy and productive relationship. It has served very well to ensure that the devolved authorities are fully involved in decision-making and that there is transparency on key issues such as ethics, which the noble Baroness was right to mention.
House of Lords
Death of a Former Member: Lord Wright of Richmond
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, on 6 March. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Gender Pay Gap
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in addressing the gender pay gap.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the gender pay gap is at a record low of 17.3%. However, the gap for full-time employees has increased slightly to 8.9%. The pay gap is caused by a range of factors. To address it, we must ensure that men and women not only have equal pay but equal access to opportunities. Reporting regulations require that around 10,000 employers report their data annually. However, we want employers to go beyond reporting to create genuinely inclusive workplaces for everyone.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, International Women’s Day is always an opportunity to reflect on successes, and there is no doubt that gender pay gap reporting has made a significant difference to many women’s lives. As my noble friend said, in the past two years, over 10,000 employers with more than 250 employees have reported that data. However, that is only 34% of the workforce. The Government have acknowledged that the 250-employee threshold is just the starting point. What plans do the Government have to lower the threshold?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
My Lords, we have had two successful years of gender pay gap reporting so far, with over 10,000 employers publishing their data in both years. It is important to give the regulations time, to see how employers respond. We are required to review the gender pay gap information regulations by 2022, and we intend to consult on any changes to the information that employers must provide by the end of 2021. If you have under 250 employees, it is difficult statistically to value that data, so we are still looking to consult on any changes.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, the Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 contain no enforcement mechanism. The only role of the Secretary of State, under Regulation 16, is to carry out a review “from time to time”, and to produce and publish a report and conclusions. This is not good enough. The first report is not due until 2022, and then at intervals not exceeding five years. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, however, has duties and powers pursuant to the general role under the Equality Act 2006. Although we have all this reporting and there is the power to do some enforcement, nothing has happened to date. Having spoken to both departments, neither seems to know which has the power or which is to use it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, but we are 100% compliant with what we are asking employers to do. If we go further and make it a mandatory return, this can become a tick-box exercise, which we do not want. We want employers to actively use their data to tackle the barriers that women face in their businesses.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, in October 2018 the then Prime Minister launched a series of measures to tackle the barriers facing ethnic minorities, including ethnic-minority women, in the workplace: in effect, the ethnicity pay gap. The Race at Work Charter, which built on the work of the 2017 review, Race in the Workplace, found that people from black, Asian and minority-ethnic backgrounds were underemployed, underpromoted and under-represented at senior levels. That review concluded that the time for talking is over and the time to act is now. What has happened to the ethnicity pay gap recommendations in the review, and when we can expect to see them?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
The Government ran a consultation from October 2018 to January 2019 on ethnicity pay reporting and received more than 300 detailed responses. They have since met with businesses and organisation representatives to understand the barriers to reporting and what information they could still publish to allow for meaningful action to be taken on the findings of that consultation. The Government have also run voluntary methodology testing with a broad range of businesses, using real payroll data better to understand the complexities outlined in the consultation. We will share the next steps on this in due course.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the right to equal pay for equal work is enshrined in the Equality Act 2010, but there is currently no formal route by which women can obtain information about a male comparator’s pay. To obtain this information, they need to embark on a complex and often expensive legal battle; many women, of course, do not want to do this. Does the Minister agree that, in addition to the right to equal pay for equal work, women should also have the right to know?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Yes, women need to have the right to know, but this is a very difficult thing for the Government to deal with because people also have the right not to have their pay in the public domain. The Government are looking at this and further proposals will come forward, including in the employment Bill, which will be introduced in due course.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, if we can stick for a moment with the gender pay gap, the Minister has said that she is concerned about the gap—concerned that things are not moving on—but does anybody in this House think that it is going to close by osmosis? We need action: we need the Government to determine what they are going to do. There are a whole range of things that they could do, and I will give just two examples. First, they should encourage employers to provide women-only training programmes so that women can be lifted up on pay scales et cetera. Secondly, they should work with employers to identify ways of producing much better-quality part-time employment. Are any of those ideas ones that the Minister would want to push forward and encourage the Government to support?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we need to move forward on this, but it is about cultural changes within large organisations. We saw today the issues in the finance sector in particular. However, the Government are already doing things: they publish advice to all employers, and they have webinars, face-to-face events, trade shows and so on. They are working closely with the Women’s Business Council on particular sectors that are slow in moving forward, including the retail and finance sectors. The Department of Health and Social Care is undertaking a complete review of the gender pay gap in medicine, led by Dame Jane Dacre. We are doing a lot to help but this a slow process. It is still moving in the right direction, and we want to ensure that it continues to do so.
Domestic Abuse Bill
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sanderson of Welton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what funding has been allocated for a public information campaign to accompany the Domestic Abuse Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Bill includes an all-purpose definition of domestic abuse to ensure that the nature of abuse is fully understood. It emphasises that it is not only physical or sexual violence, but includes controlling or coercive behaviour and economic abuse. As part of our plans for implementing the Bill, we are considering options for public awareness campaigns.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. While I welcome the reintroduction of the Domestic Abuse Bill, which will create a more effective approach to tackling domestic abuse, the problem will not go away simply because of legislation. One in four women in this country will suffer domestic abuse—one in four. Given that statistic, we may all know someone who is suffering behind closed doors, someone who is too ashamed, humiliated or frightened to come forward, even to their family or friends. I hope the Minister will agree that in order to break the silence, we really need to start a national conversation. The Government must play their role by raising awareness of this horrific crime and encouraging all of us to confront and challenge an issue that is still taboo in our society.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with everything that my noble friend says. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall made the same point in her speech to the Women of the World Festival just last Friday, when she said that
“laws alone cannot change behaviour … Domestic abuse is everyone’s problem and the solution must be too.”
In terms of the role that the Government can play, we certainly see the merits of a public information campaign and we are exploring options for it. However, my noble friend is absolutely right: we all have a part to play in confronting this if it is not to continue to be hidden away as it has been for so long.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
Do the Government appreciate that there is still much work to be done on this? It has been recommended by a wide range of groups, particularly for those most at risk, the most vulnerable, those women with complex needs, that every public sector worker who has interface with the public understands, through trauma-informed training, the reactions of women who have been abused and who suffer trauma because of it. Will the Minister, as part of this drive to reduce domestic abuse and abuse against women, take it upon herself to investigate how trauma-informed work is spread, so that whenever a woman goes for help, the person she encounters understands the basis of her need and reacts appropriately?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I wholeheartedly agree. The point about a trauma-informed response goes not only to those women—and it is mostly women—who suffer domestic abuse but also to their children. It informs literally everything around that trauma, whether it is the policeman who is called to the house, the healthcare professional assisting a woman in hospital or the person taking a statement, if she has to give one. I know the police are well on in bringing forward training for first responders, but everyone has a role to play in this.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that quite a lot of domestic abuse is intergenerational and is unreported, because a mother is very unlikely to report abuse committed by her son? She would feel ashamed. I think we overlook the amount of abuse that is committed in this way.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not think that that point has ever been made in this House; the noble Baroness raises a disturbing issue. It is true: people perhaps think they see it but cannot pinpoint it. It goes back to the point made earlier about people being trained to see these things, because some older people are in that horrendous situation.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I thank the Minister for mentioning children. Given that the Bill will inform the way that people engage with domestic abuse, what provision will be made to ensure that the needs of children are properly highlighted to enable a child-focused response?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think the one way the new Bill differs from the original Bill is that it introduces a statutory duty on tier 1 local authorities in England to provide support for victims of domestic abuse and their children in safe accommodation. The other thing that might help the right reverend Prelate is that statutory guidance will also reflect the effect on children.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, while I welcome the Bill, which was well overdue even before it was delayed by events, can the Minister tell the House when she anticipates that, assuming its smooth passage through Parliament, it will actually come into force?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
All things being equal, it should be in force this time next year.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, at least 59 women have been killed in the UK by men who claimed that their death was as the result of sex games gone wrong. According to the campaigning organisation We Can’t Consent To This, in the last five years this defence has been used successfully in six out of 14 cases that went to trial, resulting in a conviction for manslaughter or even an acquittal. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will use the Domestic Abuse Bill to ban the “rough sex” defence?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there are some complexities in this, but it is absolutely right that we reinforce current case law so that a person cannot consent to something that leads to serious injury or even death. We are looking at the best way to achieve this.
Sport England: Female Activity
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sater
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of Sport England’s “This Girl Can” campaign since 2015 on activity levels of females of all ages.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Sater, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we are determined to encourage more women and girls to get active and break down the barriers that prevent them from doing so, something that we set out in our sports strategy, Sporting Future. This Girl Can is a ground-breaking campaign, encouraging women to get active regardless of shape, size and ability. It has already inspired 3.9 million women to take part since its launch in 2015.
Baroness Penn
I thank my noble friend for her Answer. This weekend, to celebrate International Women’s Day, This Girl Can teamed up with parkrun to encourage more women and girls across the country to take part in physical activity. Initiatives such as this have increased women’s activity levels, but the same statistics show that participation in sport remains static. What are the Government doing to address this?
Baroness Barran
As my noble friend said, This Girl Can plays an important part in inspiring women aged 16 to 60 to be active, and almost 122,000 more women are active today compared with 2015-16. However, we do not want to dictate to women how they should be active. Rather, we want them to have access to the right opportunities locally and the right environment. Sport England is investing over £240 million in the national governing bodies of sport to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate in the sport that is right for them. We also know that it is very important for girls to be active from an early age, so there is £320 million from the sports premium to encourage this in primary schools.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, the Question before us is not only ground-breaking but—let me confess it—in my case, mind-breaking, for I knew little about this campaign, and wish that I had. I congratulate all those who are making these things work, as well as the recent advertising campaign that is prepared to honestly and openly show women and girls who are not, shall we say, built like gold medal winners at the Olympic Games. People of all shapes and sizes are in the publicity doing the exercise that they need to, and that is brilliant. Also, those tender and difficult aspects of a woman’s life—
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
It is in the publicity, I am only quoting—it is the menopause and the menstrual cycle, but they are honestly portrayed in the advertising too. I wonder, therefore, in view of the fact that I have known so little about it, whether the Government could put some effort into persuading those who run this campaign to take more of us into the secret of what is happening, and make the publicity a bit more widespread.
Baroness Barran
I am delighted that the noble Lord finds the campaign compelling and has learned from it; I think that will be true for many of us. The Government have supported the campaign substantially through Sport England, and in addition to the increase in the number of women engaged in sport, 16,000 organisations have registered as supporters and over three-quarters of a million women are active members of the online community.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I commend each iteration of this campaign, because it has challenged stereotypes, especially around women being affected by their period. But can the Minister explain what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to measure participation rates among disabled women? Often, disabled people experience multiple barriers to participation and inclusion, not least according to research by the Activity Alliance, which shows that many disabled people are worried about being seen as being too active, and therefore having their impairment and their benefits questioned.
Baroness Barran
The noble Baroness is quite right that disability can be a barrier to an active life and participation in sport in particular. Sport England is working with health and social care charities on the We Are Undefeatable campaign for those with long-term health conditions, 44% of whom have taken action. In the latest Active Lives survey, the group with the biggest increase in participation were those over 61. I know that there can be many barriers; I met a young woman in Yorkshire on Friday who plays blind cricket for England, and the barrier for her was transport to the station to be able to go and train. Barriers exist in many different shapes and sizes.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the This Girl Can campaign has shattered stereotypes and changed the way we look at all of this. For that it must be commended and I hope it will continue to get support. Are the Government using this campaign to get out their whole message on public health and information, because they have something here that has worked and is surely applicable to everybody, not just among females and not just in terms of sport?
Baroness Barran
The Government have certainly tried to take the learning from this campaign and apply it as widely as possible.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, why should girls not continue to be active at a later age? Why is there a cut-off point of 60?
Baroness Barran
That is a very good question which might apply to a number of us in this House. Sport England is working with women over 61 and, as I mentioned earlier, the biggest increase in participation has been in that older age group.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, do the Government agree that promotion of walking and other solo sports is needed now? With over a quarter of a million women taking over two and a half hours of exercise a week, there is a risk that increased inactivity with Covid-19—this is all I can say about the new problem—will reverse the current benefits.
Baroness Barran
My noble friend makes a very important point. Walking is now included in the Active Lives survey as one of the measures of activity we look at. Obviously, there are risks, to which I fear I do not have the answer at the moment, if people have to self-isolate due to Covid-19.
Environmental Programme: COP 26
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will ensure that they will have “the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on Earth”, as stated in the 2019 Conservative Party Manifesto, in time for COP 26.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, we are determined to cement our position as global leaders on the environment. That is why we have brought forward our Environment Bill, Fisheries Bill and Agriculture Bill. They will transform how we manage our natural resources and set a gold standard on environmental protection. Our policy and legislative programme for this environmental super-year will culminate in the UK hosting the COP 26 climate change conference in November.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I am sure he is aware that this Government, if they are to achieve this grandiose promise to the British people, need to think more about stopping things such as airport expansion, new road building, building houses that are not zero-carbon, and building new waste incinerators. Can he reassure me that the Government are thinking along those lines?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
This Government are introducing genuinely ground-breaking legislation this year. The Environment Bill introduces world-leading environmental commitments based on environmental principles and with a new organisation for environmental protection to hold the Government to account. The Fisheries Bill puts sustainable fishing at the heart of government policy and the Agriculture Bill scraps the old land-use subsidy system, which many people believe was entirely destructive—I am sure the noble Baroness agrees—and replaces it with a system conditional on land managers delivering some kind of public good, not least environmental protection. That is just the start of what this Government are doing this year. In hosting COP, they have enabled the Prime Minister, whose commitment to tackling climate change is in my view unquestionable, to convene the Government to ensure that we have a whole-government approach to honouring the commitment that this country made to achieve net zero by 2050.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that action on the environment is not just an issue internal to the UK? We also have to tackle our global environmental footprint. For example, we continue to import food and other goods that are causing the loss of the Amazon and other forests. Will our COP 26 commitment include legislation to control UK commodity supply chains, which often go across the globe, causing environmental damage?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The noble Baroness is right that it is not just about what we do domestically. There is a big question about what the UK brings to the world in this super-year for nature. We have already brought a great deal. We are world leaders in marine protection; our blue-belt scheme is on track to protect an area of ocean the size of India. We have doubled our climate funding to £11.6 billion, and much of that uplift will be invested in protecting and restoring nature on an unprecedented scale. She is right also to talk about supply chains. In a few weeks’ time we will hear back from the GRI—the Global Resource Initiative—which was established by a former Secretary of State. It will report back at the end of this month, and I imagine one of its headline commitments will be to clean deforestation out of our supply chain. We will respond as soon as we hear that report.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, while I congratulate my noble friend on the environmental land management scheme, the nature recovery networks and the policy of net gain that he mentioned, could he ensure that environmental policies do not end up harming the environment? Examples of this include the burning of wood to produce electricity, which is causing forest destruction, and the siting of wind farms where trees have to be cut down and where they damage bird and bat populations.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The noble Viscount raises an important point: there is such a thing as good environmental policy and such a thing as bad environmental policy. Unfortunately, the last few decades are littered with examples of the latter. We disagree in relation to the value and contribution that can be made by onshore wind. It is telling that this year we expect a new wind farm to come online that will be the first to require no public subsidies of any sort at all, which is testament to that technology. It has proven itself, just as we have seen with solar power. However, I absolutely take his point about the burning of wood on a very large scale to produce electricity. This has all kinds of consequences—I would say unforeseen, but they were not entirely unforeseen.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, if the Government’s environmental ambitions are to mean anything, they have to be matched by action. In that context, does the Minister agree that a good start would be for the Government to back the Domestic Premises (Energy Performance) Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath with cross-party support? Does the Minister understand that if the Government are unwilling even to support such a modest but very important measure such as this, their talk of environmental ambitions will ring very hollow indeed?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
To be able to meet our commitment of net-zero emissions by 2050, every single department of government has to deliver a plan showing how they intend to do their part. One of the most difficult areas—perhaps the least avoidable—that we will have to tackle is ensuring that existing homes are made more efficient. Money invested in that is not just money spent; it is an investment because you can expect, through normal means, to receive payback and make savings within four to seven years, depending on the work conducted. I am not familiar with the Bill that the noble Lord cites, but energy efficiency is certainly a major priority for the Government.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the refusal to expand Heathrow not just mean that expansion will take place in another part of the world? It will not reduce pollution at all.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The noble Lord is right that it does not matter where an airport or a new runway is built, in terms of carbon emissions. The Government are probably enormously relieved to know that I am not the Minister in charge of airport policy. I afforded myself a quiet cheer when the court made its ruling a few weeks ago.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing environmental measures in the Pension Schemes Bill. I wonder if my noble friend agrees that the potential for using pension assets to improve mitigation against climate change and measures to adapt to climate change is really important? In the context of International Women’s Day, does he agree that closing the gender pensions gap, which is more than twice as big as the gender pay gap, would be of assistance in that regard?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
As I rose to answer my noble friend’s question, I was told that her second point is being considered by the Government as we speak. On her first point, she is right that investment in energy efficiency and so on lends itself absolutely to pension funds, not least because it offers the kind of long-term, low-risk, medium-return investment that is exactly what they tend to favour. I do not believe that the mechanism for deploying huge amounts of private finance of the sort that we will need if we are to solve these problems exists to channel enough money into environmental solutions, but there are enough examples of what that mechanism might look like so that, by the end of this year, we as a country will be able to demonstrate real leadership in deploying the levels of private finance that we will need.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Monday 9th March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (9 Mar 2020)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 76ZA, I shall speak also to Amendment 86 tabled by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, who is unable to be with us today. I have added my name to his amendment as well.
I turn first to Amendment 76ZA and I shall refer in particular to Clause 14(1) and (2). My concern is that it appears that subsection (2) actually countermands and completely detracts from subsection (1). I am raising this specifically in the context of fishing,
“for salmon or migratory trout … for common eels (Anguilla Anguilla) by a boat whose length is 10 metres or less”
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will clarify that, in both those paragraphs, such fishing is usually for recreational purposes. I am sure that it is not the Government’s intention to stop subsection (1) applying to subsection (2), but I have information on good authority that ICES is very concerned about European eel, as stocks throughout the UK and the rest of Europe are in serious difficulties. Because eel spawns at sea, it is considered to be a single stock, so it needs to be addressed in an international context.
My noble friend will be aware that I have raised the issue of salmon stocks in the context of allowing more of the quota to go to the under-10 metre fishing fleet. Salmon is considered on a river by river basis because it spawns in rivers. Both species undergo major migrations, but effectively in opposite directions.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify why subsection (2) has been drafted in this way because, if the two derogations were to be used in the way provided for here, we will end up with unregulated marine fisheries in which these already depleted stocks will create additional problems, so I hope that my noble friend can put my mind at rest on this. I understand that the Government are committed to taking the figures from ICES, so by definition they will be fairly gospel. They will be accurate because our own national authorities are feeding into the research in this regard.
I know that the Minister has been given advance notice of the reason that my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has tabled Amendment 86. It is in order to insist that the authority may require information only where such information is reasonably needed for the exercise of its function. The reason is that we do not wish for information to be received which the Government have no right to receive. I understand that, in the Government’s view, this amendment is not necessary. In the department’s view, the power to request information is related to the exercise of licensing functions, and data protection legislation provides that information may be collected only for legitimate purposes. We seek to insist that this is information relevant to the very needs of the licence. No reference is made within the schedule to the reinstatement of the licence, but we would like that information included. With that clarification, I hope my noble friend will look kindly on Amendment 86 to Schedule 3 as allowing such powers to obtain information relating only to information relevant to the purposes of the licence to be issued.
With those few remarks, I hope my noble friend will look kindly on those two amendments.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my own amendments in this group–Amendments 76A and 79. One of the characteristics of this Bill is that we start to talk about recreational fishing, which is an important leisure activity—not one I indulge in myself, but one I would certainly encourage.
However, there is a big difference between someone going out in their own unpowered vessel and the charter recreational sector, which could have a significant impact on local fisheries. In a way, this is a probing amendment to better understand the Government’s view on the recreational side, but there is a strong argument that charter vessels should be licensed. They are quite substantial, have a number of people on board who are fishing recreationally, and they may be targeting certain fisheries which are significant in terms of environment and biodiversity. Although this amendment does not cover it, there might be an argument that, now that Defra has invented the very simple catch app—controversial in certain areas, but I think it is a pretty good idea—we could easily use that for this type of fishing, as that would give extra information about the types of fish that are being caught and landed in the recreational sector.
My second amendment looks at the area of capacity. It has been mentioned by many noble Lords during Second Reading that the British fleet has gone down and down in size. Of course, the prime reason for that is that the efficiency of fishing vessels has increased hugely over recent decades, so you need much fewer vessels due to their power, fishing techniques, electronics, sonar and engine power. All of those features have led to a reduction in the fleet. In the past, we have had to have decommissioning schemes to equate fishing fleet levels with available stocks. They are never the best things to do, but sometimes they are necessary.
I am trying to find out how the Government expect the capacity of the fleet to be managed. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments and he may well be able to reassure me in this area. My amendment says that there should be no additional licences granted if there is already a sufficient capacity for the fishing stocks available for the total allowable catch. We know from history that a mismatch in that area, whatever the rest of the regulations are, is highly negative to sustainability.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I will speak to Amendments 85 and 87 in my name, tabled for probing purposes. Amendment 85 concerns conditions being imposed on sea fishing licences regarding matters that are not themselves directly related to the regulation of sea fishing. I am sure there will be a number of examples of conditions that it would be both logical and reasonable to impose, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify for the record what these include.
Amendment 87 deals with the duty of a sea fish licensing authority to comply or not with a request submitted by another licensing authority. In paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 3, there is an exemption to the statutory duty to comply:
“unless … it is unreasonable to do so.”
This amendment merely seeks clarity from the Minister to highlight the designation between reasonable and unreasonable, as presumably the requesting authority may consider the request entirely reasonable. What steps must a fish licensing authority take when a request is denied, and is that the end of the matter? Would the licensing authority need to justify that denial and, if so, is there a timetable for this, should the requesting authority wish to follow up?
I turn now to other amendments in this group. Amendment 76ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, brings into focus in my mind the interplay between farmed salmon, which is not regulated in this legislation, and the Fisheries Bill. The Norwegian Government believe that farmed salmon escapes are the biggest threat to Norway’s wild salmon population. The Scottish Government are certainly aware of the significant risk to the vital recovery of remaining west coast salmon stocks. Experts estimate that the number of escapes—often laden with disease, especially lice burdens—is around double the number of wild Atlantic salmon that return to their spawning rivers on the west coast of Scotland. During Storm Brendan in January, around 73,000 farmed salmon escaped from the open-net cage near Colonsay. I draw attention to the considerable effect this may have on west coast fisheries.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendments in this group. In Amendment 76A, he poses the question of whether the recreational use of a charter fishing vessel requires a full licence and in what circumstances. Would the planned exemption for recreational activities still stand? The Committee has welcomed the previous positive comments from the Minister about recreational fishing. Indeed, my comments on salmon are apposite. It is an often overlooked yet important part of our fisheries industry, reported to be valued at over £2 billion annually and supporting more than 18,000 jobs. I am grateful to David Mitchell at the Angling Trust for making contact regarding the size of recreational fishing and the economic impact it has. This merits some attention.
Finally, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his careful scrutiny of the provisions under Schedule 3, seeking clarity on the balance and pertinence of information required by a licensing authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her Amendment 76ZA. I understand her interest in querying eels, salmon and migratory trout’s apparent exemption from the licensing regime, as they are all valuable and vulnerable species. However, I think I can provide the reassurances that my noble friend and other noble Lords would expect—that they are licensed and controlled.
Legislation is already in place at the devolved level to manage the licensing or authorisation of fishing for these species. In England and Wales, it is the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, as amended by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, that already makes provision for the licensing or authorisation of fishing for salmon and eels in England and Wales. Marine Scotland does not “license” fishing in inland waters as is done in England and Wales. Salmon fishing in rivers, estuaries and coastal waters is managed by way of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003 and, more specifically, the Conservation of Salmon (Scotland) Regulations 2016, as amended annually.
For eels, the Freshwater Fish Conservation (Prohibition on Fishing for Eels) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 prohibit the taking of eel without a licence from Scottish Ministers. In Northern Ireland, the Salmon Drift Net Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 and the Salmon Netting Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 prohibited the use of any nets to catch and kill salmon and sea trout in tidal waters and inland fisheries. The Eel Fishing Regulations 2010 license only eel fishing activity using long lines and draft nets on Lough Neagh and eel weirs at Toome and Portna. Because of the state of both species, these fisheries are closely managed and heavily restricted in all four Administrations.
Should we need to vary the existing regimes in the future, the Fisheries Bill provides a mechanism for this. Clause 14(3) allows the Secretary of State to “add, remove or vary” the current exceptions by regulation. These regulations would be made based on evidence and following consultation.
I turn to Amendment 76A. According to research published in Defra’s report Sea Angling 2012, recreational fishers fishing from charter boats account for the minority of fishing days and a limited proportion of fish caught recreationally, compared with those fishing from the shore or from private boats. Research from 2015 to 2017, due to be released later this year, shows that the percentage contribution of charter boats to fish caught has remained relatively low over this period.
Measures are already in place across the United Kingdom to protect bass from recreational fishers, including those fishing from charter boats, through daily bag limit restrictions as well as via minimum landing sizes. In England, controls are also imposed through by-laws made by the inshore fisheries conservation authorities.
Taking into account the best available evidence, the Government are of the view that licensing charter boats at this stage, would be disproportionate and not driven by evidence. Instead, officials will focus on working with the recreational sector to drive improved voluntary data collection to support conservation and sustainability and, where necessary, to implement intervention at a species level.
The Fisheries Bill provides the mechanism to implement licensing in the future, should this be deemed necessary. Clause 14(3) allows the Secretary of State to “add, remove or vary” the current exceptions by regulation. This would be done based on evidence and following consultation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue, which we wish to keep under review, but I hope my explanation of where we are provides some reassurance, and I emphasise that we take all these matters into account and take them seriously.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 79 seeks to ensure that fleet overcapacity does not threaten the sustainability of fish stocks when granting licences. The common fisheries policy requires member states to take steps to ensure that their fishing fleet capacity does not exceed the fishing opportunities available to them. Each member state is obliged to provide annual reports on the status of its fleets. These reports make clear that the United Kingdom has consistently operated within the capacity ceiling.
The licence system in place in the United Kingdom is designed to ring-fence the UK fleet capacity to the level seen at the creation of the UK licensing regime in the mid-1990s. No new capacity has been created in that time. No new licences have been issued and a new entry to the fleet can take place only when another vessel is removed from it. Any new entrant to the fleet must not be larger than the vessel that was withdrawn. Any vessel owner wishing to fish in UK waters in this scenario must purchase a licence entitlement from an existing registered vessel. The requirement on the UK to limit its fleet will become part of retained EU law. In addition, as we considered last week, the sustainability objective in Clause 1 requires that the fishing capacity of fleets is economically viable but does not overexploit marine stocks.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, particularly for his very helpful answer on recreational fisheries matters. I felt his answer on capacity was useful, but I just want to be clear. Is he saying that after this year, even when the Bill becomes an Act, through retained common fisheries policy law, the capacity rules from the common fisheries policy will remain for the United Kingdom? That is what I understood, and I am fully reassured.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I repeat that the requirement on the UK to limit its fleet will become part of retained EU law.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this little group of amendments and explained their concerns. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who I hope has put my mind at rest. Obviously, this is something I will keep an eye on, and I will share his reply with the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. With the permission of the Committee, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) is subject to the requirement that on-board monitoring equipment and cameras be fitted in accordance with a reduction in by-catch and discards.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, in moving Amendment 77A, I will speak also to Amendment 80A. I also have a few comments on Amendment 124 from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which seems very sensible.
The Minister will recall my concerns on earlier clauses as to how policies such as discard charging schemes and other items will be policed. I have tabled these two amendments as a way of allowing me to debate these issues. In particular, I understand that it is quite possible—this was not news to my noble friend and other noble Lords—that a Scottish fisheries Bill may be introduced. While I understand that Clauses 15 and 17 will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, is the discard charging scheme intended to apply only to English boats or also to foreign boats operating in UK waters? In that case, Scottish boats would be included as well. How will REM—the remote electronic monitoring—work? Is it envisaged that cameras will be included in all cases? Will it be a mandatory scheme? Will it be a statutory provision of the licence that British fishing boats under Clause 15 or foreign boats under Clause 17 require as to how it will apply? I do not see how the scheme will work if it is not mandatory and does not include cameras.
As my noble friend is aware, I am particularly exercised about the discard charging scheme. I would have preferred the original government policy, which clearly pointed to complete elimination. The purpose of these amendments is to allow my noble friend to explain how it will operate in practice. Will it apply to all British boats or only to English boats? What will the relationship be if the Scottish Parliament passes a separate fisheries Bill, and what will our relationship be with foreign fishing vessels? Will they be put on exactly the same footing and will it be a mandatory scheme? Which clauses will it apply to?
In Amendment 124, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is doing something not dissimilar to what I am doing. He too refers to remote electronic monitoring with cameras, which, unless my noble friend can put my mind at rest about how any remote electronic scheme could work without cameras, I am keen on. Can the noble Lord tell me why he seeks to phase this in? I am much more at one with the Government, unless I have misunderstood the drafting of his amendment, which talks about this being phased in. I hope my noble friend insists that this is brought in immediately as a provision of the licencing regulatory regime.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, we come now to one of the most important groups of amendments. I was interested in the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to the fourth Oral Question earlier, which was about what the Government are doing to make this country an environmental leader. He went through a number of Bills which are going through at the moment, including the Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill, before mentioning the Fisheries Bill. He is right on the first two. Under the Agriculture Bill, there is ELMS, a very radical policy to ensure that farmers who are paid a subsidy produce public goods. A lot of those are going to be focused on the environment. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, as part of the Environment Bill we have net gain and nature recovery networks, both of which I applaud. They will add greatly to the environmental growth of the United Kingdom.
What does the Fisheries Bill do to enhance the UK’s environment? The withdrawal Act gave us control over the EEZ, but all the Fisheries Bill does is change one set of administrators to another, replacing a lot of objectives in the common fisheries policy with similar ones. There is nothing in this Bill that enhances the marine environment. I cannot think of anything in it, as it stands, that does that.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
It is a rare event when I chide the noble Lord on his own Front Bench, but the fisheries management plans, if properly carried out, are quite a major step forward.
Lord Teverson
I think quite the contrary, because they do not co-ordinate with other adjacent EEZs. They account only for fisheries in our EEZs, not the rest of the circulation of those stocks. As they stand, they are substantially inferior—they are unable to carry out their mission. The one area where we can change this is remote electronic monitoring. That is one of the most important challenges. The Government believe in remote electronic monitoring in terms of making the discard ban effective and in terms of much better data, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, stresses far better in his amendment than I do in mine. I fully endorse what he is trying to do.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who has expressed so eloquently many of the points I want to make. I shall try to avoid repeating them; nevertheless, I want to extend the argument. I agree with the noble Lord that if the Government are to make only one change to the Fisheries Bill, this should be it.
The purpose Amendment 124, in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Worthington and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, is to ensure that all boats fishing in UK waters are fitted with remote electronic monitoring. My amendment focuses on data collection as opposed to the discard ban, but the two are not incompatible and REM would support both. If we introduce it on a phased basis and with consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested, it could be achieved in a way that does not disrupt the industry. It will be accepted internationally as the way to collect accurate data on what is being taken from the sea, to inform the scientific analysis of sustainability.
As the Minister said last Wednesday,
“One of the things that we must all wrestle with is that currently, we do not have adequate scientific information on all stocks and we need a better assessment”.
This will help to achieve that. The Minister also said:
“Where we cannot make such an assessment, we will gather scientific data so that such an assessment is possible”.—[Official Report, 4/3/20; cols. 652-53.]
Well, here is a method of contributing to that. Without direct on-board monitoring of fish catch, there would be a crucial gap in the scientific data on which to assess sustainable harvests. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already said, while we were in the CFP it was argued that compelling our boats to deploy REM would put them at a disadvantage compared with fishers from other countries. That in itself tells you something about fishers’ behaviour. But now we have taken back control, we can set our own rules to require all boats in UK waters, whether or not they are UK-registered boats, to operate on a level playing field with REM fitted to their boats.
It was also argued that it was unaffordable and not suitable for smaller boats—the under 10-metre fleet. However, a recent report on the San José gillnet fishery in Peru, concluded that
“small-scale fishing vessel remote electronic monitoring offers potential for affordable at sea monitoring costs in coastal fisheries.”
I am told that there are also new technologies—the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to this—such as Shellcatch, which is cheap and easy to use. Is the Minister aware of Shellcatch and similar technologies, the use of which would be a very appropriate step for the Government to take?
The proposed new Clause in Amendment 124 would also require all boats to have GPS, so that their location is known, and it would require the establishment of a framework for monitoring and enforcement to prevent illegal fishing. The accurate collection of data is always important in fisheries management, but even more so as the Government are intent on pursuing the mistaken notion that maximum sustainable yield is the right way to manage sustainable fisheries. At Second Reading, I pointed out the folly of this proposition, but my warning did not seem to elicit a warm response, so I am going to repeat it at greater length now, for the record.
I am delighted that the notion of experts seems to be coming back into fashion, because I will refer to a number of experts in fisheries science. I first quote from two of the leading fisheries scientists of the 20th century. Canada’s P.A. Larkin, one of the leading fisheries scientists of his generation, wrote in his 1977 paper An Epitaph for the Concept of Maximum Sustained Yield:
“In many ways, it is a pity that now, just as the concept of MSY has reached a world-wide distribution and is on the verge of world-wide application, it must be abandoned.”
J.A. Gulland, who wrote the world-standard FAO manual on fisheries science, said:
“It is very doubtful if the attainment of MSY from any one stock of fish should be the objective of management except in exceptional circumstances”.
I also consulted two colleagues who are fisheries experts: Professor Marc Mangel from the University of California, arguably the top fisheries scientist in the United States, and Professor Sir John Beddington, former Government Chief Scientific Adviser and adviser to the UK Government in international fisheries negotiations. Both confirmed that MSY is not a desirable tool for fisheries management. Professor Mangel said:
“MSY as a management tool simply won’t go away, regardless of evidence that ‘managing for MSY’ has not been effective”,
and
“MSY is a very dangerous fishery management target unless one knows lots about the stock, about fishing mortality, and has the ability to really control fishing effort (particularly shut it down if needed). MSY is generally not used as a target in North America.”
Sir John Beddington is even blunter in his assessment that there is complete consensus among fisheries scientists that to set harvest levels at MSY is not appropriate. I apologise for going on at some length about MSY, but also note that I could have gone on a lot longer. Instead, I commend to those who would like to follow up my points a book entitled Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, by Hilborn and Walters.
Sadly, the Government are committed to a misguided fisheries policy. I am not an expert fisheries scientist, but I have looked carefully at the issue and consulted experts, and the consequences of this misguided policy will be felt by UK fishers in the years ahead. I urge the Minister to listen to world fisheries experts and consider whether the Bill needs to be changed accordingly. However, I am not optimistic that the Government are prepared to do that, so, at the very least, they should agree to record properly what is being caught and where, so that when things go wrong—as they certainly will—they can change the policy. This amendment would enable the Government to do just that.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked why the amendment refers to phasing in REM rather than introducing it straight away. I have talked to people involved in this in the Chilean fishery, where REM is required on boats over 15 metres long. I was told—as was the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—that a culture change has to go with the introduction of REM. Consultation and phasing in would therefore enable the Government to achieve buy-in from the fishing industry, particularly the important, smaller boats under 10 metres long.
That does not undermine the fundamental objective: to gain accurate data to enable us to manage our fisheries, in spite of our aiming for the undesirable target of MSY. We can manage the fisheries with good data, and change the plan when the data demands it.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for jumping in here, but I would like to go on for a bit to address exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said. I could not concur more strongly with the aspersion that he made against the mantra of fishing at the level described as the maximum sustainable yield. I reiterate that it is absolutely perilous to do so.
The MSY represents an unstable equilibrium. It is akin to the equilibrium of an egg balanced on one of its ends; it is almost impossible to achieve even for an instant. One small disturbance will topple the egg, which is liable to fall on the table and break itself on a hard surface. In the case of fish stocks, that hard surface is total species extinction.
It is by an unfortunate misuse of terminology that the maximum possible harvest has acquired the misleading description of “maximum sustainable yield”. The words “maximum” and “sustainable” have specious connotations, which are spurious in this case. For a start, as I have emphasised, this level of harvesting is not sustainable. Moreover, if it could be sustained, it would not correspond to an economic optimum. To achieve this level of harvest requires an uneconomic expenditure of effort.
A vision of fish-stock ecologists is that we could harvest an ample supply of fish from an abundant stock with the least expenditure of effort. This would require the fish stocks to have an opportunity to regenerate themselves by the suspension of excessive harvesting. Such circumstances prevailed in the years immediately following the two world wars, during which fishing in European waters had been largely suspended. This did not last for long. Soon, fishing fleets armed with technological innovations were chasing an ever-diminishing supply of fish through marine deserts of the fleets’ own making.
In the face of the depletion of fish stocks, British fishermen have adhered to the myth that they have been robbed of fish by the depredations of foreign fishing fleets. They now urge the Government to give them exclusive access to our supposed national waters and to allow them to substantially increase the size of their harvests. This is a recipe for disaster. I thank my noble friend for allowing me to jump in.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I thank my noble friend and speak to Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to which I put my name—although I may now regret it, since he poked me in the eye. I will also speak to Amendment 124 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I will not repeat the arguments, which both noble Lords made so eloquently and passionately.
What is the Government’s stance on remote electronic monitoring with cameras being brought on to all vessels fishing in UK waters? Noble Lords have heard the reasons: we need to capture data on non-target and protected species and on the bycatch and discards regime, as well as better data on fish stocks to inform scientific assessments; there needs to be effective monitoring and enforcement of fisheries measures and legislative requirements; and it would provide very useful information on vessel location. The current fisheries management system is lacking in effective measures for accurately collecting data on what is caught, and lacks robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. That seems really strange in the context of the UK priding itself as a global leader in technological progress.
We can hardly stand as a world leader in the white heat of technology if we cannot see a better way of producing that data, that monitoring and that enforcement without the current stone-age solution of human observers going on to vessels and monitoring only 1% of what vessels catch—and of log books, and of surface and aerial patrols. It is really not a 21st-century solution. What improved system do the Government intend to introduce for all these purposes, which are absolutely vital in the context of our running an effective fisheries management policy, if not remote electronic monitoring with cameras on board all vessels fishing in our waters?
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House longer than necessary. People have made the points in relation to these provisions far better than I can. I simply take this opportunity to lend my support to Amendment 124, to which I have added my name, and to repeat a quote from the conservationist EO Wilson, which I shared in my contribution at Second Reading. He said that we live in a world where
“we have Palaeolithic brains, medieval institutions and godlike technology.”
This is no more true in fisheries than in any other sector. The fisheries industry is in a complete drought as far as data and good evidence are concerned. We have godlike technology but it is currently deployed in finding the very last fish, to have it caught and brought back for consumption. We must level up the playing field. I believe that this proposed new clause, which would require the phasing in of the best and most up-to-date technology, enabling us to manage this collective action problem, should be supported. I agree with noble Lords who have said that this is one thing we could do that would be a game changer, not only in the way we manage our own fisheries but as an exemplar for other fisheries management regimes around the world. I fully support this group of amendments.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I wish to add briefly to what has been said. This is probably the most important thing that we could do to improve the Bill. I am always happy to listen to the experts. I regard myself not even as a particularly knowledgeable amateur in the field of fisheries, but even I can see the merits of this not just for the data collection and what we are doing on bycatch but, as has been said, to put us in this country at the leading edge of what is being done. As I get a feeling that something else is about to happen, I will sit down, but the feeling from this side of the House, and my point of view, is that Amendment 124 in particular, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is a very worthwhile amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we very much welcome the tabling of these amendments, all of which deal with the introduction of remote electronic monitoring cameras on vessels.
I say first that I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I am sorry that he felt that we did not take his comments seriously when he last made them. I certainly listened carefully to what he had to say when this was last debated. I am quite prepared to admit that maximum sustainable yield is not the best measure, but I have not read the book or the scientific treatise to which he referred. I would say back to him: if not that, then we need to find the right form of words that we can put in the Bill. We all know that we want to deliver sustainability. It does not have to be through maximum sustainable yield or, indeed, through some of the other amendments that we have elsewhere in the Bill, which talk about setting the standard above maximum sustainable yield so that there is some leeway. But if that is not the right measure, we need to find something that can practically be put in a Bill. I am very happy to talk to him and learn a bit more about how we might do that.
We agree with the noble Lord and others who have spoken that full and verifiable documentation of catch is absolutely important and can provide help with enforcement and be an added safety feature on boats. Again, I agree with particularly the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Krebs, that these amendments could be the vehicle for bringing about a major change in a Bill that in many other respects seems to maintain the status quo. They are, therefore, important amendments and we hope that we can follow them up on Report.
If the UK is to achieve its sustainable fishing goals, it needs advance data collection to allow authorities to be better informed about the true state of our fishing stocks, to ensure that quotas are set in line with the most up-to-date and accurate scientific advice. REM has the great advantage of providing data in real time, and could provide a complete snapshot of fish stocks and their movement around our waters. This could also add to our intelligence about the impact of climate change and warming waters. It could also create new economic opportunities. Historically, two-thirds of UK fishing stock has been fished beyond its sustainable limits, but better scientific advice does not necessarily mean fewer fishing opportunities. The New Economics Foundation has estimated that if catches were properly aligned with the best scientific data, the yield could actually increase to something like 45% higher landings, and an additional gross value of around £150 million across the UK coast. Better data would also allow more opportunities to classify UK-caught fish as sustainable and to qualify for the Marine Conservation Society’s approval, which could boost their sales in supermarkets and lead to more sustainability.
We therefore see the introduction of REM as a win-win for the sector. Many larger vessels already have this technology; the challenge for us is to roll this out so that it is a universal requirement for all licensed vessels fishing in our waters. Obviously, we do not want the cost to be a barrier for smaller vessels, but the cost of this equipment is coming down and the Government could help by issuing some standard specifications that would make production more efficient. We also have Amendments 113 and 120 to be debated later, which would allow financial assistance to be given to aid the gathering of scientific data that might help in this regard and could be used to subsidise REM for those on the smaller fleet.
We draw a big distinction between REM and the catch-tracking app that has been introduced by the MMO for boats under 10 metres. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, raised concerns about this in a previous debate, but I hear the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, say that he thinks it is a good idea. We will have to agree to disagree on this, because for us it seems that this has been gone about in completely the wrong way. It comes with the power to prosecute and demand heavy fines—up to £100,000—for those found to have imputed catch weights into their smartphone that are wrong by a margin of 10% or more. Many of these boats do not have accurate weighing scales on board, however, and many fishers are forced to rely on estimates, which can clearly lead to incorrect data being submitted. It feels as if a whole new layer of bureaucracy and red tape is being introduced by these measures, whereas REM would provide an independent measure of the catch.
I turn to the specifics of the amendments. Those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, are rather absolutist in their approach, making the installation of video equipment a condition of licences being granted to both UK and foreign vessels. Amendment 112, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, offers an alternative way forward, requiring REM on vessels of more than 10 metres and commissioning a feasibility study for under-10s. Amendment 124, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would allow a phased introduction of REM and might be the best solution if we are to find a consensus about a way forward.
Regardless of the approach, there appears to be a consensus that we should move forward towards mandatory video monitoring as part of the fight against irresponsible behaviour and for better data collection on fish stocks. I hope noble Lords will support these amendments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her Amendments 77A and 80A, and to other noble Lords for their amendments, which, in various ways, seek to place requirements on fisheries licensing authorities to introduce onboard monitoring equipment and cameras on British boats and foreign vessels fishing in UK waters. I reiterate that this Government remain fully committed to reducing bycatch and ending the wasteful discarding of fish. While we recognise the potential of onboard monitoring and cameras as an effective technology to monitor, control and enforce the end of wasteful discarding, Amendment 77A could divert us from taking a more appropriate, risk-based, intelligence-led enforcement approach through vessel monitoring systems and aerial surveillance, for example, as well as ones that may develop in the future, such as onboard observers or drones.
Control and enforcement, and fishing vessel licensing, are both devolved matters. The amendment cuts across devolved competence by trying to prescribe this at a UK level. It is for each devolved Administration to decide how best to control their waters, tailoring their management measures to their specific industry.
Lord Teverson
I just remind the Minister—this comes back to something the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said—that last Wednesday, when we last discussed the Bill, the Minister made it clear that the whole area of objectives is a devolved area, yet the Government have put all those objectives in. It seems to me that the Minister is saying, “Do what I say, not what I do.” The Government have put in devolved measures, but they are saying to Parliament that we should not. I find that very difficult.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am sorry that the noble Lord finds it difficult. The objectives have been agreed with the devolved Administrations; they have asked us to legislate with the agreement of those objectives which are in Clause 1. However, as the noble Lord knows better than I, all the things I have outlined ad nauseam about the seeking of amendments mean that they cut across the settlement we have with the devolved Administrations. I am very pleased to say that the devolved Administrations have come together, have agreed and have asked us to legislate on these matters in Clause 1 and, indeed, in the schedules that relate to those issues that the devolved Administrations would like us to deal with in the Bill.
I sense that the noble Lord and others may want it all best ways, which would mean that somehow we do not respect the fact that the devolved Administrations have it entirely in their gift to make the arrangements they so wish. For instance, my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the discard prevention charging scheme in Clause 29(1). This provides that
“‘chargeable person’ means—(a) the holder of an English sea fishing licence, or (b) a producer organisation that has at least one member who is the holder of an English sea fishing licence.”
We are taking measures where we can, which is where we can make those provisions, but it is entirely up to the devolved Administrations.
If the noble Lord will let me, I shall outline some of the areas where I hope he will be pleased, also, that the devolved Administrations are working on this, but it is their right to do it through their own legislation as well. I hope we will not go around in circles.
Lord Teverson
Have the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly approved these measures? The Government are saying, “These are devolved areas” and have put it in a UK-wide Bill. Parliament here is doing exactly the same. We are a UK Chamber, just as the Minister’s Government are a UK Government. They have not got permission from those legislatures, so we have to take on that role ourselves. I do not take the Government’s point on this at all.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I think I will take this offline with the noble Lord, because why are those schedules in the Bill, specifically requested by the devolved Administrations, giving them the powers that we are also seeking through the Bill? The Bill comes with the working, active collaboration—as I have said almost every day in Committee and at Second Reading—of all the devolved Administrations.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
No, I think I must make progress. My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised this issue but we understand there are no current proposals for a Scottish fisheries Bill. This Bill is designed to give all four Administrations the powers they need in the future, out of the common fisheries policy. This includes the powers to bring forward REM, if appropriate and after trials and consultation.
In England, trials into the use of REM for enforcement, as well as for other purposes, such as stock assessment, are ongoing. This point was referred to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Worthington. An example of this is the North Sea Fully Documented Fishery—FDF—scheme. The Fully Documented Fishery scheme employs REM systems on English-registered fishing vessels operating in the North Sea and is administered by the Marine Management Organisation. During 2019, 11 vessels participated in the scheme, receiving reserve quota as an incentive.
Lord Krebs
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, and I thank him for sitting down. The notion of an amendment proposing REM is not specifying a particular technology. As I mentioned in my introduction to Amendment 124, there are rapidly emerging technologies; I gave the example of Shellcatch, which works on your smartphone. I did not see this as prescribing a particular method, but rather saying that what we need is a system to get accurate data on what is being caught—whether it is from the point of view of the discard ban or of getting accurate harvest data to inform fisheries scientists’ modelling—without prescribing particular technologies. I just want to make it clear that I did not have a particular gadget in mind, I had the notion of using whatever was the latest technology—which will, as the Minister has said, evolve over time.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
All I will say to the noble Lord is that some amendments referred to, for instance, cameras or whatever. If he will allow me, I will move into areas that might be more in tune with some of the other points. I agree with noble Lords that this is an area where the range of technologies and abilities are going to be immensely helpful in what we all want to achieve: a vibrant ecosystem, marine conservation, and sustainability.
The UK Government also recognise the effectiveness of introducing a requirement for vessels to operate a vessel monitoring system for fisheries enforcement purposes. This is a satellite-based monitoring system, which at regular intervals provides data to the fisheries authorities on the location, course and speed of a vessel. This provides a picture of fishing activity which can support targeted enforcement action, which is why it is currently a requirement for all UK-registered vessels over 12 metres in length, but this is not prescribed through primary legislation.
Defra ran a public consultation in February 2019 to introduce inshore vessel monitoring systems—IVMS—for all British fishing vessels under 12 metres in length operating in English waters. In its response to the consultation, Defra concluded that IVMS would be introduced and that it would bring forward the required statutory instrument. The requirement will also apply to all English-registered vessels wherever they are fishing. I understand that the devolved Administrations are adopting similar policy proposals; picking up on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, here the devolved Administrations, entirely within their gift, are adopting similar policy proposals.
The balance the UK Government are trying to achieve is a proportionate and practical approach to monitoring and enforcement that reflects the risk of discarding. This includes factors such as the fishery being exploited, the type of gear being used and the size of the vessel. Further, in respect of Amendment 80A as it relates to foreign vessels, we are also clear that we wish to ensure a level playing field between UK-registered vessels and any foreign-registered vessels which we allow to fish in our waters. In principle, ensuring that the same standards apply to foreign vessels as to our own is a sound concept.
We wish to conclude the trials and assess them. We recognise that enhanced monitoring has huge potential benefits and I am genuinely grateful to all noble Lords who have raised this matter. It is extremely serious and we need to undertake more work to come forward with further proposals on it.
On the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the catch certificate app, obviously the safety of fishers is paramount. While it is important that catch records be submitted as soon as practically possible, this should take place only once the vessel and its crew are in a safe place. Catch records ought to be submitted in port when it is safe to do so, not at sea. We know that most fishers operate in good faith and make efforts to comply with catch recording guidance, but I thought it helpful to say that we want to be pragmatic about these points and have an overriding objective of keeping people safe.
I turn to the requirement in Amendment 124 to develop a framework to tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated—IUU—fishing. The Government agree that we should seek to eliminate IUU fishing and remain committed to co-operating globally to this end. The EU’s IUU regulation will be incorporated into UK law as retained EU law. The UK aims to be a global leader in the fight against IUU fishing.
I was interested in the exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the fisheries management plans. I fully intend for us to have this meeting. I will ask scientists to come to it, because obviously the fisheries management plan was intended to be a new insertion into this second Bill precisely to ensure that every stock is managed and fished sustainably. I would like the opportunity, before we get too jaundiced about it, to work together with noble Lords to see, with the scientists, what we can make of it and how best to take it forward, because it is an opportunity to make sure that the management plans of all stocks are in good order.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised MSY. I am very happy to talk to him about it. MSY is—I note the number of eminent people he referred to—internationally accepted. However, if I recall right, we recognised at Second Reading that it is just one tool, which is why we have included a range of sustainability objectives in the Bill. As the noble Lord will know well, ICES provides advice about MSY. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said on this. MSY is internationally accepted. I am very happy to discuss MSY with the noble Lord; it is a term used both in this country and internationally, so it would be a personal endeavour of mine to understand what other points he wishes to make.
In this context, I hope that I have explained the work already in hand on REM. We recognise that this is an extremely important area both now and for the future. We are bringing forward these proposals, but for the sake of this debate I hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am grateful for this debate. I am stung by the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who said I was being absolutist—which is probably very fair—but we have had a very good discussion here.
We can trade all the experts we like. I was particularly taken by Pat Birnie, who was a one-time adviser to the then Government, and she taught me international law of the sea. I wish I retained all that she told me, for the purposes of this debate. On maximum sustainable yield, that is a wider debate that we have to have because it is my understanding, confirmed by the Minister, that we have international obligations, such as the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development which we agreed in 2002. We have to look at the wider implications of these international obligations, to which we have subscribed, in the context of moving away from the common fisheries policy to the new regime set out under the Bill.
I was delighted that my noble friend explained the results of the consultation as regards the under-10s, because that is a very particular category. I am now much more aware of why we need a lead-in period, if we are to introduce these for over-10s. This is, I am sure, something we can return to in the separate debate on the fisheries management plans and at the next stage of the Bill. In these circumstances, I thank those who contributed, I thank my noble friend for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Coronavirus
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the other place earlier today. The Answer is as follows.
“Madam Deputy Speaker, the coronavirus outbreak continues to advance around the world. The number of cases in China and South Korea keeps rising, but at a slowing rate. However, the outbreak in Iran, Italy, Switzerland and now France and Germany is growing. In Italy alone, we have seen 1,492 more cases overnight and 102 more deaths. Here in the UK, as of this morning, there were 319 confirmed cases. Very sadly, this now includes four confirmed deaths. I entirely understand why people are worried and concerned, and we send our condolences to the families.
The UK response is guided by our four-point action plan. We continue to work to contain this virus, but we are also taking action to delay its impact, to fund research and to mitigate its consequences. Throughout, our approach is guided by the science. That is the bedrock on which we base all our decisions. Our plan sets out what we are prepared to do, and we will make the right choices of which action to pursue at the right moment.
The scientific advice is clear: acting too early creates its own risks, so we will do what is right to keep people safe. Guided by the science, we will act at the right time and we will be clear and open about our actions and the reasons for them. These are the principles that underpin the very best response to an epidemic like this.
Turning to research, I can report that we have made available a further £46 million to find a vaccine and develop a more rapid diagnostic test. We will continue to support the international effort. Here at home, the NHS is well prepared with record numbers of staff, nurses and doctors. I want to thank all those involved for their work so far.
The number of calls to the NHS 111 service has increased and we have recruited an extra 700 people to support that effort. The 111 online service is now dealing with more inquiries than voice calls. To date, Public Health England has tested nearly 25,000 people and the time taken to test is being reduced as we bring in a new system for faster results.
Responding to coronavirus will take a national effort and everyone must play their part. Of course, that means the Government, but it also means everyone washing their hands more often and following public health advice. There is much more that we can all do both through volunteering and through support for those who are most vulnerable. We will shortly bring forward legislative options to help people and services to tackle this outbreak. The Bill will be temporary and proportionate, with measures that last only as long as is necessary, in line with clinical advice.
I can also report that over the weekend we initiated action to assist the 120 passengers on the “Grand Princess” cruise ship off the coast of California in coming home.
We will stop at nothing to get this response right and I commend the Statement to the House.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I shall ask three questions as quickly as I can so that as many people as possible can get in to speak.
My first question concerns vulnerable people in residential homes and the learning disabled who may be being supported, either by charities or at home by their parents. We need to include these people in the planning. I do not expect the Minister to respond to the point, but I will put it on the table. There are lots of people who have not been mentioned but need to be taken into account.
The 111 service is clearly under incredible pressure, given that it apparently took 120,000 calls in the first week of March. I want to ask the noble Lord about the training that 111 staff are receiving. If 700 new people have been taken on, how is their training being accelerated and is it being properly funded?
Finally, when the Select Committee saw Professor Whitty last week, he explained that half of all coronavirus cases in the UK are most likely to occur in just a three-week period. Based on recent trends, have the Government estimated when that peak might begin, and is the noble Lord sure that hospitals have enough bed spaces so that they are able to cope?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the noble Baroness has expressed concerns about those in residential homes and people with learning difficulties. The needs of all the most vulnerable in society are paramount. There is no doubt that intense pressure will be put on social services, social care and clinical care. We are doing all we can to ensure that support is in place, which will include the mobilisation of civil society, charities and volunteers to take up some of the pressure being put on those services.
On training provision, modern call centres have very flexible working arrangements whereby staff are brought on and off contracts. Those who have already received 111 training are being brought back on to the front line. The funds for that are properly in place.
On the timing of the peak, it is impossible to say with certainty when that will be, but the CMO is crystal clear: we will do everything we can to spread it out over the summer and we will keep this House and the public up to date.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for answering the Urgent Question. Going back to my point about advice for vulnerable people, it is good to hear that advice is finally planned, but vulnerable people need that advice now. I have been saying this in your Lordships’ House for about three weeks. Will the Minister please let us know when we are going to get it?
My second question follows up on the previous one about 111. In addition to the worrying report from the woman on the “Today” programme this morning who kept not getting return calls over a three-day period, despite a high temperature, cough and many other symptoms, we also picked up on people ringing 111 with clear symptoms being told that they cannot be tested because they cannot name an individual who has been diagnosed with coronavirus. I repeat the same question: are the new call handlers being trained effectively?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of guidance and I reassure her that an enormous amount of work is being done to draft clear guidance for employers, volunteer groups and all parts of society, which will include case studies, FAQs and detailed recommendations. That work is being guided by the CMO and senior officials at PHE.
As for 111, we look very closely at the metrics for the return of calls. Overall, the headline figures suggest that the 111 service is bearing up incredibly well under intense pressure, but I do not deny that there must be people who have had bad experiences. These pressures sometimes lead to poor results and we will keep a very careful eye on that.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my registered interests. Clearly, the decision to move from the phase of containment to that of delay is essential to sustaining the ability of the health delivery system to deal with this problem.
What objective criteria will be used to determine how that decision is taken? How are the behaviour and natural history of this disease elsewhere in the world being used to inform when we should move from containment to delay?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord asks an important question. The truth is that it is more of an art than a science. Efforts were made to look at clear metrics for triggering this result, but it is a complex situation and our understanding continues to develop. It is ultimately up to the judgment of the CMO and the confidence of the Secretary of State to make that call.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, how many intensive care facilities are at upwards of 90% of utilisation and what can be done to increase the amount of facilities for people who need respiratory aid? What additional intensive care units could be created and what other facilities could be made available?
Lord Bethell
Enormous effort is being put into increasing the number of intensive care facilities, particularly in the area of respiratory support. Different types of respiratory support unit are being put in place and the number is increasing on a multiple rather than an arithmetic scale.
It is not just the kit that is an issue but the people needed to operate it, because these units and the respiratory machinery are extremely technical. We are putting enormous effort into ensuring that the right people are in place to work the machines.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister shed further light on which countries research vaccines and how this can be agreed internationally? Are there difficulties with the process by which this division of labour is carried out? There could be a lot of duplication and not sufficient single-minded co-ordination.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord asks an important question about the critical element of the research phase of our plan, and we have announced £46 million of additional funding for this area. Britain’s scientists are providing a leading contribution to the international effort. That effort is being conducted in an extremely transparent, open source fashion, with important details on genomic material being shared widely and openly. My understanding is that it is being done in a spirit of public collaboration.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that what we have learned so far from the outbreaks in other countries, and even the small number of deaths in this country, is that the vulnerable groups are people aged over 65—more men than women—and those with underlying conditions? What is the Government’s strategy to protect the elderly and reduce their risk of getting this disease?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is entirely right. The CMO’s effort is now to identify those groups who require the greatest priority of assistance. We are not sure, and the CMO has not declared, at exactly what age that should start. He is considering publication of the exact details of the priorities in future. It seems that it is not necessarily gender-specific but that the state of your immune system is the key driver. In some areas, of course, men have very bad habits when it comes to things such as drinking and smoking. The CMO has made it clear that if you want to do one thing to avoid getting the virus, it is giving up smoking.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Will the Government give specific guidance on deferring or cancelling gatherings of clinicians and other healthcare professionals at conferences and examinations required for career progression, and specifically ask the regulators to allow alternative routes of registration and validation?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness asks an important question about trying to keep our clinical staff healthy and fit. That is one of the biggest priorities in an epidemic such as this, because the pressures on the NHS are made worse if clinical staff are themselves poorly. At this stage the CMO has not decided that the cancellation of conferences or major events is proportionate, but that remains one of the options laid out in our CV plan. If necessary, provisions for videoconferencing and alternative ways of attending training will be considered and put in place.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Monday 9th March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (9 Mar 2020)
Lord Teverson
“( ) A licence granted under this section must require that foreign fishing vessels fishing in British waters comply with at least the same minimum technical regulations as British vessels for that same fishery.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that foreign vessels have to comply with the same technical rules as British vessels.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Before I start, I will go back to the previous group of amendments and say how much I welcome the Minister’s statement on IUU fishing. This is absolutely fundamental to the wider global issues around sustainability of fish stocks, which are under great pressure. Unfortunately, a great deal of illegal fishing still goes on. The UK’s work in this area in the past has been really important. In many ways we have led the EU; let us remember the common fisheries policy. I am glad to hear reaffirmation of that today.
I move on to what I hope is a very easy amendment. It seems important that any foreign vessels allowed to fish in UK waters or our economic zone should have to comply at least with the same technical regulations as our own vessels. I have put that in as an amendment; I assume the Minister will stand up and say, “It’s already happening” or “We’re going to make sure it is”. I certainly hope that is the case with the excellent amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about employment practices and safety standards. Obviously, we are all very aware of the safety issues on fishing vessels—on all vessels, indeed, but particularly in fishing, which is one of the most dangerous activities. I look for confirmation on both of those. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling Amendment 81, and rise to speak to my Amendment 82, which is on the same matter. I hope that is helpful.
The noble Lord’s amendment requires foreign fishing vessels in British waters to comply with the same standards as British vessels. My amendment is very similar, making it clear that as the UK will be granting licences, the licensing authorities in the UK must make sure that all fishing boats, including foreign vessels, comply to UK standards on safety and employment practices.
Equal standards, the level playing field and equivalence have bedevilled all regulations between the UK, the EU and soon others, through all trade negotiations, not least with the USA. In fisheries, as in agriculture, there is clear interest that fair and equal competitive standards must be adhered to across the board. The Committee has recognised the tough and dangerous working conditions in which all UK fishers work; the whole of the UK would want these to be as safe as possible. It is equally important that employment standards and regulations in the UK must not be undermined by any lesser standards that may pertain overseas.
In conversations, officials in the Minister’s department have indicated that the technical side of this issue is dealt with in the Bill. Could the Minister specify its location? I am not sure whether employment law and practices are dealt with specifically, although the Minister may reply they are included in licence conditions. These amendments make sure they are, and that compliance is mandatory for both UK and foreign boats.
Election promises on standards must be upheld in legislation, not merely stating that we are leaving the EU on 31 January and that our future relationship must be decided by 31 December. These standards also need to be put in specific legislation.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 81 on the equitable treatment of British and foreign-licensed boats. I would have added my support to the previous group of amendments on remote electronic monitoring, but the mood of the House was not for another person to stand up and agree. But I will do so now.
We will be in close negotiations with the European Union, and—we have been looking into this on our Select Committee—equitable treatment of our boats and foreign boats will be an important part of those negotiations. The point that this might involve the enforced application of REM can be made to the European Union. As I said in the debate on discards a week or so ago, the prevention of discards is European Union law. It is its policy; the EU passed it, not the British. So it cannot, in all equity, claim that having cameras is an ask too far, because it is its law we are trying to enforce.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for this short debate, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He is right to emphasise the need for proper safety regulations for all vessels fishing in our waters.
Amendment 81 seeks to ensure that all vessels, regardless of nationality, follow the same technical conservation measures when operating in UK waters. Schedule 2 to the Bill extends domestic legislation containing technical measures, such as restrictions on the size of velvet crab that can be caught, to foreign vessels. Under the common fisheries policy, this legislation has been able to apply only to British boats, so this change provides for the first time the level playing field between British and foreign vessels sought by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Further, Schedule 3 provides the powers to set conditions on licences and to extend those conditions so that they also apply to foreign vessels. I make it clear that our intent is to ensure that equitable approaches for licence conditions apply to both domestic and foreign boats in the future.
This amendment seeks to mandate additional licensing criteria for foreign vessels. We regard this as unnecessary, as measures to achieve equitable treatment are already provided for by the Bill.
Finally, the amendment does not take into account the devolved competence of the fisheries administrations to set their own licence conditions in their waters, where they do not conflict with delivering what has been agreed internationally.
Amendment 82 seeks to address two very serious issues. As my noble friend the Minister noted in his opening speech at Second Reading, and as we have discussed previously in Committee, fishing remains one of the most dangerous occupations. I regret that too many deaths and injuries still occur in our waters. However, safety at sea—for all vessels, not just fishing boats—falls within the remit of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—the MCA—which has powers to enforce safety regulation.
Under the Fishing Vessel (Codes of Practice) Regulations 2017, a non-UK fishing vessel must not enter UK waters unless,
“if its registered length is 24 metres or over, it has been certified by its flag State as complying with the requirements of the Torremolinos Protocol”
on the safety of fishing vessels,
“or … if its registered length is less than 24 metres, it has been certified by its flag State as complying with the requirements of that State applying to vessels of that length”.
If a foreign vessel does not comply with these requirements in the future, it will not be granted a licence to fish in UK waters.
The MCA is also working to implement the International Labour Organization’s work in fishing convention into UK law. Its aims are for all fishermen to have decent living and working conditions, regardless of employment status. It entitles all fishermen to written terms and conditions of employment, decent accommodation and food, medical care, regulated working time, regular payment, repatriation, social protection, and health and safety onboard. It also provides minimum standards relating to medical fitness.
Lastly, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, mentioned discards and European law. This will be covered at a later stage.
With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
I am very convinced by the Minister. However, coming back to the fact that this is devolved, I must admit that the thought of Scottish waters insisting on it and English waters not doing so rather boggles the mind. But I am very happy to withdraw the amendment, given those assurances.
“Enforcement of licences
(1) A Minister of the Crown must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement containing the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in relation to the—(a) routine patrolling of waters within British fishery limits, and(b) enforcement of the requirements under sections 14(1) and 16(1).(2) The statement under subsection (1) must include a declaration of whether, in the Minister’s opinion, the United Kingdom has sufficient resources to undertake the actions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b). (3) If, in the Minister’s opinion, the United Kingdom does not have sufficient resources to undertake the actions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b), the Minister must, within 30 days of making the statement, publish a strategy for acquiring such resources.(4) A strategy published under subsection (3) must be laid before each House of Parliament.(5) For the purpose of this section “sufficient resources” includes—(a) an appropriate number of vessels,(b) an appropriate number of personnel, and(c) any other resource that a Minister of the Crown deems appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Minister of the Crown to outline the Government’s policy in relation to the patrolling of British waters and enforcement of fisheries licences, and, in the event of the UK not having sufficient resources, requires publication of a strategy for them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, my proposed new clause seeks to clarify whether we have sufficient resources to patrol British waters and enforce fisheries licences, an issue we did begin to touch on in previous debates.
Apart from the odd skirmish, we have had a settled agreement on the distribution of fishing rights in UK waters and shared waters in recent times. However, leaving the EU and the common fisheries policy will potentially change all that. We do not know the outcome of the trade negotiations with particular regard to fisheries, but there are bound to be winners and losers—and there may well be bad losers.
We very much hope that the settlement works to everyone’s advantage, but that seems unlikely. The truth is that most commentators expect fisheries to be a highly emotive part of the UK-EU negotiations. I am sure that the noble Lord will seek to reassure us otherwise, but it seems unlikely that UK fishers will see a return to the unconstrained access to UK waters that they were promised in the referendum and beyond. The potential for bad feeling and a sense of betrayal could prevail from a number of quarters.
This brings us on to the resources needed to manage these disputes, which is the issue covered by our amendment. The Minister’s helpful letter following Second Reading described how offshore fisheries enforcement in English waters will be primarily delivered by two vessels operated by the MMO. In addition, the Royal Navy is increasing its offshore patrol vessels from four to eight in 2020, but only two of these would regularly be available to support fisheries enforcement. This does not seem sufficient for what could be choppy waters, and it is not clear whether Ministers consider these numbers sufficient or how they intend to deploy this capacity once the UK is an independent coastal state.
Therefore, we are seeking to require a statement setting out whether the UK has sufficient resources to patrol our waters and to enforce the licences. This includes whether we have sufficient vessels and personnel. It should also clarify what training Royal Navy personnel will be given in this specialist, potentially somewhat diplomatic, enforcement requirement. For example, what orders will enforcement boats be given when interacting with those they suspect of breaching licensing arrangements?
Given the PM’s stubbornness on the transition period, everyone is having to work on an accelerated timeline. We need to be confident that the UK is prepared to take up these opportunities to bring the matter to Parliament. Unless the Minister can offer a guarantee of a debate in the weeks and months to come, it seems we will get clarity only by introducing a statutory reporting requirement as set out in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for an excellent and important amendment. There is no point doing any of this stuff if we cannot enforce it, and enforcement on the high seas is one of the most difficult tasks that there is in terms of enforcement of laws and regulations, as we well know.
I absolutely take the noble Baroness’s point—I hope the Minister does as well, although I am sure he does—about the sensitivity of this. If negotiations are difficult, potentially we will have quite angry people on the seas from 1 January. It is important that any incident can be dealt with properly and diplomatically. We saw in the Baie de Seine, back in the latter part of 2018, how a dispute on the high seas quickly becomes dangerous and difficult to control—sense came when the two Governments came together afterwards to sort it out. There are all sorts of tensions there.
The question I particularly want to ask the Minister is about something that came up when the Secretary of State was in front of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee last week. One of the officials there with the Secretary of State said that a lot of the money going into enforcement was part of the Brexit process and therefore temporary. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what sort of budget has been put forward for additional enforcement over the time of Brexit and a potential Australian-style deal at the end of this year. What is the ongoing enforcement funding likely to be? There is too much temptation for the Treasury to be generous—realistic, shall we say—with enforcement funding over the Brexit transition period but thereafter ask Defra for huge economies in enforcement as it has done in the past. Assurances from the Minister, or otherwise, would be very useful at this stage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. The UK Government’s robust fisheries enforcement system is delivered in England by a number of agencies working in partnership, in particular the Marine Management Organisation, or MMO, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, or IFCAs, and the Royal Navy. Fisheries enforcement is a devolved matter, with each Administration ensuring that appropriate control and enforcement matters are in place in its waters.
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the UK has recently taken significant steps and we have been working closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the UK can enforce its fishing rights. As the noble Baroness said, the Royal Navy is increasing its force of offshore patrol vessels, or OPVs, from four to eight ships over the next year. Currently, four are operating at sea, conducting enforcement and overseas tasking, with four in build or regeneration. Of these, at least—I emphasise the “at least” to the noble Baroness—two Royal Navy OPVs are always provided to support MMO activity in English waters.
The MMO’s core provision includes two offshore patrol vessels and up to two aircraft. IFCAs provide an additional layer of inshore surface surveillance capability, which includes 22 vessels. Administrations share assets when appropriate. This may be as a joint working, MoU or chartering arrangement. For example, the MMO and the Welsh Government have agreed an MoU to undertake joint working and patrolling in each other’s waters.
Marine Scotland’s aircraft and patrol vessels have operated in other Administration’s waters, and it is receptive to requests for its assets to assist when possible. Marine Scotland operates a fleet of three marine protection ships and two surveillance aircraft. In Northern Ireland, DAERA has one fisheries protection vessel, accompanied by two fast-response rigid inflatable boats, or RIBs, dedicated to inspection work. Wales operates three vessels: a 24-metre monohull, a 19-metre catamaran and a 13-metre fast response cabin RIB.
In respect of England, via the MMO we have increased the number of front-line warranted officers by 50% for 2019-20, which is 35 people, putting in place a framework to increase aerial surveillance capacity by a maximum of two surveillance aircraft as risk and intelligence demands and chartering two additional commercial vessels to enable an increase in routine sea-based inspections to supplement provision from the Royal Navy Fishery Protection Squadron. I say to the noble Baronesses that it is one of the oldest front-line squadrons in the Royal Navy. It goes back many centuries and has a long history of dealing with these matters. There have been all sorts of instances in the past and, if this were to occur again, I am confident that our service men and women would have the ability and knowledge to deal with these matters proportionately and sensibly.
Additionally, it is also important, since we had an earlier discussion about this, that surface patrol vessels are complemented by satellite-based surveillance technologies such as vessel monitoring systems, or VMS, and electronic reporting systems, or ERS, monitored by the MMO from Newcastle. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will know about this, but when I and the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, went to the MMO, this was a feature of every vessel we were taken through. I am sure that the MMO would be very pleased for noble Lords to look at this interesting capability. I would be very happy to facilitate that.
These provisions are in line with the MMO’s latest assessment, based on a risk-based, intelligence-led control and enforcement strategy. This is regularly monitored and reviewed, which is entirely appropriate to ensure that in all circumstances we are receiving that assessment.
The amendment’s proposed requirement for a Minister to declare the UK Government’s fisheries enforcement resources sufficient duplicates our existing policy and procedure. In addition, noble Lords will also be aware of the Joint Maritime Operations Coordination Centre, or JMOCC, which was officially approved by the Home Secretary in October 2017. The JMOCC has enhanced the co-ordination of cross-agency patrol capabilities, increased information and resource sharing, promoted prioritisation across government assets and enhanced aerial surveillance operations to derive maximum surveillance benefit. In place in its operational headquarters, the JMOCC has highly trained and professionally qualified representatives from key stakeholders, including Border Force, the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport, the National Maritime Information Centre and the police, as well as the MMO and Marine Scotland. This ensures that available resources can be fully and appropriately utilised across the United Kingdom, thereby maximising our maritime capability, including fisheries protection.
As I have highlighted, the control and enforcement is a devolved matter, and it will continue to be for each devolved Administration to decide how best to control its waters and what new arrangements may be needed in future. In that context, I should say that Defra, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive will continue to work together to share information and ensure a co-ordinated approach to monitoring, compliance and enforcement across UK waters. That will be undertaken.
I have perhaps gone into more detail on some of the abilities for all parts of the United Kingdom to contribute to this process, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me for that detail. I hope with that explanation—
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
There were other questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to which I hope the Minister will respond. Going back to the Navy, the Minister talked about the MMO having a risk-based intelligence review that justified the number of vessels it was able to provide. However, it seems to me—I am sure my noble friend Lord West would reiterate this point—that there is a sense that the Navy is overstretched, and that the two or four vessels to which the Minister referred as being available do not seem a lot in the short term. I am sure that eventually things will settle down again, but in the next 18 months I can see that small skirmishes could break out because of misunderstandings in all sorts of places. People could misunderstand the new rules, for example. It only needs something to happen in the English Channel and the Irish Sea at the same time for resources to be stretched. Does the Minister think that there are sufficient resources? That is the real question, not what everyone else thinks. Does the Minister, who is ultimately responsible, feel that this is sufficient resource?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I absolutely understand the point made by the noble Baroness. My assessment is that this is at the right level, and the fact is that the Royal Navy is growing or doubling its vessels. That is why I emphasised the phrase “at least”. There is an agreement between the MMO and the Royal Navy about those two things. I emphasised “at least”; all our efforts will be to ensure that there are no difficulties at sea, which would be in no one’s interests. That is precisely why I explained about the doubling of the number of front-line warranted officers, and why I outlined increasing aerial surveillance and the work of surveillance technologies. All this is upscaling, precisely to accommodate the point made by the noble Baroness, if we are in potentially uncertain times, rather than where we were before. I described the increase in almost every feature of what is available to us at sea, including technology and personnel, to accommodate the possibilities that the noble Baroness outlined. I am basing my judgment on a much more rigorous assessment than me just saying yes to the noble Baroness. It is also why JMOCC is so important, because so much of this is intertwined with those organisations involved in JMOCC. It is terribly important that the MMO and Marine Scotland are part of that because there may be a time when fisheries protection becomes an issue and all this resource across the United Kingdom and the Royal Navy may need to be deployed.
I will say that the answer is yes, but it is not a glib yes. It is because the people who understand these areas have assessed and advised us that we should increase what we have done. That is why I am confident that we are where we should be. However, I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that it is really important that all these matters are kept under review. That is why I deliberately emphasised that, on this matter, there is strong working with all four fisheries administrations in the United Kingdom interest.
Lord Teverson
How long will the temporary financing of extra resources last and when it will end? At that point, there will be a question mark. Will we go back to where we were when, effectively, for many years there was no real access to the Royal Navy at all because it was off doing other things? This is a really important point to clarify.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I apologise to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that I have no further detail other than to say that I am confident. We have upscaled in the way that we have—constructing vessels and all we are doing is not like turning on and off a tap—and are increasing the number of Royal Navy vessels for this sort of demand. If we were to need additional support because something happened, I am confident that all the resources would be at our disposal.
I do not think we need to discuss a theoretical point, but if in 10, five or three years’ time all is well and we have good negotiations and agreements, the most important thing—the responsibility that all Governments should have—is the safety of UK interests and the safety of people at sea. Obviously, we will need to have all that I have outlined with the assessment that the MMO is constantly reviewing. I imagine that, down the line, there may be an assessment that there is not much of an issue and we are working towards having that capability, but that would be for the future. For now and for the foreseeable future, however, it is precisely why the Navy is upscaling the number of vessels and why we have done what we have by increasing the number on the front line.
I have been handed a note that says that all matters for future enforcement funding will be the subject of the spending review, but we will put in a robust bid, as befits our status as an independent coastal state. I hope I have not offended the Treasury by saying that.
I apologise. I should have addressed that, but in the meantime, I hope I have outlined to the noble Baroness that this is obviously an area of continuing interest and continuing responsibility.
Lord Teverson
Perhaps the Minister can write to me with the figures for the current enforcement budget for England and the amount of Brexit special funding from the Treasury. They are discrete amounts and I would be interested to know what they are.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Yes, I will endeavour to ensure that a letter is directed to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness and put in the Library.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that reply. We wish him well in his application in the spending review. I suppose that is what we should say first.
We here today really do not have an understanding of the scale of the problem. We are talking in a vacuum. Once the trade negotiations are complete, we will have a much better idea. We will really know who the winners and losers are—who is angry and who is not. At that point, I would like to think that the Government will have the flexibility to draw on other resources that may not be currently available.
I may be anticipating a problem that will not exist or will be 10 times worse than I have already described. It seems wrong when we have a Bill such as this to just say, “Let’s wait and see”, but I do not think we have much of an option at this stage. I would like to think that we have the flexibility to look at this issue of resources again at some point, even if not through the structure of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Grantchester
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replicates the level of fine in Scotland and Northern Ireland for England and Wales, in order to probe the maximum amount under Clause 19(1)(a).
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I shall move Amendment 88 and speak to Amendment 89. These are the subject of this group. Clause 19 provides for penalties to be imposed for offences under various other clauses. I am using these amendments to probe the sentencing regime in relation to offences and the relevant merits and parity between the UK Administrations.
Clause 19(1) deals with having a licence and licence conditions, as well as the part of Schedule 3 concerning complying with information. It specifies that, on conviction, the penalty will be a fine in England and Wales. The amount is not specified. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, information penalties can be up to the statutory maximum but do not exceed £50,000 for any other cases.
It may be that this is a little confusing—merely a fine being given in England and Wales and that fine being a maximum of £50,000 or, in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the statutory maximum for information breaches. Can the Minister explain these discrepancies across the Administrations? It may be that each have their own powers that they wish to defend certain aspects of, or it may signify that there are certain fundamental differences in approaches between the Administrations in their penalty schedules. Can the Minister also explain why fundamental licence breaches receive only a fine rather than any other sanction? I beg to move.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, this amendment had me a little puzzled. I wondered whether the noble Lord had, like me, been a magistrate prior to 2012, when the law changed in England. That is at the root of the differences.
Amendment 88 would bring fines in England and Wales for offences committed under Clauses 12(3), 14(6) or 16(6) or paragraphs 1(4), 3(2) or 3(3) of Schedule 3 in line with those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It would similarly limit fines on conviction on indictment to the same amount through Amendment 89.
In England and Wales, the fines for offences align with the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Section 85 of that Act removed the statutory maximum fine on summary conviction and replaced it with a fine of any amount. This gave magistrates, who impose the vast majority of fines, greater flexibility to identify the most effective and proportionate punishment appropriate to the offences and offenders before them. These are not custodial offences in other areas of fisheries legislation, so this is the only penalty that can be imposed. The approach that we have taken on penalties in the Fisheries Bill is consistent with Section 85 of the 2012 Act and other existing fisheries legislation, and ensures a consistent and coherent sentencing framework in England and Wales. The reason for the difference in Northern Ireland and Scotland is that they are separate jurisdictions and the changes made by the 2012 Act applied only to England and Wales.
The reason no limit is placed on fines for conviction on indictment in the Bill, as Amendment 89 probes, is that the enforcement provisions mirror those in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967. The offences under that Act and other fisheries legislation provide that, where someone has committed an offence and been convicted on indictment, the court has the discretion to impose a fine without a limit. Not only is this consistent with the approach taken in other fisheries legislation, it is consistent with the underlying policy that the Crown Court should not be constrained in its ability to set a fine, in order that it may take into account both the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. Finally, this amendment would change the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which would cut across devolved competencies.
With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I am grateful to the Minister for her complete explanation. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Negotiations on fishing opportunities previously governed by the Common Fisheries Policy
(1) A Minister of the Crown must, before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement containing—(a) information on the status of negotiations with the European Union and other relevant parties on fishing opportunities after IP completion day which were governed by the Common Fisheries Policy before IP completion day,(b) the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in relation to access, after IP completion day, for British fishing boats to EU quota for distant waters outside of the British fishery limits.(2) To meet the requirement under subsection (1)(a), the statement must include a declaration of whether Her Majesty’s Government intends to reclaim the United Kingdom’s full share of EU quota on IP completion day or over a period of time.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires a Minister of the Crown to lay a statement before Parliament outlining the status of UK-EU fisheries negotiations and the Government’s policy in relation to (1) ongoing access to EU distant waters quota for British fishing boats and (2) the time period over which it will reclaim the UK’s share of EU fishing quotas.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, this amendment addresses a running concern in the Bill that Parliament will be precluded from knowing the details of the trade negotiations as they affect fishing opportunities until it is too late to comment or influence the outcome. In his letter to Peers, the Minister referred to future treaties, including a framework on fisheries with the EU needing to be laid before Parliament before it is ratified. We would argue that this is too late for Parliament to have any real influence. As we have previously said, this is a particularly sensitive issue given the promises made to UK fishers, and to the electorate, about reclaiming our share of EU quota as we leave the EU at the end of the year.
The Minister has previously stated that this Bill is intended to be negotiation-neutral, but the reality is that we cannot debate our transition to being an independent coastal state without considering the prospects for a future UK-EU deal on access to our fishing waters. If this Bill is not the right vehicle for parliamentary scrutiny of future arrangements—it appears from what the Minister has said that it is not—then many of us will feel frustrated. It is important to clarify what the alternative is. New subsection (1)(b) proposed in the amendment includes a specific reference to retaining a share of EU quota for distant-waters fishing outside UK limits. This is an aspect of the fisheries debate which has not received as much attention, but it is important for parts of the UK fleet.
We appreciate that the UK position is that we want to reach an agreement with the EU and vice versa. However, if that does not prove possible, the default position is that the UK will unilaterally repatriate 100% of quota for UK waters next year, while potentially cutting off access to EU waters immediately for those who fish those distant waters. This could have a huge implication for the UK fleet, much of which relies on continued access to those distant waters. We do not know whether the Government intend to do this or whether they would negotiate some other form of transitory agreement with the EU. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the Government’s thinking on this issue.
Meanwhile, I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment. It seeks to give a clearer role for parliamentary scrutiny over these decisions, which could have profound implications for the future of our fleet. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment. If there has been one mistake made since the referendum—apart from the result of the referendum which, of course, is indisputable and I entirely accept—it is that the Government have attempted to exclude Parliament from so much. That has been part of the reason why we have had the three years of turmoil that we have had. It is therefore important that the Government keep Parliament involved or up to date on how these negotiations are working; though clearly Parliament is not looking for the final resolution, those negotiations have to take place in that context.
Last week, I was concerned that when the Secretary of State was in front of the EU sub-committee, he stated that the Scottish Administration—or a Scottish Minister—would not be allowed in the room when the negotiations took place. He was very specific about it: I questioned him and checked what he had said. He said it was because this was not a devolved matter but a matter for the United Kingdom. It was slightly ironic, given the discussions we have had on this Bill. Will the Government reconsider that position, because the Scottish fishing industry is fundamental to the UK fishing industry? This is an area on which the Government ought to change their view. I very much support the amendment and the spirit in which it was introduced.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment. The UK Government remain committed to keeping Parliament and the public informed of the progress of negotiations. On 27 February, the Government published The Future Relationship with the EU: The UK’s Approach to Negotiations. This makes clear that the UK and the EU have committed to use best endeavours to agree a new fisheries agreement by 1 July 2020. In line with the practice of other independent coastal states, the agreement would provide a framework for annual negotiations on access and quota and set out a mechanism for co-operation on fisheries matters where we share an interest with the EU. The Prime Minister has already committed to providing further details as the negotiating process develops. Both Houses will also have access to their usual arrangements for scrutinising the actions of the Government—and I am in no doubt, looking at various noble Lords here tonight, that your Lordships will take full advantage of these.
As your Lordships will be aware, negotiations for a fisheries framework agreement and our future relationship with the EU started last week. It is important to note that, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster noted in the other place, the UK Government hope that by June, the broad outline of an agreement will be clear and capable of being rapidly finalised by September. Subsection (1)(b) in the amendment itself refers to distant waters. It is not clear whether “distant waters” was intended to have a specific meaning, but we have taken it to mean waters for which the UK is not the relevant coastal state and which are outside EU waters. Therefore, I make it clear that we will also seek to negotiate fisheries framework agreements with key partners in other coastal states, such as Norway. Again, these agreements will pave the way for annual negotiations on access and fishing opportunities in third-country waters, which I know will be of particular interest to our distant-waters fleet and others whose businesses rely on accessing fishing opportunities in those waters.
As with negotiations with the EU, the Government will keep Parliament informed of the progress of these negotiations. Where we have fisheries or conservation interests in international waters, the UK will join relevant regional fisheries management organisations in its own right and, in so doing, we will continue to collaborate with other coastal states where we have shared interests in fisheries in international waters.
In all these negotiations, leaving the EU creates an opportunity for the UK to secure a fairer sharer of quota, or fishing opportunities, for our own fleets. I assure noble Lords that that is what this Government are determined to achieve but, with all these negotiations, the UK Government must retain flexibility—we may not agree but I think the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was going along those lines—with regard to the timing and content of our updates to Parliament, in order not to undermine our positions in live and ongoing negotiations. We believe that the amendment would remove this flexibility, obliging the Government to publish a statement at a particular time, potentially while negotiations are still ongoing. This risks undermining our negotiating positions entirely.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I think I am going to ask one of my dumb questions, which I know the Minister will tolerate. I am trying to understand the process here, because 1 July is quite soon for the negotiations to be complete. The Minister said that both Houses will be able to scrutinise. Scrutiny quite often happens after the event. How will Parliament be kept informed of those negotiations before the ink is on the paper and everything is a signed and sealed deal? Which bits of the two Houses will see this before it is signed? We had a skirmish about this with the overall withdrawal agreement and it would be good not to have to repeat that anguish for something as specific as this. Can he reassure me that we will see those details and be allowed to comment on them before it is all signed off?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I think it would be best if I just repeat that the Prime Minister has already committed to provide further details as the negotiating process develops. I have said those words at the Dispatch Box twice now, and that both Houses will have access for scrutinising the actions. I well understand the point the noble Baroness is making. Obviously the Government have responsibilities for negotiations, but the Prime Minister has already committed to provide further details as the negotiating process develops. I do not think anyone could interpret that as being at the end, when everything has been said and done.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
In that case, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I think it would be helpful if he could just check the point that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised—I know he said he would—about what was said at his committee last week. I will look at Hansard carefully but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it compulsory for the Secretary of State to make a determination relating to annual fishing opportunities.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, Amendments 92 and 97 are in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester and Amendment 96 is in my name.
Amendment 92 raises an important question about the role of the Secretary of State in overseeing the total stocks that can be fished by UK fishing boats in a calendar year. It addresses what happens if the combined policies of the joint fisheries authorities and the fisheries management plans add up to a greater allowable catch than science tells us is sustainable for UK waters. Somebody needs to keep an overview of the overarching picture and, in the absence of another competent authority, we argue that this role should fall to the Secretary of State. Hence our amendment requires that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, determine annually the maximum quantity of fish to be caught and the maximum number of days at sea. This determination should lie at the heart of our commitment to deliver the objectives set out in Clause 1.
We also have some sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which explores why the determination is limited to our international obligations, rather than applying to all UK fishing agreements. It would also be helpful to have some clarity on the existing wording. For example, do our international obligations cover the general sustainability commitments in UNCLOS? What happens if we fail to reach an agreement with the EU? Would that mean that there would be no obligation to make an annual determination? I hope the Minister is able to shed some light on these issues.
Amendment 96 requires the devolved Administrations to be consulted on this determination. It is a probing amendment to check whether the consultation provisions in Clause 24 apply also to this clause. I assume that this is the case, but it would be good to have this on the record. The amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, go further and extend the categories of those who would be consulted to a wider group of interested parties, and I think these proposals also have merit. However, it is vital that any determination made under this clause is subject to the best scientific evidence, and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, makes this absolutely clear. This is a matter we have spoken about before and we reinforce our support for it again.
Finally, our amendment builds in a process for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s determination by insisting that it should be subject to affirmative approval. A number of noble Lords are on the same page here. We want to ensure that UK fishing does not exceed the best scientific evidence but that the Secretary of State plays a role in overseeing this responsibility, and we want all appropriate stakeholders, including Parliament, to be consulted. I hope noble Lords will see the sense of this and will support these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I associate myself with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I shall speak to my Amendment 92A. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Lansley, who is travelling from an engagement and has not yet arrived, I shall speak also to his Amendment 100, and to Amendments 101 and 102 in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, to which I have appended my name.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was kind enough to lend her support to Amendment 92A, which just seeks clarification as to what my noble friend the Minister means. I thought the easiest way of extracting that information was to suggest that we delete Clause 23(2) because on the present reading of that—and looking at Clause 36, which in some respects is clearer—it looks as though the Government are looking either to have quotas only in connection with international agreements, as the noble Baroness said, or are moving away from quotas completely. If it is the Government’s intention to move away from quotas, particularly as regards other than the international fisheries agreements that the UK has subscribed to, it begs the question of what the means of dividing up the allocation of fisheries schemes will be if not quotas. There seems to be a degree of confusion among the experts between Clause 23(1) and (2). It begs the question of whether it applies to all fisheries agreements or only international obligations, and whether the Government are moving away from quotas. I do not think the Government have said anywhere that they are planning to move away from quotas, so I hope that the Minister will put my mind at rest.
Amendment 100, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, is designed to set out the need to consult not only fishing policy authorities—as at present—but representatives of British fishing boats. I see my noble friend has appeared; apparently I am on the right track. I hope the Minister will look favourably on my noble friend’s amendment. I am delighted to see him in his place, and I am sure that he would have spoken to it much more eloquently. I would certainly like to lend my support to this; it is extremely important. The Minister has said on other occasions that he is indeed looking to consult as widely as possible, so I am sure that it will be amenable to him, and I hope that he will support Amendment 100.
I have appended my name to Amendments 101 and 102, tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. Amendment 101 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders who are making or withdrawing a determination under Clause 23, and would fit neatly in Clause 24. The reason for this is that the consultation provides for scrutiny by—I would say—all interested parties. A requirement on the Secretary of State to consult, as set out in this amendment, would help ensure openness and transparency over the Secretary of State’s actions. Indeed, similar requirements are found in Clauses 27 and 34, in connection with consultation. This is not anathema to the Government in any shape or form.
Similarly, Amendment 102 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to include, within a notice of reasons for making or withdrawing a determination under Clause 23, a requirement to publish such reasons for making or withdrawing a determination in connection with fishing opportunities, providing for additional scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s actions by stakeholders.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have spoken to those amendments.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendment 103 in this group. I feel we are getting into the heart of the Bill here, under this section entitled “Fishing Opportunities”, and—like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—I would be grateful for some explanation from the Minister about how Clause 23 relates to the rest of the clauses in this section. It seems to say that these powers are only for purposes of complying with international obligations; I assume that is because we are envisaging a process by which we are negotiating with other member states in the European Union in relation to shared fishing stocks. That will have an overlaying influence over the allocation of rights in our own waters, and then there is the question of devolution when we hand that over to the devolved Administrations. I am looking forward to receiving confirmation that this is the case, and an understanding of why we have these determinations written out here, which will obviously then apply—the Secretary of State will be determining in a calendar year the quota that is allocated within the UK on this basis. It feels a little confusing, and I am therefore looking forward to a much clearer explanation from the Minister.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his amendment, and to the noble Baroness who moved it. Although I recognise that the aim of the amendment is to make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to determine annual fishing opportunities, it would oblige the Secretary of State to determine all fishing opportunities on an annual basis. Some stocks are determined on different timescales, and for some non-quota species, there is no specific determination. I assure noble Lords that the original provisions are sufficient to ensure that the Secretary of State fulfils the function of determining UK fishing opportunities, through Clause 23(1) and (2), and that Parliament is able to scrutinise these determinations through Clause 24(2)(b).
Further, for non-quota stocks—for which we do not currently have the science to make an accurate determination—the fisheries management plans, as outlined in the joint fisheries statement, will set out policies for getting stocks to their maximum sustainable yield. For such stocks, this will necessarily include our plans for improving the scientific data and evidence that will underpin the future management of our non- quota fisheries. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that this is why he should be more positive about the fisheries management plans, bearing in mind the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made earlier. I think this is an opportunity, particularly where the science is not the strongest, and we need to improve it—this is where we can get down to some of the pragmatic ways in which we can improve all stocks.
Lord Teverson
I am sure that there is the potential to do that, and I look forward to the meeting; I am very pleased that the Minister is going to bring this meeting together, and maybe we will find a way forward from there. I do not in any way write them off, but when they are purely UK territorial waters, that is where I have a problem. So I endorse the Minister’s comment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
There was, shall we say, licence on my part there because I thought it might excite intervention. Anyway, I look forward very much to the discussions. Anyone who wishes to come is welcome; I will send a wide invitation and get scientists there so that we can get to the heart of some of these matters.
On Amendment 92A, the power set out in the clause would be used to set the UK’s total allowable catch, or the absolute amount the UK is able to fish, reflecting the outcome of the negotiations with the EU and other coastal states. It could also be used to ensure our compliance with Article 61 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, which provides that catch levels should be set at sustainable levels, taking into account the best scientific evidence available. As an independent coastal state, we are committed to working closely with our partners to manage shared stocks sustainably and to share fishing opportunities on a fair and scientific basis.
It is imperative that we meet our international obligations, such as those I have described under UNCLOS, as we strive to set a gold standard for sustainable fishing around the world. I say to my noble friend that sustainability, as set out in the objectives of the Bill, is a key driver for our future plans for the industry and our negotiations. We have been clear that, in entering into negotiations and making determinations, we will be informed by independent scientific advice from ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, CEFAS, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, and its equivalents in the devolved Administrations. In conjunction with our commitments through the scientific evidence objective, this provides the assurance that determinations will be fully informed by the best available science.
The existing clause also ensures that we respect the devolution settlements. The Secretary of State will make determinations on UK fisheries opportunities only where this relates to an internationally negotiated outcome, which is a reserved competence. Removing this subsection would give the Secretary of State powers to set fishing opportunities directly for each devolved Administration, which would contravene the devolution settlements. This clause provides the necessary reassurance to the devolved Administrations that the Secretary of State would not seek to overstep on areas of devolved competence.
Our fisheries White Paper made it clear that for existing quota we will honour the allocation and distribution through the FQA units. However, we have been clear that we will explore alternative methods for allocating and distributing any additional quota negotiated both at UK level and within England.
Baroness Worthington
To be absolutely clear, does the Minister mean that we will honour the allocation of the FQAs in perpetuity or for a transitional phase? If so, how long will that transition be?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will write to the noble Baroness on that. The reason for taking this decision at this time is to provide certainty on the current allocations. The point about potential changes concerns any additional quota; I will write if I have any further information on anything suggested to the contrary, but our intention is that the existing distribution will remain. We will explore alternative methods, one of which is to ensure that there is benefit to coastal communities from our additional quota. I do not think I am in a position to give further clarification unless I get some information shortly, but I will make sure that point is covered if I have any further detail. That is precisely the position; to have continuing certainty at this time of change for the existing quota.
In addressing Amendments 96 and 97 together, I am glad to confirm that the Secretary of State would of course consult the devolved Administrations and the MMO before making regulations under Clause 23(8), which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I will provide further reassurance that these regulations would also be subject to public consultation. This power relates to a highly technical matter: how to calculate a “day at sea”. It could be used, for example, to determine when a boat is deemed to have left or returned to port, entered the UK’s inshore waters or, by stowing its fishing gear, not to be fishing. Consultation with the devolved Administrations on this power will be set out in a memorandum of understanding.
Further, I would like to provide reassurance that the UK Government have carefully considered the delegated powers in the Bill and the procedures that would apply to regulations. The regulations may also refer to provisions made under separate powers to regulate days at sea arrangements under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 3 to the Bill, which are licence conditions and therefore not subject to parliamentary procedure. The Government consider that we have struck the right balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the need to be able to react quickly to make what are often technical amendments by secondary legislation.
I am sure your Lordships will be aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House considered the proposals for all the delegated powers in the previous Bill when it was progressing through its stages in the other place. The committee said:
“Of the Bill’s 15 delegated powers that have a parliamentary procedure, only four are solely governed by the negative procedure, and justifiably so.”
The committee published a new report on 26 February on this Fisheries Bill and did not change its views on the procedures we have adopted.
I recognise the intention behind Amendments 100 and 101 but will explain why this is already covered. Clause 24 sets out the duties that will apply to the Secretary of State when determining UK fishing opportunities. It does not relate to the subsequent allocation of those opportunities to the fisheries administrations or to their distribution to the fishing industry. This clause aims to ensure that, as far as possible, the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom are taken into account when the UK’s fishing opportunities are set.
In England, Defra and the Marine Management Organisation already regularly engage fishers and industry representatives on fishing opportunities through a number of different routes. This engagement covers both the determination of fishing opportunities and their subsequent management over the fishing season. It is also unclear how these amendments would improve current engagement. Consulting such a wide and undefined group is likely to cause delays in publishing UK fishing opportunities and could complicate the process of negotiating and implementing the UK’s international obligations.
Turning to Amendment 102, as I made clear, to ensure that we are fishing sustainably and meeting our international requirements, it is important that we are able to determine the UK’s fishing opportunities. Clause 23(2) allows determinations to be made for the purpose of complying with an international obligation. To reiterate, to respect the devolution settlements, the determination can relate only to the high-level function of setting the UK’s overall pot of quota, in line with any internationally negotiated outcome or the UK’s overarching obligations under international law.
Clause 24 requires the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations and the Marine Management Organisation before making or withdrawing a determination. This is to ensure that the interests of the whole of the UK are taken into account when the UK sets its fishing opportunities. The Secretary of State is required to publish any determination or withdrawal and lay it before this House. At that point, the UK Government will need to explain the reason for the withdrawal and new determinations.
Finally, while I support fully the aim of Amendment 103 to ensure that fishing opportunities are determined in accordance with the best scientific advice available, I believe this amendment is covered. The Government’s commitment to using the best available scientific advice to guide our negotiating position and, by extension, determination of fishing opportunities is already given force in the Bill through the scientific evidence objective in Clause 1. I have been clear that in our negotiations with other coastal states and in responding to other international obligations, we will be informed by independent scientific advice such as that from ICES and CEFAS. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, referred to the importance of that.
The UK’s approach to making any such determination —including the position it will adopt when negotiating with other coastal states on fisheries management decisions of shared interest—will also, necessarily, take into consideration socioeconomic analysis as well as the views of the devolved Administrations, industry, environmental NGOs and other stakeholders. Further factors to be taken into consideration will include aspects such as gear types, choke risks and the dynamics of the fishing fleet.
UK negotiators must be able to take a flexible approach in negotiations and that includes considering the best available scientific advice alongside the range of other factors I have just mentioned. But as I said, the Government’s commitment to using the best available scientific advice is already clear.
Baroness Worthington
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I would just like to clarify that my amendment did not say that we should seek scientific advice, but that no allocation should run counter to that advice to enforce the basic point that if we carry on allocating over what is scientifically advised, we will all be diminished. We will have fewer fish stocks, less profitable fisheries and a more degraded environment. I still do not think that the point has been accepted that we cannot continue to allocate over scientific advice and still have a flourishing industry.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I take the noble Baroness’s point. It is why, in rerunning the objectives debate on Clause 1, the whole range of those objectives is absolutely entrenching our desire for sustainability and the environmental sustainability that I know the noble Baroness and all noble Lords desire.
As I have said, and I can only reiterate, we will be—
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Is my understanding correct? Did my noble friend say that Clause 23(2) could be used to allocate the unused quota to under-10-metre boats, rather than just being for international obligations?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I had better look at the Bill again, and check exactly what I said so that I do not, in any way, say anything to the contrary. Certainly, the mechanism for new quotas and how we best benefit coastal communities is an area we are looking at with considerable interest. Clause 23(2) allows:
“A determination under subsection (1) may be made only for the purpose of complying with an international obligation.”
The determination can relate only to the high-level function of setting the UK’s overall pot in line with any international negotiated outcome, or the UK’s overarching obligations under international law. This might be even more of a clincher. On my noble friend’s point, I will look at Hansard, because I did not intend to make that inference and I do not think I did. For the record, Clause 23 is for the determination of only the UK pot of quota. It does not provide for allocating to industry at fisheries administration level.
To conclude, I absolutely take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington: the best available scientific evidence is absolutely clear. We all want the same thing. With that explanation, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, the Minister has given a lot of detail, so I feel that I too will have to go back and read through Hansard. I am trying to clarify our very simple first amendment, the one that would put “must” rather than “may” in Clause 23(1). At the moment, it reads:
“The Secretary of State may determine, for a calendar year—
The maximum quantity of sea fish that may be caught by British fishing boats;
The maximum number of days that British fishing boasts may spend at seas.”
Our amendment said:
“The Secretary of State must”.
If it is okay in some calendar years for the Secretary of State to determine that, I am not quite clear why it is not okay every year, which is what our amendment would have achieved. In which years is it all right to do it, and in which years is it not? This is where I am lost, because if the principle is accepted—which it clearly is because it is spelled out there—why not do it every year?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Again, the problem with the amendment stating “must” is that it concerns the determination of all fishing opportunities. If it says “must”, the amendment becomes a requirement that would involve stocks determined on different timescales. There are also some non-quota species where there is no specific determination. The word “may” allows the determination of the annual fishing opportunities. The problem with the amendment making it “must” is that it brings in these non-quota species. The issue I have sought to put across is that making the determination compulsory embraces all stocks—because it “must”. Obviously, there will be annual fishing opportunities for all those that involve quotas and so forth, and we will be having annual negotiations and arrangements. It is not that the Secretary of State will suddenly say, “I don’t think we’ll do this, this year”; it is that making it “must” brings in these stocks determined on a different timescale and non-quota species. That is the problem as I understand it: the amendment has that legal interpretation.
The original provisions ensure that the Secretary of State fulfils the function of determining UK fishing opportunities through Clause 23(1). Making it a “must” brings into scope stocks that would not be subject to the determination of annual fishing opportunities. That is as I understand it. If it is any different, perhaps I can discuss with the noble Baroness, but that is, in our view, the problem with the interpretation of that amendment.
Lord Teverson
I strongly support this amendment and, if that is the case, clearly the Government should just bring forth an amendment themselves. It should say that for quota species it should be a “must”. That is how we solve it. Clearly there must be that assessment or process every year for quota species. It is obvious and clear. The Government need to bring forward their own amendment to make sure that it includes only quota species.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Again, the provision talks about “for a calendar year”, so these are annual fishing opportunities. “Annual” means every year; it does not mean that by saying “may”, the Secretary of State can decide not to bother one year. That is not the case—rather, it is about the fixing of annual fishing opportunities.
As I say, I have been informed that the original provisions are sufficient to ensure that the Secretary of State fulfils the functions of determining UK fishing opportunities, but if I have anything further that will assist noble Lords, I will of course communicate it. I think that the interpretation of this power to determine serves the correct purpose, but if there is a pressing need to have discussions with noble Lords on the matter outside the Committee, I am happy to do so. However, as I say, I have been advised that there is no problem with it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I feel that the more we dig, the more complicated and confusing this gets. I understand that the noble Lord has to read out the brief he has been given, but I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that if it is not here, where is the wording to say that there will be an annual determination of the fishing stock? It may be that it is somewhere else in the Bill and I have missed it, but if it is not, it should be here. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has made a helpful suggestion about how the Government could address that point. I am still not clear on what the Minister said about what would apply and what would not, but the overarching point to make is that it needs to say in the Bill that there is a total number of fish stocks; that needs to be spelled out somewhere.
I think that I am reassured by what the Minister has said about consultation, but again it is one of those things which is covered in a number of different places in the Bill. We need to make sure that everything lines up so that the reassurance he has given means that this is covered elsewhere Bill, as well as by the comments he has made today.
I note what he said about the Delegated Powers Committee report, which has reminded me that I should take another look at it, but on the basis of what he said, I am sure that the committee has not raised any issues, so I will not pursue that.
I turn finally to the point about the scientific advice which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I think that we have a running theme of agreeing to disagree on this. Once again, we hear what the Minister has to say but we do not feel that the wording is good enough, so we may bring this back in some form on Report. There is a general view around the Committee that we need to pin down the significance of the scientific advice and make sure that it is heeded on all occasions. That is what the noble Baroness is trying to do.
That is enough for now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2A) When making a determination under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must engage with any other state that exploits a shared stock with a view to ensuring that—(a) shared stocks are managed in accordance with the UK’s international law obligations and in accordance with the fisheries objectives of this Act, and(b) fishing mortality is below levels which will restore or maintain those shared stocks above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield.(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)(b), where the biomass of the stock or the level of fishing mortality consistent with achieving the maximum sustainable yield cannot be estimated reliably using the best available scientific advice, the Secretary of State must—(a) not postpone or fail to determine fishing opportunities for the stock on the ground that there is an absence of, or uncertainty in, that evidence,(b) have regard to the interdependence of stocks, the biological characteristics of the stock, and any environmental conditions affecting the stock, and(c) engage with any other state that exploits a shared stock with a view to ensuring that fishing opportunities are determined—(i) at a quantity which functions as a suitable proxy for maximum sustainable yield, and(ii) in a manner that is consistent with the scientific evidence objective and the precautionary objective.(2C) Where neither a formal agreement nor a common arrangement is made with another state that exploits a shared stock, the Secretary of State must—(a) take all necessary steps to ensure that fishing of shared stocks is carried out such that fishing mortality is below levels which will restore or maintain those shared stocks above levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield, and (b) provide, and make public, an annual report to the appropriate legislature outlining the steps taken pursuant to paragraph (a).(2D) For those stocks for which fishing opportunities are not determined pursuant to section 23(1), fisheries policy authorities must—(a) ensure that exploitation does not exceed the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate, or(b) if the current biomass of the stock or the level of fishing mortality consistent with achieving the maximum sustainable yield cannot be estimated reliably using the best available scientific advice, ensure that exploitation—(i) does not exceed a level determined by a suitable proxy for maximum sustainable yield, having regard to the interdependence of stocks, the biological characteristics of the stock, and any environmental conditions affecting the stock, and(ii) is consistent with the scientific evidence objective and the precautionary objective.”
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this amendment introduces binding legal commitments not to fish above scientifically recommended sustainable levels. We have touched on this issue in other amendments. I am indebted to the Greener UK organisation for its assistance and we have had a long debate today on Amendments 112 and 124, which are all about sustainability.
The UK shares almost every stock in its waters with another coastal state. While the UK will gain control of its exclusive economic zone as an independent coastal state, the fish that live in these waters will continue to cross between borders and are therefore not the sole responsibility or property of the UK. I have referred to this previously, as have other noble Lords. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said earlier, we are all on the same page here.
The purpose of the amendment is to set clear sustainability criteria in relation to negotiations with other countries to ensure that a clear and robust process can be developed to prevent overfishing. The amendment also requires authorities to set fishing limits in line with sustainable levels for any other stock that is not subject to Clause 23(1), including stocks that are not shared with other coastal states.
The Fisheries Bill must have a strong focus on the UK’s domestic and international commitments to rebuild healthy fish stocks and recover, restore and protect marine habitats and species, enabling the sustainable management of shared resources in co-operation with international partners. This represents international best practice as set out in the common fisheries policy regulation, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Nations fish stock agreement and its sustainable development goal 14. All of these highly respected and reputable international organisations cannot be wrong in wishing to see best practice and fish stocks preserved.
Article 2 of the common fisheries policy commits the EU not to set catch limits above MSY by 2020, but this same commitment has not been included in the Fisheries Bill. While MSY is not the only measure, it is important. Instead, there is a simple aspirational objective to achieve a healthy biomass for stocks as set out in the precautionary objective in Clause 1(3)(b). However, it is not legally binding and lacks a timeframe for when it should be delivered. This is a regression in standards from the common fisheries policy and not one that future generations would wish us to sign up to. It is vital to protect against short-term political pressure to set catch limits higher than scientific advice, which will lead to overfishing.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment because it provides me with an opportunity to give part two of my lecture on maximum sustainable yields, although I detect that the undergraduate audience is less than enthusiastic about hearing it. However, I want to ask the Minister the following question. The classic textbook on maximum sustainable yield was written by William Ricker in 1975. In it he defined it as
“The largest average catch or yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions.”
The three key elements of that definition are “average”, “continuously” and “existing environmental conditions”. I hope the Minister will tell us whether, given that the Government are set on harvesting at MSY—which, as I explained earlier, I think is a mistake—there is a definition in their mind of “average”. To give three possibilities, is it the arithmetic mean, the geometric mean or the harmonic mean?
There must also be something in the Government’s mind about “existing environmental conditions”, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, already referred to. What does “existing environmental conditions” mean and how will the change in MSY be linked to changing environmental conditions? The Government must also have in their mind a definition of the word “continuously”. Perhaps the Minister could clarify those points for me.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I cannot say much more than the noble Baroness has already said, very eloquently. I lend my support to this amendment because it addresses a fundamental question about Clause 23.
In the next group we will discuss some of these issues in relation to Clause 25 in great detail. For now, I fully support the idea that we should be putting these conditions into this agreement. It is similar to my Amendment 103, so I do not want to rehearse it, but I was struck by the noble Baroness’s comments about the fact that we should be managing this stock for future generations and not simply for the short-term economic needs of those who are benefiting from the status quo.
Not to trivialise the debate, but my children are engaged in the marine environment for a number of reasons, not least through watching the wonderful BBC series “Octonauts”. The Octonauts’ phrase is that we should explore, rescue and protect. I hope that the Bill can be transformed into one which enables us to explore the fishing industry with data, rescue those stocks that are in need of respite and their levels to be restored, and protect the socioeconomic conditions of the whole fishing industry, not just a subset.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for tabling Amendment 93, which allows us to return to two previously debated topics: international co-operation and the need to ensure fishing at sustainable levels.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has previously spoken cogently about shared stocks and the interdependency of sustainability across nation states. The Committee has had several assurances from the Minister on both these topics yet concerns remain. Despite many challenges, especially in relation to the UK and the devolved Administrations’ activities, NGOs and stakeholders remain concerned that the legislation before the Committee does not truly give effect to the Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment to introduce a legal commitment to fish sustainably.
There are negotiations on trade yet to come, where there could be little transparency regarding sustainable outcomes without a commitment to produce annual reports. Instead, we see a commitment subject to caveats of fishing sustainably when circumstances allow and when the UK can strike relevant agreements at international level.
I will not repeat instances from previous Committee debates, but careful consideration must be given to how this framework can add value to the ponderous steps in that direction in the CFP, and brought back on Report. Movement in these areas would give us a level of reassurance that we are heading in the right direction.
However, as it stands, and as Greener UK points out, the objectives on biomass do not go far enough, and in any event are not fully binding. The Bill does not include legal commitments on international co-operation, with the Government falling back on their participation in existing international agreements, even though these are limited in scope.
The Committee can acknowledge that there are areas where the UK will want to diverge from the common fisheries policy. We have all been critical of the CFP for failing to achieve its targets in relation to MSY. Here, I admit to being in the kindergarten stage, having not even reached undergraduate. The fact is that these targets are recognised at international level and the Committee will need to consider how pressure can be brought in this aspect.
If we do not improve the Bill, the UK could be left with a regression in environmental standards resulting from the CFP. We will be left in a situation where the Government say they want to go further than the EU has allowed us to, but where there is no statutory duty to match what came before. This is why those NGOs, and certainly those on these Benches, are so concerned. We cannot let sustainability be left to non-binding policy statements, which can, in a number of cases, be overwritten or overridden. This is no basis for a fully independent fisheries regime; nor will it give the UK any cast-iron basis on which to negotiate with international partners.
The Minister may resist this amendment, but I ask that in the meetings which he has assured the Committee can be undertaken before Report, we might bring forward further improvements that the Government may be willing to sign up to.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Amendment 93, which sets out a number of requirements relating to the determination of fishing opportunities by the Secretary of State and fisheries authorities.
Starting with subsection (2A), it is important to be clear that the UK is already required to comply with its international obligations, including those under UNCLOS to co-operate with other coastal states to manage shared stocks sustainably. When it comes to shared stocks, noble Lords can be assured that we will be engaging with the coastal states with which we share those stocks. Furthermore, when carrying out his functions relating to the determination of the UK’s fishing opportunities, the Secretary of State will also be bound by the policies set out in the joint fisheries statement and any Secretary of State fisheries statements, as well as by the fisheries management plans. Repeating these requirements in the way proposed by this amendment is not necessary.
Proposed subsection (2A)(b) seeks to ensure that fishing opportunities for shared stocks resulting from negotiations with coastal states are set on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield for those stocks. The UK remains committed to the principle of the maximum sustainable yield. However, our negotiating partners might not always attach the same degree of priority to realising this goal. In those circumstances, the UK must be able to take this into account and negotiate accordingly or risk parties walking away altogether, with potentially worse outcomes for the sustainability of those stocks.
The noble Baroness is right to raise the challenge of fisheries management with limited scientific evidence. Shared understanding between nations becomes imperative in these situations. That is why the UK is so committed to continued engagement through ICES as well as global objectives such as the UN’s relevant sustainable development goal.
Although we will seek to influence and engage responsibly, it is not appropriate for the United Kingdom to seek to solve problems which may be caused by other countries. Subsections (2C) and (2D) of the amendment would introduce duties requiring the United Kingdom to act unilaterally to set fishing opportunities consistent with MSY, irrespective of the behaviour of other coastal states. This could lead to a number of unacceptable outcomes, such as disadvantaging the United Kingdom in negotiations by imposing stricter responsibilities to achieve MSY than those applying to other coastal states; and, more seriously, risking the creation of a perverse incentive for other coastal states when negotiating with the UK to either set higher TACs, or unilaterally claim larger shares, in the knowledge that under our own legislation we would be legally bound to reduce our own quotas as a consequence.
These possible consequences would not be in the interests of fish stocks, our broader marine ecosystems or, indeed, our fishing communities. I must reiterate that creating an inflexible situation for UK negotiators could result in the United Kingdom having to walk away from negotiations altogether, with unilateral quota-setting as a consequence. Experience has shown that unilateral quota-setting in the absence of an agreement between countries is a recipe for overfishing—something we all wish not to happen.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that my granddaughter is also addicted to “Octonauts”; I quite like it as well.
I have heard what the Minister said and the difficulties around imposing MSY or some other very strong sustainability criteria. This is an issue that noble Lords across the whole House are extremely concerned about. Sustainable stocks are absolutely vital to the fishing industry. I understand the argument will be made that fishermen will want the fish to be there so that they can catch them, but sometimes that leads to overfishing of some stocks. I am grateful for the reassurance that the joint fisheries statements are legally binding documents, but we do not have them at the moment and it is possible that some of these statements will take a little while to come in. In the meantime, we need to be assured that sustainable fishing will take place. I completely agree that sustainable fishing leads to vibrant communities, but we need to maintain sustainable fish stocks across the board.
Given the number of times we have debated this, I feel certain that we will return to this in some form or other on Report, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“( ) Any rise in the total quantity of an annual quota in England shall be disproportionately allocated to the under-10-metre fleet.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to gradually increase the viability of smaller fishing vessels and protect coastal communities.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I come to two amendments; I cannot imagine there is any way the Government could disagree with them, but we will see how we do. They are entirely in line with government policy, as I understand it. In fact, I have given credit before to the Secretary of State. When he was Minister, he managed a redistribution to the under-10-metre fleet, despite the resistance of the English legal system, for which I give him credit.
Amendments 94 and 106, to which I will speak as well, state that we are in a situation in which it is the Government’s intention, through their negotiations later this year, that we will move to a system of zonal attachment, or whatever you want to call it. The outcome is that we should have more entitlement and shed the straitjacket of relative stability, and there should be more fishing opportunities for the UK fleet. That is the bottom line. Amendment 94, which I am perfectly happy to write in future as an English as opposed to a UK amendment, says that as we increase those harvesting opportunities for the UK fleet, the local fishing fleet’s proportion, which is estimated at between 2% and 5% of quota, should increase. Those are the fishers in this industry under greatest pressure. They are part of local communities, and the ones the fisheries campaign around Brexit focused on, if we are honest. Let us deliver on that and make a commitment that the redistribution strongly biases the under-10-metre fleet.
In the agriculture and farming sector, we often concentrate on and hear the question: how do we make sure we get new entrants into the agricultural industry? Yet, we talk about this only infrequently in fisheries, where the barriers are equally high. Here is another opportunity, through the increased harvesting opportunities which the UK—or English—fleet will have, to have a scheme for new entrants and younger people. This industry, on the whole, has a fairly aged profile and not a lot of new entrants. Here is an opportunity for new entrepreneurs and people with new ideas to come into the industry and start to thrive.
Having said that, as the amendment states, if people move out of the industry or are not able to succeed for whatever reason, their quota cannot be sold on. It has to come back to the authorities or to the state. These propositions make the Bill almost mildly exciting for the industry. I hope the Minister can grab that opportunity.
I also support, in general, Amendment 105 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. As in my amendment, with which we started Committee, this all comes down to who owns the stocks. The noble Baroness introduces the interesting concept of those stocks being held in trust. I am concerned that we are stuck in a straitjacket at the moment in the way quota is distributed. The Minister said earlier, on one amendment, that FQAs are staying as they are, so we will still be in a situation where almost half—40%—of English quota is effectively owned by foreign vessels. I put this question to the Minister: even if we increase our quota, largely get rid of relative stability—or at least move towards that—and increase UK catch opportunities, and I am a Danish, Dutch or French corporate that owns fishing rights in the UK, what will I do? Am I going to be excluded from UK fisheries? No, I will just use my deep pockets to buy more UK quota; rather than having my Dutch, Danish or Spanish-flagged vessels fishing extra UK quota, I will have a British flag on my boats. So the status quo is maintained.
It comes down to this: even if we have the additional catch limits, I see no reason why there will be any difference in the structure of the industry; it will be completely open to foreign individuals to buy British companies that own British quota. What is going to change? Companies on the other side of the Channel or the North Sea, or in Ireland, have the deep pockets to do this. Moving slightly away from my amendments, I bring the Minister’s attention to who owns the quotas and fish stocks, and the possibility of bringing them into public trust. At the moment, FQAs are effectively owned by well-off and profitable companies, individuals or families. They pay no rent or income whatever to the UK, the taxpayer or British citizens. I am very interested in the Minister’s response to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 104. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I am concerned about historic fishing rights. One of the supposed benefits of taking back control of our fisheries policy—in fact, of taking back control of everything—was that the opportunities could be used to develop a common-sense fishing policy that would benefit our left behind coastal communities.
My Amendment 104 seeks to make good on that promise, by ensuring that fishing rights are allocated to the greatest benefit of local economies, rather than continuing to be based on historic catch levels. If the Government support my amendment, it will level up our coastal fishing towns and spur on a wave of new entrants to the industry. It removes reference to historic catch because historic catch levels have little or no relevance to decisions about future fishing rights. There is a lack of clarity about them, and this is an opportunity to make things much clearer and fairer. These decisions should be based on an assessment of economic and social benefit, along with all the other environmental and ecological factors set out in the Bill, which should not perpetuate an existing flawed system.
I know that the industry bodies are briefing heavily against changing this, but the Government seem perfectly willing to tackle industry bodies when they want to; it is just a question of political will. As with so many amendments to so many Bills, my amendment seeks to change the discretion to a duty, by changing the “may” to a “shall”. This is important because the “may” is weak and unenforceable, whereas this should be a duty on the relevant authorities to ensure that fishing rights maximise the economic and social benefits, within the environmental and ecological limits.
Finally, my amendment recognises the core principle that our fish stocks are an asset held on trust for all the people. I hope the Government agree with that; it is a point that has already been made. This seems like a missed opportunity to reinvigorate fishing communities. The Minister just talked about vibrant communities, and the heart of this amendment is that we should be seeking to create them.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 105 in my name. We are getting to the heart of the Bill in this discussion and amendment grouping. The advice I sought when seeking to amend Clause 25 was: “Don’t bother; rewrite it.” It has been hastily drafted and gives little clarity to legislators, hence the desire to present a different Clause 25. At the heart of that lies the insertion of the basic principle that the right to fish is held in public trust, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said.
To clarify, in coming out of the CFP we are establishing a new legal system in the UK. That is a tiered approach which takes back control of our waters, and creates a clear process which establishes the concept of a legal fishing right, held in trust for the public. We are dispensing with business as usual, carrying on as we were, and tinkering at the edges. We are fundamentally trying to make it clear that the Secretary of State holds in trust for the public the right to give out the property right to fish.
The reason we need this in the heart of the Bill is that, by being silent on this issue and not clarifying it, we are in danger of allowing the courts to continue to make precedent that will determine how these rights are viewed. In one case, the Association of Fish Producer Organisations took the Government to court over an attempted reallocation of the FQA. Mr Justice Cranston at the time found in favour, essentially conferring a property right on a representative body of private interests to the detriment of the public interest. It is crucial the Bill addresses this, and Amendment 105 is my best attempt, with the assistance of expert legal advisers, to redraft this clause to be crystal clear.
As drafted, Clause 25 is confusing. I urge the Minister to ask his officials why the clause starts with reference back to something that we are leaving. We are supposed to be writing fit-for-purpose legislation to determine our own future, yet here we are, referencing the common fisheries policy. The clause as drafted is therefore unclear, obscure and hard to follow.
The proposed new clause tries to introduce the very important principle that this is
“public property held on trust for the people”.
That must be the basis on which we go forward. The criteria we use for the transferal of this publicly held trust into private hands must be completely transparent and objective. The Minister will, I am sure, point me towards Clause 1, which sets out a lot of lovely objectives. Those objectives are fantastic, but what links them to the fundamental process of the allocation of rights and of fishing opportunities? There is no link, except in the plans, which we have yet to see and will not be able to scrutinise. This proposed new clause would require that we set out transparent objective criteria for the process of moving the allocation from public to private ownership.
Proposed new subsection (5) sets out that we should have the ability to reward selective fishing gear and the use of techniques that reduce environmental impact. I am not in any way saying that it is perfect to include this here, but it is an important principle that when allocating these rights we should attach conditions, as we have done in the agricultural debate, to something that is being transferred from public trust to private ownership. It is simply not good enough to say that they employ people and make a small contribution to GDP; they have to be responsible for helping restore our natural environment to the point at which it can be fished sustainably and we can see a more vibrant industry as a result.
I was reflecting on the Minister’s comment on the previous group that we cannot be overly onerous or restrictive in our rights-giving, because others will not do that, so there is no point. I am afraid that is a bit of a weak argument, and I hope I have misunderstood the Minister. The field I am most experienced in is climate change; another tragedy of the commons. Exactly the same argument was played back to us by various parts of government when we were trying to pass the Climate Change Act, which restricts the UK’s emissions of greenhouse gases: “What’s the point in the UK going further? If others are going to cheat the system, we need to be allowed to cheat too.” Clearly, that is a race to the bottom; we need to inspire a race to the top. The only way to trigger such a race is to grasp this opportunity and set out world-class legislation. If we say that we have to cheat because others are cheating, we will not get anywhere; it will be a continuation of where we are today. And where we are today is dismal for everyone, fishers included.
I encourage the Minister to question his officials, even further than he already does, on the principle of our not going further than the perceived lack of action overseas. We are taking back control and it is incumbent on us to use it wisely and not, in the passing of the Bill, tie our hands by stating in any way that we will continue with the system of handing out quota according to current perceived property rights. We must start with a fresh slate.
I do not want to rehearse arguments we have had before on the devolution issues, but it ought to be crystal clear that we are taking back the ability to set our own fishing management plans. That is of course subject to negotiation, but we go into those negotiations in the spirit of levelling up and inspiring better behaviour, not of descending to the level we have seen in the past through the CFP. With the UK Secretary of State conducting those negotiations on behalf of the four devolved nations, the outcomes should be clearly passed through to them. I do not believe that anything in the proposed new clause goes against the devolution settlements. Devolved matters can be respected but, at the same time, we need to be really clear about how UK negotiations on allocations will go out to the four devolved countries.
I would hate to think that some sort of deal has been negotiated, outside the scrutiny of Parliament, in which an agreement has been reached and the allocation of the pie already settled, and that all we are doing now is arguing over what we might get more of through the repatriation of quota currently used by foreign vessels. If that is all we are doing, we have missed a massive opportunity. We must start from the basis of making fishing more sustainable across the piece. That requires us to have conversations with the devolved nations about whether the effort is correct at the moment, or whether there needs to be a redistribution.
I note the other amendments in the group on redistribution to the under-10-metre fleets and on allowing new entrants. Those are hugely important measures, but if all we are doing is squabbling about the imagined repatriation of some small extra quota, we are missing the opportunity to look again at whether we are distributing in the right way what is essentially a public asset.
I apologise for getting rather out of breath, but I am very passionate about this. I will allow other noble Lords to come in on these issues, but I will say this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, noted, this is complex, and as we get into the details it gets ever more complex. But Clause 25 as drafted does not help us and does not offer clarity. We need to link the objectives set out at the start of the Bill with the mechanics of the Bill in a much more rigorous way. We need the ability to question and review, and to come forward with a transition—no one is saying that there will be a revolution overnight. We cannot tie our hands legally by accidentally continuing the status quo: that must be our guiding principle as we scrutinise this legislation. I am delighted to take part in this debate.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 105 because I think that this group of amendments, around Clause 25 and the overhaul of the fishing opportunities, is a really important part of the Bill. I do not think that Defra and the devolved authorities have yet given it quite enough thought. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has said, it is an opportunity and we must not let it slip.
When we discussed the sustainability objectives on day 1 of Committee, the object was to put in place a framework that put sustainability at the forefront of the objectives. We will no doubt come back to that on Report. During the discussion, the Minister emphasised that sustainability included social and economic sustainability, as well as environmental. During the discussion, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggested that we could mimic the Agriculture Bill, where public good by farmers is to be rewarded. I think that it is in Clause 25 where we can put all that into practice: where we can take the ethereal objectives in Clause 1 and put them into practice.
Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I considered putting down a comprehensive clarification of article 17 of the common fisheries policy. But already having a reputation for rather badly worded amendments to this Bill, I decided to desist; I thought that I would ride on their coat-tails instead. In the end, I do not necessarily think that either amendment is right, but this is an area where we might take advantage of the Minister’s well-earned reputation for discussion and compromise and, I hope, persuade him and the Government to bring forward their own amendment on the subject, spelling out in detail exactly what the allocation of the fishing opportunities should be.
Perhaps I could spell out where I stand. First of all, we have to take it for granted that the total allocation of quota in each fishing area is well within the levels of sustainability and actually encourages the growth of the fishing stock. I have assumed that the existing borderline harvesting of many stocks will not just continue; a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington.
Now we come to the all-important criteria for the allocation of this quota. This is sustainability in practice and is as important as the framework of objectives set out in Clause 1. I will list my criteria, which the Government and others may wish to amend or add to.
First, the allocation must take account of the impact of the boat’s fishing on the environment. This would involve taking account of any damage to the vegetation on the seabed, for instance, with beam trawling and pulse trawling coming to mind. It also means taking account of the impact of fishing on the wider environment, for instance the seabird population. How do the boats in question mange the recovery of lines, hooks and, above all, plastic fishing equipment? There would be other aspects of this environmental criteria, but that is probably enough for starters.
Secondly, on the vessel’s history of compliance, I know this is already included in article 17, but I would like to see every part of the allocation process set out clearly for all to understand.
Thirdly, with historic catch levels, I do not want to go back to the relative stability and the allocation of quotas in the 1980s but, clearly, for the purposes of a stable fishing industry and for the encouragement of reinvestment, it would be sensible if a boat’s quota did not change too dramatically, up or down, from year to year.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for my late arrival at the Committee. I believe my noble friend Lady McIntosh very ably excused me for being late and introduced the amendment in an earlier group—for which I am grateful. I was at a memorial service for a good friend, Professor Ian Calder, who was not only a distinguished forensic pathologist but also a great pleasure to be around.
Noble Lords who have put forward amendments in this group have got to the heart of the issue. I will particularly pick up from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. One of the central processes following any international negotiations is the determination of fishing opportunities and their allocation. However, we suddenly lapse into a reference to Article 17 of the common fisheries policy. I thought we were escaping from that and setting out for ourselves.
Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, does us a service in her amendment by reminding us what is in the second sentence of Article 17, which otherwise is not referred to in the Bill. It would not have been onerous on the Government’s part for Clause 25 to replace Article 17. Then we could have seen the Government’s intentions. I am looking for the Bill to be very clear about the sequencing and the processes. If I understand correctly, and I may entirely be wrong because I think the Bill does not tell me, under Clause 23 the Government will make a determination following international obligations and must consult the devolved authorities, as Clause 24 tells us. Therefore, by extension, I assume, although it does not say so, that the determination under Clause 23 will include the allocation of fishing opportunities between the national fisheries authorities of the United Kingdom. Is that the case?
That having happened, Clause 25 then says by what process the national fisheries authorities should distribute those fishing opportunities. I gently say to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that I think there is a problem with Amendment 105 because although it refers to the United Kingdom allocating fishing opportunities between relevant national authorities and using transparent and objective criteria for that purpose, it does not remove Article 17 and, subsequently, refers to “English” fishing opportunities and “English” fisheries authorities. Unless I am very much mistaken, we are legislating here not only for England but on behalf of national fisheries authorities across the United Kingdom. Therefore, Clause 25 must say how the national fisheries authorities in the other parts of the United Kingdom should allocate their fishing opportunities. We need to know whether they have criteria distinct and different from those that will be applied by the English authorities. As drafted, I think they can use different criteria and the joint fisheries statements are likely to reflect different criteria where those apply.
Baroness Worthington
I just want to clarify things. We see the need for two tiers of transparent objective criteria: one on the allocation of the pie out to the four devolved nations and then a subsequent set of similarly transparent criteria for the allocation to the English fisheries. I think we get on to that in Clause 27 on fishing opportunities in England. The noble Lord is right that we have to be consistent in the two levels.
Lord Lansley
Happily, I think we are in agreement about this. There are two tiers of allocation: the determination of fishing opportunities between the national fisheries authorities and the process by which each national fisheries authority is to do its own task.
That brings me back to the point I was not able to make in a previous group for Amendment 100. However, listening to the bulk of that debate none the less persuaded me that I may, in any case, have directed my amendment at the wrong place and that Clause 25 is where it really matters. This is the point at which if we move away from historic catch levels, for example, things such as the extent to which we do—we may or may not do so, I do not know—immediately become of relevance to the British fishing boats as they are affected by it. For them, that must be the point at which they are consulted. As far as I can tell, Clause 25 and Article 17 which it amends do not say anything about any process of consultation for those affected by the allocation of fishing opportunities. It would be a good idea if they did. None the less, the purport of Amendment 100 is still an argument in relation to Clause 25. I am making the point now, but we may to return to it at a later stage.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling his amendments, which address the issue of enabling new entrants to come into the sector, giving priority to the under-10 fleet. That is an issue which we will cover in our own amendments in the next group.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Worthington, explore the criteria used to allocate new fishing opportunities. They stress the importance of using transparent criteria and the economic and social contributions that the new allocations will make to local communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, goes one step further and identifies the need for incentives to fishers to use selective fishing gear and techniques which will reduce environmental and habitat damage. I am very grateful to her for her considerable efforts in rewriting Clause 25, which clearly is flawed and inadequate in its current form. We all feel that she has done a sterling job in having a go at that, although as this process goes on we are all discovering that it is not as easy as it first appears.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his efforts to add his list of improvements that could be made in that clause. In that melting pot, we have enormous agreement for all the arguments being put. These are important principles; we spoke about many of them at Second Reading. We must just find the right place for them in the Bill. We are still struggling with what the Bill’s final architecture should look like.
All noble Lords who have spoken are keen for this Bill to create a fairer distribution of quotas. That is what is needed if we are truly to regenerate our coastal communities. It follows from the debate that we had earlier in this Bill about the principle that our fishing stocks are the property of the nation rather than a select few individuals. The point has been echoed today. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that we should recognise that the current system of quota allocation is broken; I agree. Half the English quota is held by companies based overseas, the small-scale fleet holds only 6% of the quota, and the five largest quota-holders control more than a third of the UK fishing quota. We can all see what is wrong with that. These disparities did not happen overnight. They have historic roots which may not easily be dismantled, but this should not stop us from aspiring to deliver a more fundamental change; we could use the Bill as a vehicle for it.
A number of noble Lords are, like me, still unclear about the extent to which the new licensing regime will enable action to be taken on the ownership of the existing UK quotas. In his letter of 25 February, the Minister makes it clear that the Government do not intend to alter the allocation methodology for existing quota, but as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, what does this mean in practice? For example, will we ever be in a position to challenge the overseas ownership of some of our quotas, even if they are not seen to operate in the national interest? Can we reset the dial on who owns what? Is this something that could be covered in the trade negotiations? It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify some of this.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was anxious to be clear on the sequencing and the processes for landing many of these issues. We are all trying to find the sequencing and the processes. I know that we are just talking of principles at this level so I will not go into enormous detail, but he felt that it was set out in Clause 23 but now we are discovering that it is not Clause 23. We are chasing the holy grail and will carry on doing so. Clearly the new quota allocations provide an opportunity for change. We can and should use this Bill to lay down a more equitable system for distributing them in the future.
We remain concerned about how quota auctions could work in the future. In his letter, the Minister says that it is not intended for an auction scheme to be used to sell fishing opportunities exclusively based on price. I hope that they would not be based on price; this would perpetuate the discredited schemes that we have already, and there would be no real benefits from leaving the common fisheries policy.
We have amendments in a later group about the need to boost the small-scale fleet. Our aim would be to redistribute the new quotas proportionately in favour of the under-10-metre fleet, the backbone of our coastal communities and ports. We will set out the arguments when we come to that group. In the meantime, we support the general principle of broadening quota ownership and rewarding those vessel owners who demonstrate good practice and a commitment to our sustainability objectives. We therefore support these amendments.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for bringing forward Amendments 94 and 106, which seek to secure the position of the under-10-metre fleet and for new entrants. We all want to achieve the same thing. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just said, often putting this into the Bill is more complicated.
The Government recognise the importance of the under-10-metre fleet as a cornerstone of our local coastal communities. However, managing our inshore fisheries is a complex task. The fleet is diverse; they catch an assortment of quota and non-quota species using a variety of boats and gear in conditions that differ considerably around the country. Non-quota species are particularly important to the inshore fleet. In 2018, around 77% of the weight and 78% of the value of their landings were from non-quota species such as brown crabs and lobster.
The Government want to support all fishermen, including the under-10-metre fleet, to fish more sustainably, improve our collective understanding of stock health and adapt to technological innovation. That is why they were fully supportive of last October’s Future of Our Inshore Fisheries conference, organised by Seafish. Themes discussed by fishermen and stakeholders included greater collaboration, responsibility sharing and devolution of decision-making responsibility.
Turning specifically to quota allocation, in England we have already taken action to increase the quota the under-10-metre fleet receive. Since 2012, we have realigned fixed quota allocation units from the sector to provide a 13% increase to the under-10-metre quota pool. In 2018, the under-10-metre fleet was allocated an extra 1,281 tonnes of quota uplift, which equated to an additional £3 million. These combined actions have helped the under-10-metre fleet to land 36,000 tonnes of fish in 2018.
In England, we are already exploring new methods to allocate any additional quota we may secure. Last summer, Defra ran a call for evidence to seek views on the values and processes which underpin good quota management. As may be expected, views expressed were very broad-ranging and there was no overall consensus. More work is needed with industry and other stakeholders to further develop this approach throughout 2020.
The quota needs of the under-10-metre fleet will be a key consideration here. It is right that we wait until this further engagement is complete before deciding how to allocate any additional quota in England, to ensure that we are allocating it fairly, proportionately and in support of the fisheries objectives, and—to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—considering the needs of the community.
This amendment particularly concerns English quota allocation, and amends Clause 23, which relates to the determination of fishing opportunities at a UK level. These are two separate matters and it is potentially confusing to link them in this way. I will address Amendments 104 and 105 together. The UK Government share the desire of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Worthington, to see improvements in sustainability. We have already set out a range of key commitments to achieve this. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked why Article 17 of the common fisheries policy started off Clause 25. It might be helpful if I read out what the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“This clause amends what will be provisions in retained EU law setting out criteria for the distribution of fishing opportunities. Article 17 of the Common Fisheries Policy Basic Regulation requires that Member States distribute fishing opportunities domestically according to transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. The effect of the amendments is to maintain the existing requirements in UK law and to apply them to the Fisheries Administrations and the MMO.”
The Bill ensures that Article 17 of the common fisheries policy basic regulation works in UK law as retained EU law. Article 17 requires the allocation of fishing opportunities on the basis of transparent and objective criteria. The Secretary of State follows these criteria when distributing quotas to the fisheries administrations, using the methodology set out in the publicly available UK quota management rules. Each administration is then responsible for distributing its quota share to industry. In England, the methodology is set out in the publicly available English quota management rules. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also publish their own quota management rules. Changes to these rules are normally consulted upon. In fact, Defra recently ran a consultation on the options for allocating reserve quota which is the uplift in quota we get to account for the reduction in discarding within England.
Given that these documents and evidence are already publicly available, it is unnecessary for the Bill to explicitly set out that it will not be exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as Amendment 105 would provide. The Bill would not be the correct vehicle to seek to exempt the Freedom of Information Act in this way. It is also likely that such information would be covered by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Fisheries White Paper made it clear that we will continue to allocate existing quota on the basis of FQA units. This ensures stability and provides certainty to those who have invested in such units. However, we also said that we will work with the devolved Administrations, industry and other stakeholders to develop a new methodology for the allocation of additional or new quota. These criteria will also be published in the relevant quota management rules.
The amendment would put into statute the principle that fisheries are public property held on trust for the people of the UK. This risks further complicating the legal regime. International law, through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, recognises the rights of coastal states over resources, including fish, in their waters. There is a public right to fish, but this right has been restricted as the regulation of fisheries has been added to over the centuries. The last century saw a significant increase in the powers devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This Bill seeks to ensure as joined-up an approach across the UK as is appropriate. It contains a set of shared fisheries objectives which have been developed by the fisheries administrations and which will be used to ensure that fisheries are managed sustainably.
Imposing a further principle on this regime will complicate things and could undermine this agreed approach. It is not clear what public property held on trust for the people of the UK would mean and what it would add to the sustainability and national benefit objectives. I am concerned that any lack of clarity over the criteria which can be used to distribute fishing opportunities could result in uncertainty for parts of the industry which have invested significant amounts of money in fixed quota allocation units. We recognise that fish are a public asset which should benefit the country as a whole.
Baroness Worthington
I have heard that phrase before that fish are somehow held on trust. Fish are considered to be wild animals and cannot be held by anyone as a property right. We are talking about the allocation of the right to fish, not the fish themselves. They cannot be owned by anybody, but fishing rights can. I want to make sure that that is well understood.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
It is understood.
The issue of public property would, we believe, be covered by the socio-economic and other criteria which the Secretary of State is already required to consider. I have just asked for a reply to the question on how the future quota will be dispersed.
Additionally, while I recognise that quota allocation in England is complex, we need to proceed carefully given that, as we have discussed, fisheries management has been plagued by unintended consequences. For example, quota for the Crown dependencies is allocated from the England quota pot. Therefore, the statement about the English fishery as public property held on trust for the people of England could restrict the Crown dependencies’ rights. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not intend to do this.
In terms of the bodies involved in allocating quota, Amendment 105 considers inshore fisheries and conservation authorities as English fisheries administrations for allocations. However, inshore fisheries and conservation authorities do not have a role in quota allocation, so we do not support moves to make them so, for reasons we have articulated when we discussed that amendment. So this may inadvertently cause confusion. Further, Amendment 104 would remove the link to a history of compliance. This is a useful and positive tool which could be used to support our strong commitment to sustainability. Removing it would weaken our ability to achieve these aims.
The proposed grant-making powers in the Bill will enable us to support projects that, among other things, protect the marine environment and develop commercial fishing. Financial assistance could therefore be given as part of a future funding scheme to help fishermen move to more selective and less environmentally damaging fishing techniques. We therefore believe that we should continue to rely on the fisheries objectives in the Bill, as well as existing and well-established mechanisms and criteria, which have proven effective and respect the devolution settlements.
Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, addresses new entrants. We are aware of concerns—
Baroness Worthington
Before moving on to the next amendment, I just wish to clarify that the main objection to this redrafting is that it would reduce clarity and lead to more ambiguity. I really do not think that is the case. I think this is much clearer. If the Minister is saying that the current situation is so clear, can she say categorically who holds the right to give out a fishing quota? There is clearly a financial benefit, so who is responsible for assessing the value of that right and for managing it for the public in perpetuity? Precisely, in legal terms, where do those fishing rights reside?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I go back to Clause 23, which applies to the Secretary of State setting the UK quota. Clause 25 relates to the split of UK-level quotas between the administrations and the subsequent distributions to boats within the administrations.
Baroness Worthington
Clause 23 applies only when we have an international agreement. It is clear that UNCLOS, which is the main international agreement, is not implementable in judicial review. Clause 23 is an insufficient answer, I am afraid. There are many other rights we grant that are not covered by that clause.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I shall write to the noble Baroness on that detailed point.
On Amendment 106, which addresses new entrants, we are aware of concerns about shortages in crew and an ageing demographic within the fishing industry. The average age of fishers in the UK is 42. To address this in England, we are working closely with the Seafood Industry Leadership Group, whose work has highlighted the importance to a thriving seafood industry of training, skills development and workforce retention. I take on board the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on apprenticeship training, which is very much in line with our own intentions. A number of fishing organisations have tried to develop schemes for new entrants, and apprenticeships. They have had varying degrees of success and many lessons have been learned. It is not easy, but it does not mean that fishing organisations should not continue to try. We must also ensure that there are fish for new entrants to catch, which means balancing the environmental, social and economic objectives.
We are also looking at examples from around the world, such as the Faroes, Scandinavia, Jersey and Guernsey, to identify options to support the UK fleet now and to ensure that it has the labour force necessary for its long-term future. To ensure certainty and stability for the UK fishing industry, after discussions with industry and, as stated in the fisheries White Paper, we took the decision not to overhaul the current system of allocation for existing quota. Quota for new entrants could, therefore, be set aside only from increased fishing opportunities gained through negotiations. Part of the work that we are undertaking with industry and other stakeholders this year will include consideration of the option of using additional quota to support new entrants. We have the powers to do this.
Ensuring that fishers can fish sustainably will be an important aspect of the considerations for allocations. The amendment does not refer to any sustainability criteria and could therefore ultimately restrict our ability to set a gold standard for sustainable fishing. I have been advised that there are, regretfully, a number of other practical issues with the amendment as drafted. It is not clear which quota this allocation should be made from: the UK, English, existing or new. Further, it is not clear for how long a new entrant could keep the quota. If it is for the entire career of the fisherman, provided they continue to fish it, the requirement to always have a proportion available for new entrants could mean taking quota from existing fishermen. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
I thank the Minister for those 101 reasons why it is difficult. My question is: do the Government want a new entrants scheme?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I think that I just said that we do, and how we could do it with additional quota.
Baroness Worthington
The fundamental point that we are making is: can we ever imagine a point in the future where we can have a break from the existing status quo, which is not working, to one that is working, which involves the fundamental reallocation of these rights to a different make-up of players? It is a fundamental question. Most of us came into this discussion expecting to be able to debate the fundamental principles on which we allocate these rights. What we are being told today is that the only thing open to debate is if we have a potential, additional small amount of quota that comes back to us. That is a missed opportunity. We have all said repeatedly in different ways that to lock in the status quo is to continue the faults of the common fisheries policy.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I note the noble Baroness’s disappointment, but that is the Government’s position and we have no plans.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for going through all that, but another term for stability and certainty is fossilisation. That is what we are being told. The whole Bill is in many ways on that theme, I am afraid. One fundamental question that the Minister did not answer is: what is to stop all the new fishing opportunities landing up exactly where they are at the moment, particularly with foreign-owned companies? I do not understand how anything can stop all our new fishing opportunities being taken by existing players, because they have the money, influence and experience. What stops everything that is new being exactly the same, replicated? I do not understand that.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I am assured that the economic benefit objective will have some bearing on that.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I have not spoken on this amendment, but I am pretty horrified with the way that it has gone, to be frank. Earlier in Questions, the Minister said that we had legislation that was going to be world class on the environment, agriculture and fisheries, and this Bill is retrenching by the minute to being an endorsement of the status quo. It is very disappointing.
Lord Teverson
Anyway, I look forward to the new entrants scheme. That is good. I misunderstood the Minister, who seemed to suggest it was possible only if it was sustainable. We have a sustainability objective so it obviously cannot happen unless it is, but the whole point of Brexit was to have more fishing opportunities. I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for really bringing into focus the whole area of allocation of these incredibly valuable rights. We are talking about tens of millions of pounds—more than that, I am sure. I had not anticipated that this was an area that we would have to return to, but we absolutely will have to.
I understand the point about needing some degree of understanding for investment into the future. That is a dangerous argument, because it is exactly what the European Union will argue in terms of all the people from across the water who have invested in fishing in our waters, so we should expect that to be echoed by the other side in negotiations with us over fisheries agreements in the future. As I said, I look forward to the new entrants scheme and fully accept the Government’s wish to have a better allocation for the under-10-metre fleet. I fully accept the criticism of the Minister that my amendments are relatively minor in comparison with the grand plan. I am with the grand plan as well, but at this moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) reserving a proportion of fishing opportunities for boats whose length is 10 metres or less;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow regulations made under Clause 27(1) to reserve a proportion of annual fishing opportunities for small boats.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, Amendment 107 in my name follows on from our previous debate about the management of, and criteria used for, allocating future fishing rights, which could be the subject of competitive tender or auction. Without repeating the whole debate, the Minister said in winding up on the previous amendment that consideration is being given to the new quota allocation. She also told the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that there was support for a new entrants’ scheme. If that is the case, my challenge back to the Government is: why can we not include the principles of that in the Bill? If the Bill is for anything, it should be for those sorts of future planning activities. I hope we can find a form of wording that incorporates that in the Bill.
We have addressed our concerns about how any future auctions will be run, and what the consequences would be if they were driven solely by the highest bidder. Our amendment would require regulations made to deliver the auctions to reserve a proportion of the fishing opportunities for the under-10-metre boats. The previous debate sought new opportunities for new entrants to the sector. This amendment more specifically focuses on the smaller-sized fleet.
We have already explained the importance of the smaller boats to the economic and environmental sustainability of the sector. They generally use lower-impact gear and provide more jobs per tonne, but their current share of the quota is limited to around 6% of the total. Yet in the UK, the under-10-metre boats represent more than 70% of English fishing boats and 65% of direct employment, so we should be using this opportunity to boost their numbers and their share of the sector.
This is a central argument in our bid to revive the declining and impoverished coastal communities, and for that to work we need a spread of smaller boats accessing the smaller harbours and ports. This intervention is particularly necessary as the small-boat sector is shrinking every year. Between 2007 and 2017, the number of fishers on UK-registered vessels decreased by 10%. In his letter to noble Lords of 10 February, the Minister explained that the Government were indeed keen to support the under-10-metre vessels. He explained that in England they were already taking steps to ensure that they received a higher share of the reserve quota and that further consideration was taking place on the distribution for this year. That is all fine as far as it goes, but it does not represent the step change necessary to really revive the under-10-metre sector.
Nevertheless, given the Minister’s previous comments, I hope he will support this very modest amendment. After all, all it does is to require the auction regulations to address the issue of reserving a proportion of the auctioned fishing opportunities for the under-10-metre fleet, so I hope he can support it.
Amendments 108 and 109 address our wider concerns about the competitive tendering and auction processes. They rightly raise whether we should take into account the bidder’s impact on the marine environment when allocating new quotas. As we have debated before, these amendments have considerable merit and are in line with our earlier arguments and I hope the Minister will support them.
Amendment 110 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, proposes a new Clause 27. Again, she has taken on the Government’s drafting to a considerable extent. I am grateful for her efforts. She specifies in detail what she feels that the ownership and distribution rights of English fisheries should be. These include quite detailed proposals, but they also keep the competitive tendering and auction principles with which we have some concerns. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s explanations for these proposals. It may well be that we will be persuaded at that point. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment 107.
Lord Teverson
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for putting steel in my backbone again and demanding that this is in the Bill—whereas earlier I sort of retreated a bit.
I am interested in hearing from the Minister how these auction rights will be used. Will they be for all quota or the new quota? I would like to use this opportunity to understand the Government’s specific intention for using these rights in the Bill. How will they do it and when? Will it apply to new quota or all quota? I am unclear, because it all starts with the Secretary of State in May. I would be very interested in understanding what the Government intend to do in the near term.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 110 in my name. I have, perhaps overconfidently, attempted to redraft Clause 27 to set out the mechanism through which the rights to fish held on public trust are reallocated in the context of the English fishery, which is unequivocally the responsibility of the Secretary of State, since we are not talking here about anything that affects the devolved Administrations.
We set out this redrafted clause to try to mesh together the various elements that the Bill is founded on. I strongly believe that this should all be on the basis that this is a right held on trust and conferred to the private sector via the Secretary of State, and that these powers are held by the Secretary of State and then conferred. We see that there needs to be some allocation process by which those rights are transferred. I would like to hear—yet again, rather depressingly—whether this power being taken under Clause 27 applies to all quota or simply quota that may or may not be released as a result of some kind of negotiation with Europe. It feels like a real missed opportunity if it is the latter. Nothing in the Bill should prevent our applying these principles to all quota.
It seems incredible that we are here, at the start of a new decade, thinking about an unlimited right being carried on in perpetuity by the holders of the FQA system. There really needs to be a clarification. In a sense, Amendment 110 and the reworked Clause 27 speak back to Amendment 105 and the reworked Clause 25. They are a pair: the second implements those principles exclusively in relation to the English fishery.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the auction and competitive tender, this is a valuable tool to have in the kit. It would need to be carefully managed, and we would need to think about how an auction is carried out. There are other auctions for government contracts or rights carried out in different sectors of the economy. The one that I know best is the allocation of contracts for zero-emissions energy, in which case certain pots are made available and certain rules written around the allocation of those rights. If the fear is that these competitive tender processes would always lead to the more dominant players gaining more access, there are policy mechanisms that one can use to mitigate that risk.
This is a crucial clause because it also establishes this concept of payment for something held for the public trust. I am always a bit worried when I hear the Ministers saying, “We’re going to use grants to encourage better behaviour.” They should not have to use grants, because they are granting a right worth tens of millions of pounds every year. In a sense, they do not need to invent additional financial incentives when they have this existing financial instrument in their hands. It should be seen as such, because it certainly is by the fishing operators. It is not a pastime carried out without focusing on the bottom line and the profitability of the activities. The Government must take that approach.
To bring holding a property right in trust to life for noble Lords, if you own a piece of land or a house and simply give it away and say, “It’s fine. You can have that, no questions asked”, it is not likely that that property will be well looked after. You would also feel very vulnerable if you did not have a solid legal basis against which that transaction was carried out.
I am afraid that the current drafting of the Bill is not clear. There is still a lot of uncertainty, which is why the courts get involved and we lose legal cases around this question of quota allocation. There is not a really clearly laid out basis on which we do this transaction, confer these very valuable rights and hand them to the private sector.
As I say, this is a partner to Amendment 105. Listing in proposed new Clause 25(5) the links back to the various plans and statements—fisheries management plans and the marine plan—is an attempt to make the Bill holistic, mesh it together and make it read back against itself in a way that has some meaning in the real world. I will leave it at that.
Baroness Worthington
I will ignore that last comment. I thank noble Lords very much.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, I have been sitting here and listening for a long time. I have worked with these people and know their stories really well. We are also very passionate. We do not expect the English to get upset and worried—to love their boats, to want to bring in their youngsters, teach them properly and bring them forward.
I tried to look back and see what things stuck out for me. A lobster hatchery that I put together down in Cornwall is going jolly well—we enjoy it. In those days, people were able to take money from the European Community to train children to go to university and learn. At the same time, they would come over and take what they liked: when you came to another place, you were supposed to bring your police with you and not have any cheating. You were supposed to be watching it. However, when you talk to the Spanish and the rest of them, who had a hell of a job to get themselves enough fish, they just took it—they left the police back at home. I grew up like that.
We will find it very difficult to pull our people away from saying, “It’s all right now. Everything’s fine. We don’t need to worry”. We do need to. This is what we have heard from this marvellous lady here. I did not know her before, but she is terrific. What these two Ministers have done with patience over hours and hours is something that you do not see at sea.
I remember the first time that you could look down and see all the fish coming, because of the technology that showed it to us—watching us taking loads ourselves and pulling through. We just had to lose it. We had so much that we did not know what to do with it.
At the end of the day, what we do best is fish and chips. We love it down in the West Country. We love to sell it. The frightening thing is realising that our water goes right up to France. We have this huge amount of water around us, this great big place. We also have a place where we can eat the food we love. Hands up—who knows what we eat more of? What is it? Can no noble Lords say what they love to eat? Are you not going to be able to say, “of Britain, of England”? What do we eat? It is beef. We do not eat fish; we eat beef.
I will finish in just a moment. I do not think that it is a problem, or what we are doing is wrong. I think we are recognising, hearing and seeing the great excitement that is coming to us. We have not yet spoken about training up the youngsters to bring them in, get them keen, and get the mechanisms through. I would like to congratulate the Front Bench. I hope that we do not hang around much longer. It has been a long time and I have enjoyed it.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her work on the lobster hatchery in Cornwall, which really is something quite special and has been very successful.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Wilcox very much for her distinguished support for fishing interests over many years.
Amendment 107 in particular would seek to reserve a proportion of English quota to be sold solely to the under-10-metre fleet. In England, the decision about whether to tender any quota is still being considered. I would say to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate that all these matters are under active consideration. I will want to take back a large number of the points that have been made, but the criteria to be applied to any auction or tender could address concerns raised in relation to the under-10-metre fleet. Measures could be introduced to limit the lots being tendered, the amount of time they are tendered for, and the groups that they are targeted towards. As I have said, the Government will consult on the scheme and any allocation criteria. Other countries, such as Iceland and the Faroes, have explored auction systems for selling national fishing quotas. We will, therefore, also look to learn from these and other countries’ experiences. The Bill provides flexibility about how any future scheme might operate. It would already allow a scheme to be made only for the under-10s, for instance.
I turn to Amendments 108 and 109. The Government are committed to using the additional quota we secure to benefit our fishing industry and the coastal communities that they support. I know that the noble Baroness and many noble Lords will be disappointed, but the Government’s intention is to use this power to auction and tender additional quota. We recognise that this is an opportunity to support different catching sectors and will be consulting in the future, but the Government are committed to the support of coastal communities. While it is our intention that that these additional fishing opportunities be sold, and fished, the clause does not currently prevent someone from buying it and not fishing against it, as Amendment 108 seeks to provide. That said, I would caution that stopping this additional quota from being fished could reduce the benefit for our coastal communities. Encouraging those who do not intend to fish the quota to compete in auctions could also increase prices, and potentially outprice our fishers.
To address Amendment 109 specifically, I highlight that the quota tendered or auctioned through this clause would be only a proportion of total UK quota, as it relates to England only. It would therefore apply only to a proportion of fishing activity, and we must not forget that a significant proportion of our most valuable catches are actually of stocks that are not covered by quotas. Our ambition is to make the whole fleet more sustainable. We believe that this amendment, while well intentioned, is actually too narrow in focus, given that the Bill already provides a range of tools for fisheries managements to ensure that the impact of fishing on the marine environment is minimised.
Any scheme developed under Clause 27 would be developed in line with the sustainable fishing policies and practices that will be set out in the joint fisheries statement, which we have already discussed at length. However, as with everything relating to fishing, it is not as straightforward as might be imagined to determine what a sustainable fishing method is. As with all gear types, an assessment of sustainability is dependent upon how, when and where they are used. Advances in gear technology have also transformed sustainability and greatly cut unintentional bycatch. It is worth noting, for example, that, in line with a management approach the UK supported when an EU member state, Defra has already taken action to end a fishing technique that has caused concern—one that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred to in an earlier group of amendments—being used by English vessels: namely, electric pulse trawling. English licences will be withdrawn at the end of the transition period to end the practice in UK waters by English and any foreign vessels we allow to fish in our waters. Decisions on a future scheme regarding the sale of English fishing opportunities are yet to be determined and will depend on further exploration and consultation. It is right that we continue to develop the details of the scheme with the relevant stakeholders, so that it is flexible.
I turn to Amendment 110. While I agree with the noble Baroness’s intention to ensure that any sale of English fishing opportunities is regulated and based upon clearly defined criteria, I am advised that this amendment would undermine the existing quota allocation system. Case law has recognised that fixed quota allocation units—FQAs, the units by which quota is allocated—are a form of property right. We have committed to maintaining the current system of FQAs in relation to current quota allocations. This has to be taken into account in any new regime for the distribution of fishing opportunities. However, it is also important to highlight again that the UK’s sovereign rights over its fisheries and the public right to fish are already recognised in law. UNCLOS recognises in Articles 2 and 56 that coastal states have sovereign rights over the resources, including fisheries, in their territorial waters and EEZ. At home in our domestic courts, as had been referred to, Mr Justice Cranston noted, in the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations Judicial Review of 2013, that the Magna Carta recognised fish stocks were a public resource and:
“Consequently there can be no property right in fish until they are caught.”
Additionally, the amendment links quota allocation and the provision of fishing licences in a manner which could inadvertently lead to confusion. While quota is indeed allocated to licence holders, these two concepts are separate issues and should be treated as such. This distinction is important as it allows, for example, quota to be exchanged between licence holders during the fishing year. Such flexibility helps fishers adapt to weather patterns, choke risks and other circumstances.
I absolutely understand the reason for the amendment, particularly given that the noble Baroness and whoever may be working with her have tabled this new clause. But the Government’s position is that there is more work to do on this. We want to consult on it; we want to get it right. All the points that have been raised, not only in the noble Baroness’s amendment but elsewhere, are on work that we wish to continue. That is why I am not in a position to confirm support for these amendments, but the work is continuing. I have found the points that have been made very helpful—
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister for those comments. Could we have one of those meetings with the specialists in the room? I am merely a voice that is carrying a view from the sector itself. I would certainly appreciate that. In particular, could the Minister confirm that we can have a meeting on this point about the public rights and the allocation?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Most definitely. On the basis of my explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Teverson
I just seek a couple of clarifications. With any new fishing opportunities, there will have to be an auction that people have to pay for, but with existing quota they will not. That gives a competitive commercial advantage, completely, to those who are already incumbents of the industry. I would think that the Competition and Markets Authority would be severely challenged by that. That is a real problem. If they are auctioned, do they then become permanent FQAs for those people, or is it a right for only five years? I was also very interested in the Minister’s comments that the rights over the fish stocks come from UNCLOS, which is an international agreement. That suggests to me that this is not a devolved issue. It is clearly a national issue, not a devolved one.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Clause 27 is about English fishing opportunities as far as I recall. The other thing I should say is that I have been very clear that the Government’s intention is to use this power to auction and tender additional quota. I have also said that the Government will consult on and consider this matter, so in matters of detail, I shall certainly not pre-empt any consideration by confirming or otherwise what the noble Lord has asked. This is obviously a matter that we wish to work further on and explore. I do not propose to take any more observations, but I will say to the noble Baroness that I am very happy for her and any other noble Lords—if they would let me know—to come and have a think piece on Clause 27.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, that is extremely helpful. If the Minister’s think piece is going to cover the circumstances in which existing fishing allocations could be or would be revisited—the whole issue of whether they were there in perpetuity or whether there were any circumstances in which the existing regime could be unpicked for whatever reason—I would certainly like to be part of that. I am still confused about how that would work and whether there is any flexibility. As I said, there must be circumstances—for example, if someone were repeatedly breaking the rules or operating outside the national interest—in which the authorities could intervene. I would love to explore what those are because the system feels rather rigid at this time.
I was grateful to the Minister for his warm words about under-10-metre boats. He said the matter was still being considered, and we keep being told that the discussion of whether there is merit in reserving some of the allocation for the under-10s will happen in another place. I am getting a little frustrated about this. I cannot see why, if the mood is going in that direction, it cannot be in the Bill. That is certainly something I want to reflect on and come back to, because I do not think that what we are asking for is unreasonable. If the Government are considering it anyway, I do not see why it cannot be in the Bill. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this. We heard the figures earlier for the quota that is held: 29% of the UK fishing quota is owned or controlled by just five families; 49% of the English quota is held by companies based overseas; and the majority of UK fishing boats—79% of which are small-scale—hold only 20% of the UK quota. It is a source of great concern to me, as I said, and it was explored at some length in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, which I had the privilege to chair for four or five years with my able deputy Barry Gardiner MP, who I know continues to take a great interest in these matters. One of the most shocking things that we discovered was that some of the boats and quotas were owned not just by foreigners but by non-active fishermen. The one that shook me most was that they were owned by English football companies. I therefore hope that the Minister, in summing up this little debate on whether Clause 27 should stand part will assure me that only active fishermen will be allowed to qualify.
My main comments relate to the work done in preparation for the Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its sixth report of this Session. The committee was particularly concerned that the power under Clause 27 to distribute extra quota envisages fishing opportunities for British fishing boats that will take effect when the UK takes back control. The report refers in particular to paragraph 153 of the Explanatory Notes, and this is what I would like to press the Minister to clarify today. The original Bill’s Explanatory Notes say in that paragraph:
“The scheme would only be used in relation to the portion of UK quota which may be allocated by the MMO or the Secretary of State to English fishing boats. The scheme could include the requirement that certain criteria are met in order to purchase fishing opportunities, for example environmental criteria.”
This is the most important part:
“It is not intended that a scheme would be used to sell fishing opportunities exclusively on the basis of price.”
That has been toned down in the revised Explanatory Notes to the Bill before us today. The last two sentences of paragraph 172 say:
“The regulations could include the requirement that certain criteria are met in order to purchase fishing opportunities, for example environmental criteria. The regulations could therefore require fishing opportunities to be allocated on criteria other than the price.”
It sums up debates held on earlier amendments relating to Clause 27, but I would like the Government to reassure us that quotas will not be tradeable. If they are going to be sold on and the main criterion will be price, we could set up a situation similar to that with the milk quota, and that is totally unacceptable. Will the Minister assure us that that will not happen? That is what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has also asked us, and I wish to press the Minister in this regard. Will she reassure us that they will not be tradeable and not governed exclusively by price? Would the Minister, in summing up, assure us that, in accordance with paragraph 153 of the Explanatory Notes to the original Bill, it is not the Government’s intention that sales of fishing opportunities under Clause 27 should be governed exclusively by price? Will she also offer a full explanation of the Government’s intentions with regard to the application of criteria other than price? What will they be? Could she expand on the interrelationship between these other criteria and price and their relative weighting? I am particularly concerned that these quotas might be turned into a tradeable commodity—that they will be governed exclusively by price and that that might extend to people other than our active fishermen. That would be totally unacceptable.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
Clause 27 allows for the sale of rights to English fishing opportunities —quota and days at sea, known as “effort”—for a calendar year. I, too, have two copies of the Explanatory Notes, and there must be a third copy because I could not find the original one to which my noble friend referred. We could allocate quota another way, not based on price, but we do not need new legislative powers in the Bill to do that. This power just gives one option for the future approach: an additional quota for a limited period. I have asked for clarification on what other criteria could be used and their relative weighting, but it may be that I will have to write to my noble friend on that issue.
Any sales must be made in accordance with regulations that may include a range of provisions. These provisions could cover rights to be sold by competitive tender or auction, setting minimum prices, payment of compensation to anyone who holds rights but does not use them, and a range of other issues that would ensure that the sale of quota was tightly regulated. The 2018 fisheries White Paper made clear that any additional quota that the UK obtains as an independent coastal state would be allocated differently from the current distribution methods. This clause provides the Secretary of State with the mechanisms to do just that for English quota. Schedule 5 provides equivalent powers for the Welsh Government, for Welsh quota.
I have listened to noble Lords’ concerns; this clause now requires the Secretary of State to consult on the regulations, and to make clear that quota could be sold on the basis that price is not the only relevant factor. For example, a determining factor in any tender or auction could be in relation to proof of use of sustainable fishing methods or benefit to a local community. I therefore ask my noble friend not to oppose this clause.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I have to say that I find it very disappointing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, that the Bill will leave this place without the information being before us. The Minister did not reply on whether it is going to be an entirely tradeable economy or whether it will apply to non-active fishermen, and I find it very disappointing that we will not hear further clarification before the end of Committee.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
My Lords, I can commit to writing on the issues of tradeability of fishing rights and non-active fishermen, but I do not have the answers to hand.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I do not think I shall get any satisfaction this evening so I shall not press this matter now, but I will return to it at a later stage.
Continuity Agreement: Kingdom of Morocco
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
That this House regrets that, in agreeing a continuity agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Morocco, laid before the House on 20 December 2019, Her Majesty’s Government failed to consult adequately with the people of Western Sahara; and calls on the Government to ensure a trade agreement conforms to international law in relation to the people of Western Sahara.
Special attention drawn to the treaty by the European Union Committee, 4th Report
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak about the UK-Morocco association agreement. I also intend to make some remarks about the underlying issue here: Parliament’s continuing inability to scrutinise UK trade deals in a meaningful way. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, although there will be no direct parliamentary involvement in the UK, a UK-EU trade deal needs the approval of some 38 individual EU national parliaments and regional assemblies before it can come into force; and if we are able to negotiate a free trade deal with the USA, it will come into force only if it is approved by Congress—both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The UK-Morocco Association Agreement is a good example of why the current situation is, to my mind, untenable.
The UK-Morocco association agreement was laid before Parliament on 20 December 2019 and, as it is a treaty, it is subject to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. However, it is a negative instrument, so the only meaningful debate possible is the “nuclear option” of a vote to strike down the instrument in either of the Houses of Parliament within the statutory period, which has now passed—a piece of Gilbertian nonsense if ever there was one. The UK-Morocco association agreement is one of the Government’s continuity agreements designed to replace EU trade treaties after Brexit. It replaces the EU-Morocco association agreement, as well as the accompanying EU-Morocco dispute settlement mechanism agreement. The Lords European Union Committee drew the agreement to the special attention of the House, with particular reference to Western Sahara as, in the view of the committee, the inclusion of that territory
“raises important questions, especially about how the UK should balance its commitment to Western Sahara’s ‘undetermined’ status.”
Western Sahara is categorised as a non-self-governing territory under chapter XI of the Charter of the United Nations. A 1975 International Court of Justice ruling recognised Western Sahara’s right to self-determination and, in 1991, the UN launched a mission to hold a referendum for the Sahrawi people to decide whether it should be an independent country or become part of Morocco. That referendum has still not been held. The EU signed a trade treaty with Morocco in 2012 which covered Western Sahara. The European Court of Justice has twice ruled, in 2016 and 2018, that Western Sahara is a “separate and distinct” territory from Morocco under international law, and that no agreement with Morocco can be applied to the territory of Western Sahara without the consent of the Sahrawi people.
The internationally recognised legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people has rejected every proposal that the EU’s trade agreement with Morocco should apply to them. A coalition of 93 Sahrawi civil society groups also stated that the people of Western Sahara reject the inclusion of their territory in any agreement concluded by Morocco. The EU amended the wording relating to Western Sahara in its agreement, so that it applies only to products from Western Sahara that are
“subject to controls by customs authorities of Morocco”,
and the UK agreement notably includes this phrase. However, the EU Committee report draws the attention of your Lordships’ House to the fact that the Sahrawi national liberation movement, the Polisario Front, does not consider the consultation which preceded this compromise to have been sufficient. A letter signed by the general secretaries of the major trade unions and NGOs, including the Trade Justice Movement, War on Want, Global Justice Now and Traidcraft Exchange, was sent to the Government in January this year. The Swedish Government have also made a formal objection.
Last year, the High Court ruled that the territory of Western Sahara is separate from Morocco under international law and that the UK Government are therefore acting unlawfully by failing to distinguish between Morocco and Western Sahara. From my argument so far, I hope it is clear that your Lordships’ House owes our EU Committee a considerable debt of gratitude for its work in flagging up this issue. There is, without doubt, a sensitive political decision hidden within this seemingly simple rollover agreement, but the committee’s report raises wider questions of how this House and Parliament should deal with ratification of treaties. If we do nothing, surely we are complicit in undermining UN-led efforts to achieve a political solution that provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara. Yet if we raise this issue, as the committee suggests, we are constitutionally unable to do anything, short of the nuclear option of voting down the treaty as a whole. Am I alone in thinking that this situation is unsatisfactory? If we do feel that, what can we do?
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for tabling this regret Motion. He has raised some very important issues about the process for considering trade agreements with which we would concur.
I say at the outset that I have huge respect for the people of Morocco. Theirs is a wonderful country to visit and it feels very much a part of Europe. But with that international standing comes a responsibility to respect international legal judgments and to respect and promote democracy.
This year marks the 45th anniversary of the occupation of the Western Sahara by Morocco. I want to pay tribute to the work of the Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham, who was a Back-Bench Liberal, and then Liberal Democrat, Peer for over 20 years until 1997, and who campaigned strongly to promote the interests of the Sahrawi people of the Western Sahara, many of whom became refugees.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, in 1975 an International Court of Justice ruling recognised Western Sahara’s right to self-determination. In 1991, the United Nations promised a referendum for the people in Western Sahara to decide whether they wished to be an independent country or whether they preferred to become part of Morocco. That referendum—as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out—has never taken place.
Further, in its World Report 2020, Human Rights Watch stated:
“Moroccan authorities systematically prevent gatherings in the Western Sahara supporting Sahrawi self-determination, obstruct the work of some local human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including by blocking their legal registration”.
Could the Minister tell the House what discussions Her Majesty’s Government have had with Morocco regarding safeguarding the capacity of NGOs to work effectively in the Western Sahara?
The Court of Justice of the EU has ruled that Moroccan territorial jurisdiction does not extend to the territory of Western Sahara or to the territorial sea adjacent to Western Sahara. The consequence of that ruling seems to be that Defra could not lawfully grant fishing quotas to British fishing vessels in waters off Western Sahara. What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to this ruling? Will there be robust guarantees that all trade to and from Western Sahara is taking place only with the full consent of the people of the Western Sahara? The Minister will understand that the natural resources of Western Sahara are important in this respect. He will be aware that some 15% to 20% of Moroccan exports can be traced back to Western Sahara.
In the current EU-Morocco fisheries agreement, registered vessels, including some from the UK, are allowed to fish extensively off the coast of Western Sahara. For these access rights, I understand that the Moroccan Government receive a €30 million contribution over a four-year period. This is in clear violation of a 2002 UN opinion on the matter, which stated that any such activities must benefit the people of Western Sahara. Could the Minister tell the House what benefit the people of Western Sahara receive from these access rights?
The European Court of Justice, in a judgment of 21 December 2016, determined that the 2012 agreement between the EU and Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products and fishery products provided no legal basis for including Western Sahara within its territorial scope. This decision was confirmed by the UK High Court in April 2019, yet the UK Government are now seeking to roll over the EU-Morocco association agreement into UK legislation.
I hope the Minister will agree that the UK Government should now enforce the judgment of the High Court so that no goods should be imported into the UK from the Western Sahara under the presumption that they are from Morocco. Only once the people of Western Sahara have expressed their right to self-determination will the UK be able to trade legally in goods produced in the Western Sahara. The UK Government should now use that High Court judgment as a basis to support the UN supervised process of self-determination. I hope the Minister will agree.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, I admired the stoicism of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as he sat waiting for his eagerly awaited speech in your Lordships’ Chamber for such a long period, while what I can describe only as a lot of wet fish filibustering went on during the preceding proceedings. Then, lo and behold, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, gets up and gives us another barrel of wet fish off the coast of Morocco.
All that said, while congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on his interesting speech, I have decided to make myself his Official Opposition, as noble Lords can see in this crowded Chamber tonight. That is, I regret this regret Motion very much indeed, first, because of its lack of procedural timeliness and, secondly, in case perceived messages coming from your Lordships’ House during this debate harm Anglo-Moroccan relations and the perception of other countries on the north African-Mediterranean littoral which are vital to our security, such as Algeria and Tunisia.
On my first point, Labour did not, I think, at any stage in either place try to force a proper debate or find a way to get the issue raised during the objection period for this excellent UK-Morocco association agreement, which ended on 11 February. The simple facts on the ground are that the agreement, under our procedures, is now deemed to be ratified. The debate on the regret Motion is therefore no more than a bit of interesting virtue signalling and has absolutely no effect on what has happened with this excellent agreement. We must recognise the facts on the ground: the Moroccan Government are in charge of the Western Sahara and have been since the hopelessly failed decolonisation by the Spanish of the area in decades past. What a muddle the Spanish made of that whole process.
It is not just this House that wishes to have a trade association with Morocco; the EU—our neighbours and friends—has also canonised, recognised and re-recognised the reality on the ground in its recent agreements with Morocco. This is despite the fact that the Spanish—I should not have got myself going on the Spanish—still occupy two areas. I am not quite certain what they are properly described as. Enclaves? Exclaves? They are Spanish city states on the north African coast, on Moroccan territory, which Morocco wants back—and quite rightly too. They are called Ceuta and Melilla. The last of those two enclaves/exclaves/city states on the north African shore still has a statue of Generalissimo Franco standing. There is not one of those in Spain, but it certainly signifies the Spanish attitude and pinpoints the strangeness of their attitude to British Gibraltar in comparison.
Morocco says that the disputed territory belongs to it. I have had no connection at all on this with either the Moroccan Government or any special interest groups. The Polisario problem, which is real and which I do not dispute, will take decades, if not generations, to sort out. In the meantime, I do not wish to see our growing bilateral trade with Morocco suffer. It is fast approaching £3 billion a year in visibles, which is a very substantial amount of money, while in invisibles—I work in the City, although I have no interest to declare in this debate—we have excellent and growing links between the bourse in Casablanca, which is growing fast in north African terms, and the London Stock Exchange, which I wish to see flourish. I do not wish to put anything in the way of this growth. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, does not really wish to either.
Secondly, I regard Morocco and its neighbours, Algeria and Tunisia, to be not just important economic partners but also very important strategic partners in defeating terrorism along the north African littoral. Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are, in their different ways, bastions against terrorism, whatever criticisms people wish to throw against their Governments. They should be much valued for that.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Stevenson on getting the opportunity to debate this, and I particularly congratulate him on his initiative in making a very interesting constitutional suggestion. A lot of colleagues will probably have seen the Order Paper and thought that this subject was slightly technical and esoteric, which may be why the Chamber is not in danger of bursting its seams, but my noble friend has raised a very general point, which is that we are bad in this country at ratifying treaties. It is an important legislative role in other countries and, of course, the United States does it with great thoroughness—with such thoroughness that the executive branch tries to avoid any ratification process starting in the first place. Nevertheless, that is democracy, and I think there is a great lack of democracy here, where the bureaucrats negotiate these agreements and there is no opportunity at all to call them to account, or for Parliament to express a view on the content of these agreements. So I thought it was a very good suggestion, and I know my noble friend Lord Stevenson is a serious and determined colleague. When he makes a suggestion, it is not just intended to be a nine-day wonder. I am sure that he will continue with this and take it further, and he will certainly have all the support I can personally give him.
The agreement with Morocco carries forward our market access which we currently have as members of the European Union—I say “currently have”, but that means only long as the transition period lasts. I have to make a confession: during the debates on Brexit over the past four years—we had an awful lot of debates in the media, in this House and in public meetings, and I have taken part in all three types of debate—I quite often attacked the Government, and indeed tried to mock the Government. I said how utterly absurd it was for the Government to say that they wanted to sign more free trade agreements with more countries around the world and to go ahead with Brexit, which involved us overnight losing our access to about 45 different trade agreements that the EU already has with these countries. In actual fact, I must congratulate the Government on having, in this particular case—and one or two others, such as with Jordan—managed to agree in principle to carry forward the existing EU agreement without the discussion breaking, as I suspected it would, into completely new fields, with new demands for new concessions that would make this a very long-winded process. So it is only fair to say that I congratulate them on making that progress.
However, I very much retain my view that it would be a great mistake to open negotiations on new free trade agreements with countries where we are not just carrying forward an EU agreement and with those with which we do not currently have a national free trade agreement before we have concluded the negotiations with the European Union or the United States. When I say “before we have concluded”, I mean before we have either concluded them or have determined that there is no purpose in pursuing that particular subject with those countries for the foreseeable future—which of course is another possible outcome.
My reason for saying that is that, whereas in an agreement like this, which carries forward the terms of the existing EU-Morocco agreement, there is no change in the competitive position of exporters from the United States or the European Union—they pay duties at the present time, if there are duties and tariffs, and they will continue to pay them, and they are not a party to this particular deal, so their position is unchanged—if you started to negotiate a new agreement with another country where there are tariffs and quotas, we may find ourselves in a position where perhaps we can negotiate a position in which British exporters will not be paying them while, presumably, exporters from other countries will. British exporters would then gain an advantage in that particular market vis-à-vis exporters from those other two countries—looking at the EU as a country. The EU and the US might be less than pleased, although of course the amounts involved may be tiny. I think that Morocco accounts for less than 0.5% of our exports, but this could happen on several occasions in several different places. It is possible that this could be a considerable factor in the negotiations we might have with the EU and the US.
Goodness knows, those negotiations are going to be complicated enough, and there is no way that the Government will achieve their aim of concluding them by the end of this year. Given that, importing this new complication would be completely crazy and really would be very foolish because, after all, the EU and the US account for three-quarters of our exports. We would be threatening their position, or at least making life more difficult in the context of those important negotiations, for the interests of our exports to countries that represent perhaps less than 1% of our trade. That would not make any sense. I therefore retain my view about the tactics of this, despite recognising that the Government have actually succeeded in carrying forward the EU agreements in these cases in a way that I did not anticipate. I hope the Minister will agree with that apologia on my part.
Before I finish, I have another question to ask. It is clear that on the last occasion, the Foreign Office did not anticipate that the Polisario Front would wish to litigate in order to try to stop the entering into force of an EU-Morocco trade agreement. It has done so and it has succeeded, so it has held up the whole process and we will see what happens. I am told in the briefing which has been produced for members of the European Union Committee:
“We note that FCO officials have told us that they are confident the UK Agreement is consistent with EU law and the Government’s position on the status of Western Sahara.”
It may be that they are confident and that they are right. Last time, they were confident, but they were not right; they were wrong. My question to the Minister therefore is: what confidence does he have, and why does he have it, that on this occasion the FCO officials have got it right and that we will not go back to where we started and find ourselves entering into further litigation?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I would very much like to hear the Minister explain the legal basis on which this matter rests, in view of the issues that have been raised in relation to Western Sahara. The issues raised are quite important, but at the moment I do not see exactly what the answer in which the Foreign Office will be confident is. I am willing to agree that I may be utterly wrong and that the noble Lord may be able to convince us all.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made an important general point in his opening remarks. I want to take this opportunity to turn to the subject in hand. My only regret was not following through on a visit when I was in the region, particularly as the opportunity was presented to meet all the parties at the table.
The situation in Western Sahara rumbles on with all its complexities. There are suggestions that Western Sahara is a proxy arena for others. The Sahrawis are living in appalling conditions in Tindouf, with the Polisario Front criminalising any ability to leave the camps in favour of a return to their homeland. Various states are now opening consulates either in or in close proximity to Laâyoune and Dakhla. The UK High Court has implemented the ECJ ruling which recognises the self-determination rights of the Sahrawi people, this following that the EU partnership with Morocco should not include fishery grounds off the coast of Western Sahara. Mauritania has professed neutrality, while Spain’s Foreign Minister, Arancha Gonzáles, has reaffirmed the exclusivity of the UN-led political process. Additionally, the inadvertent words of the then UN SG in March 2016 that Western Sahara was “occupied” were inopportune and may haunt reconciliation, particularly as the issue evokes less emotion for Algerians than Moroccans as Algeria has no claim to Western Sahara.
President Bouteflika was considered too set in his inflexible ways, doing, some suggested, the army’s and deep state’s bidding. There has been hope and indeed expectation in certain quarters that, with the advent of President Tebboune’s quest for a “new Algeria”, change to his country’s foreign policy stance towards Morocco could be afoot. It is interesting to note that the former SG of the National Liberation Front party has recently intimated that the borders be opened, but went surprisingly further by advocating that “Sahara is Moroccan”. This may become relevant in that he might be being primed for high office, given that his coming from the same tribe as the President could have connotations in the preparation of the internal landscape, with a plan of strategy on the chessboard.
Across the way, I have been encouraged by King Mohammed’s indications of reconciliation through dialogue leading to the normalisation and opening of borders. His country rejoining the African Union will certainly have garnered momentum for this. It is to nobody’s benefit that the borders remain closed. Solution can be found when all sides adopt compromise, although attention might be given to the role played by Morocco subsequent to Spain’s withdrawal from the region.
Infrastructure investment, provision of basic services and economic and social development projects, which often go unrecognised, have improved the lot in many quarters.
We are not here to debate the benefits that can stem from tariff exemptions that can come only when Western Sahara’s status is determined. That discussion is in a different context, and so for another day. It is inconceivable that the UK’s position can differ from that of the UN and ECJ ruling. While ongoing aspects remain for consideration, this continuity ratification as presented is necessary.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for rightly raising issues of scrutiny and debate. It is right that the Government—as we have said repeatedly on the issue of free trade agreements—must come to Parliament, stand accountable to Parliament and justify any agreement that has taken place.
I welcome the opportunity for an informed discussion of the UK-Morocco association agreement and the Government’s wider work to secure continuity of our trading relationships with countries that have EU trade agreements, which is important to UK citizens and businesses. I noted that despite his scepticism on certain issues to do with rolling over agreements, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, acknowledged that the Government had surprised him in achieving our set aim. I hope that sense of surprise will continue as we move forward on negotiating free trade agreements.
I also thank—as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, did—the House of Lords EU Committee and its officials for its detailed examination of our continuity agreements, as set out in its reports scrutinising international agreements. They play a vital role.
I will cover the points that noble Lords have raised, but there are three principal points: the trade continuity programme, the UK position on Western Sahara—an issue raised by several noble Lords—and how the UK-Morocco association agreement relates to both. I am also mindful that my noble and learned friend is sitting on the Benches right behind me. He asked a very pointed question. When it comes in a succinct form from a former Lord Chancellor, you try to make sure you have all your facts in front of you. I hope I will be able to satisfy him in this regard, if not totally.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank all who participated in this wide-ranging debate. I make no apology for that: we will inevitably have to confront the question of how Parliament and the Executive can get closer together and come to a proper arrangement for the review, scrutiny and justification of treaties. But this was never going to be the occasion on which that was settled, and I understand that the Minister was unwilling to get too deeply into the bigger issue. Riding towards us is the relaunched trade Bill, under which we will have the opportunity to do so, so I will hold back any further comments until that time.
A lot of ground was covered in the individual contributions. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for his support. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, gave an interesting insight into the detailed politics of the region—not something I know that much about, but I have certainly learned a little in preparing for this debate—and their knowledge and experience have taken us further.
As my noble friend Lord Davies wanted us to say, it is good that there is an outcome to the rolling forward of the agreement. It is good that the Government have done that, and we should recognise that. Having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, made a very good point: there is a much bigger context, including terrorism, of which this is only a part. However, as the Minister mentioned, the relationship we have through the trade agreement will help to cement things in that part of the world, and we should welcome that as well.
Nothing the Minister said led me to think that there will be a change in how the Government are hoping to roll forward other trade agreements. The Executive will rely on the royal prerogative and Parliament will be excluded, even though there will be a lot of consultation. Consultation is good, but it is no substitute—we will come back to that.
We are left with the narrow question of whether, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, the Government have drilled down and got to the bottom of the legal niceties of the point. These were raised in paragraph 20 of the document published by the European Union Committee.
I do not expect the Government to respond to this, but it seems to me that the only point the Government are holding on to is that they have rolled forward the existing arrangements made by the EU on Morocco, including on Western Sahara, and recognised in that the issues around the future of the area, support for the United Nations and the need to ensure that there is an eventual settlement to the benefit of the people there. I do not think that this quite does the trick.
The noble and learned Lord asked: are the Government sure that they have got the legal advice right in doing this? The report said that the Government have committed to
“consider carefully the implications of any future ruling from the CJEU.”
I understand that presumably that will not exist beyond 31 December 1920—December 2020; I must get the date right, although the Minister is nodding, so I am sure he has picked me up correctly anyway.
There is rather a strange point that I marked out when I first read the report. It said:
“They also explained that conducting any further consultation on the 2019 EU amendment”—
this was the one that reflected the worries of the Western Sahara region about the treatment of its goods in relation to being part of Morocco when it felt it should not be—
“was deemed inconsistent with the UK’s mandate to ensure only technical replication of EU agreements while still an EU Member State.”
I do not think there is time for further exploration of that but I would be grateful if the Minister might consider writing to us and to those participating in the debate to give us a better understanding of exactly where they get their confidence on this point.
If it is true that there is an emerging jurisprudence that suggests that the Western Sahara area is not part of Morocco and has independent rights and applications, and as no specific consultation was undertaken by the UK Government before achieving this agreement, it seems to me that we are underprepared for the reaction that may come back at us. However, particularly after so many fish, this is not the time of night to discuss that and I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, if he wishes to write. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.