House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The coronavirus is a global pandemic, and the UK is collaborating extensively with international partners, including the EU. The UK has been leading the way to find a vaccine, with the University of Oxford and Imperial College undertaking the research that will be available to the UK and the rest of the world. The UK is also seeking a deal with the EU that would facilitate continued trade in all medicinal products, but of course the United Kingdom will be ready for all scenarios after the end of the transition period.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the Minister for that answer. I welcome the news out of Oxford regarding a vaccine, but the Government’s border delivery plans announced on Monday bring into stark relief the extent of new barriers to trade in goods and services and movement of people across the border from 1 January. How will he ensure that during covid and in the event of future health emergencies or a second wave, that will not result in any delays to supplies reaching patients or interruption to the flow of vital machinery and equipment?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Of course, the health of citizens is the first concern of Her Majesty’s Government, and we will be working with the Department of Health and Social Care and other Departments to ensure that category 1 goods, which include vital NHS supplies, can reach those on the frontline.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Amanda Milling)
The Government have taken unprecedented steps to support people and businesses across the country during this period. So far, we have helped 1.1 million employers across the UK through our coronavirus job retention scheme and 2.7 million self-employed individuals, and we have provided £10.5 billion in small business grants. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has set out our vision to double-down on levelling up, unite the country and spread opportunity. As part of that, the plan for jobs announced by the Chancellor supports all regions through upgrades to local infrastructure, with £1 billion of investment for local projects to boost local economic recovery in the places that need it most.
Edward Timpson
In the light of the Government’s avowed intent to build, build, build our way towards economic recovery, will my right hon. Friend put her full support behind key infrastructure projects in Eddisbury in the north-west, including the roll-out of full-fibre broadband and the construction of the Knights Grange women and girls’ football national centre of excellence, which will bolster Winsford’s jobs and economy for many years to come?
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. His constituency is one I know well, as he is my mother’s MP. The Government remain committed to delivering nationwide gigabit connectivity as soon as possible. We want to become a world leader in connectivity, increasing the UK’s productivity and competitiveness and boosting the economy in the aftermath of covid-19. I welcome the Cheshire Football Association’s commitment to provide a new world-class facility for women and girls’ football in Cheshire, and I am confident that the pros’ centre will become an excellent sporting asset for the local community.
Darren Henry
We have a golden opportunity for much-needed investment in Broxtowe. We have a shovel-ready project: the Toton link road. Toton is the site of the new High Speed 2 east midlands hub. The road would link to houses that we are building in Chetwynd barracks and then on to the A52 and M1. The whole development area will create up to 4,500 new homes, and it is linked to an innovation campus, where we are creating up to 6,000 jobs, many in the high-value area of research and development. Will my right hon. Friend commit to explore this £30 million shovel-ready project, which will support the economic renewal of Broxtowe and help to level up the economy?
Amanda Milling
I agree with my hon. Friend that shovel-ready projects will play an important part in our economic renewal and the levelling up of the UK. I congratulate him on setting out the case for the Toton link road. I encourage him to work with his local highway authority, so that such schemes are ready to seek funding when suitable opportunities are available following the next fiscal event.
Dr Ben Spencer
I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that schemes such as the River Thames scheme not only provide flood defences for Runnymede and Weybridge but will be a huge boost for the local economy and our natural environment?
Amanda Milling
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing that issue to the attention of the House. I recognise that the proposed River Thames scheme might have the potential to better protect thousands of homes, contribute to the local economy and increase the social and environmental value of the river. I understand that the Environment Agency has offered to brief him on the progress of the scheme, and I encourage him to take up that offer.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
During the pandemic, certain sectors and regions have been disproportionately hit by this economic downturn. In many cases, this is falling on the shoulders of those who are least able to carry it. In Lancashire, 82 businesses have collapsed in May alone and almost 19,000 jobs in the county have been lost during the pandemic. A failure to provide sector-specific, regionally focused support to those most at risk could end up costing many more jobs. What steps are the Government taking to apply a regional lens to this crisis and, in particular, to provide vital investment to counties such as Lancashire?
Amanda Milling
Mr Speaker, you will know that I know Lancashire very well, having lived there for 15 years myself. We recognise that every region and community will be feeling the impact of covid-19. That is why the Government have introduced unprecedented support for businesses and workers across the country to support them through this economic crisis.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 led to parliamentary paralysis at a critical time for our country. It is for that reason that the Government made a commitment in our manifesto and in our Queen’s Speech to take forward work to repeal it. An announcement about that legislation will be made in due course.
Jonathan Gullis
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She is absolutely right to highlight that the paralysis of the previous Parliament, which dithered, delayed and blocked the democratic will of the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, who overwhelmingly voted for us to leave the EU, should never be seen again. What assurances can she give my constituents that this reform can be achieved quickly and with support from all parts of the House to ensure that that kind of Brexit-blocking Parliament we saw last year will not be seen again?
Chloe Smith
There are two points to make to my hon. Friend. The first is that repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act had cross-party support. It was in the manifestos of both the Government and the Opposition, so I hope that that gives it a good wind, but it is also the case that the policy does need to be carefully developed and well scrutinised so that we do not repeat past mistakes with an important part of our constitution.
Aaron Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer and associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). The problem we had last year was that we had a Government who were manifestly unable to get their core legislative agenda through. They did not have the confidence of the House for that, but the House voted that it had confidence in the Government. I understand that repealing the Act will not necessarily get us back to the status quo ante, so what mechanism does she envisage will make sure that we can never again be in that position where the Government do not have the confidence of the House on their core legislative agenda?
Chloe Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for putting his finger on a very important part of what was wrong with that scenario and what is wrong with that legislation: it divorces the issue of confidence from the issue of calling an election. One thing we want to do as we look at its repeal is to make sure that that central tenet of the constitution and of parliamentary operation can be properly functional.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I look forward to the appearance of my hon. Friend before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee next week to discuss this matter at length. She will know that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act requires, by the end of November, a review committee to be established to review the Act in its entirety, so can she describe the arrangements for this Committee and its remit?
Chloe Smith
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, and I look forward to discussing more on this subject with him and his Committee next week, because it is very important and we have already begun to identify in these exchanges some of the things that need to be put right. Of course the Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right in that the Prime Minister is required, between June and November this year, to make arrangements for a committee to undertake a review of the operation of the Act. Again, I look forward to bringing details about that forward in due course, and, as part of that, answering the particular points that he put about its composition and arrangements.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The coronavirus pandemic is an unprecedented national emergency, and Labour understands that in response there has been a need for the Government to procure goods and services at speed, but the flexibility required by extraordinary circumstances is no excuse for reducing transparency or abandoning any attempt at due diligence. How does the Minister explain reports that contracts to the value of more than £830 million have been awarded to at least 12 different companies for personal protective equipment that has never materialised; that £108 million of public funds has been handed to PestFix, a company with just £18,000 of assets; and that £830,000 for communications advice has been given without any tender process to Public First, which is owned by friends of the Prime Minister’s most senior adviser, and although the payment was justified as part of the coronavirus response, it appears to relate to Brexit? How are we to believe that this Government have any kind of a grip on public spending during this crisis?
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
Authorities are allowed to procure goods and services in extreme emergency situations, but that does not mean that scrutiny or value-for-money principles go out the window, and the hon. Lady will understand that. I am shocked to hear that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may know people in Public First; I wish further offences to be taken into account and confess that I, too, know people who work for Public First—as does every Member on the Front Bench and every Member on the Back Bench on both sides of the House, because one of Public First’s associates is a much-loved former Deputy Speaker of this House. If the hon. Lady has serious concerns—other than insinuation—about any contracts, there are clear processes to go through, and I urge her to do so.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Earlier this week, we launched a communications campaign to ensure that people and businesses know what they need to do to prepare for the end of the year. Most of the actions will need to be completed whether or not we get a negotiated outcome. While a negotiated outcome remains our preference, our priority is to provide timely and comprehensive guidance on the changes that businesses and citizens will need to make in any scenario.
Bambos Charalambous
The leaked letter from the Secretary of State for International Trade demonstrates the alarm and confusion at the top of the Government. Despite Monday’s announcement, the Minister cannot convince his own Cabinet that the border will be ready by 1 January. Does he recognise the concerns expressed by the Institute of Directors, which found that only one in four businesses are ready for the end of transition because
“preparing for Brexit proper is like trying to hit a moving target”?
Michael Gove
I understand the frustration that many businesses will have felt as deadlines that were set during the previous Parliament shifted as a result of votes in Parliament, but we now know that, as a result of the general election, the transition period will end on 31 December. There are many “no regrets” actions that businesses should undertake, and I had the opportunity to talk to the chief executives of a number of leading businesses yesterday to make sure that that message was put across in a collaborative way.
Felicity Buchan
The withdrawal agreement stated that both parties would endeavour to conclude equivalence decisions by June 2020. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an update?
Michael Gove
I appreciate how hard my hon. Friend works on behalf of businesses, including financial services, in her constituency. We have completed our side of the bargain—we have provided the European Union with the information that it needs for its own autonomous decision on equivalence—and we await that decision with eagerness.
Hywel Williams [V]
Universities throughout Wales and the UK are working flat out to cope with the effects of covid and Brexit. Some stability and reassurance would be provided by Horizon Europe and Erasmus. Has the Minister now secured full, rather than associate, membership of these valuable programmes?
Michael Gove
Continued participation in Erasmus is one of the negotiating requests that our team are making. We will find out from the EU the terms on which it is happy to grant continued access. We have acknowledged that we may continue to be a net contributor to schemes such as Erasmus and Horizon 2020, but it is also important that we continue to collaborate with other countries beyond the continent of Europe when it comes to education and science.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On Monday, when asked about a lorry park in Ashford, the right hon. Gentleman told the House:
“It is not the case that any specific site has been absolutely confirmed. We are in commercial negotiations with a number of sites”—[Official Report, 13 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1278.]
So can he answer a specific question: how many sites in Kent is he looking at to put infrastructure on? How many of those sites will be to check the paperwork of goods leaving the UK and how many will be to check goods coming into the UK, because, as we all know, there is no space to do that at Dover?
Michael Gove
We were looking at five sites, and yesterday the Department for Transport confirmed that a site at Ashford has been secured. These sites are there to facilitate traffic management and the flow of goods out of the country. When it comes to the appropriate checks on goods coming into the country, at Calais the French authorities will be seeking to check export declarations.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Continuing on the theme of lorries, the Government’s border operating model sets out the obstacles to trade from 1 January, but it promises jam tomorrow on support for businesses. For example, it warns:
“HGV drivers without the correct documentation risk being stopped from boarding services”—
or being—
“fined, or sent back to the UK”
on arrival in the EU. It also highlights the risk of long queues on the roads to UK ports. The Government’s solution, the smart freight service technology, is only in development and there has been no consultation on its use in Kent. The Minister often talks about providing certainty, which is important, so can he confirm to business that the smart freight service technology will be ready in time for companies to test it and train their workers on it so that it can be operational on 1 January?
Michael Gove
That is a very good point. The smart freight technology of which the hon. Gentleman speaks does need to be tested before it goes live, but it is important to stress that it is just one piece of the range of measures we are putting in place to ensure the free flow of trade. Businesses have the information now, as a result of the border operating model, to make sure that they have all the details they need and are in compliance with the rules governing trade.
Paul Blomfield
I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman dodged giving a direct answer yet again. Ambiguity and confused messaging are becoming a trademark of this Government, and his answer certainly will not reassure the Road Haulage Association, which has said that this technology will not be much use unless it has the opportunity to test it and train its people before January.
Let me raise another issue. The NHS Confederation and others in the Brexit Health Alliance have warned of potential disruption to the supply of healthcare products. The border operating model says:
“For imports of medicines, regulatory licensing information will need to be included as part of new customs declarations”.
But it goes on to say:
“The requirements for regulatory licensing information are subject to negotiations”.
Recognising that we are in the middle of a global pandemic that has already put enormous pressure on existing medical supply chains, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the details of those requirements will be ready?
Michael Gove
The details of almost all requirements are, on a no-regrets basis, available, but of course the hon. Gentleman is right, in that we seek a negotiated outcome that will mean that are neither tariffs nor quotas and indeed that there can be a degree of confidence on the part of all businesses about exactly what they need. He talks about ambiguity and uncertainty. We had a vivid example of that in the Chamber yesterday when the Scottish National party, on its Opposition day, requested an extension to our transition period. The Government voted against it, but the Labour party was conspicuous by its absence. I am afraid that allegations of ambiguity sit ill with the Labour party’s decision to be ambiguous on the biggest question this country faces.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
The Government’s recovery strategy, published on 11 May, stated that we would move from a series of national restrictions to a more targeted set of local measures. We have put in place tools to help us do that, including the Joint Biosecurity Centre.
Kate Osborne
Although areas in the Jarrow constituency are not currently at risk of going into a full lockdown, like the one that we have seen in Leicester, it is vital that the Government take proactive measures to prevent further local lockdowns. Councils are getting testing data that is sometimes nearly a fortnight old, and they have little information, which is often of little or no help. Will the Minister provide assurances that the Government will improve communications and that data from any test and trace app, when it is operational, will be shared with local authorities to enable them to respond effectively to outbreaks in local areas?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I hope that I can give her those reassurances. I gave evidence earlier this week to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, where I emphasised that sharing local data, whether on testing or other planning assumptions, with local authorities, but critically also with the local resilience forums, is vital. They are in the frontline of this fight, so I hope that I can give her those assurances.
Lilian Greenwood
The report on preparing for a challenging winter by the Academy of Medical Sciences makes for sobering reading. It warns of a reasonable worst-case scenario in which the R rate rises to 1.7 from September onwards, leading to a second wave of hospital admissions and deaths similar to or worse than the spring. But it also offers hope. As Professor Stephen Holgate says, with relatively low numbers of covid-19 cases at the moment, this is a critical window of opportunity to help us prepare for the worst that winter can throw at us. I am confident that the Minister will have read the report. Will Cabinet Office and the Government grasp that opportunity and act now to implement the report’s recommendations?
Penny Mordaunt
It is vital that we do prepare, and we all know the challenges the NHS in particular faces in winter months. Clearly, with the prospect of a second wave, that will be intensified. Yes, we must prepare, but it is also a reason why we still all need to follow the chief medical officer’s advice to ensure that we minimise the chances of a serious second wave.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
We continue to engage intensively with business as we take forward our implementation work, and that includes the important work of the business engagement forum, which has now met seven times, most recently on 3 July.
Julian Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer. Many business sectors across Northern Ireland are extremely concerned about the challenges for their individual areas. May I urge the team over the summer to work as hard as possible to ensure sector-specific approaches to implementation so that we do not just go for a one-size-fits-all policy?
Penny Mordaunt
I can give my right hon. Friend those assurances. Departments across Whitehall will be liaising in particular with individual sectors. In addition, in the next few weeks, we will bring forward guidance on the protocol for traders, which will set out details of the extensive end-to-end support that we will offer those engaged in those new administrative processes.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Amanda Milling)
We are ensuring that SMEs are awarded public procurement contracts. Last year, we spent £14.2 billion with SMEs, nearly £2 billion more than the previous year. We have gone further to help to ease the procurement process by introducing a range of measures to tackle the barriers faced by SMEs, such as simplifying pre-qualification questionnaires. We now have the opportunity to make procurement even simpler for SMEs following the end of the transition period.
Henry Smith [V]
An SME in my constituency has recently redeployed to the manufacture of PPE equipment in response to the covid-19 pandemic, but it is finding it very hard to secure public contracts and, indeed, is in competition with international suppliers who actually cost more. What can be done to support SMEs who have redeployed to meet the national effort as we tackle coronavirus?
Amanda Milling
We have received an extraordinary response from people offering to supply PPE and UK manufacturers wanting to make equipment from scratch, including the firm my hon. Friend mentions, and we are hugely grateful to everyone who has come forward. As a result, we have now contracted over 3 billion items of PPE through UK-based manufacturers alone. Although further personal protective equipment offers are not needed at the moment, we continue to invite other forms of support from industry.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
On Monday, I made an oral statement to this House announcing the publication of the Government’s detailed border operating model, following extensive consultation. This will allow for the border industry and traders to help prepare for the end of the transition period. We have also made available £705 million for upgraded border systems and infrastructure, and we have launched a new communications campaign.
James Grundy
I thank the Minister for his response. What support will the Government provide to business ahead of those new processes taking effect in order to help with the transition?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is quite right to speak up for his constituents and for the businesses that need support. That is why we have devoted £84 million to making sure that customs intermediaries can be there for businesses, small and medium-sized as well as large, to ensure the free flow of goods, so that his constituents can be certain that their efforts are rewarded in the market.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
This Government will never be neutral in expressing our unequivocal support for the strength of our United Kingdom. In the summer economic update last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced millions of pounds of additional support for businesses across the UK through his VAT cut and other measures. We have also announced an additional £8.9 billion for devolved Administrations through the Barnett formula. The Union is stronger for the contribution that all of its four nations make, and this Government will continue to support its strength.
Robin Millar
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. He will be aware of the support on the Conservative Benches for the Union, nowhere more so, perhaps, than in north Wales, where seven of the nine Members of Parliament are from the Conservative and Unionist party. In the recent Ditchley annual lecture, my right hon. Friend said:
“We need to be more ambitious for…North Wales.”
Will he agree to meet me and my colleagues in north Wales to hear just how ambitious I am for Aberconwy and they are for north Wales?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. From Ynys Môn to Wrexham, there is a team of fantastic Conservative and Unionist Members of Parliament representing the interests of north Wales with vigour and energy. I would be delighted to meet them. We need to do more to ensure that the businesses and people of north Wales get the support they need from this UK Government, working alongside the Welsh Government, to strengthen our Union.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
There is no doubt about the right hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the Union, but perhaps he could answer me this. Why does he think that support for independence has now reached 54% among the Scottish people and reached a sustained majority in the past year?
Michael Gove
Opinion polls come and go. I am always interested in what opinion polls tell me, but I am rather more interested in real votes cast in real ballot boxes. The last time the people of Scotland were asked if they wanted to remain in the United Kingdom they decided that they did want to by a whopping 10 percentage points—facts are chiels that winna ding—and since then we have seen how the strength of the United Kingdom has supported Scotland’s economy. Indeed, I was very interested to see earlier today that one of the economic advisers to the First Minister said that the support of the UK Government would be vital to Scotland’s economic recovery.
Pete Wishart
The right hon. Gentleman might not like opinion polls, and of course they are transitory, but let me tell him about another couple of opinion polls. Support for the Scottish National party is now at 55% and we are seeing support for independence growing month by month. He did not give an answer to this, so I will try to answer it for him and he can tell me which one of these he agrees with. Support for independence is rising because of the Government’s Brexit and the way that they are imposing on us their Brexit that, as a country, we rejected; the disrespect; the condescension; the power grab; the barely hidden contempt for our nation from his colleagues behind him on the Conservative Benches; the mistreatment of our Parliament and our democracy; and, of course, the chaotic leadership of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Which one of those does he think is rising independence most?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful for that multiple-choice question from the hon. Member. It reminds me that when I sat my O-levels and multiple-choice exams when I was a schoolboy in Aberdeen, Scotland’s schools were stronger than England’s schools. Now, after 10 years of SNP Government, Scotland’s schools have fallen behind. The record of the SNP in government, I am afraid, has been one of complacency and neglect. That is why I believe we need to have a strong UK Government working alongside MSPs from every party in order to make our United Kingdom stronger than ever.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Government were elected with an ambitious agenda. The civil service must continue to change to deliver that agenda, which means focusing laser-like on improving citizens’ lives. I was proud to be able to talk to civil servants yesterday at Civil Service Live and to be able to share with them an ambitious reform programme that has the support of public servants across the United Kingdom.
Florence Eshalomi [V]
A number of my constituents are civil servants, and they have written to me to express their understandable shock and upset about the recent announcement about their jobs, which will be cut. Given the extraordinary challenges that our public sector now faces—dealing with covid, the economic downturn and Brexit—can the Minister tell me why the Government have chosen to shrink the civil service at this crucial time, and will he commit to reviewing this decision?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that question on behalf of her constituents. We value everyone who works in the civil service. I will look at the specific cases she mentions, because we want to ensure that everyone who has talent and commitment, and who wants to serve the public, has a chance to do so. If she would be kind enough to write to me about the specific cases, I will respond as quickly as I can in support of her constituents.
Sir Edward Leigh
One of the justifications for demolishing Richmond House was that we needed extra places for civil servants working for us and generally for the national machine. Now that we have had covid and the civil service is so successfully working from home—and there are long-term plans to move to a three-day week and to allow civil servants to work two days a week—would the Minister accept that we no longer need all this office space in central London, and we can actually make some money by leasing it out to the private sector?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. People have been working more flexibly as a result of the covid pandemic, and that is something that we would like to encourage, support and facilitate. We also want to ensure that more decision making is taken closer to the people, which means more civil service jobs—particularly senior civil service jobs—being located outside London, and that does create commercial opportunities for the Government.
Martin Vickers
In his recent Ditchley speech, my right hon. Friend referred to transferring energy sector civil servants and policy makers to Humberside. Will he outline what progress he is making with that, and will he push forward and ensure that the Cleethorpes constituency plays its part?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right. I said that there were at least three possible locations for the relocation of jobs in the energy sector: Teesside, Humberside and, of course, Aberdeen. There are already civil servants in Aberdeen working in this area, but we want to ensure that more jobs are dispersed to areas at the forefront of the green energy revolution—and, of course, Cleethorpes is right at the heart of that.
Rachel Hopkins
On the important subject of civil service staff, what does it say about the Government’s approach to bullying that it now appears that the director of propriety and ethics, who investigated serious allegations about the conduct of the Home Secretary, is to be moved?
Michael Gove
I am not aware of any plans for the extremely distinguished deputy Cabinet Secretary and head of propriety and ethics to be moved. Just because the story appears in The Guardian, that does not sadly these days mean that it is true.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
The list of ministerial responsibilities document was last updated in October. It is taking longer than usual to compile a new document, and that is in part because Ministers have been focused on responding to the challenges of covid-19. An update will be published when possible.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for that update, but of course it is not just the booklet; the responsibilities of individual Cabinet Office Ministers have not been available on the gov.uk website, so perhaps that could be updated too. The Cabinet Office has been particularly resistant to transparency and slow to share information in recent times. It is one of the worst performing Departments in responding to freedom of information requests, despite being responsible for FOI policy. In 2019, the Cabinet Office was the Department that was referred the most to the Information Commissioner’s Office. What is the Minister doing about this?
Chloe Smith
I hope it is the case that Cabinet Office Ministers—the team here today—have accounted for ourselves and our responsibilities adequately. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I, and all the Ministers, look forward to coming here to do exactly that, and ensuring that all our correspondence, parliamentary questions and all sorts of other things are properly answered. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members can use the contact details that are already available and those that have been updated during covid to ensure that Parliament can rightly get the information that it requires from our Department.
On the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman refers to on transparency and freedom of information, of course the Cabinet Office proudly leads the way in assisting the rest of Government in our duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and other proactive transparency measures that we have put in place over the years to ensure that citizens can get the information that they need and deserve. We intend to continue leading the way, and we think it is very important to do so.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
As with previous National Security Advisers, David Frost will be the principal adviser to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on national security strategy, policy, capability and civil contingencies. He will be supported by the civil service in the same way as any other political appointee, with openness, honesty, integrity and impartiality.
Stephen Morgan
Yesterday, MPs stopped someone clearly unsuitable becoming Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Sadly, no such mechanism exists to prevent an ill-judged political appointment to the post of National Security Adviser. When will the Government stop putting the Prime Minister’s political fortunes before our national security?
Penny Mordaunt
I think that is very unfair to one of our colleagues, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that. I know that following last night’s events he tweeted that national security should always be placed ahead of politics, and he is right. On that basis, I urge him, as a fellow Portsmouth MP representing that great garrison and naval city, and as a shadow Defence Minister, to work to build a constructive relationship with the new National Security Adviser. If he actually met him, he might be pleasantly surprised. For the sake of our city and our armed forces, he owes them the opportunity to build that constructive relationship with the person who will lead the independent review.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will outline the United Kingdom’s White Paper on the internal market later today. Not only will this approach deliver more powers to the devolved Administrations, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, it will allow business and trade across all parts of our United Kingdom to prosper and flourish.
Stuart C. McDonald [V]
The head of the Vote Leave campaign in Scotland was quite clear about the automatic devolution of powers to Holyrood after Brexit, saying:
“Any repatriated power that isn’t already explicitly denoted as ‘reserved’ in the Scotland Act 1998 is assumed to be the remit of the Scottish Parliament.”
Why is that promise being reneged on by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, just as his own promise of migration powers for Scotland is being reneged on?
Michael Gove
No promise is being reneged on; a power surge is occurring. Scores of new powers are going to the Scottish Parliament and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) pointed out yesterday, no Scottish National party MP, MSP, councillor or activist can point to a single power currently exercised by the Scottish Parliament that is being taken away. There is no power grab; there is simply an example of SNP myth-making, which this internal market Bill finally puts to bed.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister without Portfolio (Amanda Milling)
The Government prioritise the environment at every step, investing in sustainable infrastructure to fuel economic growth and to create green jobs.
Contracting authorities are already required to consider social, economic and environmental impacts of their procurement. This year we will take a step further, implementing a new social value model so that those impacts are monitored in Government procurement and our high standards are maintained through effective contract management.
Christine Jardine
I was thinking particularly of economic sustainability, which also affects the private sector, not least the Scottish whisky industry, which has suffered a 65% downturn in trade to the United States, 30% of which is because of the tariffs. Can we have some clarity from the Government on how they will protect that and make it sustainable in this trade war?
Amanda Milling
I am sure we are all aware, as many people have spoken in this House about it, of the importance of the Scottish whisky industry. I am sure we will continue to have discussions on the matter.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
As I mentioned earlier, it was a privilege to be able to join the new permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office, Alex Chisholm, yesterday for the Civil Service Live event. I had the opportunity then, and I would like to repeat it now, to thank all public and civil servants across the United Kingdom, in the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, for the amazing hard work they have put in to helping us to deal with the covid crisis. I am sure the whole House would want to take this opportunity to thank our brilliant civil service.
Mr Bone [V]
[Inaudible.] the Home Secretary [Inaudible.]. The chairman of the [Inaudible.] has raised concerns about its lack of [Inaudible.] and the Leader of the House has [Inaudible.] to be impartial. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Electoral Commission should be scrapped and replaced by [Inaudible.] that the people [Inaudible.]?
Michael Gove
The technology may have been faulty, but my hon. Friend’s judgment is not. Questions have been raised about how the Electoral Commission operates, and those are matters that the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission will investigate with appropriate consideration.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman said in his recent Ditchley Park speech that,
“Government needs to be rigorous and fearless in its evaluation of policy and projects.”
On that we agree. During the covid crisis, the Government have published details of outsourced contracts worth about £3 billion, while the true figure is likely to be many multiples of that. Today I have written to the National Audit Office, asking it to review the Government’s approach to public procurement during this pandemic. Will the right hon. Gentleman, to ensure the rigour that he desires, join me in asking the National Audit Office to take a look and to help the Government to ensure value for money and the very best possible public services?
Rachel Reeves
That is the best answer I have had from the Minister so far. I welcome his support, and I hope he will follow up with the National Audit Office and encourage it to do that work, particularly to help us if we face a second wave or more local lockdowns. On the theme of the privilege of public service, can he inform the House when the report into the conduct of the Home Secretary will be published, following the resignation of the permanent secretary, citing a culture of bullying?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also explain or justify the decision of his party to withdraw the Whip from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), a Conservative MP for 23 years, former Royal Navy reservist and Chair of the Defence Committee, for the crime of being elected Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee? Losing the Whip used to be the result of serious misdemeanour, not independent thought. What does this say about the Government’s approach to expertise and scrutiny?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady asks about two very important matters. On the first, the inquiry is quite properly independent, and Ministers such as myself have no role or oversight. It is the case that the deputy Cabinet Secretary, the Director General for Propriety and Ethics, with the help of the Prime Minister’s external adviser on the Ministerial Code, will be conducting the conversations required. I am afraid I can say no more, because I know no more.
On the second question, the Intelligence and Security Committee’s membership was chosen by this House and an election has appropriately taken place, but whipping matters are quite properly matters for the respective Whips Offices of our parties and not for those who, like myself, exercise a different constitutional role.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is important that we all work together. That is why throughout this week I have been talking to businesses large and small about the changes, challenges and opportunities as we leave the transition period at the end of this year. The Government’s information campaign should provide all businesses with the details they need in order to get going. If more needs to be done, this Government stand ready.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and when the legislation comes in on 24 July, I hope that everybody will comply with it, because one of the reasons for making sure we can have this law is to give confidence to people that they can shop in the knowledge that public health comes first.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital that, for example, Welsh lamb can be sold across the United Kingdom. It is vital also that we recognise that the labelling requirements that relate to Welsh mineral water, which enable Welsh firms to sell a superior product with confidence across the United Kingdom, are respected as well. Making sure that we work hand in glove with the devolved Administrations strengthens the Union for all its citizens.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Michael Gove
It is a very important point. Nottingham has an outstanding university, great MPs, a superb location and much to offer, and it is the case that close to Nottingham we have world-leading companies such as Boots that play a critical role in the economy of our country. We need to ensure, as the Chancellor has, that we provide financial support and the regulatory environment for business to thrive. The Government have a role to play, and I look forward to discussing with the hon. Lady the many opportunities for relocating parts of the civil service to the beautiful city.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Michael Gove
I have great affection for the hon. Gentleman, but I am not quite sure to what he refers. If he is referring to the UK internal market White Paper, there is a consultation that starts today. I thank him for the thumbs up. That consultation will take place over the summer. Arrangements in the House on how Members participate and vote are decided by the Leader of the House through the usual channels and, of course, with the blessing or not of the Speaker.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Michael Gove
I absolutely do. One of the main advantages of Runnymede and Weybridge is that it is adjacent to Surrey Heath, and so therefore it is in one of the best parts of the country to do business. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many of my constituents, like his, work in and around Heathrow, and it is absolutely vital that we do everything we can to ensure that trade flows but also that aviation and aerospace continue to get the investment that they need.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
Michael Gove
It is difficult to know where to begin in that concatenation of invention, innuendo and mistake. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has completely the wrong end of the stick.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Michael Gove
Absolutely. Cornwall has many, many attractions, but of course the reliance of a large part of the Cornish economy on tourism and on seasonal trade renders parts of it uniquely vulnerable, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the steps that he did in order to support hospitality, but more of course requires to be done. Cornwall has amazing people and so much to boast about. We do need to do everything we can to make sure that my hon. Friend and other Cornish MPs play a role in our economic recovery.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
Michael Gove
The paper has been shared with the Welsh Government and with other Labour colleagues as well. One of the things that frustrated our capacity to have discussions on this area was the withdrawal of the Scottish Government from some of those discussions. However, I have had fruitful discussions and will continue to have fruitful discussions, including later today with representatives of the Welsh Government. I am sure that the hon. Lady would recognise that Newport’s position on the border of England and Wales gives it, in many respects, the best of both worlds, and ensuring that her constituents continue to have unfettered access to the rest of the UK market must surely be in their interests and in hers.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Michael Gove
Absolutely. Northumberland is a fantastic county. To my mind, the communities of Blyth and Cramlington are particularly important because the solidarity they have shown over generations is wholly admirable. Anyone who follows football cannot help but be inspired by the giant-killing achievements of Blyth Spartans. The fact that Blyth Valley has an articulate local boy here in the House of Commons as a Conservative MP is a reminder of what a fantastic part of the world it is. We must do everything possible to ensure that the community spirit, which my hon. Friend embodies, is celebrated and protected in future.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
British Overseas Troops: Civil Liability Claims
(3 years, 9 months 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
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to update the House on the overseas operations Bill’s impact on the rights of British troops serving overseas to bring civil liability claims against the Ministry of Defence and its implications for the Armed Forces Covenant.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
We have introduced the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill to lance the boil of lawfare and to protect our people from the relentless cycle of reinvestigations against our armed forces. Let me be absolutely clear: none of the measures will prevent the Ministry of Defence from being held to account for any wrongdoing.
To allay any further misunderstanding, let me provide some context. The Bill takes account of the uniquely challenging circumstances of overseas operations. It reassures our personnel that they will not be called on endlessly to defend against historic claims. It does that by introducing what we are calling a longstop. This restricts to an absolute maximum of six years the time limit for bringing civil claims or Human Rights Act claims for personal injury or death in connection with overseas operations.
It is simply wrong to assert that the Bill prevents service personnel, veterans or their relatives from bringing claims, because it does not change how the time limit is calculated. That will continue to be determined from either the date of the incident or date of knowledge. Conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder may not be diagnosed until much later, so the six years would start from the date of diagnosis.
The spirit of the armed forces covenant runs right through the legislation. Fairness is at its heart. We want to ensure that all claims are assessed fairly to achieve a fair outcome, yes, for veterans, but also for victims, service personnel and the taxpayer.
Yes, service personnel and veterans will still be able to bring claims against the MOD for such conditions, even if they are more than six years from the date of the incident. But also yes, this Government are going to war against lawfare. The days of veterans living in a persistent state of worry simply for having served this nation are coming to an end. Under this Prime Minister and under this Government, we will restore fairness to the process.
John Healey
This urgent question, with the summer recess next week, is the only way of getting Ministers to set the record straight and reassure veterans who have won claims against the MOD after knowing about their PTSD or their hearing loss for years, who rightly feel and fear this Bill will block their comrades from such compensation in future. We also want to protect serving and former troops against the Minister’s relentless cycle of vexatious legal claims or repeat investigations. I say to him that the Government have got important parts of this Bill badly wrong.
I asked the Minister on 6 July why he is legislating to reduce the rights of our armed forces personnel who serve overseas to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence if they miss this hard six-year deadline or his longstop. He told the House:
“The Bill does not do that.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 646.]
But of course it does, in clause 11. One week later, his written answer to me confirmed that 70 of 522 such settled claims have been
“brought more than six years after the…incident.”
So he has got the chance to correct the record today.
Why is the Minister legislating to deny those who put their lives on the line for our country overseas the same employer liability rights as the UK civilians they defend? Why are the Government breaching their own armed forces covenant by disadvantaging these troops, and why was the most senior military lawyer, the Judge Advocate General, not consulted on the drafting of the Bill? Is this the reason that Judge Blackett rightly says the Bill is “ill-conceived” and likely to increase prosecutions of UK service personnel in the International Criminal Court?
It is not too late to think again about the best way to protect service personnel from vexatious litigation while ensuring also that those who commit serious crimes during operations are prosecuted and punished appropriately. We are ready to assist, but Ministers have got to get a grip and they have got to get down to some serious work over the summer.
Johnny Mercer
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his interest in the Bill. I would ask him to consider for a moment, given the history I have in this place, if I would attempt in any way to restrict the rights of service personnel to sue the Ministry of Defence or to claim for compensation after the event. I have read the Bill because I wrote the Bill, and the Bill very clearly states that it is from the point of knowledge or the point of diagnosis that that limitation comes in. We have always had limitations in this country. In the Limitation Act 1980, for example, there are limitations on various claims that are made through the tort system through the courts.
The reality is that introducing this legislation is not going to please everyone, because throughout the legal system that has thoroughly abused this process for many years, an awful lot of money has been made and the lives of our service personnel and veterans have been at the bottom of the priority list. Well, I am afraid that is changing, so I have no qualms at all that some people will disagree with elements of the Bill. But one thing that is beyond debate is that this is enhancing the quality of life and this nation’s responsibility to its service people and veterans; it is not going in the other direction. If there is any genuine concern out there from any individual who can show me that this will inhibit their rights, I am more than happy to look at it. But the issue around limitation is, I am afraid, misunderstood, because it is not from the point of when the injury happened or the incident that caused the injury; it is from the point of awareness or the point of diagnosis. The Bill does not change that. As far as I am concerned, it enhances the armed forces covenant. This will be a good thing, and a tool in our efforts to lance the boil of lawfare in this country.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
As someone who chaired the armed forces covenant in the Black Country for a year, I am proud to be part of a Government who are taking veterans in Dudley and across the country seriously, listening to them and giving them the support they need. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that these changes will ensure that our troops and veterans are protected from unfair and persistent pursuit?
Johnny Mercer
The objective of this Bill is very clear. It is to restore fairness in the system for veterans, service personnel and victims, for whom this process has not worked for many years. I am afraid that veterans and their families have not been considered in a lot of these processes, and some of their experiences have been totally unacceptable. This Government were elected to change this nation’s relationship with our veterans. I am very proud that we are doing that now, and the whole House should be supportive of what we are trying to do to get this right.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on securing this urgent question. I start by declaring my interest, as my husband is a veteran.
The Government are not short on rhetoric on the importance of our armed forces, but as usual the rhetoric does not match the reality. Part 2 of the Bill is yet another attack on our personnel and veterans. Those who have risked their lives in the service of our country will now have a limited period in which to pursue a claim. I know that the Minister said this morning that the six-year limit is from the point of diagnosis, but the culture in the military means that some personnel are told that they are unable to pursue a claim while they are serving, or told by those higher up the chain of command that they do not have a valid claim. Given that many conditions, such as deafness, asbestos poisoning and the impact of radiation exposure, can get worse over the years, what protections will be in place to enable such personnel to pursue their claims? According to the Government, the rationale for these proposals is that they will be beneficial to our armed forces personnel and veterans, so will the Minister give us some real evidence and examples of how personnel and veterans will benefit from this limit?
It is also unacceptable for the Government to introduce the Bill before publishing a formal response to their consultation, so when will that response be published? Why was an impact assessment not published alongside the Bill? The Government seem to be taking advantage of the fact that they are unique in their ability to legislate to restrict legal claims against them. Is it not in fact the case that, under the guise of benefiting service personnel and veterans, the Government are simply saving money from legal claims at the expense of injured veterans?
Johnny Mercer
I hope you will forgive me, Mr Speaker. I have an enormous amount of respect for many of my colleagues, but I have never heard such a load of rubbish in all my life. This Government have done more than any before them to improve the lot of veterans in this country, bar none.
Johnny Mercer
I am answering the question—[Interruption.] Yes, I am answering the question. When it comes to the Bill, if the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) has genuine concerns about how the rhetoric differs from this Government’s actions, I would ask her to look at some of the things we have done prior to the Bill, including establishing the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the forces railcard, getting the census question in, and ensuring a guaranteed job for those in the civil service. The Government have fundamentally shifted the dial on this. Having written the Bill myself, I totally reject the idea that it reduces soldiers’ ability to make claims. For example, on the radiation question, the claim starts when the condition is diagnosed, as is the case with all other claims in this area.
It is worth saying how the Bill will change people’s lives. Had it been brought in prior to 2003, there would have been a 72% drop in the thousands of claims that were brought against service personnel in this country, of which none—none—were referred to prosecution. I urge hon. Members who are quick to champion and extol the values of veterans to shift from that, do something about it for once, and support the Bill.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for not only his answers, but his dedication to improving the lives of service personnel in our country. I am grateful that the Government are committed to improving the lives of our armed forces personnel. Does he agree that it is our duty to end the unfair trials of service personnel who have served their country and our country?
Johnny Mercer
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. That has been an injustice for many years. I often thought to myself, before I came to this place, how has that process been allowed to continue where those who serve this country on operations are treated like that afterwards?
It is clear to me that in this place, we are good at saying, “Aren’t our veterans brilliant? Don’t we owe them a huge debt?”, but when it comes to doing something about it—something a bit difficult and challenging—everybody runs for the hills. Well, this Government are not going to do that. We are going to legislate to protect those people from those who want to rewrite history to line their own pockets. Those days are over. I fully expect all hon. Members to support that effort.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I agree with the Minister’s intention to remove the ability to bring vexatious claims against our military personnel, which is why we have to get the detail of the Bill right and consider any possible unforeseen consequences of getting it wrong. Does he accept that there are often good and perfectly reasonable reasons why a soldier or veteran may not be able to bring a claim within six years, even if they knew about their injuries? How can we factor that in?
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive point. Let me be clear: I am absolutely happy to amend the legislation on the suggestion of any hon. Member to get it right, but it has to be based on fact and reality. The armed forces compensation scheme has a seven-year limit on it anyway. The Limitation Act 1980 also limits the time in which claims can be brought. If hon. Members want to discuss that more widely, clearly that is a broader issue. All we are doing is bringing into line our military personnel and veterans’ experiences.
I will be honest that I cannot, off the top of my head, think why individuals would be diagnosed and choose not to do anything about it, then choose to do something about it much later. I have not come across that in all my experience in the field, but I am happy to learn. If that is the case, I am happy to change the Bill, but that is not what experience shows us. I urge hon. Members to come up with constructive criticism and debate, so that we can really work on the Bill to get it right, because we all agree that we need to do it.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome the spirit of the Bill. To congratulate the Minister, I will send him a copy of my book, “Tommy This an’ Tommy That: The military covenant”. He has done well to bring it thus far, but it is tipped to be heavily amended as it progresses through this place, not least because of Judge Jeff Blackett’s remarks. I press the Minister to look again at part 2, because it seems to me that the “no disadvantage” enjoinder within the military covenant is in danger of being overlooked. I know that he would not want to see that.
Johnny Mercer
I am more than happy to look at any part of the Bill, but as I am also bringing in legislation to make the armed forces covenant law and make it actually mean something, it would be quite bizarre for me to bring in another Bill that reduced it. I will, of course, look at that, but I do not accept that the Bill brings any disadvantage to those who have served.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will the Minister explain the rationale for six years rather than five years or, indeed, seven years, which he said was the time limit for one of the other claims? Given that these important issues obviously need independent oversight, does he think there is a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee to have that oversight?
Johnny Mercer
It is not for me to say what Committees should do. In terms of the timeframe, all this does is bring it into line with other HRA claims that can be brought forward at the moment. There is no finger in the air—“This is what we’re going to go for.” At the three-year point, courts will now have to consider special provisions that will have to be exceptional for a prosecutor to bring a claim, which brings this into line with other human rights legislation.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The first time I met my hon. Friend the Minister, in Kandahar, Afghanistan, both of us had somewhat smaller bellies and somewhat shorter hair. The lesson that we learnt out there about looking after the guys and girls we served with was an important one. Can he explain to the House what fundamental change this will make to ensure that their lives are better and that their families are not disrupted?
Johnny Mercer
That is a really good question, and I thank my hon. Friend for it. The way that this is going to change lives is by ending the uncertainty. If you have served on operations and you have not committed an offence, you will not be endlessly hounded by those who seek to bring spurious human rights claims. Let us remember how the IHAT process started. We had Public Interest Lawyers driving around Iraq, essentially acting as legal team for the Mahdi army—it was absolutely bizarre. This will change the experience for service personnel, veterans and their families and provide certainty for them and for victims, to clear this mess up and restore fairness to the process.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It should be possible to build an easy consensus in the House on protection for those who have given service in the past, but the Bill that the Minister claims to have drafted himself does a lot more than that. A prescription and limitation on actions brought in respect of torture, crimes against humanity and war crimes is a significant departure on which he will not build a consensus and for which those who give service in our armed forces would not want people to be protected. Will he look again at that provision?
Johnny Mercer
I am happy to look at any aspect of the Bill, but let me be clear: the retrospective application of the Human Rights Act to the battlefield is inappropriate and has caused a lot of the problems that we have had. We want to restore the supremacy of the law of armed conflict in the Geneva conventions. We do a good job of holding our people to account. We are not going to allow the legislation that the right hon. Gentleman mentions to be abused and used in a way that it was never designed to be used in order to bring claims against our service personnel and make their lives a misery.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The rules of engagement for overseas land operations are covered by what is known as Card Alpha. Could the Minister reassure the House that soldiers who pull the trigger in accordance with Card Alpha or its tri-service equivalent can get on with their lives, safe in the knowledge that they will never again be pursued by ambulance-chasing lawyers?
Johnny Mercer
For me, service in the military is very clear. You adhere to the law. If you break the law, you will be charged and prosecuted. If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. You operate within the law of armed conflict. Those who are elected to this place to look after you will, from this point on, do their job and protect you.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister has stated that fairness is at the heart of this, and I thank him for that. Does he agree that soldiers who are injured or deployed internationally in service of Queen and country deserve the same route to civil satisfaction as the civil servants in Whitehall, who have no restrictions and no limitations on their civil liability claim ability?
Johnny Mercer
I believe that those who operate in our armed forces are entitled to the protection they deserve. This Bill protects them. That is why I struggle to understand the context, because this is all about protecting our servicemen and women from an abhorrent process that has ruined some of our finest people over the years. I am happy to look again at all aspects of the Bill, but I want to build a collegiate approach in this House to get the Bill through. We agree that this must happen—let us get it done.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
As a Northern Ireland veteran who served during the troubles, it would be remiss of me not to say this: I am very grateful for everything my hon. Friend has done to get us to this point, but now that he is the Minister, will he apologise on behalf of the MOD for the decades of harassment that our troops and veterans have faced?
Johnny Mercer
Look, there is no doubt that the prominent protagonists in this have been human rights lawyers, who have abused that system in order to make money, abusing some of the poorest people in the world in the process. But what I would say is that, yes, there are elements that the MOD could and should have done better and for some of our people, those experiences have been unacceptable—and for those, yes, I do apologise.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister now says that he is willing to relook at all aspects of the Bill, which is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) asked him to do half an hour ago. Across the House, there is an understanding about the desire to get away from these vexatious claims, but what Members on both sides are telling him is that there are unintended consequences from the way that the Bill is currently structured. He should listen to prevent veterans being penalised while he is trying to do something that we all support.
Johnny Mercer
Veterans are not being penalised. If they were, I would not bring this legislation in. I have not said that I am going to look at all aspects of the Bill; I have made it very clear that I am happy to discuss amendments and changes that people want to make to get the Bill through, but I will also not do it on the back of things that are patently untrue.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
In my short time as MP for Bosworth, I have had veterans writing to me and coming to my surgery. They do not want to be above the law, but they do not want vexatious claims either, so these changes are well overdue. What will my hon. Friend do to make sure that the balance is preserved and that servicemen and women, both past and present, are of course held to account, but also protected?
Johnny Mercer
A huge part of my efforts in the MOD is about having a better system to hold our servicepeople to account. There is no doubt about it—if we had had better investigations in the first place, we would not be here, so there is a twin-track approach, trying to get the balance of fairness so that those who break the law are held to account, but ultimately, if people have done nothing wrong, they can live the rest of their life in peace.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why British soldiers should have less recourse to compensation from their employer than the civilians they defend?
Johnny Mercer
They do not. The armed forces compensation scheme is out there for everybody to read. It is a good scheme. It is constantly reviewed and it has come on leaps and bounds in the last 10 or 15 years. I am sure that there will be another review of it in the future, but I am afraid that the points that the hon. Lady makes are simply incorrect.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Brecon is a proud garrison town with a high concentration of infantry veterans. The Minister has met me a number of times to discuss my constituents’ concerns, so I have seen at first hand his commitment to righting the wrongs done to our veterans. Does he agree that the closure of Brecon barracks, erasing the history of the Army in Wales, would be another such wrong?
Johnny Mercer
The closure of barracks and the footprint of the military in this country is something that we take very seriously, but let me be clear that the defining issue in that will be the quality of life for our service personnel, and we will make sure that it is acceptable.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
The House should know that I have a brother who is a current Army officer and another brother who is a retired Army officer. I also have constituents who have waited years to have medical issues brought on by their service even recognised by the military, never mind the fight that they then have to get the correct support. Taking what the Minister has said about wanting to ensure that there is no disadvantage to veterans, will he outline how exactly he will guarantee that, and that the 60-year rule will not harm injured veterans, as there is great concern among them right now?
Johnny Mercer
Again, I wonder if anybody could show me how this legislation is going to genuinely make somebody’s life worse—the compensation claim starts when that illness or injury is recognised or is a point of knowledge. This does not affect that in any way.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I endorse the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and thank the Minister for his very clear answer, which is an apology for what has happened, fundamentally. I remind him that we still have the problem of veterans in Northern Ireland, but I will not linger on that. The only point I would like to make is that having listened to what people have said today, it seems to me that everyone in the House is up to sort out any little problem that might occur. We all want the best possible circumstances for our servicemen and women, either past or present, and for their conditions to be as good as they can be, and I think that my hon. Friend would agree with that.
Johnny Mercer
I completely agree with that, but we are not going to base policy on things that are simply incorrect. This has been an issue for 40 years because people have not wanted to tackle difficult matters. This Government are going to do that, and we will bring forward legislation in September.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
We owe a great deal of gratitude to our serving armed personnel, and I was lucky enough to meet Luke Davison from Keighley who served in the Yorkshire Regiment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is our duty, through this Bill, to ensure that we get the protections the armed services need when deployed?
Johnny Mercer
My hon. Friend is right. The Bill seeks to attain the balance between justice for victims and for veterans. We need to restore fairness to this process, and this Government are determined to do so.
Mr Speaker
That concludes the urgent question. It might be helpful for hon. Members to be aware that I will permit the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make an important statement providing an update on coronavirus at 5 pm today. Member Hub will be open shortly for Members who wish to take part, and it will close at 1 pm.
To allow the safe exit of hon. Members who have participated in this item of business, and the safe arrival of those who wish to participate in the next debate, I will now suspend the House for a few minutes.
Speaker's Statement
Mr Speaker
Before business questions, I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record our recognition of Banqueting Floor Manager Rui Duarte for his long service in the House with his team before his retirement at the end of this month. He has served this House for 44 years, starting on 28 June 1976. He has been responsible for more than 150,000 events throughout a period of eight Prime Ministers, starting with Jim Callaghan, and went through to see seven Speakers, including George Thomas at the beginning. Along with many Members of this House, I wish Rui all the very best for his well-earned retirement.
Business of the House
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 20 July will include:
Monday 20 July—Remaining stages of the Trade Bill.
Tuesday 21 July—Remaining stages of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
Wednesday 22 July—Matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
At the conclusion of business, the House will rise for the summer recess and return on Tuesday 1 September.
The business for the week commencing 31 August will include:
Monday 31 August—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 1 September—Second Reading of the Fisheries Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 2 September—Second reading of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 3 September—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill.
Friday 4 September—The House will not be sitting.
For the convenience of the House—[Laughter.]—I can confirm that, following correspondence from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I will be tabling motions on Monday’s Order Paper to give the House the opportunity to agree an extension to the current proxy voting arrangements until 28 September.
In addition, I am aware of the understandable desire for Members from all parties to see the return of business to Westminster Hall. It may help if I update the House by saying that discussions are already taking place with the House authorities with a view to Westminster Hall debates resuming as soon as practicable. I understand from the House authorities that the aim is for business to resume from 5 October, if possible.
Mr Speaker
Now that we have flushed that through, we will go back to Valerie Vaz.
Valerie Vaz
I am going to stay away from the lavatory jokes.
I thank the Leader of the House for the business for next week and the first week of September. The first thing I am going to ask for is a list of updated ministerial responsibilities, please—perhaps we could have that next week.
In his response on Nazanin last week, the Leader of the House missed out Anousheh, and there was no mention of Luke Symons. None of them have done anything wrong. The Leader of the House said that Nazanin’s case is a top priority, but there was also no response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who made a separate but important point about Iran.
My colleagues and I are extremely concerned that the responses from Ministers to our letters are falling somewhat below what should be expected. Ministers are obliged to provide meaningful responses. It is quite an easy phrase: “Ministers’ meaningful responses”—MMR—so it would be quite good if we could give them a poke by thinking of it as an injection. Perhaps we can send copies of all the letters that we have received to the Leader of the House so that he can have a look at them. I received one from the civil servants—this is nothing to do with the civil servants—that was a generalist response and contained nothing about the case that I had raised.
The Leader of the House keeps talking about the accountability of this Government, and he ended the virtual Parliament. He wanted us to come back, he said, because it keeps Ministers accountable, so let’s have it. What about the accountability of the purchase of 27 acres near Ashford in Kent, without the knowledge of the local MP and without the people who live near this lorry park even knowing it would be based there? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House that there were no plans to build a lorry park in Dover. What he failed to go on to say was that it would be in Ashford. In his statement he mentioned technology, but there were no details of the technology, how it would work or how it would be used for border checks. Can we have an urgent statement on the delivery plans for these borders and all EU-facing ports and also a statement on the border with Ireland, which the Minister said he would make later this month? Well, the House will not be sitting, so can we have an urgent statement on the plans for a border with the island of Ireland?
The Secretary of State for International Trade needs to an updated statement, too. She has now put together a Trade and Agriculture Commission, which she announced on Sunday by press release, but not to this House. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be regular updates to the House? I know that the commission will be reporting to the Secretary of State, but hon. Members would also like to know what the Commission does.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be making a statement later. I cannot ask a question, so will the Leader of the House ask him why Walsall Council cannot use its full discretionary grant for local authorities of £7.6 million? BEIS officials have capped it at £2 million and stopped it using the balance. We are the neighbour to Birmingham and we are just a tiny place, so it is really important to keep our local economy going. The head of Blue Coat School has asked why Walsall libraries are not open, so can the Leader of the House confirm that Government guidance was that pubs and libraries could open from 4 July?
Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the education service, and all hon. Members of Parliament, for their efforts on Parliament Week, which is at the beginning of November? David Clark said that 4,192 organisations have signed up for it. Last year, more than a million people took part, and there were 11,000 activities. North East Somerset came 11th and Walsall came 17th, so we are hoping to beat you this year. Congratulations to everyone—hon. Members and the Parliament team—on raising awareness of Parliament at this important time.
I have one quick point. Depending on what happens in September and how the Procedure Committee reports on its inquiry, can the Leader of the House think about whether we could have an Aye queue and a No queue when we are voting? It would mean that we did not need to have the Whip standing in the middle. Perhaps we could have the Aye queue out of the Members’ Lobby and down those stairs, and the No queue through Central Lobby and down to St Stephen’s stairs. That would mean that the queues would be separate in Westminster Hall and we would know which queue to go to.
Mr Speaker, I join you in congratulating Rui Duarte on his 44 years of service and his retirement. Every event I have attended has always run smoothly in this House. We wish him a well-deserved retirement.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I thank you, your deputies and everyone who works in this House. They have got together to use their talents, their abilities and their skills—that includes Members and our staff. We had the first virtual Parliament in the world. I want to wish everyone well, thank them all for their work and tell them to stay safe.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right, as you are, Mr Speaker, to thank Rui Duarte for his amazing service to the House. It is illustrative of how fortunate we are as parliamentarians to have this support. There have been 150,000 functions with one man to oversee them. That is quite phenomenal. We are served so well.
As we come to the end of this Session—these are the last business questions before the end of the Session—the right hon. Lady is also right to thank the staff of this House in all sorts of areas, both seen and unseen, for the work that has been done to ensure that Parliament continued doing its job in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. This covers such a wide range of staff. It is the cleaners who have been ensuring that it was safe to come back. It is the organisation of the House that has ensured that the lines are put out so that we can sit in a covid-safe manner. It is the Doorkeepers who constantly work to ensure that everything runs smoothly and that the right number of Members are in the Chamber. I see the Clerk of the House sitting at the table—the team he leads has done a phenomenal job under his inspired leadership, so we are very lucky.
Mr Speaker, I see your own secretary standing next to you. Her work has been absolutely invaluable in making sure that everything works well and, from the Leader of the House’s Office, she is an absolute pleasure to deal with. I fear that the honourable lady is going red as I say this, but the tribute is, none the less, greatly deserved.
I wish to address the points the right hon. Lady raises on Nazanin, Anousheh, and Luke. I can reassure her that consular efforts are being made in all those cases and that support is also being given to Mr Ashoori, supporting the family. It is really important that this support is given and takes place. Consular access to British nationals in Yemen is extremely difficult, given that our embassy operations are suspended, but we continue to press the Houthis to release Luke on humanitarian grounds. The efforts are being made, and the right hon. Lady is right to raise this issue every week.
On ministerial responsibilities, the right hon. Lady knows that this list is always produced in as reasonably timely manner as can possibly be achieved, but ensuring that it is accurate and kept up to date is a complex and time-consuming process, and therefore the list will be provided in due course—in the fullness of time. She is right to raise the point about letters from Ministers; I have received complaints from across the House. Ministers are aware that it is a basic courtesy that replies come from Ministers, not from officials, and I am reminding Ministers of that. We hold the Government to account, not officials to account. That is our role, and I will remind people about that. However, on the accountability point, since we have been back accountability, the Chamber has improved enormously, with a full hour of Question Time.
The right hon. Lady complains that there was no holding to account about the buying of land in the Ashford constituency, but that is exactly what she was doing; she was raising the point and trying to hold me to account for a decision made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So proper accountability is taking place, and I am delighted that she is so assiduous in ensuring that we are held to account, as she is doing on the issue of the Irish border. The thing to remember on that issue is that there will be no obstacle to trade from Northern Ireland coming to Great Britain, that Great Britain and Northern Ireland remain in a single customs area and that the UK will not be divided by any agreements made with the European Union.
As regards the trade and agricultural commission, the Agriculture Bill is in the other place, having completed its passage here. The commission will be set up and it seems to me an extremely sensible way to proceed.
On the opening of libraries, not everything that can be opened has been opened. Some people, be they councils or businesses, have decided, for their own private reasons, not to open immediately that they have been allowed to do so. The right hon. Lady will notice that in central Westminster not every restaurant has reopened since it has been allowed to do so, and that is a decision for the individual businesses.
I am delighted to discover that we in North East Somerset won the competition against Walsall South in regards to Parliament Week, but I do not think that that is a reflection on the individual Members of Parliament for those constituencies—it was merely good luck. It is a great event and I certainly encourage participation in it this year.
Finally, on the issue of the Aye queue and No queue, I initially thought that the r hon. Lady was referring to the intelligence level of Members on her side of the House, which I think is extraordinarily high but misguided, whereas on our side of the House the level is extraordinarily high and rightly guided. However, her suggestion will be borne in mind, and I am sure that the Procedure Committee will take it up with interest.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
This Government have given unprecedented amounts of financial support to businesses and local authorities throughout the covid pandemic, but many businesses in my constituency are saying that urgent reform needs to happen on local authority parking charges, which are stopping many people coming into our town and inhibiting their shopping habits. So will my right hon. Friend commit to having a debate in Government time on this issue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. As we try to encourage people back on to our high streets, we of course want to make it as easy as possible for them to get there to support local businesses. Obviously, local authorities have the power to make decisions on parking charges and need to balance the interests of local people, but I am sure that we would agree that it would be wrong for local government to use parking charges as cash cows without considering the wider effects on local businesses. He may wish to return to this matter in the pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
Good morning, Mr Speaker. Those who observe these Thursday morning exchanges will know that I have tried, over the past few weeks, to get a debate on the fiscal framework within which the devolved Administrations are constrained. It was not designed to deal with a global pandemic and it is hindering the Scottish Government’s ability to respond. As I have made clear consistently, this is not an argument about the amount of money but about what can be done with it. The Leader of the House has consistently evaded my questions, referring instead to the sums involved. I think that I now know the reason for that evasion: it seems that, far from enhancing the competence of the Scottish Government, the Tory Cabinet is now determined to constrain it further.
This week, there has been a three-pronged attack on devolution. An announcement on state aid made it clear that Westminster will overrule Holyrood when it comes to providing support for our businesses to recover from this crisis, and it was followed by a statement on the so-called shared prosperity fund, which made it clear that the Scottish Government will have no control over whatever funding replaces EU structural funds. The biggest assault will be announced here shortly: a Government press release tells us that the UK will seek to override and set aside decisions by the Scottish Parliament if they feel those decisions affect UK trade. Were this already in force, it could have overturned decisions on free university tuition, smoking bans or minimum alcohol pricing.
This is a major attack on devolution, taking power away from Scotland, but the details are unclear, so I have three specific questions for the Leader of the House. Is it true that the Government will establish an unelected quango to override the decisions of the Scottish Parliament? Do the UK Government intend to force this on the devolved Administrations if they do not consent? Will these measures require new legislation, and if so, when will this be introduced, and what will happen if it cannot be passed before the end of the transition period? I would appreciate straight answers to these questions, perhaps this time without personal references to my appearance or demeanour.
Finally, since this may be our last business statement before recess, may I take this opportunity to wish you a good summer break, Mr Speaker? I am sorry we were unable to get you up to the Edinburgh Festival fringe this year as planned, but I hope we can do so in 2021.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As always, the hon. Gentleman brings a little ray of sunshine into the Chamber, and we are grateful for that. A light shineth in the darkness. To come to his point, there is a difference between a question not being answered and being given an answer that he does not like. That does not mean the question has not been answered.
I will therefore remind the hon. Gentleman that some £4.6 billion has gone to Scotland under Barnett consequentials from the UK taxpayer. Without the UK taxpayer, the Scottish Government would find it very hard to make ends meet. That has provided support for 146,000 self-employed people, and 628,000 people have joined the furlough scheme, so a very large number of people —more than 750,000 Scottish people—have been helped because they belong to the United Kingdom, and that is something of which we should all be proud.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the devolution settlement, and it has to be said here that the position of the Scottish Government and Scottish nationalists is bizarre. They want the powers to be with Brussels. There are no powers being taken away from the devolved authorities. What is happening is power is returning to the United Kingdom. We will have the authority to decide for ourselves these issues with regard to things that affect trade. Subsidies will be a matter for the UK Parliament rather than unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. We have the separatists in Scotland and we have their leader who wishes to build a metaphorical wall against England and who wishes to do all sorts of things that are not in the interests of the people of United Kingdom or the people of Scotland and wishes to kowtow to Brussels. We wish to make a strong United Kingdom, which has £4.6 billion to help the Scottish economy with.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Childhood obesity is increasing at an alarming rate. It leads to a range of long-term health conditions that adversely affect life chances and life expectancy, particularly in less affluent constituencies such as Stoke-on-Trent Central. The impact of health inequalities has been highlighted by the covid pandemic. Will my right hon. Friend be so kind as to agree to hold a debate in Government time on how we best tackle childhood obesity and the underlying issues such as food poverty?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The relationship between obesity and other comorbidities and covid-19 has been much discussed in recent months, and the Government are looking at it closely. The Prime Minister has expressed personal interest in tackling childhood obesity. The Government have been clear that every single one of us, no matter who we are, where we live or our social circumstances, deserves to have the chance to lead a long and healthy life.
Public Health England has emphasised that we must do more to level up health across the country and reduce health inequalities, something that the Government have already committed to in our manifesto, and we are working closely with local authorities to enable them to do that. In addition to what we are already doing, we are keen to ensure that good health is integrated into all facets of life, including housing, transport, education, welfare and the economy, because we all know that preventing ill health—mental and physical—and improving health outcomes is about more than just healthcare.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for his response to my letter, although I am afraid to say that I was a little disappointed with his attitude towards not protecting the time for the estimates day debates. The Backbench Business Committee has 30 unaired debates on our waiting list. They range across a number of subjects, including very important ones such as redundancies in, and the future of, the aviation sector; support for the self-employed and freelance workers in the aftermath of the covid virus pandemic; support for the tourism industry; mental health support for frontline workers; and, going further afield, the plight of Rohingya, the situation in, and plight of, the people of Yemen and the situation between Israel and Palestine—and many more. I note in the Leader’s response to the question about businesses that there is an intention to try to get Westminster Hall reopened, but can that not be done sooner than the beginning of October?
Given all those unaired debates, I cannot help but note that we have a general debate on restoration and renewal this afternoon. I think that the vast majority of Members on both sides of the House would say that that subject is not filling up their casework inboxes. There is also a general debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. We have an awful lot of disgruntled Back Benchers with very important debates waiting to happen. I appeal again to the Leader of the House to get us some time for Backbench Business as soon as possible after the summer recess.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman mentions protected time. It is always a difficult balance in this House to ensure that time is available, and it depends on what other Members ask for and are given, but a lot of right hon. and hon. Members value the certainty of a set end point for the day’s business. I absolutely understand his concern about the 30 important issues before the Backbench Business Committee. The pre-recess Adjournment debate will provide an opportunity for Members to raise all those points, so it is an extremely useful opportunity for issues that have not been raised so far to be brought forward. The Government have ensured that the priorities of Back Benchers have been brought forward, both before and after the Backbench Business Committee was established, with supply days being made available and with time being made available to the Petitions Committee and, indeed, for restoration and renewal, a subject that is of great interest to a number of Back Benchers. Time has been facilitated as far as possible, but it is obviously my hope that we can get back to giving the Backbench Business Committee the time that it is entitled to under Standing Orders.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
May I have a statement on the public scrutiny of planning applications? Understandably, the opportunity for public meetings has been curtailed during the covid pandemic, but I have a number of controversial large housing applications, including ones at Netherthong and Netherton. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that local residents must be heard when their communities will be hugely impacted by those kinds of huge developments.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think there is not a single Member of this House who has not had, in his or her constituency, an issue raised of a planning kind that is of great importance to local constituents. It is important that local views are made known and that facilities have been kept during the coronavirus pandemic to ensure that virtual planning committees, with local planning authorities across the country, are implementing planning decisions. However, they are also still required to consult on and publicise planning applications to get the views of local communities. I think that is the right way to proceed.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I want to support the comments of the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), on the lack of accountability. Throughout this crisis I have received a very high level of casework, with many issues raised by constituents about the lack of financial support for them from Government schemes, but, having written to Ministers, I have often received template replies from correspondence officers rather than from the Ministers themselves. Those replies merely restate details of existing schemes, rather than dealing with my constituents’ concerns. The Leader of the House talks of courtesy, but can he tell me what he will do to ensure that I get full responses from Ministers when I raise constituents’ issues? Anything less than that is a betrayal of the democratic role we play.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is right. Responses from correspondents in Departments is not the correct way to treat Members of Parliament. If I may make a brief defence of Departments that did that at the height of the pandemic, I think they were almost overwhelmed with correspondence at that time and I had a certain sympathy with them at that time. However, I think that time has passed and that we have a right to expect proper answers. What have I done? Well, as of yesterday I wrote to one Minister. I raised, jointly with the Leader of the House of Lords, the issue of responses to written questions with Ministers some weeks ago. I will take up, and have taken up, individual cases of poor answers for individual Members of Parliament. If the hon. Lady would like me to take up any cases on her behalf, I will happily do that. It is essential and a key part of holding the Government to account that correspondence is responded to in a timely way by a Minister.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I associate myself, Mr Speaker, with your kind words to Rui, and to the House staff for all they have done over the past few months?
In September, children in this country will be returning to their schools. Around the world it is estimated that over 1 billion children have not been in school during the covid-19 crisis. The Malala Fund this week estimates that in September there will be some 10 million children, mainly girls, who will never return to school. May we have a debate in Government time in September to mark that milestone and to talk about the Government’s own pledge for 12 years of quality education for every child in the world?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. Standing up for the right of 12 years of quality education for all girls is the top development priority for this Government. The UK is a world leader in supporting girls’ education around the world. Between 2015 and 2019, the Department for International Development supported 14.3 million children to gain a decent education, of whom at least 5.8 million were girls. There will be an opportunity to debate these issues in the pre-recess Adjournment debate, but the figure my hon. Friend brings forward of 1 billion children losing out on education is one that should concern us all. It will be important to try to make up what has been lost in future months and years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There has been a significant increase in the number of individuals in Vietnam imprisoned for non-violent expression of their beliefs, with as many as 251 prisoners of conscience being held in 2019 alone, according to a new report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Many of them are Christians who have also seen a worrying increase in persecution. For example, the family of imprisoned pastor Nguyen Trung Ton was recently subject to violence and detention by Vietnamese authorities. Will the Leader of the House—he is always very helpful—agree to a statement or a debate on these ongoing developments?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is an absolute champion of freedom of conscience and has brought before this House on a number of occasions scandals from across the world where people have not been allowed to express their views and their beliefs or have been punished for doing so. This is a matter of concern to the Government, and the Foreign Office continues to take it up. I will bring the Foreign Office’s attention to the 251 prisoners of conscience held in Vietnam to whom he refers.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Alcohol addiction can not only destroy lives but end lives. Five years ago, I lost my older brother Mark to alcohol addiction. Trying to find services and help for him at the time was extremely difficult and, indeed, a postcode lottery. Will my right hon. Friend allow for a debate in Government time to discuss drug and alcohol rehabilitation and addiction, and the need for a Government strategy on alcohol to help ensure that no one else needlessly loses a loved one?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a very difficult issue. It is true to say that overall alcohol consumption has fallen over the past 13 to 14 years, but the harms associated with alcohol remain too high, and every death caused by alcohol misuse is a tragedy—and a terrible family tragedy, particularly. The Government are committed to tackling health harms from alcohol and supporting the most vulnerable to risk from alcohol misuse. We do aim to publish a new UK-wide cross-Government addiction strategy that will include alcohol. We have the best health service in the world, and we need to marshal those resources to help people suffering from addiction, particularly addiction to alcohol.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders described the Government’s target to ban the sale of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2035 as a “date without a plan”. With only 147 battery electric vehicles licensed to addresses in my constituency, we need to work faster and do more to support zero-emissions vehicles, so can the Leader of the House ensure a debate in Government time about how the required market transformation for these vehicles can take place?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Huge advances are being made in the ability to provide zero-emissions cars, and market forces are coming to work. The Government have been enormously supportive of those and have set an ambitious date for the removal of petrol and diesel cars. That has been a very sensible approach, and we are seeing companies across the world developing cars that are able to operate with zero emissions.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Under current Government and parliamentary procurement rules, purchases of less than £10,000 do not require an open tendering process. This freezes out many local ceramic companies in Stoke-on-Trent, such as Steelite and Churchill China, from the possibility of supplying high-quality, English-made tableware in Government Departments or at Chequers, the countryside residence of the Prime Minister. Could my right hon. Friend advise me on how best to ensure that Stoke-on-Trent’s ceramic companies get a fair crack of the whip in supplying Government with their world-beating products?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is very important that companies such as Churchill China and Steelite have the opportunity to supply the Government and to make a success of their businesses. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his question. He is a wonderful campaigner for the businesses of Stoke-on-Trent. Supporting high-quality small businesses through the procurement system is something that many Members want to see realised. As we return powers from the European Union, the Government are interested in looking at how public procurement works and how it can be improved. As regards purchases for Chequers, I think that is a matter for a private trust. However, I am sure that with his indefatigable charms, he will make sure that the trust that runs Chequers knows where china can come from.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The House rises next Wednesday, but just two weeks later, on 5 August, it will be one year since the Indian Government revoked article 370 of the constitution and the people of Jammu and Kashmir were locked down. Human rights were attacked, and subsequent violence has resulted in many deaths. The Backbench Business Committee had listed a debate on human rights abuses in Kashmir on 23 March, and then on 26 April, but, as the Leader of the House is aware, debates were cancelled due to covid-19. The situation in Jammu and Kashmir is of urgent importance to many of my constituents in Luton South and those of other Members. Will he ensure that time is found early in September for a debate on human rights abuses in the region?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to ask for a debate on this issue, and I note what she says about the Backbench Business Committee’s willingness to give her one. It will of course be possible to raise this at the pre-recess Adjournment debate, when a Minister will be answering, and I would encourage her to do that. We expect Westminster Hall to reopen from 5 October, so that will provide the opportunity for more debates. I hope that it will be possible to facilitate Backbench Business Committee debates once we are back after the recess.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
May I join the call of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), in appealing to the Leader of the House to grant more time for Back-Bench business debates? The first debate the hon. Gentleman mentioned, on aviation and redundancies, is in my name and has been signed by more than 150 MPs from across this place. I think we all see in our inbox a real desire from employees for MPs to stand up and give them their voice, and I would like to do so but cannot because that time has not been granted. May I please appeal to the Leader of the House, who always stood up for Back Benchers when he was sitting very close to where I am standing now, to give us more time to debate these important matters?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hear some heckling that suggests I was sometimes accused of reclining when I was sitting in that corner, but my backbone has now been stiffened by joining the Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) phrases himself brilliantly, because he says it has been impossible to raise these issues in the House, and then raises them in the House with great panache. He is absolutely right to do so; we have all had correspondence from constituents on aviation redundancies. These companies are vital to the economy and they are being supported in a number of ways by the Government with the time to pay scheme. The demand for debates will be met when we are fully back to normal, and we get back to normal step by step.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Conservative manifesto at the last election promised a fan-led review of governance of football. As we emerge from covid, many clubs are going to fall into financial difficulties. My local club in the royal borough of Greenwich, Charlton Athletic football club, is currently in that situation. Some dubious characters have got involved with the club, separating off the ownership of the ground and the training ground, which is in my constituency, and undermining the future of the club. We need the Government to make an urgent statement about reviewing the governance of football to stop these bad actors getting into the game, and we need them to do that before the recess, because the season is going to end and many clubs are going to find themselves in difficulties, so we need that urgent statement.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman paid such close attention to the Conservative party manifesto; I hope it influenced his vote in the right direction. He is obviously right to raise the point, as other hon. Members across the House have, about the difficulties football teams face in the current environment. I refer him once again to the pre-recess debate, which is an opportunity to air this issue.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing the recommencing of Westminster Hall debates, but, like the Chairs of the Backbench Business and Transport Committees, I would be grateful for reconsideration and for those debates to start in September. As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on blood cancer, I have been unsuccessful in securing Adjournment debates, and therefore would put in a request for such a debate at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important point and he is right to ask for those debates. As I say, we cannot manage it before 5 October. The House authorities have been very pressed with all the commitments that they have to ensure that Select Committees are running, that Bill Committees are running and that the Chamber is running within the constraints of people’s still being asked to work from home, the pressures on the broadcasting team and so on, but it is important that this comes back so that hon. Members can raise issues such as the one he mentioned on blood cancer.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Is it not time that we had a debate on the appalling performance of the Health and Safety Executive? Cranswick Foods in Wombwell has had numerous cases of covid-19 and three deaths, yet it took the Health and Safety Executive three months to visit the factory and I am yet to receive a response to my letter. It clearly has no interest in health and no interest in safety, so will this Executive abolish the HSE and finally put workers first?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We had questions earlier on Ministers not responding to letters. I think for public bodies to fail to respond to letters is an even greater discourtesy, because they are funded out of Parliament and they are ultimately responsible to Members of Parliament. Therefore, if the hon. Lady would like me to take this up with her and with the HSE to ensure that she gets a response, I would be more than happy to do so.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the illegal harvesting of shellfish? He will recall only too well that 21 undocumented migrants tragically lost their lives in Morecambe bay—a place where I did a charity walk, and which is very dangerous—and last year 39 people lost their lives being trafficked into Essex. Activity is going on illegally off the coast of Southend. I want to avoid another tragedy happening.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important and tragic issue. The Morecambe bay tragedy shone a light on the appalling practices in the employment of many trafficked people in this country, and is one of those disasters that will not be forgotten by anybody who was reading newspapers at that time or who heard of the terrible events that occurred there. Governments of both parties, from that time onwards, have made great progress in tackling these abuses, but I am aware there is more to be done. If my hon. Friend knows of specific instances, I would urge him to report them to the police. The legislation to tackle modern slavery is there to try to eliminate these abuses not just in terms of shellfish, but following the recent revelations from Leicester.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
The first line of a new report warning of up to 120,000 additional coronavirus deaths this winter states:
“July and August must be a period of intense preparation”
to prevent such a scenario. Will the Government schedule an urgent debate so that the public can know if the Government are undertaking such intense preparation, and to show they have learned the lessons from their handling of this so far, which has led to one of the highest death tolls in the world?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman may want to go on to MemberHub in a moment, because he could apply to put in a question to the Health Minister who will be making a statement at 5 o’clock.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend knows how good Sedgemoor District Council is, but I do not know if my right hon. Friend is aware that it has just approved the imaginative plans for the Gravity site, on the M5, of 600 acres, which even Elon Musk, I believe, has been down to see. This will create 4,000 jobs. May we please have a debate in Government time on the importance of enterprise sites, of which this is one, and their role in creating opportunities for all of the United Kingdom, but especially where district councils should be praised for the imaginative work of making sure they create jobs in their areas?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is wonderful to see somebody from God’s own county. The more we hear from Somerset and about Somerset, the better, and I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Sedgemoor District Council. It is actually a rare treat to have Members come in and praise their local council; normally, it is a litany of woes where local councils are concerned. However, 4,000 jobs is a great achievement, and enterprise sites are a very good way of encouraging business. I am very grateful to him for highlighting the success of Somerset, which goes from strength to strength.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House for an update on the integrated review? In welcoming the decision to remove Huawei from our critical national infrastructure, we must brace ourselves for both covert and overt repercussions. We are now recognising that China has not matured into the global citizen that we want it to be; indeed, it is pursuing a very different and competing geopolitical agenda. We do need a full foreign policy reset on China, and the vehicle for that is the integrated review.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that he is having a deep dive into foreign policy in relation to China. The behaviour of the Chinese Government with regard to the joint declaration and their failure to follow that is a matter of great concern, because it is fundamentally a matter of trust. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, as a distinguished chairman of a Select Committee, will ensure that these issues are properly scrutinised and followed.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
May I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) and for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for acting as my proxy after I was lucky enough to become a mum in February?
During this pandemic, the world of work has changed for many people. This place should seize this moment as an opportunity to modernise Parliament further and to set an example to other employers. Will the Leader of the House commit to gathering feedback from MPs who have benefited from proxy votes for new parents and, now, from the hybrid Parliament, so that he can make this House more accessible to people from a wider range of backgrounds and circumstances, including those without a family nanny?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I congratulate the hon. Lady on the birth of her child in February? There is no greater joy than a new life coming into the world. As regards how this House operates, the Procedure Committee is looking at the issue of proxy voting for maternity and paternity leave, which seems to be a scheme that has worked well. I know that the hon. Lady gave evidence to the Procedure Committee recently on that subject. Ultimately, though, Parliament must be a coming together of Members from across the country physically, and as soon as it is safe to have it entirely physical once again, that is what we must get back to.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I make a controversial statement—that we live in a parliamentary democracy? As regards wearing face masks, I do not think that there will be time, because the order has not been laid, to have a debate. Surely the Leader of the House—indeed, the Government—in a matter as controversial as the enforced wearing of face masks from an increasingly authoritarian Executive, know that there should be a debate here and a vote. After all, this is highly controversial and everybody in the country has a view. Up to 70 million people will be affected by it. Lincolnshire has an infection rate of 150 in 150,000, so we have natural social distancing anyway. Why can we not just have more democracy and less authoritarianism from this Government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I understand it—although I will be corrected if this is not right—it is a made affirmative statutory instrument that will have to come to the House in due course, in accordance with the normal procedures. But my right hon. Friend is absolutely right; we are a parliamentary democracy, so decisions made by the Government have to be supported by this House. It is worth bearing in mind that the House passed the emergency legislation which provided the powers for these things to happen.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Further to the comments of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, may I say to the Leader of the House that it is deeply regrettable that we will, even for the first week back, not have had an opportunity in this Chamber to discuss the proposals by Israel to annex the Occupied Palestinian Territories? It is a matter on which this House should express a view, as we have historic obligations in the region. I gently say to him that perhaps it might have taken precedence, in terms of the time available in the Chamber, over the rating arrangements for public lavatories, which could be dealt with in Committee—for everyone’s convenience?
Mr Rees-Mogg
On the issue of Israel, the Government remain committed to a two-state solution. Any moves towards annexation would be damaging to efforts to restart peace negotiations and contrary to international law. We have conveyed our opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu on multiple occasions, and reiterated this message in a statement to the UN Security Council on 24 June.
The remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill—without making any more puns on that issue—have to be taken on the Floor of the House. Report stage and Third Reading need to be completed as well as Committee stage, although I do not imagine that proceedings in Committee will take up a great deal of time.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
Yesterday the Intelligence and Security Committee elected my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) as its Chair. He is exceptionally well qualified and will do an excellent job. However, some in No. 10 seem to be having a huge hissy fit about the decision. Will the Leader of the House confirm that he will not bring forward a motion to remove my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East from the ISC?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was playing ducks and drakes with the Labour party, and that is why the Whip has been withdrawn.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
It is with deep sadness that my work over the last few weeks has exposed the significant risks of covid-19 to those in care homes in York: no PPE; no family visits; no GP visits; no Care Quality Commission inspections; agency staff not knowing residents; and poor oversight by the local authority. This has exposed and exacerbated the risk to the most vulnerable members of our community, increasing infection and mortality. This is very serious. Can we have a debate in Government time before the recess about social care during the pandemic, including a review of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and, most urgently, the way in which deaths are reported and recorded?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There will obviously be an opportunity for the hon. Lady to raise this matter at the Adjournment debate pre-recess, but with regard to care homes it is worth reiterating that every death from this virus is a tragedy. Care homes have worked incredibly hard under very difficult circumstances. The Government have set out their comprehensive plan to support adult social care in England throughout the coronavirus outbreak. They have provided £3.7 billion to local authorities in un-ring-fenced form, plus £600 million for infection control. They have overhauled how PPE is delivered to care homes. Considerable efforts have been made under difficult circumstances to help the people running care homes, who have done incredibly well under the most trying circumstances.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) [V]
The Cumberlege review said that the Primodos drug should have been taken off the market in 1967, that the harm caused to the victim was “avoidable” and that a discretionary financial scheme should be set up for all three affected groups to help them cope with life, so imagine my disappointment when the Minister, whenever she was asked about Primodos last week, quoted legal privilege. The Government can set up a discretionary scheme, with a clear caveat that that does not constitute an admission of liability. Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to come back to the House to make a statement as to why she has taken that view and why a discretionary scheme cannot be set up? The Leader of the House knows I am not giving up on this.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady gives me the opportunity to congratulate her personally, or as personally as one can in this virtual setting, on the work she did in regard to Primodos and the Cumberlege review, and the comfort she has brought to thousands of families across the country, who knew that something had gone wrong and now have a report that accepts that what they were saying was true and that it should have been known by the powers that be. The work she has done is admirable and a model of how an MP should hold Parliament to account. She knows my sympathy with her, because I served on her all-party parliamentary group. I will therefore more than happily take the matter up directly with the Minister and try to get her a fuller response.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Leader of the House did not answer the question from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who asked whether it was his intention to bring forward a motion to remove the newly elected Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee from that Committee. What is the answer?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I announced the business forthcoming at the beginning of the statement.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be only too aware of the recent Turkish ruling that Hagia Sophia, that Byzantine masterpiece inscribed on the UNESCO world heritage list, should be turned into a mosque. This architectural wonder was built by Justinian the Great, then turned into a mosque and finally dedicated as a secular museum by the great reformer Atatürk. It now risks having its beautiful murals, mosaics and frescoes damaged or destroyed. That would be a loss to the whole world and, furthermore, would exacerbate community tensions. Will my right hon. Friend hold a debate in Government time on Turkey’s actions, UNESCO’s response and the protection of this important world heritage site?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We have noted President Erdoğan’s decision to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque, and while that has caused concern internationally—I particularly note the comments of the Holy Father—the Government regard this as a sovereign matter for Turkey. However, we would expect that Hagia Sophia, as part of a UNESCO world heritage site, remains accessible to all, as testament to Turkey’s rich and diverse historical and cultural legacy, and that its precious artefacts are preserved. We therefore welcome the public statements by Turkish leaders that this historic building will continue to be accessible to people of all faiths and nationalities, which is consistent with the Turkish constitution’s provision for freedom of conscience and religion for all.
It is for states party to the world heritage convention to ensure that their designated world heritage sites comply with the terms of the convention. We work closely with UNESCO, its advisory body and partner Governments to promote the highest standards of heritage protection. That will ensure that designated sites are protected effectively for the whole of humanity and for future generations.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) [V]
“Business needs certainty” appears to be the Government’s default response when they have nothing of substance or clarity to offer. Despite the Paymaster General’s recent assurances that answers would be made available soon, businesses in my constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and elsewhere still lack any certainty on tariffs, regulations, customs processes, cross-border arrangements or the recognition of professional qualifications such as the validity of pilots’ licences from next January. This matter was brought sharply into focus by the International Trade Secretary’s assessment that current plans could lead to smuggling—
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government are still in negotiations with the European Union about how things will work out after 1 January, but businesses should naturally prepare themselves for a variety of eventualities.
Mr Speaker
I want to get through the list. If we speed up, we will get through it.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Our key workers have kept the nation going throughout lockdown and I want to see local and national celebration of that. In Harrogate, a local electrical firm and a private donor have paid for a set of rainbow-coloured lights on the side of the Stray parkland to be a permanent tribute. May we have a debate on how we can celebrate key workers, both locally and nationally?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by commending the local electrical firm for doing that? I wholeheartedly agree that we should pay tribute to all those people who helped keep the country running throughout the peak of the crisis, from doctors and nurses to police officers, bus drivers, cleaners, caterers and, of course, supermarket workers. Those people, along with millions of others, deserve our respect and heartfelt thanks.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
British Airways has treated its workers disgracefully, threatening to fire all 42,000 and rehire around two thirds on terms and pay that will set people back decades. It is frustrating that the Prime Minister has not yet made clear what consequences BA will face, including for its favourable landing slot allocation. Will the Leader of the House therefore invite the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House before the recess on exactly what action the Government will take to halt BA’s shocking behaviour?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That ties in with the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) about a debate on the aviation industry more generally. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raises the matter in the pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Our pilots and cabin crew have been through a difficult number of months, but many have focused their efforts on helping others, including Moray-based Captain Emma Henderson, the co-founder of Project Wingman. That sees thousands of cabin crew, in hospitals across the UK, including in Dr Gray’s Hospital in Moray, helping our dedicated NHS staff by giving them a first-class experience. May we have a debate in Parliament to congratulate Emma Henderson, Dave Fielding and everyone involved with Project Wingman?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend has managed to convey congratulations. He is right to do so. I hope he will give the people he mentioned a framed copy of Hansard showing how much the House of Commons appreciates the work that they have done.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Government sat on the Dame Mary Ney review into funding oversight of our further education colleges for nine months. The written statement that the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills provided could have been written in nine minutes. May we have a proper debate and statement on the findings of that review, which exposes how the job cuts throughout the civil service in the Education and Skills Funding Agency have prevented the Government from having proper oversight of our further education sector?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Chancellor made announcements with regard to the additional funding that will be made available to further education. The Government have shown their absolute commitment to ensuring that further education is as good as it can possibly be and to improving standards. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said to others, that there will be an opportunity to raise such matters specifically in the pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
May we have a statement from a Minister in the Department for Transport on the operation of local transport schemes? Harrow Council intends to close several roads, which will severely inconvenience the residents who live in those areas and force them to travel on congested roads, and then blames the Government for making it happen. If we can clarify the matter through a statement, everyone will be clear about whose responsibility this is.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a crucial question. Local authorities have changed their traffic rules, and some may have worked, but others have caused real irritation, annoyance and increased congestion. The Department for Transport published statutory guidance to local authorities, providing advice on the changes the Government expect them to make to their road lay-outs to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians, but it is important that motorists’ interests are not ignored.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We said that others would follow if action was not taken following the British Airways fire and rehire announcement, and so it has proven, with Centrica, easyJet and Menzies Aviation all engaging in that disgraceful behaviour. My Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill has been delayed, so will the Leader of the House help to facilitate a meeting between me and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy so we can work together to improve employment and employment law and protect workers?
Mr Rees-Mogg
One of my roles is always to try to facilitate meetings between Members of this House and Ministers. If the hon. Gentleman has not already, I urge him to start the process by correspondence, but if that does not achieve the result he requires, then if he comes to my office, I will do what I can.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
My constituents are starting to get a little impatient that some key public services are not reopening and there is no set date for them to do so—for example, for interviews for new passports. Could the Leader of the House find time for a statement before the recess so we can have a road map of when everything will reopen, as long as the virus stays under control?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Things are reopening in a staged way to try to ensure that it can be done in a way that does not take any unnecessary risks. We see that across the country. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is more to be done, but I am sure that announcements will be made in the normal way as more things open up.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Leader of the House. The House is suspended.
UK Internal Market: White Paper
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
For centuries, the United Kingdom’s internal market has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity, with people, products, ideas and investment moving seamlessly between our nations, safeguarding livelihoods and businesses and demonstrating that, as a union, our country is greater than the sum of its parts.
Today, I am publishing a White Paper on the Government’s plans to preserve the UK internal market after the transition period. Since the Acts of Union, the UK internal market has been the source of unhindered and open trade across the country, one which pulls us together as a united country. I know that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) cares as much about our precious union as I do.
Since 1973, EU law has acted as the cohering force for the UK internal market. In 2016, the British people voted to repeal this legislation, allowing us now to articulate the continued functioning of the internal market. The Union’s economic strength is unrivalled. Since the Acts of Union, the size of our economy has multiplied over 170-fold. Successive UK Governments have legislated to share this prosperity and protect workers’ rights—for example, through the introduction of the national minimum wage and now the national living wage, and by providing for more generous holiday and maternity leave than required by the EU. Today we are announcing plans to continue this hugely successful economic Union. We will legislate for an internal market in UK law, as we leave the transition period and the EU’s single market. Our approach will give businesses the regulatory clarity and certainty they want. It will ensure that the cost of doing business in the UK stays as low as possible.
But let me be clear: preserving the coherence of the UK internal market will be done in a manner that respects and upholds the devolution settlements. On 1 January 2021, hundreds of powers previously held by the EU will rightly flow directly back to devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. For the first time, because of our approach, the devolved Administrations will be able to legislate on a whole range of policy areas. Each nation that makes up our United Kingdom will hold an unprecedented level of powers after the transition period.
To respect devolution and uphold our internal market, we propose to legislate this year. Businesses across the UK will be given a market access commitment. That will be underpinned by the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, which will guarantee that goods and services from one part of the United Kingdom can always be sold into another. The simple principle at the heart of this approach is a continuation of our centuries-old position that there should be no economic barriers to trading within the United Kingdom.
The economies of our four nations, within one United Kingdom, are strongly integrated. At the time of the last census, 170,000 workers commuted daily from one part of the UK to another. Scotland makes over £50 billion of sales per year to the rest of the UK, accounting for over 60% of all exports. Indeed, Scotland sells three times as much to the rest of the UK than to the whole EU put together. About 50% of Northern Ireland’s sales are to Great Britain, and 75% of exports of Welsh final goods and services are consumed in other parts of the UK. In some parts of Wales, over a quarter of workers commute across the border. It is in the clear economic interest of the whole United Kingdom that its internal market continues to function successfully and seamlessly, as it has done for centuries.
As part of our proposals, we will also clarify in law the position that subsidy control is a reserved matter for the whole United Kingdom. This has never been a devolved matter. The Government have been clear that, after the end of the transition period, the UK will have its own domestic subsidy control regime. We will develop our policy proposals on this in due course, consulting widely.
We will only recover from covid by working together. Just over two weeks ago, the Prime Minister set out how we would strengthen the incredible partnership between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through our economic recovery. That will be underpinned by a strong UK internal market and avoid the damaging uncertainty for businesses of a fractured economy. It will provide the unquestionable advantages of continued open trade. It will benefit businesses, workers and consumers across the country through lowering trading costs and allowing different regions to specialise in sectors where they enjoy a comparative advantage.
Our proposals are designed for co-operation between all four nations. We invite all devolved Administrations to work together and to agree common approaches to cross-cutting issues such as regulatory standards.
The UK economy has some of the highest standards in the world. We go beyond EU rules in many areas, including health and safety in the workplace, workers’ rights, food, health and animal welfare, consumer protections, household goods, net zero and the environment. We will maintain our commitment to high standards, as we negotiate trade agreements that will provide jobs and growth to the United Kingdom. Through our common frameworks approach, we will support regulatory consistency across our internal market, so if the devolved Administrations seek to agree standards across the UK economy, I say simply this: come and work with us.
The UK internal market is a historic achievement for the United Kingdom, which for 300 years has supported unrivalled economic growth and innovation within our great Union. That has underpinned the best of our United Kingdom’s innovation and prosperity: the Scottish enlightenment, the steam engine, the world’s first vaccine, the telephone, the electric tramway, penicillin, radar, pneumatic tyres, the breaking of the Enigma code, the sequencing of DNA, and the world wide web. As we rebuild and recover from covid, we will work together as one United Kingdom to support jobs and livelihoods across our whole country. We will maintain high standards for consumers, and deliver our commitment to devolution by giving more power to the devolved legislatures. I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We support the principle of maintaining the UK’s internal market, which is vital for trade, jobs, and prosperity across the whole United Kingdom. The way the Government go about that has profound implications for whether we drive up standards across the UK, or drive them down, and for whether that issue becomes a source of tension across the four nations of the UK. We believe in our United Kingdom, and there is a big responsibility on the Government to seek to build consensus, and ensure that we do not drive a wedge between our nations or give an excuse to those who wish to do so.
By those standards, there are significant problems in the announcement. On the process, for example, the Welsh Government were promised a draft of this White Paper last March, yet when I talked to the Welsh First Minister yesterday afternoon, the Government had still not shared it with him. That approach does the Secretary of State and the Government no good. On the substance, we should be honest that there is a real challenge regarding how we maintain an internal market without barriers in the UK as we leave the European Union, while at the same time respecting devolution when issues such as food standards and labelling, animal welfare, and other important environmental issues are devolved.
For the past 40 years, including 20 years of devolution, that has been achieved by the EU setting minimum standards, which all four nations had to abide by. The crucial question is not whether we have an internal market, which we need, but how we now set minimum standards to ensure that each nation has a proper voice in doing so, and a means of resolving any disputes that arise. By answering those questions, we can do what we need to do, which is both keep the internal market and respect devolution. Unfortunately, despite the warm words from the Secretary of State, the approach of the White Paper as presented for England, Scotland and Wales appears to be simply to legislate that the lowest standard chosen by one Parliament must become the minimum standard for all.
The risk is that one legislature would be able to lower its food safety standards and animal welfare standards, and force the other nations, which would have no recourse, to accept goods and services produced on that basis— in other words, a race to the bottom. The Secretary of State talks about levelling up, but there is a real risk of levelling down. That is not in the interests of consumers, workers or businesses, and it does not adequately respect devolution. For Northern Ireland, if standards in the UK diverge significantly below those of the EU, there is a real risk that checks on food and other products going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would increase in parallel.
The Secretary of State must, in the course of this consultation, provide better answers for how we avoid that race to the bottom, so let me ask him four specific questions. First, will he explain what is the mechanism, if any, by which the four nations of the UK will agree minimum standards that respect the voice of each nation? He mentions the common frameworks process and an ongoing process of dialogue, but he must realise that that is superseded by the White Paper, which simply states that the lowest standard among the nations wins. If the framework process is to prevent that danger, how will it be incorporated into legislation?
Secondly, there needs to be a means of resolving disputes that can command confidence. The White Paper states:
“The Government will consider tasking an independent, advisory body to report to the UK Parliament”.
That is far too weak. Surely the Secretary of State must recognise that any independent body, if it is to respect devolution, must be accountable to all four nations, with its functions agreed by all four nations.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State must understand that the anxiety caused by the White Paper is partly due to the gap between the Government’s warm words about raising standards—we heard them again today—and their deeds. They had a chance in the Agriculture Bill to agree that no trade deal would be signed that lowered animal welfare, environmental protection or food safety standards, through an amendment tabled by their own side, but they refused to do so. The spectre of a Trump trade deal that would drive down standards and be imposed on the whole of the UK hangs over this White Paper. For years they have denied that their real agenda is a bonfire of much-needed standards. Great, but if they do not plan to lower standards, why cannot the Secretary of State agree to legally binding commitments?
Fourthly, the state aid rules need to be in place in just five months’ time, but even after this White Paper we still do not know any details about how they will work. Will the Secretary of State tell us when we will get the Government’s plans?
I want to end by saying to the right hon. Gentleman that we absolutely need to maintain the internal market from 1 January, but it is time the Government showed—in deeds, not just in words—their commitment to levelling up, not levelling down. It is time, too, that they showed a desire to build constitutional consensus, rather than risking constitutional conflict, and the White Paper is not a good start. The Secretary of State and the Government must do better in the weeks and months ahead.
Alok Sharma
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his support for the principle of the UK internal market. I hope that that is something we will hear echoed across the House as we open up to questions. Let me address some of the points that he has raised. The first thing worth noting is that he talked about anxiety. The real issue at the moment is giving certainty to businesses, so that they know from day one that they are able to operate as they do now within a coherent, seamless internal market. That is what this White Paper proposal absolutely gives them. I have spoken, as I am sure he will have done, to business representatives and organisations over the last 24 hours, and they have told me that this is one big issue off the risk register of companies.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about standards. I would point out to him once again that the UK has some of the highest standards in the world across a whole range of areas. I have listed issues around maternity and paternity pay, around the exclusions and around zero-hour contracts. I say to him once again—I am sure that this issue will be raised by others as well—that we are not going to be compromising our high environmental standards, our high animal welfare standards or, indeed, our high food safety standards in the deals that we do.
The right hon. Gentleman then raised the issue about working together. He will know that the common frameworks programme has been running for some time, and we have had consultations and discussions around that. If colleagues in the devolved Administrations want to have a discussion about standards, that is absolutely the right forum in which to do it. He also mentioned the state aid rules. I know that he will understand the reason that we want to continue to have this as a reserved matter. We want to ensure that there is effectively equality across the whole of the UK and that there are no distortions. I understand his desire for us to set out the details on this, and that will come.
In conclusion, the White Paper gives certainty to businesses. It is about protecting jobs and livelihoods, and about supporting businesses in making their investment decisions. That is good for consumers as well. It is about underpinning our recovery from covid as we seek to work together. I say to all colleagues that this is about businesses and people, not about politicians, and I hope that that is the spirit in which we will conduct the rest of this debate.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Nothing is currently more important for our whole United Kingdom than the protection of public health and the support of our economic recovery. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposals in the White Paper will ensure that all four nations—indeed, all four corners—of our United Kingdom can overcome this crisis by working together and promoting good co-operation between Westminster and the devolved Administrations?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is precisely what I want to do. This is a consultation; we are consulting and we want to get people’s views. My door is very much open to having a dialogue and discussion with anyone who wants to come forward.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
What we have seen put forward by the Tory Government is the biggest assault on devolution since the Scottish Parliament reconvened in 1999. It is clear that the Government either do not get Scotland or cannot even be bothered to get it, so let me remind those on the Government Benches that in 1997 more than 75% of Scots voted to establish the Scottish Parliament. The Tories at the time were hostile to the establishment of that Scottish Parliament; they were out of step with Scotland. Plus ça change. Today, the Tories want to strip our Scottish Parliament of its powers.
Let us myth-bust some of the lies that have been circulated this morning. Scotland is not getting 70 new powers. The UK Government say that new powers are coming on animal welfare, energy efficiency and land use; has the Secretary of State not heard? The Scottish Parliament already has those powers: just last month the Scottish Parliament passed a Bill on animal welfare; last year, the Scottish Parliament passed a Bill on forestry; and energy efficiency was part of the Climate Change (Scotland Bill) in 2009, more than a decade ago. We have these powers.
The Secretary of State’s proposal will impose what is being called a mutual recognition regime. The only recognition here is that it is a plan for a race to the bottom on standards. It will mean a reduction in standards in one part of the UK driving down standards elsewhere, even if that is in direct contradiction of the devolved Administrations and their rights and powers.
We all know how desperate this Tory Government are to sell out food standards in return for a US trade deal. There we have it: no new powers and a plan to destroy Scotland’s world-class food and drink standards—not a Parliament in Edinburgh of equals, but one where we legislate only with the approval of Westminster. I have to say to the Secretary of State: this is not a good look. Will he guarantee to the House that these plans will not be imposed on Scotland and that he and his Government will respect, as the Prime Minister often says, the Scottish Parliament’s decisions on them as an equal?
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman talks about understanding Scotland; the one thing that is clear from the statements he has just made is that he certainly does not understand business in Scotland and he certainly does not understand the people of Scotland on this issue. The UK internal market—[Interruption.] The UK internal market is about—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Mr Blackford, I can hear what you are shouting. Please, desist.
Alok Sharma
The UK internal market is about preserving jobs across the United Kingdom. It is about making sure that investment can come in, confident in the knowledge that we have a level playing field—an internal market in which businesses can sell services and products across the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the powers that will be coming back at the end of this year—at the end of the transition period. It will be the biggest transfer of powers in the history of devolution. I do, though, agree with him that it is not going to be 70 powers coming back to Scotland; I think it is closer to 111. His colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will have an opportunity to set rules and regulations. The problem, of course, is that SNP Members are not interested in that—they are not interested in taking control; they are interested in being ruled by the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman should spend more time talking to businesses and to people whose jobs would be at risk if we did not have this seamless internal market in the United Kingdom.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about standards. I have already explained to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) that we have some of the highest standards in the world, and we are not going to compromise on that. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) talks about wanting to have a dialogue. I respectfully remind him that it was the Scottish Government who walked away from the discussion that we were having on the UK internal market last year, so, in the spirit of co-operation, I hold out my hand to him and say, “Let us talk. Let us continue the discussion. Come back to us on the consultation and continue to work with us on the common frameworks programme.”
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure me that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will also see more powers coming back to them as a result of these proposals when the transition period ends?
Alok Sharma
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: powers will flow back to all the devolved Administrations—around 70 to Wales and around 150 to Northern Ireland.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
This talk of powers being returned disguises the fact that the Government are denying us all here a much more important power—that of scrutinising the trade deals that are struck in our name. The British people used to have this power through their elected representatives in Brussels, but the Trade Bill comes back to the House on Monday and there is no provision in it for this Parliament to have scrutiny of the trade deals that are being struck in our name. Will the Secretary of State accept that trade flows throughout the United Kingdom can best be secured by instituting a robust and respected dispute resolution process, and will he confirm that implementing such a mechanism will be a priority as he progresses his plans?
Alok Sharma
I say respectfully to the hon. Lady that she needs to move on. The British people decided that we were leaving the European Union in 2016 and we are implementing that vote.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Scotland sells more to the rest of the UK than it does to the entire rest of the world put together. Does my right hon. Friend agree that preserving the UK’s internal market is vital to protecting jobs, businesses and livelihoods in all four nations of the UK?
Alok Sharma
I could not agree more. Modelling shows that Scotland would suffer a GDP loss of four times higher than the UK as a whole from unmitigated differences in regulations.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
When the UK Government seek to strike trade deals with the rest of the world, they need to be able to speak with one voice for the whole United Kingdom, so will the Secretary of State commit in the Bill that he brings forward to making sure that arrangements are in place for proper consultation with all the devolved Administrations and proper scrutiny by this Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people?
Alok Sharma
I have just said that the White Paper is indeed a consultation and he, along with everyone else in our country, is able to set out his views.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
On 17 March, the Chancellor said that companies such as Square One in Leighton Buzzard in the events industry
“that have business properties will be eligible”—[Official Report, 17 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 964.]—
for business rates relief. Local authorities do not seem to have got that message, so will the Business Secretary stick up for the events industry and make sure that what the Chancellor said should happen will happen?
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that this is a very difficult time for very many businesses up and down the country, and that is why we have supported them with a whole range of measures, including grants and loans that they have been able to get. He will also know that I set out a £617 million discretionary grant fund for local authorities. I hope that local authorities will have used that discretion to support local businesses, but I am happy to take up that individual case if he would like.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing is that there are lots of people who have been excluded from all those. There are about 3 million people who have recently become self-employed or are company directors of small limited companies—people who have not received a single penny from the Government—and their business has really suffered. I just hope that the Government still have something more to say about those people because they are in real financial trouble and they need support now. My local authority still needs £2.5 million to make sure that Tylorstown tip does not fall further into the river, and that is the responsibility of the Westminster Government. Will he please guarantee that that money happens now?
Alok Sharma
I completely understand that, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and the hon. Gentleman have said, some businesses and individuals are facing real difficulties at this point. We have provided £160 billion-worth of support in the past few months and the Chancellor announced another £30 billion. I say to the hon. Gentleman that through the self-employed scheme we have supported about 2.6 million individuals, and of course businesses are able to get bounce-back loans, more than 1 million of which have been approved. Again, if he has individual cases to raise, I am happy to look at them.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on the internal market, but may I press him to ensure that the interests of small food producers, particularly those in Lancashire, are given equal weighting to all these additional powers that have been given to the Scottish Parliament, because we do not want any part of the United Kingdom to be left behind?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is right to say that we do not want any part of the UK, or indeed any business across the UK, to be left behind, which is precisely why we have set out our proposals on mutual recognition and non-discrimination.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
Words such as “mutual recognition regime” sound benign, yet some 1 million people have signed a National Farmers Union petition and organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming have expressed their fears, so why should my constituents believe the Minister’s promises of munificence? To paraphrase the old adage, should we beware this time not of Greeks but of the British bearing gifts, less than a Trojan horse but this time for Trump’s America?
Alok Sharma
I am not sure how I respond to all that, except to say that the proposal we are putting forward is about protecting businesses and jobs across the whole UK.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Does he agree that these proposals will maintain current economic freedoms, which are vital to ensure that all of our nations survive and thrive post covid? This is good news for business and for job security, and, fundamentally, it enables us to level up across our great United Kingdom.
Alok Sharma
Absolutely. As ever, my hon. Friend speaks a great deal of sense. This is about levelling up and making sure there is an equal opportunity for businesses across our country to be able to sell and trade.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talked about the economic recovery after coronavirus, about which my constituents and I have immediate concerns. In the past week alone, more than 8,000 jobs have been lost in the west midlands, manufacturing and higher education sectors have been particularly hit, and in Coventry we fear an unemployment tsunami when the furlough scheme ends. Will the Government extend the furlough scheme on a sectoral basis, invest in green manufacturing in the west midlands, and provide a plan for higher education that protects jobs and funding?
Alok Sharma
The Chancellor set out the position on the furlough scheme clearly. As the hon. Lady knows, he announced the job retention bonus. On green jobs, she will also know that in his summer statement he announced an extra £3 billion for energy efficiency in homes and in public buildings, and that will support about 140,000 green jobs.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
This White Paper, in ensuring the seamless internal market within the UK that this Government are delivering, is an excellent thing, particularly given that we are delivering the democratic will of the people in leaving the EU. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is particularly good for small and microbusinesses in vast rural constituencies such as mine, where 97% of businesses are small or micro-sized?
Alok Sharma
Yes, indeed, because if there were regulatory barriers, for instance, if there were even small differences on things such as food labelling requirements, costs would of course be raised for small businesses, which they ultimately may pass on to consumers. Therefore what we are proposing is good not only for businesses of all sizes, but for consumers.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
These structural arrangements are enormously important, but they only go so far because so are political culture and drive to ensure that we get Britain back to work. Yet Government purchasing rules and practice still grovel to so-called EU rules—unlike, incidentally, most other EU countries. Now the Government are free of those rules, when are they going to actively back British business and British workers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? There are no more EU excuses. Act now!
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect, as ever makes his case very forcefully. He talks about public procurement, and I look forward to his thoughts as part of the consultation.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The internal market could not be more important to my constituents. Their businesses and jobs and, crucially, our economic recovery from covid depend on seamless trade throughout the UK, particularly because of the border we share with England. Will my right hon. Friend ignore any hysteria from the Labour party in Wales and press full steam ahead with the Bill, because my constituents will welcome it?
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will also know that almost three times as many intermediate inputs used by businesses in Wales come from the rest of the UK than from the rest of the world put together. That is why it is important that we continue with a seamless internal market, which is good news for her constituents. I would just say to her that I am not prone to hysteria.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The European Parliament, the Court of Justice and the European Commission have 60 years of jurisprudence for how to deal with these issues. The reality is that under the proposals every single power, budget and competence, not just of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the Northern Ireland Assembly but of local government in each of those countries, will be subject to a politically appointed panel that has no jurisprudence whatever. What will be the rights of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to input people on to that panel, and what dispute resolution mechanisms will they use? If this is not a fair and impartial arbiter, it is a power grab over every single competence that we have.
Alok Sharma
Perhaps I can clarify once more, in case it has not been clear enough, that there is no power grab; this is a power surge. We are ensuring that all devolved policy areas stay devolved, and additional powers are returning to the devolved Administrations.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and welcome the White Paper. Like thousands of my constituents, my dad and brother work in the building sector and travel to their jobs in England every day. I implore my right hon. Friend to ignore the attempts by the Welsh Labour Government to hold our Union and constitution to hostage over political points, and to crack on with building the single market that is essential to my Welsh constituency.
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of sense. As I said at the start of the statement, I want to work co-operatively with colleagues across the devolved Administrations. That is precisely what we have been seeking to do over the past period, and we will continue to do that. I look forward to their representations as part of the consultation.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It has been eight weeks since the Prime Minister of this country has bothered to contact the First Minister of Wales—eight weeks during a global pandemic that for many has felt like a lifetime. It has been a lifetime for the hundreds of workers at General Electric in Nantgarw in my constituency, who have just been served redundancy notices due to the lack of support from this UK Tory Government. The 2019 Conservative and Unionist party manifesto stated that the Conservatives were committed to strengthening the Union between all four nations of the UK, but we have actually seen this UK Tory Government completely ride roughshod through devolution. The White Paper is yet another assault on Welsh powers. Could the Secretary of State tell the House precisely when the White Paper was presented to the Welsh First Minister?
Alok Sharma
May I just say to the hon. Lady that I want to work collaboratively with all colleagues across all the devolved Administrations? She talks about the First Minister of Wales, and I can tell her that the Secretary of State for Wales has tried on two occasions recently to get a meeting. I think that one was due to take place in the last 24 hours, which unfortunately did not. There may be perfectly good reasons why that did not happen, but my commitment is to speak to my counterparts in Wales, for us from a UK Government perspective to speak to our counterparts and there is a consultation. The hon. Lady should look at the document and then respond.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
For centuries, the internal market has ensured that the British people have the right to sell their wares and move freely between any nation in our United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that we must do everything in our power to protect the status quo and those ancient rights? There must be no border at Berwick. Welsh lamb should be sold in Scotland. English barley should supply Scotch whisky.
Alok Sharma
Quite simply, yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we are putting forward proposals to ensure that we continue with our seamless internal market in the United Kingdom.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Since I was elected, many of my constituents have written to me about their concerns for food standards, whether they are people who eat food or even the 20 or so members of the National Farmers Union in my constituency who produce it. In the White Paper, the Government make several references to past action on standards, but the future-focused language is extremely weak. Will the Secretary of State commit to minimum standards, which people can improve on but not go below?
Alok Sharma
As I have noted, and as a matter of fact, we have had very high standards when it comes to food safety and animal welfare in the United Kingdom. The best way to ensure that we have the same standards across the United Kingdom is to work together to the common frameworks programme, which is what I would like us all to do.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
In this Chamber over the past few weeks, I have heard Members on both sides talking about the need to preserve and create jobs as we recover from covid. There are financial barriers, but there are also regulatory barriers, and these proposals ensure that they do not arise as a result of our leaving the European Union. Does the Business Secretary agree that his proposals will help to preserve jobs throughout every nation in the United Kingdom, and any approach that seeks to fragment our internal market—largely due to ideological obsessions of members of the Scottish National party—would make our jobs recovery after covid harder, not easier?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is right. This is not about ideology; it is about pragmatism and about supporting businesses, supporting jobs and supporting livelihoods. That is why we have put forward these proposals.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Many of us are alarmed at the prospect of standards being lowered to allow things such as chlorine-washed chicken to come into our market, particularly as the requirement to wash chicken in chlorine comes from the fact that sometimes the meat is marinated in the animal’s own guano. Some of us would rather avoid the risk of buying such products, so will the Secretary of State ensure that the devolved powers include the right to label food so that we can be warned about the prospects of buying those sorts of products?
Alok Sharma
Let me address the point that the hon. Gentleman raises about chicken. He refers to chlorine-washed chicken: as he knows, it is illegal in the United Kingdom, and as a Government—as I have said earlier—we have been very clear that we will not sign up to trade deals that would compromise our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards. We are a world leader in those areas, and that is not going to change.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that uncertainty is the enemy of investment, of employment and of consumer confidence? He should like to know that the businesswomen and men that I have been speaking to today have welcomed today’s certainty that goods and services from one part of the kingdom can continue to be sold in another and that employers in one part can continue to provide jobs to residents in another.
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend has had a glittering career in business, and more than some Opposition Members, he understands what uncertainty means for businesses. It means that they do not employ people and they do not invest, and at the end of the day that impacts on the growth of our economy. What these proposals give is that certainty and clarity that businesses want.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The unelected body that the UK Government plan to establish will determine whether Bills passed in the Scottish Parliament meet a new test before they can be considered competent. The Minister has described this, in Orwellian fashion, as a devolved power surge. Had this situation existed earlier, it would have prevented Scotland’s smoking ban, minimum unit pricing of alcohol and free tuition. Can he explain why he thinks it is a good idea for a Government who Scotland has rejected to seek to diminish the powers of Scotland’s democratically elected Parliament?
Alok Sharma
Let me emphasise once more that all devolved policy areas are going to stay devolved. What is going to happen at the end of this year—the end of the transition period—is that powers will flow back to the devolved Administrations. The hon. Lady talks about minimum alcohol pricing. She will know that the Scottish Government had to fight in the courts to get that through. Under our proposals, they would have been able to make that change.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
Vauxhall in Luton proudly produces one of the best-selling vans in all regions and nations in the UK. This is part of the £10.5 billion-worth of goods that are imported into Northern Ireland from Great Britain each year. All this is reliant on frictionless trade. Does the Secretary of State agree that the commitment to frictionless trade across the UK, as set out in the White Paper, is essentially meaningless given that the Government have admitted that the protocol will introduce new requirements on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Alok Sharma
We published our Command Paper in May, as the hon. Lady knows, and we said in that that there will be unfettered access for goods from Northern Ireland to GB. Certainly, the discussions that I have had suggest that businesses understand that the proposals in the White Paper give them further certainty.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is patently obvious that a Unionist and a nationalist cannot agree on a constitutional settlement, but it is none the less perfectly possible to have constructive conversations and good working relationships through proper channels. With that in mind, will he undertake to speak to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that Lord Dunlop’s review is published?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The review conducted by Lord Dunlop is, I understand, set to come to the Prime Minister in the autumn. I am sure that we will review it and look forward to it with some interest.[Official Report, 20 July 2020, Vol. 678, c. 11MC.]
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The internal market has long been a cornerstone of our shared prosperity. Does the Secretary of State agree that we are stronger together and that we need to take steps to ensure that Peak district hill farmers can still sell their world-class lamb to all four corners of the United Kingdom?
Alok Sharma
I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks up at all times for businesses in his constituency. I agree with him: we are absolutely stronger together as one United Kingdom.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The White Paper states the Government’s intention to develop a replacement for the EU state aid regime. Can the Secretary of State confirm when legislation will be brought forward with regard to state aid, and whether it will be primary or secondary legislation? Does he accept that this needs to provide confidence to the devolved nations by being administered through an independent body as opposed to his own Department?
Alok Sharma
I can confirm to the hon. Lady that the new domestic subsidy control regime will be a modern system that will be there to support British businesses in a way that benefits all within the United Kingdom. I know that she is interested in further details on this, and we will share those in due course.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Businesses in Runnymede and Weybridge benefit from access to across the UK by plane, road and rail. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while much focus is given to international trade, seamless internal trade is crucial for our ongoing prosperity across all four nations of the UK?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When companies are looking to invest in the United Kingdom, the fact that we will continue with a seamless UK internal market will give them significant confidence.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The 70 so-called new powers for Scotland are in areas that are already devolved. They include matters such as food safety, public procurement and environmental standards, all of which are at the very core of devolution. With Scottish Parliament elections scheduled for next year, does the Secretary of State not agree that it would be a democratic abomination for Scots to have to vote for parties whose policies could only be enacted subject to the provisions of the latest UK race-to-the-bottom trade deal?
Alok Sharma
I really do suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets out and talks more to businesses in his constituency. I think that they will tell him that having a unified coherent UK internal market is good news for them and good news for their workers.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I warmly welcome the White Paper. The self-employed are some of the main drivers of economic growth in the United Kingdom, including in Carshalton and Wallington. Some, such as directors of small limited companies, have had concerns throughout the pandemic. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give that the self-employed will continue to be able to thrive and drive economic growth in the internal market?
Alok Sharma
As I said in response to an earlier question, we have provided support to 2.6 million people through the self-employment income support scheme, and businesses have been able to make use of the bounce-back loan scheme and the other loan schemes the Government have made available. Small businesses have also been able to take advantage of the £10,000 to £25,000 grants that have been put forward.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
South Yorkshire has nearly 1.5 million residents, so what discussions have taken place with local and regional leaders across England to ensure their concerns about covid-19 support are addressed?
Alok Sharma
I do not know whether the hon. Lady asks that in relation to the White Paper we have put forward, but as she will know we have been speaking informally to businesses for a period about the UK internal market. Of course, there is now an opportunity for people to respond more formally to the consultation.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement. Does he agree that stimulating growth and development across our regions is vital to a well-functioning, highly productive economy? Will he work with me and others to see how a north midlands manufacturing corridor could be established to bring the region together and to open up greater opportunities for businesses?
Alok Sharma
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues in the region to discuss how her region can benefit from the support that the Government have to offer.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As Liberal Democrats, we welcome the announcement about internal trade and protecting the market and protecting those who survive in that internal market. However, I ask the Secretary of State to be sure that there is consultation with each of the devolved Administrations and that we have a dispute resolution mechanism for when there cannot be agreement. More than anything else, however, may I please caution the Government that any mistake on this, any suggestion that this is being imposed on the devolved Administrations, will be seized on by our colleagues on the nationalist Benches? That will do damage to the Union, rather than protect and strengthen it, so will he please bear that in mind?
Alok Sharma
I hope that the proposals we are putting forward will strengthen the Union and strengthen support for business across the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady talks about consultation. The White Paper is of course a consultation document and I would welcome her thoughts.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I welcome the White Paper. As my right hon. Friend said, our internal markets, which have existed for hundreds of years, support countless jobs across the four nations. Financial services and professional services are a very important sector in my constituency. How does my right hon. Friend see the City of London, in particular, being able to support millions of jobs across the four nations within the internal market?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend will know that professional qualifications will be covered under mutual recognition, which is good news for service sectors across the United Kingdom, but particularly in the City of London.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
Thirty-five years ago, in 1985, the then Tory European Commissioner’s White Paper detailed 300 legislative proposals to complete the European single market, and that was with a seven-year deadline. On the UK internal market, this Tory Government are giving a four-week consultation over the summer. That is persuasive evidence, were it needed, that the UK internal market is first and foremost a convenient headline—a veneer lacking detail or a legal basis. Will the Secretary of State concede that the only certainty is that this Bill is a power grab retaining—yes, retaining—vast powers over devolved areas to Tory Ministers?
Alok Sharma
No, this is not a power grab. As I have said, this is a power surge to the devolved Administrations. The hon. Gentleman talks about the consultation. I can tell him that the consultation follows the principles for a Government consultation. Yes, it is for a four-week period, but very many people and, in particular, businesses do not routinely close down over the summer. I would say to him that there is an opportunity for him and others to feed in to this consultation. I know this will be important for him and he will do it in a far shorter period time than four weeks.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the nationalist narrative of a power grab has been well and truly burst when not a single nationalist can name a single power that Scotland will lose as a result of this? Indeed, hundreds—more than 100—powers will flow to Scotland on day one. Therefore, does the Business Secretary agree that this is not a constitutional issue, but an economic issue, and anyone standing in the way of this legislation is risking jobs, harming businesses and threatening the economy of our country?
Alok Sharma
I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about protecting jobs, protecting businesses and, ultimately, protecting livelihoods. That is why businesses across our country—across the United Kingdom—will welcome these proposals.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his statement.
Point of Order
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to seek your advice, because it was my understanding that the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee is duly democratically elected by right hon. Members of that Committee, rather than, as in some third-world country, right hon. Members of that Committee being coerced, intimidated or threatened with having the Whip removed by the Prime Minister and his special adviser. I appreciate that the Prime Minister and his special adviser may feel that they are in some way above the law, as was demonstrated when the Prime Minister’s special adviser decided to drive halfway up the country in the midst of a pandemic, having brazenly flouted the Government guidance, and then going for another long drive purportedly to test his own eyesight, but no one should be above the law. What powers are vested in your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ensure that hon. Members are not bullied by members of this Government?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As I understand it, the Committee met yesterday and it elected its own Chair by the rules—as he understands and as I understand —that are set down. As far as I am concerned, it has done things in line with the normal procedures. I thank the hon. Member for that point of order.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes.
Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill
Thursday 16th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mr Simon Clarke)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Government recognise the vital role that public lavatories play in our communities and the economy. Ensuring access to public toilets and handwashing facilities is critical in maintaining a high level of public hygiene as the lockdown continues to ease across the country. More generally, our ability to work or to enjoy leisure time often depends on the availability of appropriate toilet facilities. This is especially important for essential workers such as taxi or delivery drivers who do not work in fixed locations and who often rely on public facilities, and it will be important for all of us as more and more people begin making use of our public spaces again as lockdown eases.
Given how vital these facilities are, it is understandable that there has been significant public concern about the potential reduction in available lavatories. Members of this House have also raised valid concerns about the provision of toilet facilities in their own constituencies. At Budget 2018, the Government responded to calls from local councils and the public and committed to introduce a business rates relief for public lavatories. This Bill delivers on that commitment, providing support for those who provide public lavatories, both publicly and privately run, by reducing one of the most significant running costs for toilets and making it easier for them to be kept open.
Today also marks an opportunity to thank colleagues in this House who have campaigned long and hard for the Bill’s introduction, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who is in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), as well as a number of others. Furthermore, I thank the National Association of Local Councils for providing its support for this Bill. I am pleased to say that, in line with the announcement at Budget 2020 by the Chancellor, this Bill will, subject to Royal Assent, apply retrospectively from April 2020. That will mean that, for eligible properties, the relief will be backdated to the start of this financial year.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward the Bill. Does he share with me the relief felt by key workers across my constituency, such as ambulance drivers and the police, who, in rural areas, often conduct very long shifts and, as a result of the efficiency of putting those workers on the frontline, no longer benefit from physical facilities themselves?
Mr Clarke
As the hon. Lady says, they should—because this legislation does something of lasting benefit. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and I also commend the hard work of our emergency services throughout the current crisis.
I am aware that, as we emerge from lockdown restrictions, there has been concern about the reopening of public toilet facilities that may have been closed because of covid-19. Although decisions on reopening public lavatories are rightly for councils, the Government have been clear that we encourage them to open wherever possible. Indeed, I wrote to councils in June to say just this and to refer them to the Government’s advice on measures that can be taken to open toilets safely. I am grateful to councils for their efforts in reopening these facilities and hope that today’s Bill will come as welcome news.
I extend my general gratitude to the local authorities, town and parish councils up and down the country that work hard to provide public lavatories in their areas and to keep them open. I also pay tribute to the councils, associations and businesses that have launched innovative local initiatives to provide further lavatory access to the public—for example, the community toilet scheme devised by the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames that is now used by local authorities across the country. This enables local businesses to work together with councils to widen lavatory access so that the public can use their facilities without making a purchase. I recognise that that may be more challenging in current circumstances, but it is an innovative and helpful approach that I commend, and which will become important as more and more businesses reopen.
I highlight the excellent work of the British Toilet Association and its national campaign—imaginatively called “Use Our Loos”—which encourages businesses to join these community schemes and open their toilets to the public. Participating lavatories are shown on a map called the Great British public toilet map, so that visitors to an area always know the location of available facilities.
For some people, medical or other conditions may mean that they are particularly likely to need access to toilet facilities at short notice, so I very much welcome the introduction of the “Can’t Wait” card, which is now widely accepted by businesses, even when they do not offer public facilities. I am sure that Members across the House will join me in commending such initiatives, which are already making a huge difference to people’s lives.
For people with special access requirements, it is about not just having any facilities available, but having the right facilities. That is why there has been a strong cross-Government drive to provide more Changing Places lavatories to help maintain the dignity of people with special lavatory requirements when they are away from home. The Department for Transport’s inclusive transport strategy includes £2 million to improve the provision of Changing Places toilets in motorway service areas, and the Department of Health and Social Care has made £2 million available to install over 100 Changing Places toilets in NHS hospitals throughout England.
In May 2019, we launched a consultation on proposals for the increased provision of Changing Places toilets in new and refurbished buildings. Following that consultation, the Government have committed to change building regulations guidance to mandate the provision of Changing Places toilets in new public buildings. At Budget 2020, the Chancellor confirmed that the Government will launch a £30 million Changing Places fund. This will allow the Government to work with the Changing Places Consortium and others to identify the sectors where we most need to accelerate the provision of such facilities in existing buildings.
Although the focus of today’s Bill and this debate is public toilets, I recognise that this Bill comes at a time of unprecedented challenges for business, when business rates may be at the forefront of concerns for those who occupy non-domestic properties. That is why the Government are taking unprecedented steps to help businesses that are most affected. As a result of the Government’s expanded retail, hospitality and leisure relief, eligible businesses are expected to receive almost £10 billion in business rates relief as part of the Government’s wider support for the economy during the pandemic. Combined with existing measures, this means that a total of 1.1 million ratepayers—over half of all ratepayers—will pay no business rates at all in 2020-21. Our economic response is one of the most generous globally, and the Government are working urgently to deliver vital schemes such as the expanded retail discount as quickly as possible. I would like to use today’s debate to pay tribute to local authorities for working hard to implement these measures right across the country.
The Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill is only a short, four-clause Bill, but one that is important to reduce running costs and help keep these vital public facilities open. The Government have been listening to and addressing issues surrounding the provision of public toilets for some time. A measure to enable local authorities to give business rates relief to public toilets through the discretionary relief system was included as part of the Local Government Finance Bill in 2017, and concerns were raised that a discretionary relief not fully funded by central Government would not be widely used. The Government have listened. This Bill will provide 100% mandatory relief. Specifically, the Bill provides 100% mandatory business rates relief to properties in England and Wales that are used wholly or mainly as public lavatories. Local authorities will be responsible for implementing the relief and will be fully compensated by central Government for any loss of local income resulting from the measure. Subject to the safe passage of the Bill, it will have retrospective effect from 1 April just gone, in line with the Chancellor’s commitment at Budget.
The Welsh Government have worked with the UK Government to ensure that public lavatories in Wales will also benefit from this measure. That will help the Welsh Government to deliver their commitment to provide access to public toilets for public use under part 8 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017.
A business rates relief for public toilets has been called for by councils and health and disability charities for some time and has wide-ranging public support. The Government have responded. This small but important Bill will make a real difference to many people’s lives, including essential workers, as lockdown eases. The savings will assist councils. Removing the additional costs of business rates could make the difference in helping to keep these vital facilities open, while supporting high standards of public hygiene as we emerge from the virus. I hope that Members across the House will agree that this is a positive step and support the Bill’s passage. I commend it to the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I do not know where to start—after so many weeks away from this place, it is extraordinary to come back to this Bill, which is incredibly important.
On the east coast of India, in a town called Pondicherry, on the seafront, beside a broad walkway, underneath coconut trees and opposite a massive statue of Gandhi, there is a large public sign. It has a map of the town on it, and all public lavatories are clearly marked. There are pictures and diagrams clearly illustrating activities that may be carried out in them, and importantly, there are also pictures and diagrams illustrating equally clearly where those activities should not be carried out. There is information about the public health consequences of carrying out these exercises other than in lavatories. It requires no app and no internet. The sign is replicated in other public meeting spots around the town, and I love it—I love it so much that I have a picture of it on my phone. I have followed the toilet trail around the town, and I can vouch for every one.
On a serious note, the message from the sign is clear, and it is one that we need to reflect on as we consider this Bill. Across the whole globe, public health requires that there are public toilets and that people can use them with confidence, know where they are and trust that they will be available, safe and clean for use. I salute that wonderful town and all the others across the world who understand the need to promote public lavatories and, importantly, to break down taboos about talking about them, because we definitely need to do that.
It is absurd to think that people will leave their homes for leisure, pleasure or the many jobs that take us out and about and suspend their need for a lavatory. Urination, defecation, menstruation and changing babies’ nappies are all natural bodily functions, even if we do not enjoy talking about them, and they all require toilets. The absence of toilets does not remove those bodily functions. Instead, it removes people’s freedom to enjoy public space. It affects their health or, unfortunately, prompts the unsavoury use of public space as a lavatory. The Bill recognises that, in part, and we will be supporting it. Since it helps to address some of the problems of financing the upkeep of a public lavatory, we will not stand in its way.
I want to place on record my appreciation of the House of Commons Library research staff, who turned around a briefing for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) and I in quick time to help us to prepare for this debate, and of the Royal Society for Public Health and the British Toilet Association. Their contributions inform our scrutiny and will help us to make suggestions for improvements, which I hope Ministers will consider in the autumn. I also thank the Clerks in advance for their help.
We will support the Bill, but we have concerns. First, there is the lack of help with lavatories in other public buildings, such as a library or a community hall. Secondly, the Bill does not redress the overall damage done by the past 10 years of cuts to local authority funding, which have resulted in councils’ unwillingly taking difficult decisions to remove loos or restrict their use. I am concerned that the funding that the Bill provides, though welcome, will not be sufficient to remedy the gaps, and I want to ensure that the Government are aware of the strain that local authorities are under at the moment in any case.
Thirdly, there is no recognition of the consequent inequality of access to public space, particularly for elderly, sick or disabled people, parents of young children and women and girls. Nor does the Bill recognise the consequences for all of us when some people end up using the public space. Fourthly—I know the Bill was originally planned before covid, as the Minister also mentioned, but here we are—there is nothing that I can see that would help struggling local councils to restore and to provide additional cleaning and staffing during this crisis, at a time when we all want to encourage people to feel confident about going out and about. The Minister mentioned the covid importance, but I have not yet seen anything that deals with those increased costs, and I hope we can return to that at a later date.
I would like each hon. Member here to imagine the loo map of their own constituency. They have probably all checked, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope you have too. It is a fascinating subject. Has the map been made public? Is it in plain view? Can it be found in a place that people naturally head to for information? Can someone who does not have a smartphone easily find out where the loo is while they are out and about? Will it be close, open, safe and—ideally—free?
To anyone listening to our debate who says they never use public loos—I do, by the way—I encourage them to consider what it is like to have a bladder infection, to be in that early stage of pregnancy where the baby is causing urgent needs, to be elderly and not able to sprint to a lav, or not to have the confidence to go into a café and say, “I have a medical condition and I need to use your loo.”
Many councils, towns and cities, including Bristol, do have the schemes that the Minister has mentioned to use loos in private property, but many people do not know about those schemes. That includes the Can’t Wait card; the Minister quite rightly commended businesses for that, but I fear that many people still do not know about it or do not have the confidence to use it, and of course at the moment many businesses are shut.
If there are not sufficient facilities, we all suffer. There are the social and economic consequences, and there are consequences for us all, with the smells, health and hygiene problems, if people choose to or feel forced to urinate or defecate in public. The Royal Society for Public Health recently published a fantastic report called “Taking the P***”—one can fill in the asterisks for oneself, Mr Deputy Speaker. The subtitle, and the subject, is “The decline of the great British toilet”. It is a most educational report, and I urge everyone who has a problem discussing the subject of loos to take a read and consider what life would be like if we did not have public toilets, and what it is already like when there are not enough.
More than half of the public apparently restrict their intake of fluids before and during a trip out, at the risk of dehydration and other health consequences. One in five operate on a toilet leash, not allowing themselves to go further than they can nip back home from to use the loo; that number rises to more than two in five for those who have medical conditions. That has economic as well as social consequences.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will be greatly relieved that there is a general consensus on this public lavatories Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while there should be adequate provision in council budgets and they should be supported in the provision of public lavatories, those lavatories must also be accessible, and that it is not good enough for us to allocate space for public toilets if they are not accessible, especially to those with special needs?
Thangam Debbonaire
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; it is as if he has read my speech, which says that the lack of public toilets disproportionately affects people with ill health or disability, the elderly, and also women—I mentioned menstruation—outdoor workers and homeless people.
Health conditions that require frequent trips and often privacy that a cubicle alone can provide include bowel cancer; stroke; multiple sclerosis; use of a stoma; urinary incontinence, which can happen for all sorts of reasons, including family history, and at all ages; inflammatory bowel disease such as Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis; and conditions that damage the nerves that control the bowels or bottom, which can include stroke, spina bifida, recent surgery and childbirth. One in 637 people has Crohn’s; one in 417 has ulcerative colitis; one in 500 people lives with a stoma; and one in 526 has multiple sclerosis. Every single right hon. and hon. Member in this House will have constituents who are thus affected.
Women need the loo more often when pregnant, menstruating or out with small children, or after childbirth. Differences in clothing and anatomy mean that it takes longer for women, which results in queues and waits, which in turn causes problems for women’s health. People’s whose job keeps them out and about have real problems if they cannot find a loo. I am sure that the Minister is aware of this, but I wish to add to his list of concerns rough sleepers and other homeless people: even if they have accommodation in a night shelter, they still need somewhere to go by day. We cannot expect them simply to stop functioning, and they may struggle to use options such as shopping centres or cafés. That is a lot of people I have listed.
The “Taking the P***” report rightly points out that we have a taboo about talking about natural bodily functions and, as a result, public loos and their role in assisting with hygiene, hydration, exercise and participation in public life are not recognised sufficiently as the public health resource that they truly are—I think I have become somewhat passionate about the subject of public loos. The British Toilet Association raised with me problems of public fouling, which has consequences for health, hygiene and enjoyment of public space. There is also a risk of covid transmission through human faeces. Fouling in parks and on beaches has particular risks for children, and that has been compounded during the crisis by the closure of many public loos.
The British Toilet Association also raised the fact that access to a public toilet is a human right under the UN sustainable development goals, and in particular that women and girls need somewhere private to change sanitary products. Closing public loos does not stop people needing them; it just stops some people going about their daily lives and causes others to do things that have health consequences for us all.
The Bill helps only the finances of buildings that are solely or mainly loos—so far so good—but it will do nothing to reverse the decline in numbers and will not help with the running costs of loos in other buildings. The Royal Society for Public Health estimates that the running costs of public toilets vary between £15,000 and £60,000 per year, depending on size and staffing. In 2018, the BBC’s “Reality Check” used freedom of information requests to obtain information from most councils, and concluded that at least 673 public toilets had closed between 2010 and 2018. By my calculations—the Minister may have a better calculator than me—that means that it will cost between £10 million, give or take, and £40 million, give or take, to replace those lost lavs. Given the consequences of those reductions in numbers for public health and people’s lives, will the Government at least check my workings and use their good offices to come to a more accurate figure that we can at least debate when we come to the next stages of the Bill?
As I said, we will not oppose the Bill, but we will seek to amend it at later stages. As a favour to the Minister, I shall outline the ways in which we might do that. Will the Government assess the number of public lavatories in buildings that would not qualify for the provisions in the Bill, and the opportunity cost of not giving them that same support, as well as the actual financial cost? We can then debate on a more informed basis whether we need to increase the Bill’s reach to include those lavatories. Will the Government assess the cost of replacing them all? Will they assess the need for increased capacity to meet the specific needs of parents with young children, people with relevant illnesses or disabilities, women and girls, and older people? That would mean an equality impact assessment. Will they use the Bill to create provisions for emergency temporary additional financial support for local councils to help with the costs of operating, cleaning and staffing public toilets during the continuing covid crisis?
I hope that by now the House will have heard my enthusiasm for reforming the provision of public loos, my urging of the Government to push the Bill further, and my utter lack of toilet puns, which frankly I need to be commended for—there may have been accidental ones, but I promise that I did not intend them—but I cannot close my speech without remarking that although this is a chronic and serious problem, it does not have the urgency of other issues under the purview of the Department for which it could, and arguably should, have used this parliamentary time before recess. Those issues include the renters’ rights Bill promised in the Queen’s Speech and the building safety Bill—legislation that covers urgent needs that are going to become apparent over the summer, as is particularly true of the renters’ rights Bill, what with the temporary ban on evictions set to end in August.
We would have helped the Government to get emergency temporary legislation across the line in time for the temporary evictions ban to make sure there was provision for those who felt the need to be protected by the Secretary of State’s good words back in March, when he said that nobody should be made homeless because of coronavirus, of which there is a real risk. That time has now gone. I am also concerned about the buildings safety Bill. It is obviously around—whispers have come to my ears—but we have not yet seen it, and three years on from Grenfell, people have spent the lockdown living in unsafe buildings and often paying for the cost of the waking watch.
All in all, the Bill is needed, though a curious priority compared with other urgent needs. Given that it is before us, however, we are disappointed that the Government have failed to seize the opportunity to restore public loos, help millions of people to enjoy daily life and redress the damage done over the last 10 years, but we will return to all of this in September, when the Bill returns for its remaining Commons stages.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I am sure that the Bill, with its title, “Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill”, is not, for most people, the most exciting or inspiring Bill that will come before the House, but for me it marks the culmination of an eight-year personal mission. In 2012, I was the cabinet member for Cornwall Council with responsibility for public lavatories. At that point, this newly formed unitary council was running—if I remember correctly—272 sets of public lavatories across the whole of Cornwall and had made the sensible decision that this was not something that a unitary authority covering the whole of Cornwall should have responsibility for and devolved it, wherever possible, to town and parish councils.
I spent the summer of 2012 touring the public lavatories of Cornwall, from Bude to St Keverne, from Torpoint to Penzance, and many places in between, and consulting the local parish councils about whether they would take on their running. In many cases, I found they were keen to do so, and rightly so, because these facilities can be run much more effectively and efficiently locally, where they can be managed to meet the particular needs of the local community, rather than centrally.
One of the biggest barriers, however, to small parish councils taking on these facilities was the cost of the business rates. I was shocked that public lavatories were even liable for business rates. It seemed nonsensical. I wrote to the then Secretary of State, now the right hon. Lord Pickles, and suggested that public lavatories be exempted from non-domestic rates. He wrote back saying he thought it was a very good idea and he would look into it. Three years later, I was elected to this place.
Coincidentally—I checked my diary—it was five years ago this very day that the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, came to Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and I had dinner with him that evening and put to him the case that public toilets should be exempted from business rates. He was equally shocked that they were even liable for business rates, and he agreed with us and said that the Government would do something about it. Well, it has taken five years to get from the then Prime Minister agreeing to do this to the Bill at last coming before the House. For me, then, this is a very important day and, as I said, the culmination of an eight-year mission.
I want to place on the record my thanks to those who have helped get us to this point: to the Minister today, who has at last brought the Bill before us, after many years of frustration for me, to previous local government Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), and the current Chancellor when he was a local government Minister and worked with me to get this through, and to the previous Chancellor, Philip Hammond, who first committed the Government to doing this in the 2018 Budget. It has been a team effort. I should also pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, who has worked with me since those days in 2012 to get to this point.
Public toilets are essential, especially in rural and coastal areas, where people can find themselves many miles from other facilities. They are essential in supporting our tourist industry. As has rightly been pointed out by the Minister and the shadow Minister, they are very important for the elderly and for people with health conditions that mean they need the lavatory more often and, as has also been pointed out, to many workers, delivery drivers and some of our other key workers who need to use the toilet during the day. It is important that everything possible is done to maintain the facility that public lavatories provide, particularly in rural areas.
Let me place on the record my thanks to the many town and parish councils across Cornwall that I worked with back then, and particularly now in the constituency I represent. They have not only taken on the running of public lavatories, but over the past few weeks they have worked incredibly hard to reopen them, despite the challenges they currently face. At the risk of leaving some out, I will name a few: Newquay Town Council has worked particularly hard, as has St Austell Town Council, Mevagissey Parish Council, Gorran Haven Parish Council, and many others I am sure, who have gone out of their way to ensure that public lavatories stay open during this pandemic.
I believe the total cost of these measures to the Treasury is around £8 million, which in the current scheme of things, and given all the costs we are facing, does not seem a huge amount of money. To small parish councils, however, whose total precept may be only £20,000, that can represent a significant sum in reducing the costs that they incur in running public toilets. This Bill is important in the overall scheme of things to many parish councils.
Many parish councils currently face huge pressures. Many have lost income, perhaps because they run car parks, and they face additional costs. Many have gone out of their way to provide incredible support to communities, and to ensure that elderly and vulnerable people are looked after during the pandemic. The fact that this measure will be backdated to April will be of significant help to many parish councils in reducing costs this year, and helping them with the pressures they face. What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that those parish councils that might already have started to pay business rates on these facilities get a rebate in a timely manner? If they have paid out and are due a rebate, it is important that that happens as quickly as possible.
Although the Government have made funding available to primary authorities—in our case Cornwall County Council—to support small town and parish councils, the council has not as yet passed on that support. It has refused to do that, which is concerning because many of our parish councils are currently struggling. Even though the Government have made funding available to Cornwall County Council, it has declined or refused to pass that funding on. What more can the Government do to ensure that where funding has been made available through primary councils to support our town and parish councils, the money gets to where it should go? Parish councils are doing an incredible job in supporting their communities, and where the Government have made funding available, it is important that that money gets to them.
I welcome the Minister’s comments about Changing Places toilets and the work that the Government are doing—another issue that I have pushed for over a number of years. It is increasingly important in our communities for Changing Places toilets to be widely available, and I applaud the Government for the steps they are taking to ensure that happens. I welcome the Bill. In the overall scheme of everything that we as a country currently have to face it may not seem like big a deal, but for someone like me who has been waiting a long time for this Bill to come before the House, it is incredibly welcome. The Government are taking an important and sensible step, and I am pleased to give them my support.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who made an excellent speech and who has done so much to make this change happen. It was also a pleasure to listen to the enthusiastic speech of the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire); I really enjoyed listening to it. She made some brilliant points, particularly on maps and public information about where toilet facilities are, which is often overlooked.
This is an incredibly welcome Bill that I have long campaigned for. As has been said by other hon. Members, it is not the most exciting or glamorous piece of legislation, but it will make a real, tangible difference to people’s lives. When I first started talking about the need to improve public toilet facilities in Buxton a couple of years ago, it was a source of amusement to many people locally. A particularly charming Labour activist gave me the new nickname Mr Toilet Flusher—not the most amusing of the nicknames that they have given me over the years. Although that might have been quite funny to the High Peak Labour party, public toilet facilities are no laughing matter to many people with hidden disabilities and medical conditions, pregnant women, the elderly and those suffering from conditions such as prostate cancer, so the Bill is an important step forward.
Even before the global pandemic, high streets were struggling badly. We need to do more to make it easier and more enjoyable for people to come and shop in our town centres and support our fantastic local businesses, which involves making it easier to park and get in by public transport or by cycling. It is also important to maintain the things that make our high streets unique and such enjoyable places to come to. At the same time, it means making sure that there are proper public toilet facilities.
The Bill is a small step, but giving 100% business rate relief to public toilets will make a huge difference, as has already been said, particularly to local councils, and will make it that bit easier to provide public toilet facilities. It is a positive move that will be a boost for high streets across High Peak in places such as Buxton, New Mills, Whaley Bridge, Glossop and Chapel-en-le-Frith.
I very much welcome the Bill, but it should not be the end of the conversation. We need to talk an awful lot more about the issue, we need to end the taboos around public toilet facilities, and we need to do more to help our high streets, particularly when it comes to supporting future high street fund bids—an excellent one has been submitted for Buxton.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) on a subject close to my heart, as an MP who has worked closely with local towns and parishes since becoming elected, as a former Cornwall councillor and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on local democracy. I am pleased that the whole House welcomes the Bill today and I thank Ministers for bringing it forward.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for championing the cause in Cornwall and bringing the issue to the House. The Bill was thwarted last year by the tumultuous parliamentary timetable and again earlier this year by covid, but I am pleased to see it here today. It shows the Government’s commitment to the issue.
If ever there was a time to provide much-needed assistance to our towns, local councils and parish councils in Cornwall and across the country, it is now. Those hard-working, lower-tier councils have been the backbone of our communities during the pandemic and were the frontline of the volunteer response. I cannot thank them enough.
Because of the pandemic, those lower-tier councils are now facing real financial issues. In Cornwall, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay mentioned, they have not received any direct funding from the Government. If the Minister can have further discussions with me on that, I would very much welcome it. I do not believe that means dishing out yet more money, but perhaps rethinking how it is distributed in Cornwall.
Public toilets are a public service, not a business. As has already been mentioned, Cornwall Council transferred the ownership and management of more than 200 public toilets throughout Cornwall to towns and villages across the county, including the beautiful waterside village of—wait for it—Flushing in my constituency.
Public toilets are vital to our coastal communities in Cornwall. It is one thing to have a small child who is desperate for the loo, but what does a distressed elderly lady who cannot find the right facilities open do? It does not seem right that our lower-tier councils are burdened with significant business rate fees on a public service that they provide to the benefit of the local community and tourists alike. They are often cleaned by volunteers just to keep them open and usable.
In my constituency, the two town councils between them spend just shy of £30,000 a year on business rates to run the public toilets in Truro and Falmouth. For a local council, that is a substantial amount of money. Often at the back-end of devolution deals, we should do everything we can to support local communities and I am pleased that the Bill does that.
It is this Government who introduced the Bill, and this compassionate Conservative party that wants to empower local communities, let them have the money to improve their local areas and allow precept payers to see the improvements on the ground in their towns and parishes. That can only be good news. To that end, I welcome this long overdue Bill and I am sure that town and parish councils in my constituency will also welcome it.
The Bill represents good progress and could open up a wider debate about business rates on other community facilities in our high streets. I have libraries particularly in mind. I would welcome an opportunity to talk to the Minister about how that might work. Often, public-run facilities are the only ones on the high street that do not run as a business but do not benefit from any business rate relief. That should be looked at and I hope we can do that in future.
I welcome the Bill and the debate and I look forward to the money being put back in the pockets of hard-working local councils so that we can keep the loos open for locals and tourists throughout Cornwall.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on their good work in bringing about the Bill.
I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Bill, which sees the Government recognising the vital role that public lavatories play in our communities. Town centres, visitor attractions and local hubs rely on good access to those facilities. My constituency relies heavily on tourism and attracts people from wide and far. Whether they come to visit the beautiful spa town of Ilkley or the home of the Brontë sisters in Haworth, or to take a ride on our famous heritage railway line, the Keighley and Worth Valley railway, access to public toilets is vital. It is a must.
People’s ability to work, shop and enjoy their leisure time depends on appropriate toilet facilities being available. Of course, such access is important for those with particular health needs, as well as individuals who work in emergency services, refuse collectors and taxi and delivery drivers, who all work from no fixed location. Public toilets are a necessity and more widely, adequate lavatory provision helps with public health and improves the local environment, particularly through street cleanliness and disease control.
Given how vital those facilities are, it is understandable that there has been public concern for many years, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said, that many of them have unfortunately closed. Closures have happened across my constituency, and I am sure that applies to other Members’ constituencies too. It is understandable when the facilities are no longer suitable or required, but reduction in overall coverage is undoubtedly an inconvenience to the public.
The Bill is therefore welcome and I am pleased that this Conservative Government are taking action to reduce the overhead costs of public toilets, which will make it easier to keep them open and help guarantee their future for much longer. A review of the whole business rate structure is long overdue, but for these vital facilities, I am glad that the Bill is working its way through the House. It is a small but vital measure.
The Bill is a significant step, which introduces 100% relief for our public lavatories—important financial assistance from central Government to those that provide the facilities, such as Bradford Council or the many parish councils across my constituency. I want our public toilets in Keighley and Ilkley to remain open and I would love to see more open across my patch so that visitors, residents and those working in my constituency from no fixed location can still have access to those facilities. The Bill provides that support and helps ensure that much-needed facilities can remain in place.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). The pandemic has thrust the importance of public toilets forward in so many unexpected ways. I had not anticipated spending so much of my first few months as an MP discussing toilets with my local councils, colleagues and constituents alike. We are working to level up the country and, indeed, toilets are a great leveller. Their necessity is hopefully something that all in the House can agree on.
In tourist-dependent hotspots, such as my beautiful North Devon constituency, people can be miles from any facilities, and public toilets are invaluable. How can someone enjoy a day on the beach or a hike across the moors without being able to visit a toilet at least once? The alternative on occasions has created its own public health issues in tourist destinations as we have emerged from lockdown.
Pre-pandemic, the cost of running public toilets in North Devon alone was approaching half a million pounds. With pubs, restaurants and shops closed and their facilities unavailable, we have had to rely upon public lavatories. Indeed, it is an immense inconvenience when one cannot find a public convenience.
Getting public toilets reopened rapidly was a big challenge for small councils and, indeed, a great expense. It is currently costing an additional £1,500 a week in North Devon for the extra cleaning of toilets. That is a 50% increase. While that extra cost is currently being covered by the covid-19 funding, the manner in which that funding is withdrawn is important if this vital public service is to be retained and cleaned in the manner now considered important to help stem the spread of the coronavirus.
The absurdity of local councils paying business rates for public facilities that they realistically gain no revenue from has been raised by councillors across North Devon and by colleagues here, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for many years. The Bill is warmly welcomed by councils in North Devon, where small parish, town and district councils have been paying business rates totalling almost £40,000. That may not sound much, but it is a lot of pennies to pay just to spend a penny. The Bill will save my parish and town councils approaching £15,000, which in turn becomes lost revenue for my district council, which itself on balance will ultimately save by not paying rates on the toilets it is responsible for. That highlights how over-complex and multi-layered local government is back home in Devon.
Our councils have been passing around their toileting responsibilities for years, trying to find the most efficient way to maintain public toilets or, on occasion, washing their hands of them and closing them down. Indeed, our district council only passed responsibility for toilets to our parish and town councils because it could not afford to pay the business rates itself. The reassurances within the Bill that councils will not be out of pocket will hopefully mean that these vital public facilities will remain open and free to use. I take this opportunity to thank my local councils in North Devon for the work they have done to safely reopen our public conveniences and thank the Department for ensuring that we do not lose our public loos.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I declare an interest as the co-chair, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), of the all-party parliamentary group on local democracy, which has been behind a lot of the campaigning on this matter.
Just to reassure those on the Government Front Bench, who seem fearful that this might not be a piece of legislation that is talked about in 100 years’ time, when I questioned the Leader of the House about it last week and asked when the decision was coming forward, he mentioned that the taxation of toilets had been introduced by the Emperor Vespasian 2,000 years ago, so I think those on the Front Bench today are making a mark in history.
I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who brought this matter to the public’s attention many years ago and have been campaigning on it ever since. I am particularly delighted, as I think the Bill will be welcome news to Justin and the team at the National Association of Local Councils, who have been campaigning on this issue for a long time. I particularly welcome the Government’s announcement that the relief will be backdated to April this year.
In a recent conversation with town and parish councils, including St Austell Town Council, they mentioned the extra costs they have had during the covid crisis, providing support for their communities, of about £50 million. So the fact that £8 million a year will be going to help those councils and will be backdated will be really helpful.
Members from all parts of the House have already made clear the points that I would like to make about how the Bill helps people with hidden disabilities and particularly helps women and girls and those with children. If someone is trying to find somewhere to change them or something like that, toilets are useful facilities to have at hand.
It is a real benefit to our local authorities. Wolsingham, in my constituency, spends between 1% and 2% of its annual budget just on rates for public loos. I know how important the issue is for that local authority and for those in other tourist areas, and I know just how vital it is for the Cornish MPs who have been campaigning on it as well. To flag up the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), the financial impact of the Bill will really benefit local authorities. This issue has been a burden on them for far too long, and it is right that we are now making that change.
I also flag up the importance of regional news. My local regional broadcaster in the north-east, Richard Moss, who is from the political team there, came out and did an interview with me on this very subject when I became co-chairman with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. I give another shout out to that team, who are under threat at the moment from the BBC centrally. Campaigning local MPs can make a difference, and those regional news channels are very important in order for us to highlight the campaigns that we are pushing.
I thank Front Benchers very much for introducing the Bill. I know that it is just before the summer, but it is a great thing to get over the line now. I really hope that by reducing the cost of public toilets we will be able to see more open across the country in the years ahead.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) for her in-depth research and the passion with which she spoke about public loos. I am very pleased that the Minister recognises the vital role that public lavatories play in our communities, our town centres, our parks and our community centres. People’s ability to work, shop or enjoy their leisure time depends on appropriate toilet facilities. That can be especially important for those with health needs. More widely, adequate provision contributes to public health and improves the local environment, particularly in terms of street cleanliness and disease control.
Given how vital such facilities are, it is understandable, as the Minister accepts, that there is real public concern about the reduction in available public lavatories. More than 50% have closed in the past decade, and virtually every council has had to close some of its public loos. Of course, a reduction in the overall coverage of public conveniences is an inconvenience to the public, and to people with special access requirements. It is not just about having any facilities available; it is about having the right facilities.
The lack of provision of public toilets is a major but largely ignored issue that significantly restricts lives. It therefore deserves even greater exposure than the narrow focus of the Bill. The Government’s proposal in the Bill to provide 100% business rate relief for stand-alone public loos is most welcome, but is the Minister aware that business rates currently payable on such premises are a small part compared with the running costs of staffing, security and cleaning?
As I said earlier, some councils now run no public loos at all. In those parts the closure of all public loos means just that: there may be nowhere to go, no matter how inconvenient. The Bill does nothing to address the lack of those facilities. The Bill gives welcome relief to local authorities, but if the Government are serious about extending and improving access to public toilets, including, as one Government Member highlighted, the need for ambulance drivers and police in rural areas, we need to look at extending it to other publicly funded buildings.
My concern is whether giving this mandatory relief will achieve the desired effect, and whether councils can start opening public toilets and at least trying to get back to the levels of 2010.
Like the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), I would like to see more public toilets, which are more accessible. This measure is a small step in the right direction and I would like to see it extended. For example, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council has to pay £170,000 in business rates for its libraries and museums. That money could be spent on making our toilets more accessible. If the Government can apply rate relief to pubs, private hospitals and private schools, why can they not do it for libraries, museums and community centres? I am happy to support the Bill, but it does not go far enough and this House needs to further explore how the Bill can improved. I look forward to working with the Minister to make these improvements, for the benefit of the public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
May I start by thanking the Opposition Front-Bench team for the constructive tone with which they approached this important debate? This is a vital Bill and we have heard excellent contributions from Members from across the House about the importance of this issue. I completely agree with those who said that we should be talking about this issue more and not be afraid of talking about the importance of public toilets to people in our community. The Bill recognises that importance, and when the Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), opened this debate he made the point that when we emerge from the lockdown it is going to be more crucial than ever that people have access to appropriate toilet and hand washing facilities. Members from across the House will know from discussions with their own constituents that the provision of appropriate facilities is vital and can make a huge difference to people’s ability to leave their home to go out to see friends and family and to do shopping. That makes a huge difference to people’s quality of life and their mental health, which is a huge part of why this Bill is so important. We have been hugely grateful for the contributions today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for his tireless work in championing this change. He talked powerfully about the fact that he has been campaigning for it for eight years since he was made the cabinet member at Cornwall Council and that he has taken this to Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers to secure agreement. It has taken his drive, and that of other hon. Members, to push this forward. I also thank him for the points he made about the importance of public toilets to rural and coastal communities, and the tourism industry—he is right to highlight that. Let me also take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the town and parish councils in Cornwall that he mentioned, because of course we recognise the point he made about the significant costs placed on such councils. He also made an interesting and important point about what more we can do to make sure that money is reaching the right places in town and parish councils. That is exactly why my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made it clear in his communications that money should be being passed down to those councils to manage these important facilities. We are happy to keep speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay as this Bill progresses to see what more can be done to make sure that money is getting to the right places. We have stressed the importance of that time and again, but he is right to raise it in the House again today.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), a west of England neighbour of mine, rightly gave a passionate speech about this issue. I have lived in Bristol, and I know we are both aware of the issues associated with the occasional lack of availability, so she is right to address them in the way she has. She made important points about the additional cleaning and covid pressures that can come with running these sorts of public facilities. She asked a number of questions which I hope to address throughout my remarks. She asked whether there was something we could do during the passage of this Bill to check her calculations and work with her to make sure we are bringing forward appropriate information to inform the debate. My colleagues will be happy to work with her to make that happen and look at that throughout the Bill’s passage. We are happy to work with her on that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) rightly and powerfully talked about the importance of toilets and public facilities needing to be available for all. A number of Members talked about the importance of making sure that toilets are available for all, including those with special access requirements. It is important to note that the Bill will help with that. The 100% relief applies equally to all facilities, including accessible facilities. But of course we want to go further to support increased provision, in particular Changing Places toilets that are fully accessible for those with the most significant needs who may need assistance to use the toilet. Following our consultation last year, we have committed to change building regulations guidance to mandate the provision of Changing Places toilets in new public buildings. We expect that this provision will come into effect in early 2021.
Additionally, at Budget this year, we confirmed that we would be launching a £30 million Changing Places fund, and would be working closely with the Changing Places Consortium, stakeholders and Members of this House to help to accelerate the provision of accessible facilities in existing buildings. My ministerial colleague mentioned the important £2 million investment from the Department for Transport in its inclusive transport strategy and the £2 million made available by the Department of Health and Social Care in order to install over 100 Changing Places toilets in NHS hospitals throughout England. These measures will make a real difference in maintaining the dignity of people with special access requirements when they are away from home.
We also heard points made about the safe reopening of toilets as we come out of lockdown. That is of the utmost importance as we ensure that access to public toilets can happen in a safe way. It is for councils to decide to reopen their facilities as we come out of lockdown, but we have been strongly encouraging them to open public lavatories wherever possible, as has been noted a number of times in the debate. We wrote to local authorities to encourage them to do that. We thank them for their work in making sure that public lavatories can now open in a safe and timely way. We are sincerely grateful for all their work to help to make that happen.
The Opposition asked what extra support is going to be available for public lavatories during covid. I would put on record the extra £3.7 billion that we have supported councils with over the past few months as they deal with a very difficult set of circumstances—reduced income and increasing costs—throughout the course of this pandemic. That was on top of a good local government finance settlement this year, with a 4.4% real-terms rise in core spending power—another £2.9 billion.
The Opposition also highlighted a concern about toilets in other public buildings. They are right to raise that issue. We want to be clear that the relief will apply to properties that are wholly or mainly used as public toilets. In general, it will not apply to toilets within shopping centres, for instance, as was highlighted, or public libraries. We have wanted to target the relief to best support the provision of public lavatories. In particular, we want to support facilities that exist where there are unlikely to be other publicly available toilets or where removing the additional costs of business rates could make a real difference to their ability to stay open. Of course, we are happy to work with the Opposition throughout the course of the Bill’s passage.
This Bill will benefit the public and reduce costs for councils and others that are seeking to ensure facilities can stay open. It has wide-ranging support in this House, and we look forward to working with colleagues as it progresses. I want to put on record my thanks to the businesses, charities and local authorities who have been so important in the management of these facilities. The Bill will support the provision of facilities for those individuals for whom access to toilets is particularly important, whether for health reasons or because of the nature of their work. It complements our wider efforts around the provision of more Changing Places toilets. We are very grateful for all the thoughtful contributions from Members across the House as we look to deliver this vital change for our local authorities. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Non-domestic rating (Public Lavatories) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Lavatories) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I suspend the House for two minutes.
Restoration and Renewal
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Restoration and Renewal.
The Palace of Westminster is a magnificent building, which must be saved for future generations. Charles Barry and Augustus Pugin’s creation is a triumph of neo-Gothic architecture, recognised the world over. Within these walls, our history, architecture and politics are entwined together. It is a place that inspires us as politicians, just as it inspires the many schoolchildren who visit Westminster. On the Palace walls, the history of their nation is writ large: from the exploits of King Alfred to the stonework damaged by Nazi bombs, left unrepaired as a reminder that this House stood firm against tyranny; from the great Tudor portraits in the Prince’s Gallery to representations of both sides of the civil war, and to the great statesmen—Walpole, Pitt, Burke —who graced St Stephen’s with their rhetoric.
Then we have Westminster Hall—a space that has been at the heart of our national life for nearly a millennium. Built by William Rufus, its hammer-beam roof completed by Richard II, it was the one part of the building that the firemen fought to save as the rest of the Palace succumbed to the flames in 1834. There were the trials of Thomas More, Thomas Wentworth, Charles I. So many great events took place in Westminster Hall. It was the centre of justice and the seat of wisdom for centuries. I want the children and grandchildren of the 1 million pupils who have visited us in recent years to be able to come here and learn about their nation’s history. I want them to be as inspired as I was when I first visited here as a child and won a prize—a biro—for knowing more parliamentary facts than any of my fellow pupils at that time.
The prize we are now seeking is the Palace of Westminster itself. This is a building that must remain part of our national heritage for centuries to come, but it is also a building which, if we fail to act, risks being lost to history forever. Over the years, the Palace has become an increasingly complex and flawed proposition for those tasked with its preservation. Like the barnacled encrustations on the hull of a noble ship, layer upon layer of incremental changes have been built up over the years, just as the challenges of managing an ageing building have built up, too.
Since 2017, there have been over 40,000 problems reported and the Palace is now deteriorating faster than it can be repaired. Anyone who ventures into the basement will see for themselves why. Steam pipes run alongside electric cables. Hundreds of miles of cabling are now in need of replacement. A sewage ejector, installed in 1888, is still in use today. In short, there is a meandering multiplicity of multifarious materials all in need of urgent attention and all increasing the vulnerability of the building. Those who want to see what 150 years of patch and mend looks like are advised to descend into the depths of the Palace and see for themselves.
When I returned to the basement yesterday, I was pleased to find a newly installed system, which will fill the space with a fine mist in the event of a fire. That is among the remedial but temporary measures put in place in recent years to address the possibility that the building might be imperilled by a serious blaze. I am advised that steps such as extra emergency lighting, the installation of new alarms, day and night fire patrols and so on ensure that life will be safe. What cannot be guaranteed is that our historic palace can be saved from destruction in the event of a serious fire. We have known for a long time that, if a blaze were to take hold, the lack of compartmentation would endanger the entire building, so it is a matter of some frustration that comprehensive fire safety alterations have not begun because we have been waiting for the main R&R programme.
Fortunately, we are now moving towards the historic moment when this House is asked to approve a motion allowing the works to commence in the mid-2020s as planned. Such a decision, involving billions of pounds of public funds, taxpayers’ money, which would ideally be spent elsewhere, cannot be taken on a whim, so three requirements must be met if the restoration and renewal programme is to command the confidence of the House and of taxpayers: first, the proposal must be robust and evidence-based; secondly, it must give value for money and we must cut out unnecessary spending; and thirdly, the plans need to be up to date.
No one here today will forget for a moment that we are discussing this matter in the midst of a global pandemic, which is placing great strain on the nation’s purse strings. Today’s debate is a chance to set out our expectations in this context, and this should be a limited project to replace failing mechanical and engineering equipment, not an opportunity to create a second Versailles.
This debate also gives us an opportunity to note how far we have come since Deloitte produced its independent options appraisal in 2015. The Joint Committee’s report of September 2016 was followed by the motion of January 2018, which led in turn to the passage of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. This legislation addressed the first of our three requirements—that the proposals must be robust and evidence-based—by adopting the governance structures used to deliver major infrastructure projects such as the 2012 Olympic games. The Sponsor Body will act as the client on behalf of Parliament and oversee the delivery of the works, which will be entrusted to a Delivery Authority equipped with the expertise needed to keep costs down and to manage a project of this complexity.
The Delivery Authority is already showing the value of its professionalism by getting on with the basics, undertaking detailed investigations of the palace’s condition. Once these surveys are completed, it will then move on to preparing detailed proposals in the form of an outline business case. There can be no blank cheque for this work, which is why it so important that the outline business case will be fully costed. This will be the first time that we have had a proposition that we can assess in value-for-money terms, which is the second essential requirement before Members are asked to make their decision. Rather than hurrying along in an over-hasty fashion—[Laughter.] I am glad that I am creating such hilarity on such a serious subject. It is crucial that we take the time and accept the expense required to get this right—the right price to pay for the assurances we need that the project will be delivered on time and on budget.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I appreciate what my right hon. Friend is saying about the cost. Obviously, this marvellous palace is in the heart of my constituency, so it is a very precious place for me. None the less, at a time when we are spending billions of pounds in the economy following the covid-19 crisis and beyond, does he agree that we must be very careful about how much we spend on this project, because the public will expect us to be very careful about how we spend money on ourselves.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we must ensure value for money. I was going to refer to the example of the refurbishment of the Elizabeth Tower, because we have to know what we are going into. The refurbishment of the Elizabeth Tower offers a cautionary tale in this respect. Such is the nation’s affection for Big Ben that I have no doubt we would not have objected to spending £80 million on its refurbishment, if that had been the initial price tag placed on it. The mistake that was made was in initially releasing the figure of £29 million, which was little more than a guess. That is why it is right to spend the time and money on developing a business plan so that we know what we are going into.
It is with this in mind that I advise the House in the strongest possible terms to disregard the endlessly quoted estimates drawn from the Deloitte report of June 2015. These numbers were merely comparisons with other options at that time and before any detailed scoping could take place. We cannot know how much the programme will cost in reality until the outline business case is published, but we can be assured that we now have the programme and infrastructural professionals, drawn from industry, who will be able to produce the comprehensive plans we need.
The Delivery Authority is making good progress, but it needs further clarity on what is expected of it, and this stands to reason. As both the National Audit Office and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority have highlighted, the cost estimates or ranges cannot be set out before the scope and requirements of what is needed are fully understood. Doing that means ensuring that the proposals are fully up to date, which is our third and final requirement.
So much has changed since the Deloitte report of 2015, not least the pandemic, which is having an enormous effect on our way of life, our way of working and economic activity more generally. That is why it is quite proper for the Sponsor Body to conduct a strategic review to consider whether the basis for options developed over previous years has changed significantly enough to warrant a change in strategy. The review should determine how the various options should be assessed. Timelines for delivery, heritage benefits, fire safety and cost must all be considered in the round, and the views of parliamentarians on all this matter greatly. It comes down to a simple question: how much inconvenience are we prepared to accept?
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I completely agree with that last point. To take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), we should not be spending enormous amounts on ourselves, but this proposal does not necessarily mean that. We are spending money for future generations, and actually honouring the past, which I think is our duty as well. However, that does not mean that, with the crisis we are in at the moment, we should not be as flexible as possible. We are asking our constituents and our businesses to adapt enormously to very trying circumstances. Surely, given the times we are in, we should do everything we can to adapt, and there are many alternative proposals to the Richmond House move. Even if it means some inconvenience to us, we should do what we can to adapt. Even if it takes longer and even if we have to put up with some noise, surely we should be adaptable in these times.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with my hon. Friend in both regards. This Palace, these Houses of Parliament are the most wonderful testament to our belief in democracy. It is so magnificent to walk along the passageway from here to the House of Lords and see on either side the representation of our history and the pride in our nation’s story that our forebears took because they believed that the democracy and the constitution we have are precious, worth preserving and worth symbolising in stone. To do that, it is worth spending the money to ensure this Palace is secure. However, yes, we must play our part and accept that there is a degree of inconvenience that we can tolerate, because currently we accept remarkably little. Under current rules, work in the Palace of Westminster can be halted on the say-so of a single MP. I am not sure that all MPs realise that each of their gentle and politely worded requests to keep noise down triggers an automatic downing of tools.
Mr Rees-Mogg
They do—well, those who are paying attention do—and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is paying such strict attention. It is important that we do accept that we may have to compromise in what we expect in this Palace.
Then there is the question of a temporary decant location, and I look forward to hearing Members’ views about what scale and requirements are thought necessary. The Prime Minister has written to the chief executive of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority making it clear that costs should be kept to a minimum. He is quite right that putting a severe downward pressure on cost is vital in the face of phrases such as “scope creep” and “gold-plating”, which are words that should make any right thinking politician break out in a cold sweat. Our goal should be a narrow, simple one—to save the Palace of Westminster without spending more than is necessary. That is the only way we will be able to look our constituents in the eye and explain the steps being taken.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I have been listening carefully to what my right hon. Friend has been saying, and he has laid great emphasis on saving the building of the Palace of Westminster, but can he just clarify that it is the Government’s policy that it should be saved so that it should be the home of our national Parliament permanently?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think that my hon. Friend may be alluding to the mention of York in the Prime Minister’s letter. I would remind my hon. Friend that between 1301 and 1325 Parliament met in York 11 times, but when Edward IV tried to get it to move to York, he was unsuccessful. It will end up being a matter for parliamentarians where this House sits, though strictly speaking the meeting of Parliament is called by the sovereign to her palace at Westminster. That, I think, is something that would be highly unlikely to change without the acceptance of parliamentarians. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.
I want to conclude by quoting Caroline Shenton’s book about the construction of the Palace a century and a half ago. She raised the question of the difficulty faced by Barry and Pugin when she wrote:
“But who should be given the upper hand? The government… funded by the Treasury? Parliament as an institution made up of two legislatures occupying a single building… Or—most difficult of all—over a thousand MPs and Peers”—
this must be referring to peers rather than MPs, but never mind—
“fractious, opinionated…partisan, and…with as many individual views on how the work should progress as there were members? Deciding who was the real client at any particular moment would prove to be a mind-bending task for Barry over the next four and twenty years.”
I am a great admirer of much that was achieved by our Victorian forebears, but in this instance, this one instance, I believe the 21st century may—and I sense the shock around the Chamber—have the edge over the 19th century.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I did. It is still available, probably heavily discounted, in all second-hand bookshops. For once, we have truly, in that most tiresome of clichés, learned the lesson of history. We have our client, which is the Sponsor Body. Its strategic review is setting the scope for the programme, and then the Delivery Authority will draw up fully costed proposals for us to consider. At that point, we will arrive at the moment we have been steadily working towards for some years, when we will be able to decide how to do so in a way that offers the consistent political support the programme needs.
The last Parliament set us on the path of action over inaction, but it is this Parliament that will act, meeting our collective responsibility of protecting this building, the throne, the palace of our democracy.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
What a lovely performance. It is hard to believe that restoration and renewal, commonly known as R&R—nothing to do with rest and relaxation—was first established in 2013 by both Houses. Imagine if we had actually started the work then: it might even have been completed by now.
I can see why the Leader of the House wanted to schedule this debate. We could have debated the redundancies at British Airways, something that he did not even find time for next Wednesday, but he chose to do this now. Of the current Cabinet, only two members voted for a full decant, seven did not vote and 15, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, voted against a full decant.
I hope that this debate is not about revisiting the project. Everyone accepts that work must be done on this building, not least because it is not accessible, and it is a heritage building. From seeing pictures or visiting the basement, it is clear that work must be done from a safety aspect underground and to the stonework outside. It all needs to be looked at, because this is a once-in-a-lifetime project and it will keep us going for the next few —maybe hundred—years.
I want to make a few points. First, we agreed a process in May 2019, when the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill was introduced, and it then received Royal Assent on 8 October 2019. The House agreed that, using the successful model of the Olympics, we would have a Sponsor Body and a Delivery Authority. Those are made up of experts, but there is parliamentary oversight. They became substantive bodies in April this year, and we in this House have tasked those experts with dealing with this important programme. I want to thank the parliamentarians who are serving on the Sponsor Body: the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who has been involved in this project for a long time—he has seen it all, right from the beginning—the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) and for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), Lord Best, Lord Carter, Lord Deighton and Baroness Scott. They are all on the Sponsor Body, so both Houses of Parliament have oversight of the project.
Secondly, the Leader of the House alluded to costs. At all stages, the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General are involved, and their job is clearly set out: to certify that Departments and any other bodies have used resources efficiently, effectively and with economy; and so long as they report regularly, costs can be kept in check. We are not dealing with repairs that could result in even more eye-watering figures; we are dealing with keeping this building safe. I want to put it on record that at no stage are Members or anybody visiting the building unsafe. Yes, there may be fires, but there is a team of people who put those fires out practically every day. The Clerk of the House would be absolving himself of his responsibility if he let Members in here when the building was unsafe. The case for a full decant is strong. We do not need noises off raising the prospect of alternative sites. Inevitably, there will be costs as yet uncosted.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The right hon. Lady says that the case for a full decant is strong. I do not want to get into that argument. I want to ask her about her attitude to whether it is necessary to demolish the listed Richmond House. If she wants a full decant, could we not move into a temporary, rather than permanent, Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House, as has been fully costed and scoped by the heritage organisation SAVE?
Valerie Vaz
I will come on to Richmond House, but it is not my opinion—it is an opinion that this House has taken to transfer authority for doing that to the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority. As I said, we are not the experts; they are the experts, and they will be able to undertake that.
The case for a full decant is strong. The Prime Minister has written a letter about moving to York. I do not know whether that has been costed—perhaps the Leader of the House could tell us what costs are associated with moving there. The costings of the building work and moving to York or anywhere else is a matter for the Sponsor Body to look at. This House will not be able to continue with a patch-and-mend approach or a quick fix; that will not do. Any delays will exacerbate the problem, probably making it cost more as some of the systems reach the end of their shelf life.
The Northern Estate programme is for improvements to the buildings in Norman Shaw North and South and Derby Gate, and it is progressing. Plans to house a temporary Chamber were part of the programme. Concerns were expressed about the heritage of Richmond House, but in fact it is only 33 years old. I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) intervened on me, because he has been in the House for 37 years, so he will remember when Richmond House was not even there—it did not exist. We now have a strategic review, in which Members are encouraged to take part, and they have until 7 August.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Will the right hon. Lady clarify the review being conducted by the Sponsor Body? Presumably, the Sponsor Body is allowed to conclude that the full decant is no longer regarded as the most cost-effective option, or is she serving notice that because the House has voted it through by, I think, a mere 14 votes some time ago, that option is closed to it? Presumably, that option is open to it.
Valerie Vaz
I am a lot of things but I am not a prophet and I cannot see into the future. I cannot see into the minds of the Sponsor Body, much as I would like to, because I am sure I would be of great help to the House. I am just coming on to that in a second.
There is the challenge panel, which is interesting. I have a list of the hon. Members and various people on the challenge panel, but I cannot see on there a single member from the Opposition parties. We have a strategic adviser to the Prime Minister and various other people, but I cannot see where Opposition Members—any of the Opposition—can have their view heard on the challenge panel. It is good that Sir David Higgins is on there, because he ran a very successful campaign to deliver the Olympics. I had the privilege of interviewing him when I was on the House Governance Committee and I know that he is very conscious of how to have an end to a project. He talked about Gantt charts and proper schedules. It was different with the Olympic Delivery Authority because there was an end date, but I am sure the Sponsor Body can come to some conclusion on how we come to the end of the project.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Is not the important point about the exchange that has just taken place that the Sponsor Body should be completely free to come up with a number of totally good options, from full decant to no decant at all, and then, as a result of that, come up with a properly costed project that Parliament can either accept or reject in a vote in 2022?
Valerie Vaz
As with any body of the House, the Sponsor Body will listen to what hon. Members say in the debate today and make up its own mind. I cannot tell it what to do. I do not even have a voice on the Sponsor Body, but other people do and, as they have set out very clearly, they will listen to hon. Members’ views until 7 August. Right hon. and hon. Members should feed into that.
The review will enable us to continue with progress ,and the Sponsor Body is in the process of updating the costings. The costings were undertaken some time ago, so it is right that it should do that. Before the work, we will vote on the outline business case, as the Leader of the House said, but that has already been pushed back to 2022.
As right hon. and hon. Members have said in previous debates, and in the debate in which we voted for a full decant, the project will be about the whole country benefiting from the heritage, and from utilising the skills and crafts of the whole country. There will be no blacklisting and there will be an upskilling of our diverse workforce. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will see that this is preserving the home of our democracy for over 1,000 years and for generations to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As colleagues will see, there is great demand for this extremely important debate. It would be appreciated, I am sure, if hon. and right hon. Members could limit their remarks to about seven or eight minutes.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I am very grateful that time has been found before recess for this important debate. I should mention, as the shadow Leader of the House said, that, along with the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), I am one of the four Members of Parliament sitting on the Sponsor Body.
The works to the Houses of Parliament remain critical, but clearly a lot else has changed. It is prudent to review the current approach at this stage, reaffirming the commitment to taxpayer value. This is obviously our workplace, but actually about three quarters of the people working in the Houses of Parliament are neither Members of Parliament nor peers. There are 650 of us, but approximately 1 million people visit this place every year. This place is the focal point of our constitution and, for the wider world, a permanent symbol of liberal democracy. The Houses of Parliament form a democratic asset that we hold in trust.
The median tenure of an MP in modern times—notwithstanding my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—is around 13 years, and of those 13 years, the median current Member has already had about five. Even on the very shortest scenario for restoration and renewal, it would be something like a decade before the works were completed, so the sobering reality is that many current MPs just will not be around to see them finished. On the longer scenarios, hardly any current MPs would be around. So this is not about us. We are trustees of this place, and we clearly have to do what is right, not what happens to be convenient for us, as its current temporary occupants.
The current at patch-and-mend approach is failing. According to the National Audit Office, Parliament spent £369 million in the past three years on projects to keep the buildings in use, and there is still a repairs backlog of £1 billion.
Chris Bryant
When I was on the Joint Committee and chair of the Finance Committee, we wanted additional work to be done now because that was clearly important—for instance, on the cloisters, which are among the most beautiful parts of the whole estate—but we constantly found that there simply was not enough physical capacity on the estate to allow us to get the work done now. Is there not a danger that further delay will result in the backlog getting bigger and bigger?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is undeniably right about the effect of the passage of time, and of course that is all reflected in the outline business case. The fire at Notre Dame was a stark reminder of the importance of protecting the world’s most treasured historic buildings. Here, the risk of fire is so acute that fire wardens patrol 24 hours a day. This House rightly recognised the significance of that terrible event and passed the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 shortly afterwards. Colleagues will know that a vast amount of work is also needed to replace all the heating, ventilation, water, drainage and electrical systems.
It has been almost five years since the plan was drawn up, and much has changed since, including two general elections, our leaving the European Union and, of course, the current pandemic, which is not only illustrating the possibility of different ways of working but placing severe new demands on the public purse. There is also more evidence now about the state of the buildings, through extensive modelling and surveys, and more is known about the cost and the challenge of building like-for-like temporary Chambers. As the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House mentioned, the bodies charged with overseeing and delivering this work have become substantive in the last few months, and it is now appropriate to review where we are and how we should proceed.
There have always been the same three overall pivotal questions that affect the length and cost of the works involved. The first relates to the balance between restoration and renewal—in other words, the extent to which the project goes beyond just fixing the buildings and embarks on improving things. Examples include disability access, which is currently woeful, and various other enhancements. The second relates to pace: should we proceed at a slow speed, estimated at some 30 years, working around current operations with the extended disruption and risks that that entails, or should we move out, in whole or in part, for a period? That would expedite the project and could lower the overall cost, but it would bring that cost forward. The third relates to how closely, during any decant period, Parliament’s physical layout and function has to be replicated and to what extent the location has to be kept close to the Government Departments we are here to scrutinise and hold to account.
Value for money and affordability have always been vital, but they have become even more pressing as the full economic impact of the post-covid environment becomes more evident. Of course, we can all say what we want to see retained and what we want to see enhanced, and that is important, but for this review to be effective in delivering value for money—assuming that we decant somewhere—we also need to say what we could do without. There are some factors that could make a material difference, and I encourage hon. Members, in this debate and when making submissions to the review, to consider these factors in particular when thinking about the decant.
First, while in-person voting is a long-standing feature of our system, how sacred is the exact system and the layout of our Lobbies? Seeking to replicate the current Lobby configuration is a significant factor in the space requirements for a temporary Chamber. Secondly, what flexibilities could there be in the numbers of MPs’ staff who have to be accommodated on the estate?
More flexibility on that could mean lower costs.
Yesterday’s letter from the Prime Minister to the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House mentioned, called for the full range of options to be looked at, from a minimum safe viable product to fundamental refurbishment, and the different possibilities of full decant, partial decant and remaining in situ—all, of course, with costs kept to a minimum. These different approaches have already been analysed and will be re-evaluated in the light of what more we now know. I reassure colleagues that that does not mean only looking at one decant option. The suggestion to examine decant locations beyond Westminster has not been part of the programme’s mandate to date, and the programme will of course be discussing this further with Mr Speaker and the Lord Speaker.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we keep opening up all these other options and look at starting from first basics on new ones, we will simply delay the work, and the cost of doing that alone will be enormous?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Member makes a good point, which does not surprise me given her position on the Public Accounts Committee. She is right, of course, about some of the trade-offs, but the timetable for the review is quite an aggressive one. For analysis to be effective and for realistic options to be presented back, it will be necessary iteratively to narrow down those options in a very short time.
I stress that the views of Members are very important to the process. Today’s debate is a big and central part of that, and beyond this I encourage colleagues to make a submission to the review—in fuller detail, if they wish—by 7 August. The review team will be working through the summer, will be subject to challenge by an independent panel, as was mentioned previously, and plans to report back in the autumn.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). I agree with many of his remarks on the Division Lobby. The Scottish National party’s thoughts on how we vote in this place are well on the record, and I am glad to see that we are inching ever so slightly into the 21st century.
As I was listening to the illuminating opening speech by the Leader of the House, I felt as if I was having some kind of out-of-body experience, because when the UK economy is in freefall and experiencing a global pandemic, this debate does feel a bit like fiddling while Rome burns. But it takes place in the context of spending choices made here in London, so I wish to offer a few brief thoughts from the perspective of the Scottish National party.
I will start with the issue of costings. Astonishingly, the £4 billion price tag for the restoration and renewal project is only £1 billion less than the total economic package announced for the post-covid recovery. If this project was a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money before the pandemic, it now looks even more hopelessly out of touch because spending billions of pounds upgrading a crumbling palace following a decade of austerity is one of the reasons why the public talk about Westminster being out of touch and not chiming with everyday life. With an entire generation now facing economic armageddon and the deficit set to rise to double what it was during the financial crisis, this decision really could not look more crass.
The reality is that the final price tag will likely be much higher. The National Audit Office has called the £4 billion figure a median figure, and suggested that £6 billion might be more realistic. Looking, for example, at the Government’s handling of the High Speed 2 project, a spiralling price tag is not difficult to imagine. In fact, in February this year the cost of the work that has already started on the Elizabeth Tower was reported to have risen to £18.6 million. Part of the additional cost was the realisation, two years after the project had started, that the job could require a specialist clock expert—something that it took a survey to establish.
The lack of transparency around the scale and cost of the project has further exacerbated public concern. The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) originally confirmed to the Commons Finance Committee that the full cost of the restoration and the length of the works would not be revealed until 2021, while the deliberately loose language in the Act that vaguely requires the sponsor body to
“have regard to…the need to ensure that the Parliamentary building works represent good value for money”
is an invitation for financial irresponsibility.
The SNP has been consistent on this issue: the Palace of Westminster is falling down. The necessary safety work should be performed as quickly and cost-efficiently as possible. However, put bluntly, Westminster is a hazard risk. We have seen only in recent weeks parts of masonry falling off the building and entrances and exits being closed off. It is not fit for purpose as a modern Parliament. We should not commit to working in a UNESCO world heritage site in perpetuity.
David Linden
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman who would have been the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about this being a UNESCO world heritage site. The weakness in his argument is that we have a legal duty to maintain in decent order a UNESCO world heritage site. Surely he is not suggesting that the mother of Parliaments should break the law.
David Linden
I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman quoting “the mother of Parliaments”, which is often misquoted in this place. He has put his point on the record; I know he is perhaps having quite a difficult week, so I am glad to have had the opportunity to let him do so.
The SNP has no intention of being around Westminster when this tortuous project finally grinds to its long, eye-wateringly expensive conclusion. We on these Benches urge this place to consider what it is proposing to spend against the current economic backdrop and to think carefully about the message that it sends to the public. Safety assessments have pointed out serious problems with the mechanical and electrical engineering system, and a substantial amount of asbestos is present in the building, where normally thousands of people work every day. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire is right that the fire in Notre Dame in 2019 was an obvious example of the risks that exist with these historic buildings and why they should not be used to host a modern Parliament with an intense working environment.
When the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill passed through this place in 2019, the SNP secured an amendment to ensure that the money would be spent in a way that benefited the whole of the UK. Whatever decision is taken on the next steps, that principle must remain.
Whatever decision is taken, there is now a chance to ensure that we work in a building fit to hold a modern Parliament with modern working practices. The recent pandemic has seen Westminster forced to adopt practices—such as e-voting and virtual proceedings—that are commonplace elsewhere around the world. The cries of protest have been deafening as the Leader of the House desperately tries to drag Parliament back into its 19th century comfort zone. Meanwhile, the Commons Chamber can barely seat half of all MPs and Public Health England needed to look at the Palace of Westminster only once to determine that it was not fit to be used in its current form during a health emergency.
With workplaces throughout the country now required to be covid secure in addition to normal health and safety standards, Westminster can be no exception and must modernise for the benefit of all Members, but most importantly for staff. This could start by having parliamentarians in a Chamber that can seat all Members, rather than being some place over-stuffed to promote conflict. As this debate started, I was reflecting on the number of Tories who have had to move over to the side of the Chamber, because today, bizarrely, the Chamber is hoaching with Tories who are desperate to talk about restoration and renewal. I sometimes wish they would show that level of concern when it comes to, for example, universal credit.
To conclude, while we need to be here, the SNP will prioritise safety and sensible public spending in respect of the Palace of Westminster’s future. However, I very much hope that the Government will reflect on the current financial crisis and health and safety concerns and perhaps refocus their priorities. I can tell the Leader of the House that my constituents are not crying out for eye-watering restoration and renewal costs at Westminster; they have other priorities, and so should this Government.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will remember the film “Groundhog Day”; as I stand here today, I have that strange feeling of déjà vu, and it is incredibly frustrating. Two and a half years ago, Members in this Chamber had a very fraught debate about what should happen to the Palace of Westminster, and now, to my regret, here we are again, revisiting that very same topic.
In preparing my remarks today, I looked in Hansard at the debate that we held on 31 January 2018, and I wish to remind the House of a few of the key points that I made as Leader of the House at the time. First, I said that 24/7 fire patrols carried out by teams of officers are necessary for Parliament to maintain its fire safety licence. With 7,500 people working in the Palace and more than 1 million visitors a year, the risks are immense. I said:
“Over the past 10 years, 60 incidents have had the potential to cause a serious fire.”
I went on:
“Secondly, there is a huge amount of asbestos packed into the walls”—
used to lag ancient pipes—
“that needs to be carefully and expensively removed”
before repairs can begin.
Thirdly, I said that many pipes and cables that are stuffed into the basement and throughout the Palace are literally
“decades past their lifespan, with some now being impossible to access. The likelihood of a major failure”
of sewerage, burst water pipes or critical system grows the longer the vast backlog of repairs and maintenance
“are left unaddressed.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 880-881.]
Fourthly, on several occasions in recent months, falling stone masonry has forced parts of the Palace to be closed off, and it is only by sheer luck that no one has been injured or killed.
It is not a case of whether we fancy moving out or staying here. If we do not move out, all the evidence points to a disaster that will force us to move out. If and when that happens, as I pointed out in 2018, the contingency arrangement for a catastrophic failure in the Palace is a temporary Chamber in a building in Parliament Square using curtains and temporary wiring that is designed to last for a few weeks at most. That is the truth about the current situation, and that is why, in January 2018, the House agreed that we need to take action.
The Palace of Westminster is a UNESCO world heritage site, it is one of the most famous buildings in the world, and it is the seat of our democracy. Even if we cared not a jot for any of those facts, we still do not have the option to walk out and, as the SNP would like, simply hand the keys back to the Queen. It is our duty to maintain this iconic Palace for the more than 1 million visitors each year from around the world.
About 75% of the cost is for non-cosmetic work on the Palace. The money will be spent dealing with mechanical and engineering works, aimed at preserving essential services for future generations. It is not about carpets, curtains and wallpaper.
When I first looked at the issue of restoration and renewal, I started out with a healthy degree of scepticism, as many hon. Members will have today. I was told, “Let’s use the Lords Chamber while ours is repaired,” “Let’s build a Chamber in Westminster Hall,” “Let’s have a floating Chamber on the Thames,” and, “Let’s move into Church House,” which was last used for Parliament in world war two. They are all excellent ideas and each one has been painstakingly and seriously considered.
Then came the horrific murder of PC Keith Palmer and a major review of security that identified that elected Members of Parliament should in future be secured within the Palace perimeter to keep us and, vitally, those who protect us safe from harm. That fact, combined with the obvious need for a permanent contingency plan for future generations, clearly pointed to establishing a permanent and alternative contingency venue for the Commons to meet and work within the Palace perimeter wall.
Sir Edward Leigh
Although of course we have now proven that we can work virtually if we have to.
Andrea Leadsom
Indeed we have, and we have also shown that at least some of us need to be in this place so that we can continue to do our work properly. I absolutely share the concerns of hon. Members that we must get the best value for taxpayers’ money, so I certainly welcome the Sponsor Body’s review of the plans to move to a rebuilt Richmond House, but I urge hon. Members who are lobbying for us to stay in the Palace with no contingency arrangements and allow the vital work to go on all around us to accept that that is not realistic.
The day I first visited the basement, a sewage pipe had just burst—I was sure that they had done it deliberately. I could not walk through because there was a stinking spray right along the passageway. It visibly demonstrated the challenge that our engineers are up against. Don’t get me started on the asbestos snots that are all over the walls down there as a result of old pipe lagging—who knew? It is horrible; there is so much to repair. I am pleased to report to the House, however, that I no longer have a rat in my bin. I have moved office to Portcullis House and that rat has also moved on.
The last time the Palace was restored was because it had burned down. Those who believe that we should not spend the money should consider the cost of rebuilding from the ashes. We have seen the devastation that happened at Notre-Dame, and it would be unforgiveable to allow a similar disaster to happen here because we cannot be bothered to move out.
On the hugely positive side—the sunlit uplands—the restoration and renewal of this magnificent palace will create employment, training opportunities, apprenticeships and economic growth for small businesses and craftsmen and women across the UK. It will showcase UK creativity and ingenuity, spotlighting the best of British. It will provide work to thousands of individuals who, in a post- covid world, will surely need it. This programme should rightly form a part of the palace’s historic legacy, and its place in the world for future generations to come.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said, I am a member of the Sponsor Body—indeed, I think I have served on every committee that has considered this matter. This matter was also the subject of my one Front-Bench speaking engagement in 19 years, although hopefully that will not be repeated. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] Well, certainly not for the people who were there at the time.
It seems a long time ago that the Joint Committee produced the report that recommended a full decant, using Richmond House as the best option for the safety and security of everybody who works here, with the House of Lords moving to the Queen Elizabeth II centre. We came to that decision after much thought, discussion and debate, and we considered every alternative put before us. That proposal was approved by both Houses, and as a number of Members have said, a Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority were established, based on the experience of the London Olympics. The legislation included a clear provision that when the work was finished, Members would return to this House. I remember that at the time, a rumour was going around that none of us would come back, and that some hideous plot was in place and we would never return.
At the moment, a planning application has been lodged with Westminster City Council to demolish and rebuild much of Richmond House, while retaining the front and side facades. That is in line with the House’s stated desire to replicate much of what already exists here over there. That would give us a very usable building that would also have a legacy for alternative uses.
As we have heard, the Sponsor Body is carrying out a review of the current proposals, which I fully support. The covid crisis has shown us that we can work in ways that were dismissed as unworkable in the past. The vast majority of House and MPs’ staff are working successfully from home. This House has virtual questions, and we even manage to vote virtually, which I am afraid we dismissed previously—I do not know why because it actually works.
The review may return to the option of a reduced intervention in Richmond House—I do not know, and I do not want to pre-empt that—but one thing we could do is have just one voting Lobby. I remember that at the time, the Leader of the House saw that as the end of the world, but I remind him that only in 1836—a year I am sure he remembers fondly—were plans draw up for a second Lobby, at an eye-watering cost of £600, and an extra two weeks to construct. Those were the days. If we are prepared to compromise, we can cap costs and, importantly, cut time. I do not think we will end up with such a great building at the end of the process, but that is something we might have to accept.
In truth, however, a lot of Members want to undermine R&R and do not want it to go ahead—we need to say that. They want to stay here come what may, ignore the decision that we took, and embark on 35 to 40-year maintenance programme. Parliament would be a building site covered in scaffolding and we would no doubt have to evacuate the building every so often, given the asbestos and safety fears.
Asbestos has been mentioned, but it is not in nice, solid sheets, wrapped around piping or in solid boards. It has crumbled and it is in the dust; it is throughout the building in the plasterwork and it is a real safety threat, which we cannot ignore.
If we go down the road of being a building site for 30 years, what sort of advert is that for this country? What are we really saying we can do? However, if that is what the Government want and they believe the House will support it, they should introduce legislation to that effect and not just rely on anonymous briefings about the current proposals to undermine them. Members now openly say, “R&R isn’t happening. It’s been cancelled apparently.” Yesterday, we had the Prime Minister’s letter, which seems to say that it is vital to do something because the place could burn down, but we should also open everything up again for consideration, including the possibility of moving to York, presumably—I hope—on a temporary basis. What about the thousands of staff? Are they to move to York for a period? Was that considered when the option was put forward?
We have options, but let us be sensible. In the light of the Prime Minister’s letter, I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that any proposal to decant Members and staff from the northern estate to Richmond House, which could delay R&R by up to three years, will not be considered at least until the report has been published, hopefully in October.
We have been kicking the can down the road for more than 70 years. This building is not a safe working environment. As has been said, in the past few weeks, we have had a fire and a collapse of scaffolding. We need to think about everyone who works in this building and act accordingly.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). It is a bit like a reunion of the Joint Committee today—many of us served on it—
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. Many of us served on the Joint Committee back in 2015-16, when we looked at all the issues exhaustively. We considered all the ideas that were submitted to us, some partially credible that did not understand the nuances of this place and some frankly less credible, but I want to make the point to everybody, particularly new Members, that this is not something we have an option about. We have got to do this. When I became Leader of the House in 2015, two things happened in quick succession that brought that home to me, one here and one elsewhere.
First, we nearly had to close the Chamber indefinitely within a few days of my becoming Leader of the House because asbestos was discovered up in the ventilation shafts. If it had become dislodged, or if it were to be dislodged in future, we would have no choice but to immediately close the Chamber indefinitely. What would happen then? The right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is right: the building has huge amounts of asbestos. It is a genuine health hazard, which can bite us at any time. That alone is a reason to do the work.
The second thing that happened had nothing to do with Notre-Dame. A few days after I became Leader of the House, Kingsway caught fire. Kingsway is a road and the wiring under it caught fire and burned for days. I advise all those who have not been down into the basement here to do so. Apart from the sewerage system that was mentioned and the asbestos, the basement contains a jumble of wiring, some very old, that could do just the same—catch fire and burn for days.
The House authorities have always said that they can get us all out and save our lives, but they cannot save the building. If we have a serious fire, this building will burn down, in the way that Clandon Park burned down and in the way that Notre-Dame burned down. That would not only be a gross dereliction of our duty as stewards of this building but a national tragedy. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people come to visit what is a world heritage site. It brings people from around the world; it is one of the world’s iconic landmarks. We cannot possibly put ourselves in a position where year after year the risks increase because the wiring gets older and all the systems get older, so we are making it more likely that there will be a devastating fire and this building will be destroyed. We simply cannot do that.
As my successor as Leader of the House rightly said, we all come to this project slightly sceptical. It is a lot of money to spend and it is not something that is going to be universally popular with constituents around the country. However, the more one delves into the subject, the clearer it becomes that we have absolutely no choice but to do this. We looked at all the alternatives. We considered whether we could put a temporary Parliament somewhere else. But even if we just went up to Horse Guards or somewhere like that, could we really, at seven o’clock on an Opposition day, have queues of MPs walking across Whitehall to come and vote? What a security risk that would be—what a target for terrorists. We have to keep Members of Parliament and, in particular, people who work for us, who are often as at risk as we are if something terrible happens, within the secure estate.
That is why and how we came to the conclusion that Richmond House was the best option. It is within the secure estate. It is a building that has flexibilities. The one bit I have a problem with is that I do not buy the argument that it is not possible to put a temporary Chamber into Richmond House without the scale of work that is being considered at the moment. We might need a compromise so that we do not need that period of time to replicate this Chamber exactly. Yes, of course we need to have a debating chamber, and yes, of course it should be consistent with the way that this Chamber works, but it does not have to be like for like—inch for inch, foot for foot identical to here. The Division Lobbies do not have to have exactly the same relationship to the Chamber. We have learned in the past few weeks that we can do things differently, and I buy that argument. We cannot just spend money willy-nilly because it keeps the environment in which we are going to be working close to what we have here now. If it changes a bit, it does not matter.
We cannot keep delaying this decision. I am frustrated that it is now 2020 and I co-chaired the Committee back in 2015—five years ago. This building is five years older. The systems are five years older. We have looked at all these options before. We looked at whether we could move the Commons to the Lords end. Actually, I am not convinced that the lords would vote for that if they had to leave and we got to stay. But then there are fundamental issues about the services. There is one sewer that services the whole building. So fine, we move to the Lords end, the work is happening down here, and then something goes wrong—the electricity fails or the sewer fails. If the electricity fails, it is going to take the devil’s own job of a time to try to work out what is wrong and how to fix it, and we stop working in the interim. If the sewer breaks, that makes the whole building unusable. It is really very difficult operationally, in a building that was designed as one with the services flowing from one end to the other, to simply say, “We’ll put something down the middle; that end’s fine and this end isn’t.”
We looked at using Westminster Hall, but there are historical reasons why that is difficult. Perhaps more than any other part of this building, we have a duty to protect Westminster Hall. It is the heart of the building which, back in 1834, the fire brigade chose to protect. In the second world war, when the bomb was dropped, the fire brigade chose to protect Westminster Hall. We cannot abuse Westminster Hall because it gives us a chance to stay a bit closer to this building while the works are happening. We looked at that exhaustively and came to the conclusion that it was not possible.
I think that anyone who looks through these issues carefully and in detail will reach the same conclusion that we all did five years ago. I commend the work of the Sponsor Body and the work that is to come from the Delivery Body. We chose to recommend that those were set up because we felt that that was the right way forward —to learn the lessons of the London Olympics, to follow a single approach to doing it, and to learn from how similar bodies made that project work effectively. My request to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and all those who are on the Sponsor Body is: please let us get on with this. With every month and every year that goes by, the risk gets greater. I do not want us, as a generation of politicians, to wake up one morning to find that we were the people who did not act in time, the building is no more, and the taxpayer now faces a much, much bigger bill to restore a landmark, as the French do with Notre-Dame. Please, I say to the Leader of the House and to all colleagues, let us get on with this as quickly as we can.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I do wonder if our constituents will be shaking their heads in disbelief that we are devoting an afternoon to this debate when parliamentary time is so limited to discuss the severe threat to their lives and livelihoods. However, I am happy to be able to speak in this afternoon’s debate and to follow some of the hon. and right hon. Members who have already invested huge amounts of time, thought and energy into devising the plans for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. I hope we will listen hard to their valuable contributions.
It feels particularly appropriate to be following the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). As the Chair of the Select Committee on Transport, I spent a great deal of time scrutinising his work as Transport Secretary and the decision making and delivery of projects to upgrade the UK’s transport infrastructure, much of which, like this building, was built in Victorian times and requires urgent work if it is to meet our needs in the 21st century. There are some useful parallels to be drawn and lessons to be learnt from the experience.
The first is that our short electoral cycles can make it difficult to take decisions about long-term projects that necessarily span several Parliaments. Incoming Governments have a tendency to re-examine, and sometimes reverse, the decisions of previous ones. Even when they end up reaching the same conclusions, additional time and uncertainty have inevitably added cost. I am afraid to say that reviews are sometimes undertaken to deliberately avoid or delay difficult decisions. We cannot afford to duck or delay restoration and renewal.
However, I welcome the Sponsor Body’s strategic review. It is right to re-examine how the restoration and renewal programme is carried out, especially in the light of covid-19, which has forced all of us to work in ways that some might never have thought possible and ushered in frightening economic impacts. We must ensure that the plans are the right ones, and that they are affordable and represent good value for taxpayers’ money, but we cannot afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It has already taken many years to devise the restoration and renewal programme and to set up the organisations to deliver it. We cannot afford to go back to square one because, as has been said, this place is falling apart faster than it can be fixed. As the House of Commons Commission said in October 2012:
“doing nothing is not an option.”
Eight years on, doing something has only become more pressing.
As the Prime Minister recognised in his letter to the review yesterday, there is a need to
“move as quickly as possible, both because of the risks associated with the current state of the building and the need to provide certainty on the way forward“.
As we have heard, there is a very serious risk of not only a major fire, which we know could spread rapidly through the building because of the thousands of empty ventilation voids, but flooding and falling masonry. We know that we must tackle the risks associated with the presence of asbestos; address environmental efficiency and sustainability; and transform access for disabled people, be they MPs, peers, staff or visitors. We also have a duty to preserve one of the UK’s most treasured historical buildings. It is a huge responsibility and we must not shirk it.
I wish to make two final points, returning to my reflections on fixing our transport infrastructure. The first is that doing the minimum does not work—our patched and potholed roads are testament to that. Reacting to each problem as it arises is inefficient, costly and disruptive. Long-term planned refurbishment provides better value for money and a better result. Secondly, trying to carry out substantial works without moving out of the building risks making the work much more difficult and costly, and risks serious disruption to parliamentary activities. I remember when Network Rail was upgrading Nottingham railway station in 2013 and it took the brave decision to undertake a five-week blockade to get the job done efficiently, closing the station completely, in preference to months of weekend and overnight closures. Thanks to careful planning and preparation, it was a huge success and changed the approach to upgrading the railway.
I look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate, particularly the contributions of my fellow Finance Committee members and that of my predecessor as Chair of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has championed the work to preserve this place. I also look forward to the outcome of the strategic review in the autumn. This is vital work that will allow the House to make the right decisions for the future of the Palace of Westminster and the UK Parliament.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to catch your eye in this debate. My remarks will be made with some trepidation, because the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee are in the Chamber. I have been a member of both Committees for about a decade; I have been a long-serving member. I also draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a chartered surveyor. So I have lived with this problem long before it even arose and I have seen the decaying state of the Palace of Westminster.
In his excellent speech, the Leader of the House might have made the point that we are only trustees of this place. We are here for the present generation, but, above all, we are here for future generations. Why are we here? We are here to remind everybody that this is the home of our democracy. It is our history. It needs to remind us that our forebears went to war twice to preserve our way of life and democracy. I caution colleagues about indulging in the argument that we are spending money on ourselves. We are not; we are spending money to preserve our democracy.
This is one of the most important and iconic buildings in the world and, as others have said, it is a UNESCO world heritage site, which we are legally obliged to maintain in good condition. The standard of maintenance over the past few years has got worse and worse, as everybody can see. We only have to look around the Palace to see the amount of scaffolding, large quantities of which are because there is falling masonry. As one of the former Leaders of the House said, it is a wonder that mercifully so far nobody has been hurt or seriously injured by falling masonry. We need to do something about the maintenance of this place.
The Elizabeth Tower project has proved, largely for the reasons that the former Chair of the Finance Committee gave, that the authorities in charge of the maintenance of these buildings are not very good at planning big projects, and that is why it is absolutely right that the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Board were set up by Members of Parliament.
We must learn from history. The National Audit Office report makes it clear that the completion of renewal in 1870 was 18 years late and three times over budget. We must not make those mistakes again. The Sponsor Body started in shadow form, and then was made substantive on 8 April 2020 by the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. It is going to make an interim report, supposedly by the end of September, and we should not do anything to fetter any of the options. I want it completely freely to come out, with all the options and an indicative cost, and then leave Parliament, the Government and the staff in this place and everybody else to make their judgment as to what is the right thing to do.
However, there is no point doing all that unless all the stakeholders buy in to what we are doing. Part of the reason we are here, eight years after this project was originally proposed, is that the stakeholders in general—the 650 Members of Parliament, the 800 peers, the thousands of staff in this place and, above all, the public—have not yet bought fully into the project. I urge those on the Sponsor Body to extend the 8 August deadline for consultation, have wide publicity as to what we might do and then let the Sponsor Body with all that evidence come up with the best solution. I therefore suggest that we have a longer consultation period.
Having established the optimal way of determining what we want to do, we then have to decide how we do it. As a surveyor, I have been a long-term advocate of a full decant, and I still maintain that the most economical and shortest way of doing this vast project is to fully move out. There is no question about that. However, if the political will and the impact of the covid situation on finance and what the Government want to spend have changed the situation so radically, I have another solution for the House this afternoon: do the project in two halves.
I do not mind about the sequencing, but basically the idea would be to move the House of Commons into the House of Lords and do the restoration on this half. Then when the House of Commons was complete, move us back here and start on the House of Lords. In that way, the House of Lords would move out to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, which the Government already own. All we would have to do was compensate the contractor there. It would mean that Members of Parliament—the elected House—never actually moved out of this building. All the fears that we might never move back and all the fears that we might lose our traditions and working ways in this House would be largely unfounded, because we would remain in the building for the entire time. It also has the huge benefit that we would not need the decant centre in Richmond House. Indeed, we would not need the Northern Estate at all to do the project—we need it, of course, for Members of Parliament. Richmond House is the controversial bit in terms of planning and what we do with it, but we would not need it. At a stroke, we would save £500 million, as we would need only one decant centre.
I say to the House that we have been discussing this long enough. The Chair of the Finance Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), makes a really good point: we should not be here debating this subject this afternoon. There are so many issues of national importance. I do not want to be here in another year or two’s time still debating what we should do. I want to be here in 2022 voting on a precise proposal to allow the Sponsor Body to get on with the work. The time for talking is nearly over. We need action if nobody is going to be killed because of poor maintenance of the Palace.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I, too, wish we were debating something else. I would like to be debating, for instance, the way British Airways is treating its staff and, for that matter, its customers, but we have this debate this afternoon. I could just say, “I refer hon. Members to the speech that I made last time”, or to the one before, but, unfortunately, I am not going to do that.
I do love this building. Sometimes, it is the small quirky bits of the building that I love. It is not just the obvious historical bits. When one walks through St Stephen’s Hall, there is the painting of Wolsey demanding more money from Thomas More, who was Speaker at the time. It is a great moment of British history. I love it because it was painted by Vivian Forbes and his lover Glyn Philpot. The sad story is that, when the painting was finished and Glyn Philpot died, Vivian Forbes took his own life 24 hours later. There are so many different layers of history in this building—it is woven into every single aspect of our history—and I think that we need to preserve it, not in aspic, but we need to preserve it.
There are lots of things that have not changed since the last debate. The truth is—notwithstanding the comments from the SNP earlier, or, for that matter, from the Prime Minister in his letter yesterday—we are not going anywhere else. As I am sure the Leader of the House will remember, when they tried to get Parliament to go to York in the1460s, there was no business to transact, so it ended up not sitting properly at all. And when Parliament met in York in the 14th century it only did so because the king was terrified of an invasion by the Scots. I do not think that that is the concern of the Prime Minister at the moment, although there are some worries about a border.
I made an important point earlier about the capacity for doing additional work here in the Palace. It seems crazy, but we emptied out the cloisters to do work immediately, we got rid of all the staff who were working there, and the cloisters are still completely empty; there is no extra space on the parliamentary estate to put extra workers to be able to get the work done. That is an increasing problem. There are projects that have been done very successfully. The cast-iron roofs have been done on time and on budget. It has been an excellent project. The inside of the roof in Westminster Hall has been attended to very well. There are projects that are going well, but we are accumulating, every year, more and more additional projects, and the backlog is getting worse.
Richmond House is still contiguous to the Northern Estate where most of our parliamentary offices are. That was one of the main reasons, when I was on the Joint Committee, that we considered using Richmond House. It diminished the security threats of crossing over to some other building across the road. It is not about the convenience of Members; it just made it possible for people to do their jobs safely.
Sir Edward Leigh
When the hon. Gentleman was on the Joint Committee, there was not a proposal to demolish the building.
Chris Bryant
Actually, there was. The memory of the right hon. Gentleman is failing him, I am afraid. There was a proposal to demolish it. The bit that I think he differs on is whether there was a proposal to demolish the staircases, which some people think are intrinsic to Richmond House. Personally, I think that they are the ugliest bit of the building. The truth is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said earlier, it would be perfectly possible if people like the right hon. Gentleman had not been complaining that we had to have a Chamber that was identical to this Chamber—[Interruption.] If I am diminishing the right hon. Gentleman, my memory is different from his. If we wanted to go to a system where we slightly changed the parameters of what is in there, I am up for that, but it remains a fact that Richmond House is the only piece of land that is contiguous to the rest of the parliamentary estate and therefore safe.
As for the other things that have not changed, the building was designed as a whole, not from the very beginning, but after the fire. After 1834, one of the great, clever things that Barry and Pugin did was to amalgamate the estate into a single proposition about the British constitution, from the Commons through to the Lords and the monarch and incorporating the ancient Westminster Hall from the 11th century. That poses a real problem for those who want us to decant in part, because there is one central heating system, which is steam under high pressure; there is one electricity system; there is one drainage system; there is one water system; and there is one basement, interconnected, with a set of risers that connect it to the one attic and roof. That is the problem for the future safety of the building.
The reason I completely disagree with the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—it is rare for us to disagree on matters of this kind—about the idea of a partial decant, and the Commons going down to the Lords while the Lords go elsewhere, is that the Lords is not contiguous to the offices on the northern estate. So a safe passageway would be needed for votes and for people to be able to take part in debates, or people would have to walk along the pavements outside. All the advice that was given to us was that that was a security risk for us. More importantly, one of the problems with trying to keep us in the Lords—which, incidentally, is too small a Chamber with far too few seats for the House of Commons to be able to sit in—is that if we kept this building working while it was a building site, we would dramatically increase the risk of a further fire and we would increase the risk to the staff who were working in it. That was precisely the problem in Notre Dame, and that is what led to the massive fire there.
Chris Grayling
It is probably unusual for the hon. Gentleman and me to be in strong agreement and for me to disagree with my good and hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), but I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. Of course, there is one other small factor that one has to take into account, which is, of course, that the plans need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. There was always a slight question mark over whether the Lords would agree to be thrown out.
Chris Bryant
I do not think there was a slight question mark. It was absolutely clear that the Lords would not move out merely so as to accommodate the Commons sitting in the House of Lords.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I did make it very clear in my speech that my preferred option was a full decant, but the world has changed as a result of covid. This is a different Parliament. The political imperative is different now, and I still say, as a surveyor, that it would be possible to do it in two halves.
Chris Bryant
Well, all the advice we were given was that, as an engineering feat, it would dramatically add to the cost, it would significantly add to the risk of a catastrophic failure to the building, and it would increase the danger to the staff working either as contractors or as Clerks and others working in the building. On all three counts, the imperative still lies with the hon. Gentleman’s preference, and I am right behind his preference on this.
There are some things that have not changed since the 19th century. The Leader of the House rightly referred to Caroline Shenton, who wrote two books. The first was about the fire and the second was about Mr Barry’s war. The latter makes it absolutely clear that the biggest problem for Barry and Pugin was not the River Thames or the drainage system, it was MPs and peers who stayed on site and were constantly meddling. Governments kept on changing their mind about whether it was a Government project or not, and that dramatically added to how long it took to get the Commons back in. It was not until 1850 that the Commons was back in, and then all the MPs hated it and demanded changes, so Barry said he would never step inside the place again.
We focus on the risk, and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) said earlier that the cost is terrible and there are risks. That is true, but there are also significant opportunities here. This building is now wholly inappropriate for anybody with any kind of disability. We often focus on those who need a wheelchair, and it is true that it is catastrophically difficult to get around the building in a wheelchair, but it is very dark as well. The most common form of disability is poor eyesight, and many people simply cannot use the building for that reason.
We need a building that is better attuned to today’s democracy, so that the public can come in more readily and easily to understand our business than the present Chamber allows. The archives are very badly kept at the moment, not for lack of will from the staff working there, but simply because the Victoria Tower simply cannot accommodate the facilities that we need in the modern era. We also do not have an education space that will last beyond another couple of years, because it only has 10 years from Westminster City Council.
My final point is that we should be seeing this as a training and employment opportunity for the whole country. If this infrastructure project is to succeed, we will have to have people coming from every constituency in the land, learning trades that they have never had, whether that is in encaustic tiles or wood panelling, as well as modern technology. We should see that as an opportunity. My fear is that we will keep on shilly-shallying and call for endless reviews, more papers and more consideration. The danger is that we will fail in our duty to this building. I think that there should be an eighth deadly sin for a Government Minister: procrastination.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who speaks with great passion about this building and great knowledge about the challenges we face. All I plead for is realism. We have a clear objective: that this great building should remain the home of our national democracy. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did not quite say that in his response to my remarks. It may be so obvious as to be implied, but it would be good if it was explicitly the policy of the Government that they envisage staying permanently in this building—even if we decant for a period, and even if the House of Commons chooses to meet in different parts of the country at different times, with this remaining our national home.
I mentioned the need for realism. The NAO report published in April highlights an enormous number of problems with this great project, not least a confusion of boundaries about who is responsible for what. In some respects, the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority have been put in charge of a project they do not control, because of us, because of the quirks of public opinion, because of the press and because of all kinds of added political risks.
I was unambiguously in favour of decant until I went around the basement and learned that, when we took the decision to vote for decant, we did not know nearly enough. I remain open-minded about the question of decant. While we are still learning, the cost of alternative arrangements and security has risen and risen. The opportunities for modularising on an incremental basis are quite apparent, particularly in respect of mechanical services. Sometimes we get a little carried away. We should not conflate the outside of the building with the inside of the building. The outside of the building is capable of being repaired while we are in it—the roof and parts of the walls are being repaired as we speak. It is perfectly possible to deal with the external fabric.
The problem of capacity is important, and it is the capacity of the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority that we should be most concerned about. They need to develop the capacity, expertise and skill to manage a very large project, and perhaps they should cut their teeth on a series of smaller projects, to build up their track record and expertise.
I come back to the question of risk. We all want best value for money. When large projects overrun, people often say that it must be due to the incompetence of either the contractor or the people who let or manage the contract. The bigger the contract and the project, the more complexities, the bigger the budget, the more people involved and the more risk. We see that in the procurement of new buildings and of large bits of defence kit. The risks compound and concatenate, and that is what will happen with this project.
As the NAO report makes clear, there are still so many known unknowns and unknown unknowns. The lesson from many of the cost overruns on the Queen Elizabeth Tower was not just on what could have been known—for example, somebody should have worked out what the scaffolding requirement was and costed it properly, which was a very big component of the cost overrun; there were also a whole lot of unknown unknowns that inflated the cost.
We have to accept that if this is to be a single big project, it is bound to overrun on cost and time because there are so many unknown unknowns. The question is whether the Sponsor Body should be charged with doing a single great project, or whether we should let it do it in bite-size pieces and learn incrementally; whether we decant is a secondary consideration. I hear strong arguments in favour of decanting, and I remain open-minded about them, but I spent 10 years looking at major projects, as Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee and then the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and everything we learnt about major projects told us one thing: the bigger the project, the more unpredictable it is. If there is one absolute certainty, that is it; it is the law of major projects.
I will finish with one final thought. Great emphasis is placed on what is known as “the requirement”. What is the requirement? Is it simply to preserve the building as it is, with a new set of mechanical services, new windows, a proper roof and without bits of masonry falling off? Or is there a very different requirement, to make this a major statement about what our national democracy is, what it should mean and how it should engage with the British people? One thinks of what the German people did with the rebuilding of the Reichstag after the reunification of Germany.
Is the country in the mood for a huge national statement about this building and our Parliament, or will that simply add to the risk? I think the British public want us to do a job that makes this building much more relevant to them. I had many differences with the previous Speaker, but the construction of the Education Centre was an act of genius. It has brought tens of thousands of children through here every month and has been a tremendous exercise in the education of our people about the value of our democracy, anchored in this building, which communicates so much about the values of our democracy and its permanence.
If we want this refurbishment to make that kind of statement, how is that conversation to be conducted? Will there be a competition for different proposals to see what attracts us as parliamentarians? There is a great deal about engagement with parliamentarians; there needs also to be engagement with the people. The danger is that we decide on something and then there is a great national controversy, and one party or another is driven off course as it tries to win an election, and the whole project is thrown into disarray as somebody says they will save some money by cancelling it. We have to engage with parliamentarians and the people and develop a proper vision for this building before we ask the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to embark on what is an almost impossible job—to manage the risks of this great project.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I do not intend to speak for long, as others have contributions to make, but it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), especially given the question he put at the beginning of his remarks about the status of this place as a seat of UK democracy in the future, because it is on that point that I want to provoke, perhaps, a new angle to the debate.
The current crisis has put a great deal into perspective in recent months and forced us as a society to re-evaluate some of our priorities. As such, it is right that the Sponsor Body is re-examining some of the options decided upon before the pandemic, particularly if public services are expected to come under further strain in the autumn and as we tremble at the thought of a possible severe economic recession. Plaid Cymru welcomes the strategic review, therefore, and is open-minded about some of the ideas suggested recently and during this debate, including Parliament’s full decant, possibly beyond Westminster.
Some Members have mentioned that we might be debating other issues today. One thing that has become very clear in recent months is that we cannot go back to the status quo ante, in all respects of that phrase. In my opinion, we cannot go back to the old status quo, where public investment and political attention has been largely concentrated in one corner of the British Isles.
Communities across Wales are already experiencing job losses, and there is the threat of more to come. At this difficult time, perhaps we should be debating ways to increase investment into our infrastructure and economic packages of support for our small businesses and industries such as tourism that will take longer to recover from this pandemic. However, as I think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned in his remarks, this is the debate that we have.
Taken in that broader context, it is right to look again at some of the strategic options that are before us. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) mentioned in his remarks, the amounts of public spending that we are talking about are sizeable. I think that the projected cost is about £4 billion, but, as others have mentioned, it is likely to rise. It is right that we are debating whether there are other ways that this project can be pursued and progressed that might be more beneficial to the public purse. If I needed to labour the point, to put the £4 billion into context, the additional funding that the Welsh Government received via the Barnett formula to deal with the present public health and economic crisis has been some £2.8 billion.
We cannot deny that the Palace of Westminster is falling apart, and the staff of this place deserve better, as well as everybody else. Others have mentioned falling masonry. I remember quite vividly an occasion about a year and a half ago when a piece of masonry fell from the roof of, I think, Norman Shaw North. It mercifully did not hurt anybody, but it did destroy a car. The dangers are there, and I will not go on to discuss some of the problems with asbestos and the cellars and basements.
If restoration and return is the only route open to us then of course I will support the safest and most cost-effective option. I do think, though, that an opportunity might be missed this afternoon if the debate only reruns the old arguments of whether we move out versus whether we try to stay and work around the building works—to decant or not to decant—especially considering that every year of delay has, I think, been estimated to cost a further £100 million of public money. A full decant, I believe, is therefore necessary.
I listened with great interest to the points made by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on looking again at options to decant elsewhere, beyond Westminster. Others have mentioned the comments by the Prime Minister about the possibility of moving Parliament to York. The historical precedents to one side, I will end my comments by playfully suggesting: why stop at a temporary decant to York? Why not go further and make the move out of London permanent? This place should still be restored, but as a site of historical and world heritage importance. The phrase “build back better” has been used quite a bit in recent months. There is an opportunity in this debate for us to live up to some of the rhetoric.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This debate has often falsely been portrayed as a debate between pragmatic modernisers such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who by the way I cannot help liking and respecting—I do not know why, but I do—and traditionalists who are putting their own comfort first. Actually, the arguments are far more complex. I have spent quite a lot of time over the past few years talking to architects and mechanical and electrical engineers, and I personally believe that compared with the present plans, there are greener, cheaper, faster and better solutions.
May I burnish my credentials with those who say that we have to get on with this work by saying that 25% of the space in the Palace is currently taken up by unseen historical ventilation systems? I went round some of them yesterday. There are 24-hour fire checks in many roof and basement areas. There were four fires in 2019, eight fires in 2018 and even a small fire in the basement last month. We all accept that the work has to be got on with as quickly as possible.
My contention is that if we follow the present plans, we will face years of delay and public inquiries, because when the original Joint Committee met, it was told that it could fit a temporary Chamber into one of the courtyards of Richmond House. It was given the wrong measurements and that is how we started the whole genesis of knocking down all of Richmond House.
Mark Tami
It was not so much that the Joint Committee was given the wrong measurements; actually, the plans were different from the structure that was built, and the basement turned out to be 10% smaller. I do not know whether the builder, whoever it was, had fiddled the system, but that was the reason.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am grateful. That points out some of the problems.
I come to the present proposal to knock down Richmond House, which is, of course, a listed building. I never thought that I would defend a building younger than myself, but I am. It was listed for a purpose—to preserve it. It is an award-winning building. The best way to be carbon neutral, actually, is not to knock down an existing building, so even if people are in favour of full decant—I do not want to repeat all the arguments—we do not need to knock down Richmond House. I have been working with SAVE, the architectural heritage association, and it is perfectly possible to build a temporary Chamber in the courtyard. If it is temporary, it may be a tiny bit uncomfortable. There will be less of a tendency, once we leave this building, for the works to drag on for five or 10 years—and it will be five or 10 years. We have seen with modern voting systems that we can vote electronically. We do not need two wide Division Lobbies, and all the rest.
I am looking now to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I think that we can very quickly probably come to a kind of consensus—that we do not need to go to the super-gold-plated option of knocking down Richmond House and exactly replicating this space, with the Division Lobbies. They have even made the Division Lobbies wide enough to have the oriel windows, but we do not need those in any temporary future Chamber.
There is a better, cheaper, faster alternative, however, and I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). I have been working with Anthony Delarue, a well-respected architect, who has a long history of working with historic buildings. It is perfectly possible to have a line of route through Westminster Hall, St Stephen’s Hall and Central Lobby into the House of Lords Chamber, which could be used by the House of Commons, as it was in the second world war, perhaps with the House of Lords put in the Royal Gallery. It would be perfectly possible, according to expert opinion, to have the services taken from outside—from services in Abingdon gardens or Victoria Tower gardens—and we could start getting on with this work now.
Contrary to the horror stories that we have been told, it is possible to get on with this work, make considerable progress with the ventilation systems, the heating systems, the electrical and mechanical systems and the asbestos systems while we continue to work in this Palace, which is the iconic home of British democracy. As we have heard, it has 1 million visitors every year. Do we really want to close this building down? I think that it will be 10 years—I do not think it will be five years once we lose control of this process. Do we want to lose 1 million people a year times 10? That is a lot of schoolchildren who will never visit this place. At least if we can keep Westminster Hall and Central Lobby open, and if we can have visitors coming to witness our debates in the House of Lords Chamber and visiting the House of Lords in the Royal Gallery, we would be doing a service to our constituents.
I repeat this vital point. We are told again and again that it is impossible to split up the services. I have been around in the past week with a mechanical and electrical engineer and he says that that is simply not true. After all, we create, in days, pop concerts for hundreds of thousands of people, but we are told, “No, we can’t do that. We can’t take services from outside. It’s all too difficult. We have to surrender control of the process.” I simply do not buy into that. I think that it is groupthink and, frankly, that we have been bamboozled in the past four or five years. There are alternative, costed, expert opinions saying that there are cheaper, greener and better ways to do this. If there is a real fire risk, and I think there is a real fire risk, why delay this whole process for years while we seek to demolish Richmond House, while we have a public inquiry and while we build a permanent replica Chamber?
By the way, what will we actually use that Chamber for? When visitors come here in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, do they want to be visiting a replica? They will want to see this Chamber, where Winston Churchill spoke or Jacob Rees-Mogg—that great orator of the early 21st century. They do not want to be going to see a replica. It will be the most glorious white elephant.
And do we really want to move the House of Lords to QEII, with all the security implications and losing the rent that the Government gain from it? The plans for QEII are wildly extravagant: those involved want to create a roof-top terrace, and they want to demolish the existing conference hall so that the height of the temporary House of Lords Chamber is the same as the existing House of Lords Chamber. The fact is that this has become out of control.
I see the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), in her place, and we are the guardians of the public purse. Of course we have to put safety first and of course we have to do the work properly, but we do not need to have a feeding feast over 10 years or 15 years, costing between £10 billion and £20 billion, with this gold-plated option of demolishing Richmond House, moving out completely and stripping everything out of this building while we are evicted.
I end on this point: there is a compromise, and I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) well. The debate has moved on, even in small things or not so small things. We were told even quite recently—I was told this by the present Leader of the House—that we had to knock down Richmond House because we needed more office space. That is a strange and quite a circular sort of argument: we need to knock down an office building to get more office workers. We do not need them. The entire civil service is now working virtually and the entire civil service will almost certainly go on to a three-day week. We have proven that we do not need an emergency Chamber in case of a disaster; we can work virtually for a few weeks or, indeed, a few months. The whole debate has moved on and we need to think again, but we do not need to delay. We can get on with the work around us now, and that is what we should do.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I do rail a little against his comment about group-think. If I remember rightly, there was a group-think that we must stay here come what may, until we had a vote— I remember it very well—on 31 January 2018, when the House decided that the best option was to work up one option in detail and move out.
As the right hon. Gentleman said—he is an illustrious predecessor of mine as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am delighted to be here today with the deputy Chair, the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown)—we do, all of us, value spending and watch how taxpayers’ money is spent. It is not our money that is being spent on this place, nor is it our place. It is the nation’s and the world’s: it is a UNESCO world heritage site.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) talked about what makes big projects work. We know that there are many multiple projects within this big project—everything from how the stone masonry will be dealt with to the education centre, how the archives will be stored and the wood carvings, let alone all the mechanical and technical work that goes on. However, the challenge of a major project is to bring all those together and make sure that each is delivered in a time that means the others can carry on.
We therefore see the need for integration, and I refer to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) about the rail system. The integration of our rail system has been one of the big problems about delivering such projects. We can deliver the tracks, the trains and the signalling, but if they do not work altogether at the same time, passengers do not get a benefit. That is the challenge, and that is why we set up the Sponsor Body, after a lot of work by a number of us.
It is interesting how this House has divided today between those who have been very heavily involved in meetings, discussions and papers on this project and, hearteningly, a lot of new Members who have probably had less time to get into the subject. I hope that they have been listening carefully to those of us who have been very closely invested in this project.
The project will cost money, but it is not an either/or. On the idea that we should not spend money on a place that everybody who has spoken so far agrees is a huge fire risk and a huge health and safety risk, that money will not be available to spend on other things. Under UNESCO rules, as the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) highlighted, the Treasury is responsible within the Government for paying for this project.I have checked this out, and the Treasury is ultimately responsible for making sure that this place does not crumble and for maintaining it to UNESCO standards. It is vital that that work is done. As I say, fire is a real risk, and there is an important question here for the Leader of the House about who is ultimately responsible for the health and safety of all who work here and all who visit here.
I disagree with the right hon. Member for Gainsborough again on the point about the visitors who would come here if we did it in parts. I would not ask schoolchildren from Hackney to come to this building if we were ripping out asbestos and there were building works going on. I would not expect my staff or the staff of this House to come here. I hope that the Leader of the House is taking that very seriously. Has he been talking to the trade unions and staff representatives, whom I have had the privilege to meet on a number of issues, and who are very thoughtful and considerate? They love this place, but they want people to be safe, just as I hope we do.
Value for money is absolutely vital, which is another reason we wrote in the role of the National Audit Office, to get it involved now, before any work is done. One thing I have been trying to promote as a member of the Public Accounts Committee—I put the implication out there, although there is only one Government Minister present—is to do more looking at projects before they go wrong, ensuring that the assurances and the methodologies are in place. We need to ensure that the Sponsor Body is set up well to do its job and to hold the Delivery Authority to account for whatever is ultimately delivered.
But how much longer? We have been waiting a long time for this. Some have talked about 2013, some about 2015, 2016 or 2018, but it is 40 years, really, that we have been having to look at this. The amount of money and time spent on patching this place up is no longer justifiable. It is still taxpayers’ money; we just do not see the big tag. Let us not kid ourselves that by avoiding doing it in one hit as a major project—actually, this building is a major project whichever way you cut it up—we will save money. That is a myth. Obviously, the full figures have to be worked up, but we would still be spending millions and millions.
Let us take the risers with some of the electrical and other facilities in them. For work to be done to take asbestos out, all that has to be removed and rebuilt outside the building, while ensuring that the connections are not lost. Then the asbestos is removed in roughly half-hour slots by someone in asbestos gear. It takes more than a year and costs multi-millions of pounds to do each one. There are contractors rubbing their hands with glee as we keep dodging the decision about getting on with this. A lot of people are making a lot of money out of the taxpayer’s pockets—our constituents’ pockets—and we need to get on with this quickly.
We need to be careful about the smoke and mirrors around whether there should be an exact replica of the Chamber in Richmond House. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); I remember that there was a very loud cacophony of voices here saying, “We will not consider leaving this Chamber unless we have an exact replica.” I am not wedded to an exact replica. I can do my job pretty much anywhere. I do not need this Chamber. I love this Chamber; it is a great place to debate, it is very atmospheric and it provides a lot of opportunities for us to get our constituents’ points of view across. But we do not need to have it precisely like this. We can compromise, as the past few weeks have shown. We have adapted very well.
We need to be aware, as well, of the smoke and mirrors from No. 10 Downing Street’s suddenly announcing the suggestion of a move to York. I put the move to York for the House of Lords in the same category as the bridge to Northern Ireland or the estuary airport.
Meg Hillier
Or the garden bridge, indeed. Only £30 million of taxpayers’ money went through the Department for Transport to the garden bridge, so that was a relatively cheap proposal by the current Prime Minister. We need to be careful: it is very easy, and very much a tactic of the current incumbent at No. 10, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), to throw out a random thought and let everyone talk about that, and meanwhile we stop talking about the real issue: that this place needs to be sorted, and it needs to be sorted now.
I turn to the Leader of the House again and ask him who is responsible if someone gets injured or hurt. Who would be responsible for asbestos poisoning in this place? I think it would end up being the Clerk of the House and the corporate body of the House of Commons. That means that the Leader of the House is sitting there and everyone is waiting for the musical chairs to stop, hoping that they will not be standing at the moment when a disaster happens in this House.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I can clarify that. The Clerk of the House is the responsible officer, and he takes his responsibility enormously seriously. He has made it absolutely clear that, if he thought there were a risk to people in this Palace, he would insist that the place closed.
Meg Hillier
That means that we have to be responsible for the Clerk of the House’s sake as well, so he is not left holding the problem if something were to go wrong. We had a fire only a few weeks ago.
We need to decide and get on with it—we have decided; there is a statute in place—and we need to make sure that we get on with costing up the preferences and let the Sponsor Body get on and do its work. We cannot keep adding options or we will just build the cost and build in delay. We cannot keep changing our mind.
I am a patient and reasonable woman, I think, but I am angry at the prospect that we could be one of the last generations of MPs to stand in this place and that my schoolchildren from Hackney could be the last generation to come to visit, because if we keep dodging the issue, we will have a pile of ash and rubble, not a beautiful world heritage site. We have to avoid that. We have to protect the people who work here. We need to get on with it.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
As a relatively new Member of the House, I have not been party to many of the debates that have been referenced in the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon, but I have found it enormously illuminating to hear the experiences that have been shared and, in particular, the insights into the advice that the House has received over many years about securing the long-term future of the building.
I am conscious that there are not many Members of the House who have detailed technical experience of the building trade, but there are a good many who have experience of the political oversight of major capital projects. That may be directly, in my case through projects such as Building Schools for the Future, the Priority School Building programme and the decent homes standard, or as stakeholders and consultees in those projects when the NHS or our public transport providers undertake major rebuild works.
From that experience, the warning signs are there of a major capital project that is running into some degree of difficulty. In particular, I highlight something that has been referenced by a number of Members: the somewhat confused governance about driving the project forward. Who owns each of those decisions? Who owns those risks? At which point do those decisions need to be made to address the issues that have been highlighted by many Members on both sides of the House?
I have had the privilege over many years of visiting places that our democracy uses across the country, such as the Senedd in Cardiff bay, the Scottish Parliament and many of our town halls, although sadly not yet Stormont. A key characteristic of all those places is that they are first and foremost places of work and places in which our democracy delivers for the people.
We cannot open a commentary about the British economy without spotting references to that British disease, the lack of investment in our productivity. When we talk to the people about the rationale behind investing in new hospitals, new schools, new roads and improved railways, the same rationale applies to the need to invest in our democratic institutions. It is about ensuring that, in this place of work, we can be productive in the service of all our citizens. That is not about gold-plating, which has been referenced a number of times; it is absolutely right to raise that as a criticism.
In all those town halls and each of those regional and national Parliaments, the focus has been not on making a major statement of national confidence necessarily, but on how we can do our job well in those institutions on behalf of the people, and on ensuring that the physical nature of those buildings supports the delivery of that agenda. That includes making sure that, whether it is the leaking school roof that puts the IT department out of use, or the inadequate wi-fi that means constituents cannot get a response, we have adequate facilities so those places do their job effectively.
There are many projects to learn lessons from. Building Schools for the Future is a good example of a project that started with good intentions but morphed into something that was about creating temples to learning. It became astonishingly expensive and, in far too many cases, ended up delivering nothing practical to school teachers and children who, to this day in some cases, are in buildings that were not fit for purpose 20 years ago.
The learning from that project informed the Priority School Building programme that said we need to focus on doing what makes it easier for people to do their job in that environment at an efficient cost. That has resulted in a better spend of taxpayers’ money and a faster renewal of many of those buildings, and it has ensured that those facilities are—that key phrase—fit for purpose for the future.
At a time when our Government nationally and Parliament collectively have set out a very clear commitment to investing capital, which is historically cheap at the moment, in improving our public realm for the benefit of our citizens, there is a compelling argument for investing that capital in ensuring that our political institutions are fit for purpose as well.
I would like to draw to a conclusion by raising two points that I have not yet heard addressed in the debate about this capital project. There are, no doubt, those with more experience who may know about them, but I think it is important to raise them. The first is that there does not seem to be a clear property strategy for Parliament. We have heard reference, for example, to the income-raising capabilities of parts of the parliamentary estate. We have heard about the need for different staff to be based here, and the learning from the virtual working brought about by the covid pandemic and what that means for the future need that this institution has for buildings. There is a very clear programme expressed by the Sponsor Body for how we keep this building intact, but there does not seem to be, as far as I can see, a great long-term strategy that says, “How do we ensure not just that this building here is preserved for the next 40 or 50 years, but the strategy for ensuring that this institution can function in the future?”
Chris Bryant
There is more of a strategy than perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware of, but one of the things that has plagued the House for some considerable time is that, because we have been bound by Government pay scales, it has been quite difficult to get really high quality personnel to engage in some of the projects here. Sometimes that has meant that we have had to buy in consultants, which of course ends up being far more expensive. That is one of the things the Finance Committee has returned to time and time again, and it is why we set up the structure with the arms-length body so as to be able to bring in that expertise at the very highest level, rather than constantly having to reinvent the wheel.
David Simmonds
I am very grateful for that intervention, which is illuminating. It sounds like a suggestion from both us is that it would perhaps be helpful for the Leader of the House and colleagues to consider a clear exposition to Members and some thinking about what a long-term property strategy for Parliament looks like, so we can ensure we have the office space and the facilities for our security staff, our Members and our visitors which mean we can sustain this institution for the long term.
I would like to finish on this point. One thing that is very characteristic of all such major capital projects—we discussed this under the very able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the Chair of the Finance Committee—is that there reaches a point where a decision has to be made and the absence of a decision becomes a bigger problem than almost any decision that could be made to achieve progress. I saw that happen when my local authority, the London Borough of Hillingdon, spent £24 million with consultants on the Buildings Schools for the Future programme without a single brick being laid or sod being turned, because the project management structure was so complex and expensive, and it was not set up to deliver.
The recommendation that we make progress now on the refurbishment of Richmond House and the decant of Norman Shaw North is a wise decision that enables us to ensure that our staff and the Members directly affected are able to continue to do their jobs in a sufficient and adequate working environment. I think that was the outcome of the views debated in the Finance Committee last week. I very much hope, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set out in his introduction to the debate earlier on, that the review being carried out is one that results in swift decision making, so we can ensure that the accusation of fiddling while Rome burns is not justified, and that we can make decisions and our constituents can see that, as we are doing in respect of our public transport, roads, schools and hospitals, we can make decisions about our democratic institutions, so they continue to function productively and efficiently in the interests of the people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am afraid we have to have a time limit now of six minutes in the hope that more people will get a chance, in the short time that is left, to contribute to the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). If he is seeking, as I understand he might be, a chance to visit Northern Ireland and the Assembly, I am sure that that could be arranged. It could be one off his bucket list of things that he wants to do in life.
I have no desire to get caught up today in the most recent protests that have taken place throughout the nation, but something that hit me hard was seeing the statue of my boyhood hero, Sir Winston Churchill—to whom I give a nod every time I have the privilege of coming into this place—being vandalised and covered in graffiti. That was hard, because it reminded me not only of the man but of the victory over fascism that he symbolises. That is something that I and others in this House hold dear.
Similarly, when we discuss the restoration of this place, I do not regard it as I did when my wife decided to replace the windows and refurb the entrance to my home. When I queried the necessity for this, the bottom line was my main concern; obviously it was not hers. The restoration of this place involves the preservation of our history and a nod to the future of the nation. This is the thing that unites us all and where we are. To me, it symbolises where we have come from and where we are heading. As an Ulster Scot who keeps his money pretty tight, I know that money is vitally important and should not be wasted. I also believe that if we are going to do something, it must be done right.
We must cut the cloth to suit us, and the ladies in the House will know that the one dress that they never scrimp on is their wedding dress, because that is the most important dress they will ever wear. I have three granddaughters, and I understand exactly how that dress will symbolise their dedication and commitment. Similarly, our Parliament is a symbol of the greatest democracy in the world, and my fear is that, amid the to-ing and fro-ing and the usual backbiting, we might forget the symbolic importance of this place and the vital nature of preserving this history.
Before coronavirus, I never once came to this place without seeing a massive queue of people from every corner of the world waiting to catch a glimpse of these hallowed halls and to experience a piece of history dating back to 1016. As I heard the American and other accents marvelling, I was reminded of the fact that America as we know it did not exist at that time and was home only to the proud native Americans. It is little wonder that they marvel at our history as they gaze at the magnificent hammerbeam roof in Westminster Hall, which is the largest medieval timber roof in northern Europe. It was commissioned in 1393 by Richard II, and it is a masterpiece of design. Every time I walk these hallowed halls, the weight of our responsibility to the history of this nation echoes along with my footsteps.
I am not someone who accepts change easily. I am apt to change, and I have to be, but when we need work done in the house or in the office, I arrange for it to be done in my absence. The thought of what is to come is not something that I look forward to, but the prize at the end is worth the upset and worth the finance. It is clear to me that work must be carried out here. Money must be spent and we may have to relocate somewhere else, if that is the option. We have had lots of options put forward here today, and every one of them is feasible. As an Ulster Scot, I would probably wish to see the one that costs less money and less inconvenience, and the amount that has to be spent will only rise with every month we put this off, as other hon. Members have said.
Let us get UK firms doing the work and support our economy at a time when we as a country need to invest in ourselves. Let us ensure that the workload is spread as well as it can be, and that not one penny leaves the UK. This is a very difficult time. Covid-19 has and will cost incredible sums of money; it is costing billions, and there is a demand on the funds that we can spend. We need a programme that will preserve and protect the fabric of this House, and we must deliver the value for money that is needed. Let us do this right. We must have a safe place for our staff—safety first—and ensure the preservation of one of the most important pieces of history, not just in this nation but in the whole world. Let us get the money set aside and the plans drawn up, and let us not for a second risk the heritage of these hallowed halls that we are so privileged and honoured to sit in today. Not to do anything would be a travesty.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I want to talk about fact and fiction, place and purpose, and all in six minutes. But before I do so, let me speak about this place. Of course it is true that this is a great edifice. Its aesthetics are something that we celebrate and enjoy, and that are enjoyed, by the way, by all the people who visit here. We have spoken of children and many others who come here to see democracy at work. They would be deprived of that opportunity if we were to abandon this place for however long.
This place is, of course, also a working environment—a place of work not just for Members of Parliament here and in the other place, but for all those who clerk, clean, cater, serve us and serve the people by serving us. And their place of work is something special to them; it fills them with joy, too. What would become of them when we abandoned this place? Would they all be accommodated in Richmond House? Would they be offered some kind of redundancy package?
I see all kinds of horrors for those who in many cases have given their lifetime’s service to this place, including, by the way, those who repair and restore it, because restoration and repair is a continuing process and has always been so. I mentioned a day or so ago that Geoffrey Chaucer was a Clerk of Works when this place was being restored a very long time ago, so let us not see restoration and repair as a moment in time. It is an inevitable part of the stewardship of this place, for we are just that—stewards; we have a responsibility to maintain it as well as to enjoy it.
Now, there are some who do not revere the character of this building and do not really much like the traditions associated with it. There are a few who argue that we should strip it out, start again and create some Parliament in the round—some terribly modern body in a terribly modern place. Well, I tell them that I estimate that that would not chime with most of the people I represent in South Holland and The Deepings, and I would say it would not chime with most of the people represented by other Members of this Chamber.
In the three minutes and 33 seconds remaining to me, I want to make five very quick points. First, T.S. Eliot said:
“Knowledge is invariably a matter of degree : you cannot put your finger upon even the simplest datum and say ‘this we know’.”
The truth is that facts do not change, but what we believe is factual does, so we should beware of estimates. We should beware when we are told, “This will be more expensive” or “This will be done in seven years.” These things always alter in every capital project, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said.
Secondly, circumstances change too. We now debate this matter given all that has happened with covid. We should understand that when we first considered it, we were in an altogether different climate economically, socially and culturally.
Thirdly, let us look at precedent. There have been times when we have been forced to re-accommodate Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) reminded us that in the war we moved to the House of Lords, and most of Churchill’s great speeches were made from there, not here, contrary to what many might think. So of course there is precedent for the inconvenience that comes from emergencies, and we should look to that precedent and see how we could—at our inconvenience—repair and restore this place while maintaining its life and character.
Fourthly, there is the issue of governance. Do we really believe that we are sufficiently capable in project management terms both to govern the creation of an enormous edifice at Richmond House, and simultaneously to govern and manage—carefully and skilfully—the restoration of this place? I would not be confident about that, and I would be very surprised if any Member of this House could say with confidence that it will not run over time and over budget. I do not think that we have the capabilities to do both, and we probably do not have the capability to do either in one chunk. We should be more modest about what we do and create a timetable that reflects that humility.
Fifthly, there is the issue of the character of Parliament. People say, “Let’s strip out staircases. Let’s make it more friendly.” But it is the eclectic character of this place—its particularity and peculiarity—that is its charm. I want it to be inefficient and I want it to be eclectic. God preserve me from the efficient, clean, utilitarian life because beauty is not always clean, efficient and utilitarian, and love is not either—and I love this place and I know that the people love it too.
That brings me to the people, finally. We know that we can lead the people and follow the people, but we should not get on the wrong side of the people. If we go about what was originally proposed and spend billions of pounds building another Parliament a stone’s throw from this one, doubt will quickly turn to disdain and disdain will turn to derision, so I say stick with the common sense of the people and stay put.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I have been listening carefully to what colleagues have been saying, and I am struck that some speak with great certainty about the future. Unfortunately, I am not able to speak with such certainty. Indeed, one of the fascinations of life is that we never know what is going to happen. We have only to look at the state of the world and the country at the moment to see that we cannot be certain about the future. What I say to every colleague is that this Parliament cannot tie the hands of the next, and whatever is said in this Parliament could easily change.
Unashamedly, I am very fond of this building. Not everyone is. Some people think, “Oh, it’s an old palace; throw it open as a tourist attraction” and all of that, but I want future colleagues to share the thrill that I felt when I was first elected. This is the mother of all Parliaments; it is very special indeed. However, I had no idea that it was falling apart, and only when I served on the Administration Committee, and went to the top of Big Ben and saw the iconic clock and the problems there, and then went over the roof and saw the damage there, and then went to the cellars and saw how dangerous things were, did I think, “My goodness. This place does need some restoration.” Without any question, therefore, I support the restoration and renewal of this place—some of my critics would probably say that I could do with some restoration myself, and I am open to offers on that account.
There is no question but that the deterioration of this building accelerated when we—how can I put this gently?—opened it to a huge number of people. Some would argue that that was the right approach, but when more and more people were visiting the place, that obviously did damage. Then we did away with our recesses because it was felt that it was not good to be away for so long. The recesses were used to maintain the building, but all of that has been lost, at great cost.
As has been said, the sewers are in a terrible state, the façade is decaying, the electrics are awful, the roof is leaking, and there is asbestos everywhere. I know the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) does not want me to reopen this, but I do not agree that the elected Members of this place should leave the estate. When we held a vote on that, there were only 16 votes in it. It was rather close.
I was at Richmond House on the day it opened because I happened to be involved with the then Department of Health. It was a great joy compared to where we were in the Elephant and Castle, but I do not like the building just as—I am sorry if this upsets colleagues—I do not like Portcullis House. I am in love with 1 Parliament Street, which is where I have been since it opened, but that is down to individual taste. It is a crazy idea to demolish Richmond House and rebuild it, and I do not think the electorate will be pleased with that.
I congratulate the House of Lords on the brilliant way it has worked virtually throughout the pandemic. Some people are keen on a virtual approach, and they might want to consider that. I am keen for Members of the Commons to move to the House of Lords, which is very possible. I am advised that the Lords Chamber and the Royal Gallery could be serviced externally in terms of electricity and lighting. There could be enough working space for everyone, and that would eliminate the cost of converting the QEII building—it is absolute madness to spend £350 million on that. Work on the services for the whole palace, including the cabling and basement, could then go some way to allay the minimum disruption.
Since 2016, we have had Brexit and the pandemic. Money is so tight at the moment, and it will not go down well if we spend a huge amount of money on this project. In the first three months of the Sponsor Body, before any actual work starts, the cost will be £27.5 million—these are huge costs. It was estimated that the programme will cost between £3.52 billion and £3.87 billion. Surely to goodness, in this day and age, we could get the work done in half the time that has been forecast.
This House should take the opportunity to rethink the plans for a full decant and instead consider a rolling programme of work on the Palace structure and services. That would save a huge amount of money, which the electorate would expect us to do. We should do the work continuously in three shifts. The project could then be completed in five years, and this great place could continue without interruption.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
This debate and its predecessor debates have shown just how strongly people feel about this building. There is something very special about this place—people feel it whenever they come here. I certainly felt it when I was a new Member, and it does not fade with time, or at least not for me. Visitors who I have brought here tell me that they feel exactly the same. Whether they are school groups or pensioner groups, the reaction is the same.
We are very lucky to work in a building that, alongside being a functioning Parliament, is an architectural masterpiece, a repository of our national history and one of the most famous buildings in the world. Not many buildings can be recognised globally by their silhouette alone. Its continuity as a central location in our national story is extraordinary. We reflect our national story in the architecture here, such as the Churchill Arch, constructed of rubble from the bomb damage in the blitz. We reflect it in our art, such as the frescos on the walls depicting moments of importance. I always highlight to visitors the scene of Speaker Lenthall asserting the primacy of the Commons. We also reflect it in our procedures, such as closing the door in Black Rod’s face at the State Opening, again to reflect the primacy of the Commons.
What we are showing is how our country has journeyed from one person, one vote, when that one person was the King, to one person, one vote, but with a universal franchise, and how our journey has not been a smooth one. These tell us of the struggle for democracy, how precarious it is and how it cannot be taken for granted. What I am basically saying is that we have something that cannot be replicated and is really worth saving. With that comes special responsibility for us. We all know that there are huge problems with the building. Those have been well articulated—it is always easier to articulate problems than solutions—but we must not be the generation of parliamentarians that fails to protect and pass on what we have, knowing its value and knowing the problems.
Our predecessors may not have grasped the nettle as they could have done, and we now face a bigger problem as a result. There have been many suggested ways forward—some of them have even been sensible. We have already voted on this issue. I would like to see some parameters or guidelines set for those who have the significant challenge of dealing with this project, to help them scope and define it and then help colleagues to contribute, understand and perhaps stick to its conclusions. It is clear that flexibility will be required from everyone. MPs must accept that there will be significant disruption. Changes to procedure may be necessary, but we have shown that we can do that in our response to the current crisis. Do we need to have so many people on site, or even so many people at all? Seeking to create an interim but exact replica of this place will drive cost, not value. We should be asking ourselves what we will actually need to keep Parliament functioning and fulfilling its duties.
There has to be more focus on value for money; our constituents would expect nothing less. Some of the proposals have had price tags which, frankly, have been fanciful and almost embarrassing. We are living in a world where the economy is much smaller as a result of this virus. Gold-plating temporary measures is not acceptable. Knocking down Richmond House does not feel like a temporary measure to me—it seems much more extreme—but we have to focus on value for money. That is critical. The control procedures for project management must be robust, given that it is almost inevitable that, as soon as work starts, there will be nasty surprises. I was struck by the wise words from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) based on his experience of project management.
We will clearly need a very imaginative approach, as there are so many factors to consider and so many groups to satisfy. There is lots of colleague concern that if we leave here we will never come back. I am sure that such concern could be allayed by stating clearly in the project objectives that if we choose to leave, our goal is to return to this place as our national parliamentary home. I recognise that I am not an engineer, as most of us in this place are not, so I am not going to be leaping to any conclusions. I am aware how much work has been done, but we need to bear in mind that there is still much more to be done. That is why when solutions are still being debated, we should be clear about the principles and recognise that we are some way off before the options for final progress are in front of us. It is disappointing that we are still in this place after many, many years.
I wish to give one last thought. Parliamentarians must support the restoration and renewal team to define this project as comprehensively as possible, and then MPs must stick to the definition and decisions. The lessons from projects changing their objectives during the course of their life, be they from national or local government, is that that is a sure-fire generator of time and cost overruns—that is project creep, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House does not like to describe it. Many Governments have had a tendency to put some questions into the “too hard” category, with some elegant, “It’s not the right time” explanations for a deferral. We should not be taking the easy comfort of delay or pretending there are easy answers, as talk has suggested. We have to take our responsibility and make sure we preserve this amazing place and all that it tells us. We need to save it for future generations as our national Parliament, making sure not only that it is modernised, but that it is fit for service for centuries ahead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am sorry but we have to reduce the time limit to three minutes, which I appreciate is a bit of a shock for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), but I am sure that he will manage.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is not a debate I thought I would be speaking in, and I did not know much about it prior to becoming the MP for Wolverhampton South West. The issue has never come up on the doorstep and it does not fill my inbox, but as a new MP it is important to have a say. It is just a shame that 20 other colleagues around me from the new intake do not get to have their input.
One thing is clear: from what we have heard today, we must take swift action. Doing nothing is not an option. We need to consider a lot of factors that have come into play now but that were not there before, with the general election being one. The 2019 election brought nearly 150 of my colleagues into this place. Are our views the same as those of our predecessors? Ultimately we will be dealing with this project for many years to come and that needs to be taken into consideration.
We are still in the covid-19 crisis and it has changed the way that we operate here. We have seen pros and cons. I reckon that the covid pandemic has advanced technology in this place by probably a decade. We have worked, voted and debated remotely. Lots of things have been done, some of which have worked well and some of which have not, but we have seen what Parliament can do in a very short space of time under pressure. We have risen to the challenge. This site is a UNESCO site, just as the Black Country is—we have recently been awarded that.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that having asked the nation to be resilient and resourceful—and to work from home—we should be doing that as well and leading by example? Does he also agree that should an alternative be necessary, Dudley is exactly that place, as we have a zoo and a castle that just needs a roof?
Stuart Anderson
I love my neighbouring MP’s passion for the Black Country, but I think Wolverhampton would be first.
As I said, this issue does not fill my inbox or come up on the doorstep, but if we get it wrong, it will fill all of our inboxes. I would like to have heard more of my colleagues’ views, but there are a lot of things that I simply do not get. I do not understand some of the decisions and how I would justify the current course of action to the electorate in Wolverhampton. When the great people of Wolverhampton say to me, “Why are you replicating a brand-new building nearby so you can live in semi-comfortable conditions when the rest of the country is having to change how they work?” I cannot justify it. I do not get the move to Richmond House. It is not something that I want to justify to the electorate, because I do not think it is a good use of money.
I would also struggle to explain to people why they cannot have investment in Wolverhampton when we are investing a huge amount of money in the project here, but I understand the importance of ensuring that we invest for generations to come so that they can enjoy this facility. I have had to cut my speech very short, but we need to level up the country and ensure that investment is spent wisely. I cannot justify a lot of the decisions that are being made at the moment as wise and I could not pass them on to the electorate. We need to adapt to the work for the restoration of this great site. Too much has happened for us to sit back and take the same course of action. I believe that we can think of a new solution that not only restores the Palace, but keeps us here working under circumstances that, while not optimal, mean that we are doing what the rest of the country is having to do through the pandemic.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) and I wish him a happy birthday for tomorrow.
I remember the first time I visited the Palace on a day trip to London with my mother when I was seven years old and how I was mesmerised by these green benches. Over the years, it has become clear to me that the building is just as fundamental to our democracy as the people in it, so we must do whatever is necessary to conserve it for future generations.
As Winston Churchill said in 1943 when speaking on the restoration of the building at that time:
“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us. Having dwelt and served for more than 40 years in the late Chamber, and having derived fiery great pleasure and advantage therefrom, I, naturally, would like to see it restored in all essentials to its old form, convenience and dignity. I believe that will be the opinion of the great majority of its Members.”—[Official Report, 28 October 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]
A great deal is at stake. My preference is for a rolling programme of work occurring alongside usual House business. I would support a full decant only if Restoration and Renewal Sponsor Body’s review finds that it is still a substantially cheaper option, because value for money is vital. Indeed, our duty is, first and foremost, to be accountable to our constituents and the taxpayer, more so now than ever, given the economic fallout from covid-19.
The review therefore should not provide a fait accompli, but a range of costed options so that careful consideration and evaluation can be made of change versus cost. If there are changes to be made to this great building, let them be for safety and energy-efficiency reasons. I welcome the emphasis on improving safety for all who work here as well as on the preservation of the building should the worst occur.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Picking up on my hon. Friend’s earlier point, it is important to remember that this is not just a place of wood and stone. It is a place of stories that remind us of the lessons of history over centuries. We need to ensure as we move forward that we remember those stories so that we do not make the mistakes of the past, but learn from our glorious history.
Jane Hunt
Yes, indeed. We feel the hand of history on our shoulders.
The need to increase the building’s energy efficiency in recent years has also been important. Members of all parties have rightly placed great emphasis on tackling climate change. I know that the Government are prioritising the issue and I welcome the work that is being undertaken to determine how we can achieve a green recovery from covid-19 as well as the announcements in last week’s summer economic statement on creating more green jobs.
To cut my speech considerably, I am incredibly proud and honoured to be able to play a role in our democracy and be part of the history of this place. We must preserve the atmosphere—the very nature as well as the fabric—of the building so that future seven-year-olds can come here, stand by the Mace, look up in awe and realise that this is the place where we wish to be.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and to have heard the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members who have been involved in this project for a lot longer than me; as a new Member, it is has been very insightful. I shall attempt to remove some of the scaffolding from my previously arranged speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Opposition Members said that they would have liked to have used this time to discuss other matters; such matters are important and weighty, but it is only right that we, the tenants in this place at this moment, have a constructive discussion about the preservation of this architectural gem. We owe it to our ancestors, constituents and future generations to get the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster right.
The fire in 1834 was mentioned earlier; although a distant event, that incident is invaluable warning. Less than a month ago, on 22 June, a small fire in the basement of the Palace was reported and dealt with; in 2019, four fires were put out; and in 2018, eight incidents were identified. Electrical wiring—not always at home within the old structure of the building—is often cited as a cause. Although tally sticks were the reason for the 1834 fire, wires could start a new one at any point. Last year, the world watched in shock as flames engulfed the Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris. We must ensure that such a situation never happens here, which means eliminating any potential causes.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to protecting this UNESCO world heritage site. In the coming months and years, not only will we build, build, build, but we will restore, renew and revive. I know this sounds like a bad advertisement for furniture polish, but in all seriousness, we will once again marry tradition with optimism and a drive for the future.
In 1840, in the aftermath of the 1834 fire, a four-decade-long reconstruction began. Throughout that period, artists and craftsmen alike poured their work into this magnificent building. Painters, stonemasons, carpenters, joiners, roofers, pipe fitters and many more from all across the British Isles contributed to what was a massive project. Some of them cut their teeth here; all of them proved their skill.
Restoring and renewing the Palace will provide an exciting opportunity for both seasoned workers and apprentices, working on a once-in-a-generation project. The Government have championed apprenticeships, and I want to see young people from all four corners of this nation given an opportunity to develop their skillset as part of the renewal programme—the future of our country working for the future of our democracy.
There is precedent for major works occurring around the business of both Houses. Although sittings in the current Lords Chamber began in 1847 and in the current Commons Chamber in 1852, the construction of the new Palace was not finished until the 1880s. This place would be sorely missed by parliamentarians and I am sure that we, too, would be sorely missed, not least by the rodents with whom we share these premises.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I had not expected to be discussing leave or remain again so soon, but politics is full of surprises. As a new Member of this House, I do not have experience of the long debate that has been going on, although I have listened intently to this debate. I can, though, comment slightly on this building, with which I have become more familiar over the past few months, and its importance.
We are shaped by our built environment. Architecture matters: it changes our behaviour. The Gothic style is perhaps one of the most powerful architectural styles. It has weaved its thread throughout the tapestry of British history since it was introduced to this country in the 12th century. Our Gothic churches make one feel more humble before God; our Gothic courts of law help to reinforce the full might of the law; and in this Palace of Westminster the Gothic style reinforces our reverence of our democracy and our sense of awe. The building reinforces the fact that we are not the first Members of Parliament to have been elected and that, as long as our democracy endures, as I am sure it will, there will be far more Members of Parliament to follow us after we are dead. That important sense of imposing pressure on us as legislators makes me think that we should be in this place for as long as we can be, so far as possible.
It would be very symbolic if we were to leave. This Palace symbolises Britain in the way that the Eiffel Tower might symbolise France, the Colosseum might symbolise Italy or the Brandenburg Gate might symbolise Germany. It is powerful that Britain is characterised not by a folly or an ancient ruin but by a building that functions as the beating heart of our democracy. Were we to leave, it would be a symbolic act, and one that we should approach cautiously. Were it to be the case that we must decant, it should hopefully be for as short a time as possible and as cheaply as possible. I think that a degree of privation on our part would be welcomed at any time, but now particularly so. I hold no particular torch for Richmond House, but I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for bringing to my attention the fact that it is perhaps possible to establish an alternative temporary Chamber within the footprint of the building. I hope that that idea is explored thoroughly rather than the current plans. This Parliament—the Commons and the Lords—has met in here in Westminster for centuries, and I hope that in the fullness of time it will do so for centuries to come.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Let us be honest: this is not a building; it is the home of our nation. Great events happen here. From Charles, King and martyr, who was condemned to die here, to William Rufus building Westminster Hall, this is such a monumental building that needs to be preserved and protected. We cannot have another Notre-Dame happening here. We need to protect it; we all agree with that. The question is: how do we do it and what do we need to preserve?
We have talked about the costs. Let us not see this as a cost. Money will be spent, but in the long run and in the medium term, it will save money. On top of that, as we are spending money, let us spend it on British work- men, British goods and British building materials. Let us use this as an opportunity to revitalise our economy—to invest in Britain. As I am sure hon. Members know, the very stone in this building comes from Rother Valley—from North Anston. I commend hon. Members to read a book by my constituent Christine Richardson, which is all about the stone that comes from North Anston. Everyone should enjoy that and get more stone back here from Rother Valley.
On the question of whether we should decamp or stay, I do not think we should decamp. We have a big building here. Yes, there are issues, but we were bombed in the second world war and we moved down to the other place. It is not just a bit of redecorating and refurbishment. We should not leave this building. We should move down to the other place. We should be where the lords are and they should decamp. We are the beating heart of democracy; the other place is not. We need to stay here. It is not beyond the wit of man to understand how to do that. Frankly, to say otherwise is defeatist. I will not have defeatism; I want to invest and continue building here. As I said, we need to use this opportunity to bring back and invest in British quality architecture and British redecorating, and use it to turbo- boost our economy post covid.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
I welcome this debate about the mother of all refurbishments. This building is the very fabric of our democracy. The building is steeped in such architectural and political history. It is the very bastion of egalitarianism. How I felt as a newly elected MP walking into the Palace is hard to put into words. Every single day I feel the sense of history that this building represents, and the bond that it has with the fabric of this great and united nation and those who have gone before me.
But what strikes me most is how much this building—this great place—means to those who work here: the staff who make this place work, from to the Clerks, to the Doormen, to those in the Tea Room who make the best jerk sauce on this earth. With their dedication, their loyalty, their own sense of history and purpose in being here, and their pride, they are truly the loyal custodians of this great place.
We should not forget that this building stood tall and towered over covid-19. No matter how it has tried to change our world order, no matter how vindictive it has been, it did not overthrow democracy, and here we will all remain. For me, it is covid-19 that unlocks the answer to what we need to do—that is, we must continue to debate and continue the scrutiny of Government. We need this great place to remain open to ensure that that continues. This is not just a refurbishment project about bricks and mortar; it is a project to ensure that this great symbol of our democracy remains every single day. I hope the way forward will be the mother of all workarounds, protecting one of the world’s most recognisable buildings and protecting democracy. But whatever we do, we must do it prudently and safely. This is the mother of all Parliaments, which has stood tall for over 900 years—and long may it stand tall for another 900.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It does not matter who one talks to in any part of our United Kingdom, or, for that matter, in many countries around the world: the image of the Palace of Westminster and the Elizabeth Tower is the first thing that comes to mind when we talk about a Parliament. This is not just another building project; it is a project to preserve the seat of democracy and to renew this place for many years to come.
During normal times, this place attracts thousands, no millions, of visitors, and one of the incredible things about this being one’s workplace is that occasionally it feels a bit like a zoo as well, with people looking in at what we are doing. That is a good thing. It is democracy in action and we must preserve it. I am very much of the view that in the same way as we care for our statues and monuments around the country, we must care for this historic palace for generations to come, because it is of global importance.
The frustrating thing, as a new Member of Parliament, is that we have been talking about this for 20 years. Now we need action. After 20 years of discussion, and having seen what happened to Notre-Dame, we must not disregard the danger of not taking this action soon. We need value for money, but we also need speed and care and a workforce drawn from the United Kingdom who can bring great craftspeople to this place to create a great place again. Parliamentarians and the public can see how this investment will benefit the future of this Parliament and the future of this great country.
Valerie Vaz
The Leader of the House and I have kept our closing remarks short to allow more Members to speak. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. The Sponsor Body is the body that will look after our interests, and I have great faith that the hon. Members on it will, on a cross-party basis, look after the interests of Parliament and the costs and keep those at the forefront of their minds. One hon. Member mentioned the Elizabeth Tower. We did not know what was going to be found there, and that is why the costs went up. On Richmond House, I am not sure, but I think there was legionella disease floating around somewhere, so it is important that we see what is going on there.
The review is important because Members can feed their views into it, and yes we are not experts, but the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority do have experts on them. I agree with the many Members who have said we cannot do the work because all the services are connected. We do have to decant somewhere, although it might be for the Sponsor Body to provide an answer to that.
I feel sorry for new Members, because they have not been part of the debate, but I think the models were shown to them all at the induction day, so they knew this was coming down the line. I am pleased that many of them have taken part in this debate. We do not know the outcome of the review. Let us wait and see what comes up.
I want to conclude with a quote from the restoration and renewal programme’s vision. That vision is
“to transform the Houses of Parliament to be fit for the future as the working home for our parliamentary democracy, welcoming to all and a celebration of our rich heritage.”
To coin a phrase: let’s get going.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I obviously cannot respond to every point made, but if any have been made that require a response, I will write to right hon. and hon. Members. I also encourage those Members who did not get called to speak to send their speeches to the challenge panel of the review board so that their views can be on the record. That is very important. If any Members have left the Chamber already, I will make sure they are notified of that suggestion. I will also send a copy of today’s Hansard to the challenge panel so that they have the views of all right hon. and hon. Members.
This has been an excellent debate. We have listened to a lot of new and developed thinking, including some fresh thinking from Members who entered in 2019, which is extraordinarily helpful. Two things are clear. One is how proud we are of this extraordinary building. We have heard Churchill quoted about how we make our buildings and then they make us. That comment is so right. How proud we are of this magnificent building, which symbolises the democracy we cherish and the pride we take in it.
The other thing that we realise is that in a time of economic difficulty we cannot spend vast amounts of money without ensuring that there is value for money. Everything that is done must be done with value for money in mind. If we have to take a little bit of inconvenience, so be it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Restoration and Renewal.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, which is the statement, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Let me just say that I was asked for time for a statement this morning. The copy of the speech arrived at 16:59. I do not think that is acceptable, and I am not sure when the Opposition got theirs. As I was asked this morning, I would have thought there would have been better preparation to ensure that the Opposition and my good self, received a copy. If you can bear that in mind, because it was given the urgency that was needed, so a little bit more attention to detail to making sure the speech is shared would be helpful. Let us come to the Secretary of State for Health—[Interruption.] It is no use shaking your head: it is one of those things. It is a fact.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on our action against coronavirus and the decisions we have been taking through the day today to determine the future of the action needed in Leicester. We continue our determined fight against this invisible killer. The number of new cases yesterday was 642, lower than when lockdown began. According to the latest figures, the number of deaths in all settings is down to 66. We are successfully turning the tide, and part of that success lies in our ability to take action locally whenever we see it flare up. Often this is on a very small scale, swiftly and quietly, such as in an individual farm or factory, but when needed we also act on a broader basis, as we have done in Leicester.
Today, I want to update the House on the situation in Leicester. At the end of June, we made the decision to close schools and non-essential retail in the city, and not to introduce the relaxations that applied elsewhere from 4 July such as the reopening of pubs. That was not an easy decision, but it was one that we had to take. At that point, the seven-day infection rate in Leicester was 135 cases per 100,000 people, which was three times higher than the next highest city, and Leicester was accounting for 10% of all positive cases in the country.
That decision was taken with the agreement of all local leaders, and I am grateful to the leader and officers of Leicestershire County Council, and to the officers of Leicester City Council, for their support and continued hard work. Since then, we have doubled testing in the city and, through a monumental programme of communications and community engagement, we have been pushing our important messages.
I committed to reviewing the measures in Leicester every two weeks. This morning, I chaired a gold meeting of the local action committee to discuss the latest situation, and this afternoon I held a further meeting with local leaders, Public Health England, the joint biosecurity centre, the local resilience forum and my clinical advisers. The latest data show that the seven-day infection rate in Leicester is now 119 cases per 100,000 people, and that the percentage of people who have tested positive is now at 4.8%. Those are positive indicators, especially in the light of the huge increase in testing in the local area, but they still remain well above the national average and the average for surrounding areas.
Thanks to the incredible efforts of people in Leicester who have followed the lockdown, even while others across the country have had their freedoms relaxed, we are now in a position to relax some, but not all, of the restrictions that were in place. From 24 July, we will remove the restrictions on schools and early years childcare and take a more targeted approach to the restrictions on non-essential retail, replacing the national decision to close non-essential retail outlets with a local power to close them where necessary. This is all part of our more targeted approach.
However, other restrictions, such as those for travel and having social gatherings of only up to six people for example, will remain in force, and measures introduced on 4 July such as reopening the hospitality sector will also not yet apply. The initial definition of the geography covered by the lockdown was a decision I delegated to Leicestershire County Council and that it made and published. The leader of Leicestershire County Council, Nicholas Rushton, has advised me, based on the data and the best public health advice, that he recommends that the restrictions now apply only to the Oadby and Wigston area of Leicestershire, as well as the city of Leicester itself, and I have accepted his advice.
Some say that the local lockdown is unnecessary. I wish that were true, but sadly it remains vital for the health of everyone in Leicester, and the rest of the country, that these restrictions stay in place. We will review them again in a fortnight. I hope that this careful easing of restrictions will provide some comfort to people in Leicester and Leicestershire. I say directly to the people of Leicester and Leicestershire, “I pay tribute to you all. Your perseverance and your hard work have brought real and tangible results, and you have shown respect for one another.”
I understand that this has not been easy. Strong representations have been made to me by my hon. Friends the Members for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) and for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and by Opposition Members who represent the city of Leicester on behalf of constituents who have been impacted, and constituents who want to see the lockdown lifted. However, there is still a lot to do and the public health messages remain critical, so to them I say, “Please get a test if you have symptoms, keep following the rules that are in place, and please do not lose your resolve, because the sooner we get this virus under control, the sooner we can restore life in Leicester and across the country to normal.”
This statement also gives me the opportunity to inform the House of an issue relating to testing. We have identified some swabs that are not up to the usual high standard that we expect. We will be carrying out further testing of this batch. As a precautionary measure, and while we investigate further, we are requesting that the use of these Randox swab test kits is paused in all settings until further notice. This problem was brought to my attention yesterday afternoon. We contacted settings using the swabs last night and published the pause notice immediately. Clinical advice is that there is no evidence of any harm and that test results are not affected. There is no evidence of issues with any of our other swab tests, and there is no impact on access to testing.
Our ability to take action on the local level in Leicester is the keystone of our plan to defeat the coronavirus, ensuring we can keep the virus on the run and defeat it once and for all. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make a statement at this time, and I commend the statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Before turning to Leicester, will the Secretary of State update the House and comment on Sir Patrick Vallance’s remarks at the Science and Technology Committee, where he said that SAGE had advised the Government to implement lockdown measures as soon as possible on 16 March? Why did it take a further seven days for the Government to implement lockdown if SAGE was advising to do so on 16 March?
I start by putting on record my thanks to the city council and all the health officials, particularly our director of public health, Ivan Browne, for all the work they are doing to drive our infection rates down in Leicester. I welcome the extra testing capacity we have received as a city, including the door-to-door testing, and I put on record my tribute to the people of Leicester, the city where I live, for their fortitude in doing all they can to drive this infection down through 17 weeks of lockdown.
If we still have to make further personal sacrifice to keep people safe and hunt this virus down with the lockdown, so be it, but there is no question but that there will be a degree of dismay across the city in response to the Secretary of State’s remarks. We welcome the opening of non-essential retail, but many businesses were preparing to open their doors for the beginning of July and still cannot open their doors, and they will want to know whether they will get any specific extra business support. The Secretary of State suggested in a previous statement that they would, but the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) ruled it out.
The continued lockdown coincides with the traditional Leicester fortnight. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is familiar with the Leicester fortnight. It is the two weeks in July where our schools break up earlier than other schools across the country. It is a time when many Leicester families will have booked holidays, but they cannot go on holiday because they are not allowed to, and many travel companies are refusing to pay them compensation. Will he guarantee that families will not be out of pocket because they are not allowed to go on a holiday they have saved up for all year round? Will the Government step in, or can he force those travel companies to reimburse those Leicester families?
As the Secretary of State knows, Leicester is a city that suffers from high levels of child poverty, insecure work, low pay and a lack of decent sick pay. We have many deep-rooted economic problems and the spike or larger outbreak in the city appears to coincide with the inner-city areas where we know there are high levels of deprivation and overcrowding. We also have a large ethnic minority community, so will he explain why he has not yet implemented the recommendations of the Public Health England report on protecting those from minority ethnic backgrounds?
There has been widespread speculation about the garment industry. Can the Secretary of State tell us how many inspections by the Health and Safety Executive and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have now taken place in Leicester’s textile factories, particularly since the Home Secretary a couple of weeks ago promised us that she would stamp out any illegal exploitation?
We note that the Secretary of State has rejected the advice of the city mayor of Leicester to partially ease restrictions in parts of the city, although he has taken advice from the leader of Leicestershire County Council to ease restrictions in part of the county. Can he explain what the public health evidence is behind that decision? If the public health advice is to maintain, for example, the lockdown in the west of the city, when we know that the infection rates are at their highest in the east of the city, why does not that advice also apply to the neighbourhoods that border the city boundaries? This is one greater urban area. What is the public health reason why someone living on one side of Gilmortin Avenue—I do not expect him to know Gilmorton Avenue in my constituency, but it illustrates the point—is subject to restrictions because they fall under Leicester City Council, but they are not allowed to cross the road to speak to their neighbour, who lives opposite them, because they fall under Blaby District Council? There are other examples across the city as well. If he could offer us that advice, we would appreciate it.
Leicester went into lockdown because of the infection rate and because it took so long to get us the specific data. Local authorities are still complaining that they are not getting patient identifiable data, they are not getting data on a daily basis and they are not getting contact tracing data. Yesterday, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that we have a world-leading system—the best system in the world—for testing and tracing and it will avoid a second spike this winter, but we know that there have been problems with testing and tracing throughout. Last week, Sky News revealed that he has been overstating the test numbers by 200,000. Today, the Health Secretary has come to the House—we are grateful to him for updating the House—to explain what is happening with Randox. I believe that the £133 million contract was given to Randox without any competitive tender. Can he explain what is exactly wrong with these kits? How many of these presumably faulty kits have been used? Is there a health risk to anyone who has been tested with these kits?
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that there is not a health risk, but the Government are withdrawing these kits. And how many people have these unsafe kits been used on and why were the certifications not checked before these kits were used? These kits tend to be used in many care homes. We want care home residents to be tested regularly. We want care home staff to be tested regularly. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that those care homes will now get alternative kits rapidly?
Today we have seen more testing data come out. The Prime Minister promised that tests would be delivered within 24 hours by the end of June. I think the figures today show that only 66.9% of them are. On the tracing data, we see that only 71% of people are being contacted, not the 80% that we were promised. Is not it the truth that we now have swabs being recalled, contact tracing not meeting the targets and Serco call centres with people not doing anything? It is all costing £10 billion and the Health Secretary is now bringing in McKinsey. Why is he throwing good money after bad? Why does he not invest in public health services, primary care and local health teams instead to do this testing?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman has spent weeks complaining about capacity to do things such as contact tracing and now complains that we have too much capacity. He should decide on a position and stick to it. On the point about Randox and the kits on which we put a pause, the reason is that they had a CE stamp and, on investigation of the certification of that stamp, the certification was not forthcoming, so physical checks were done and we found that the swabs were not up to the standards that we expect. This is limited to the Randox element of the testing system, not the broader testing system that we have. I explained the clinical position, which is that there is no evidence of any harm having been done and that there is full access to testing, because we have plenty of other test kits available.
The hon. Gentleman asked about test and trace. Ninety-nine per cent. of the tests that need to be done quickly are returned the next day. More broadly, he asked about the comments of the chief scientific adviser to the Select Committee. The 16th of March is the day that I came to this House and said that all unnecessary social contact should cease. That is precisely when the lockdown was started. It is unusual to be attacked for saying exactly the same as the chief scientific adviser.
On the questions with respect to Leicester, the hon. Gentleman rightly raises the Leicester fortnight. Schools have effectively risen for the summer in Leicester already. Of course, I would urge holiday companies that people in Leicester might have booked a holiday with to reimburse them at this point.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the problem and challenges of insecure work in Leicester, and he is absolutely right to do so. This is a long-standing problem, and I think the whole House would strongly support action to ensure that illegal insecure work is stamped out. My right hon. Friend and colleague the Home Secretary is taking action where appropriate, but, of course, the public health response is vital.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the public health advice on geography. Given that there were no cases in many areas of the county that are part of the conurbation of Leicester over the past week, it was, I think, a reasonable recommendation to me by the county council to lift the lockdown in those areas. I gave the Mayor of Leicester the opportunity to put forward any changes he might have wanted to within the city boundary, but he declined to do so.
Based on public health across the whole city of Leicester, within the city geography, incidence of this disease is higher than a sustainable level, and we absolutely need to bring it down. It is on the basis of that advice, and working with and listening to local leaders, that we took the decision on the geography of the lockdown in Leicester. I end by again paying tribute to people in Leicester, who are enduring the lockdown longer than others; it is their fortitude that will help to get their city safe again.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for special dispensation to ask this question remotely. I want to ask the Health Secretary about the worrying variation in coronavirus mortality rates between hospitals, which appear to range from 12.5% to 80%. There may be some issues of deprivation or ethnicity, but some of that variation is likely to be due to a failure in some hospitals to adopt best practice, which is what the Getting It Right First Time programme, led by Professor Tim Briggs, addresses. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and Professor Briggs to discuss whether the Getting It Right First Time programme could help to reduce covid mortality rates?
Matt Hancock
I would be very happy to meet my right hon. Friend and Professor Tim Briggs, who does an incredible job. He is a brilliant public servant, who has done great work on the Getting It Right First Time programme. As my right hon. Friend knows better than almost anybody, the unjustified variation in performance between different hospitals within the NHS is a huge issue across the board, because if the standards in every hospital were the same as the standards in the best hospital, the performance of the whole would be so much higher. That is exactly what the Getting It Right First Time programme was designed to deliver. It was instigated by him, and I would be very happy to listen to what both he and Professor Briggs have to say.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Directors of public health in England are still complaining they are not getting the information they need. They only started to get area data from late June, when it became clear that Leicester had had 900 cases in less than a month. Within a week, Leicester was back under lockdown. The Prime Minister has described this as his “whack-a-mole” approach to controlling covid, but does the Secretary of State recognise that for the people of Leicester it has felt just as bad as the national lockdown?
I have raised many times the issue of test results from the UK Government labs not being sent to general practitioners or local public health teams. Is it true that that was not even specified in the contract? Even after Leicester, and despite covid being a notifiable disease since 6 March, local authorities and health protection teams in England are still being sent only anonymised area data, which is of little use to identify clusters, and only on a weekly basis, which is far too slow. Does the Secretary of State not accept that public health teams need daily data, with work and home postcode details, so they can spot an outbreak, and that they need individual test results, so they can isolate all those involved to break the chains of infection and prevent the further spread of the virus?
The Secretary of State rarely mentions isolation, but surely he knows that that is what actually breaks the chains of infection. That should be isolation of affected individuals, however, not our whole society or a whole city. The test and protect system in Scotland has been up and running since the end of May and disrupted a cluster of just 12 cases in the south of Scotland. That is the level of detail required to drive an elimination strategy.
The Secretary of State says that local lockdowns will be the cornerstone of his ongoing strategy, but how does he plan to deal with the social and economic impacts? Will he not join the devolved and Irish Governments in following an elimination strategy to avoid repeated local lockdowns? When does he envisage having a fully functioning test, trace and isolate system in place across England?
Matt Hancock
I am terribly sorry that I am not going to be able to answer all the points that were made. All I can say to the hon. Lady is that I will send her an update on the data that, in England, local directors of public health get, because there has been a huge amount of progress since many of the situations that she described.
I bow to no one in my desire to use data to make policy and to get the best data out. We have been getting better and better data out to local areas. We have been publishing more and more data. Many of the hon. Lady’s comments were out of date.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Out there in the country, confidence that we have a clear path out of the global coronavirus pandemic is key, as is confidence that the Government will take the right, necessary but sometimes difficult decisions for us all. We have seen some of that today with the two decisions that the Secretary of State has taken.
On behalf of my constituents, I thank the people of Leicester for the perseverance that they are showing. Will the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents in North West Durham, and in fact the whole country, that he will not hesitate to take similar decisions about local lockdowns if necessary in future?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. We do not ever want to have to bring in local lockdowns, but they are an important tool in our armoury to tackle outbreaks where we find them. I much prefer local action to be on individual specific premises or surgeries in a more targeted way.
I also pay tribute to Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, which has done a good job of bringing in local measures when it saw its numbers going up, before the numbers were anywhere near to where Leicester got to. It has done a terrific job. It is vital that we have that local action and that we do not resile from taking it. Having said that, we also recognise the impact that it has, of course, on the people and businesses involved.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Today Sir Patrick Vallance told the Science and Technology Committee:
“It is clear that the outcome has not been good in the UK; I think we can be absolutely clear about that.”
Although I am delighted that the Prime Minister committed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) yesterday that we will have an independent inquiry, we need to learn lessons urgently now ahead of a second wave, not least following the warnings in the Academy of Medical Sciences report earlier this week that suggested that we need to rapidly improve test and trace capacity and our PPE resilience. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he is doing to make sure that we learn from our mistakes?
Matt Hancock
We are learning all the way through about how best to respond to this virus. In fact, changing measures, such as the changes we have made in Leicester today, is a good example of learning from the progress of the virus and learning about how best to tackle it. That is just one of myriad ways in which we are learning and improving all the time.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I want to ask the Secretary of State about the revelations that the Americans and the Canadians have come up with about Russia trying to break into the vaccine testing regimes in their countries and possibly in the UK as well. How secure are the vaccine processes in the UK from cyber-attack from elsewhere, and is there anything further we need to do to make sure that other countries are not looking on this as some kind of stupid competition? We are all in this together, are we not?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. Our approach is that the vaccines developed in the UK—supported by UK Government and, ultimately, UK taxpayers’ money—are of course there, should they come off, to provide protection to the UK population, but so too to the population around the world. We are using our official development assistance money to help ensure that there is broad global access, should they work. On the question about cyber-security and potential hacking, the hon. Member will understand why I cannot go into the full details, but I can reassure him that the National Cyber Security Centre is taking this very seriously.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I return to the question of public confidence? I thank my right hon. Friend for the tireless way that he submits himself to scrutiny by parliamentarians and the press, but will he accept that the public do want to understand more clearly what mistakes were made and what lessons have been learned? Can I perhaps invite him at least to table a written ministerial statement, before the rising of the House next week, that sets out the key lessons learned and how they are being implemented as we go into the autumn, which could be another very testing time for our country?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to do that—I would not deny the Chair of the Liaison Committee his wishes on that—and I am very much looking forward to appearing before the Science and Technology Committee next week to answer any questions it might have.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
What does the Secretary of State say to the man in Barnsley who, when asked if he was contacted by test and trace and he would isolate, said no; when asked if he got covid symptoms he would isolate, said he would have to think about it, but probably not; and when asked why, said it was because if he does not go to work, his kids cannot eat. This is the stark reality for many people in this country. What are the Government doing to make sure that people have the financial support so they can follow the Government guidance?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady asks an important question, and it is a question that we address by ensuring there is local support available, in particular when there is a local lockdown. Of course, there is the statutory support that is available, and good employers will ensure that people are supported. Our overall principle is that people should not be penalised for doing the right thing, and I would say to the man, “Please, get the test, and if you are asked to isolate, isolate, and make sure that you seek the support that’s available”.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Many of my constituents are a little confused about where they will have to wear masks in public places from next week. Could the Secretary of State just confirm once and for all: if they go to fetch a takeaway, will they have to wear a mask?
Matt Hancock
If people go to a shop, then it will be mandatory from 24 July to wear a mask. If they go to a hospitality venue, then it will not.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
As chair of the all-party group on disability, I am concerned by results from the charity Scope, which has undertaken research showing that one in five adults with a disability has said they will not leave their house until a vaccine for covid is developed, while just 5% said they would feel safe when shielding is paused. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that people with disabilities are protected, but also given confidence to resume their lives after lockdown so they do not slip further into social isolation and loneliness?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point, and she has rightly raised this point before. It is so important, especially as we lift the shielding measures at the end of this month, that people who have been shielding have the confidence to know that we are able to lift those measures because the rate of transmission of this virus is so much lower now. It is safe—indeed, it is recommended—that they go out and about. Many charities, including many that we have funded through this crisis, are available to help and support people in these circumstances. She is right to keep raising this issue, and we must keep working on it.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that lessons will be learned from experience of the councils in Leicester and Leicestershire—to whom he has rightly paid tribute—to ensure that all local authorities, including Buckinghamshire Council, receive all the detailed information that they need from his Department in the form and timeframe that they need it, so that they can take action to protect their local populations?
Matt Hancock
Yes. My hon. Friend has raised this point with me, privately as well, about access to the data. It is incredibly important. We are constantly improving the data that is available because we are constantly getting better data. That is an important part of the work strand.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
We cannot praise enough carers, key workers and NHS staff during this pandemic, including, of course, in Leicester. My constituent Anthony Francis launched a petition for a national day of recognition for our NHS and key workers. He proposes 26 March, which was the first day of clap for our carers. The petition has reached over 100,000 signatures from across the country. Will the Secretary of State commit to this?
Matt Hancock
I will certainly look at it; it seems like a very interesting idea. I think that clap for our carers was an absolutely brilliant initiative. I love the fact that it was essentially a social initiative. It did not come from Government. We embraced it enthusiastically and all went out clapping, as did everybody, and a way to mark that permanently is something that I am absolutely open to.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
On Monday morning, I will attend the opening of the brand new Guildford ward at the Royal Surrey: a 20-room, fully equipped with CPAP—continuous positive airway pressure—isolation ward built in just four months. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the local council on the pragmatism shown and the hospital on its forward planning? Does he agree that in the event of a localised spike in cases requiring hospitalisation, the Royal Surrey will be well placed to deal with it effectively?
Matt Hancock
Yes. My hon. Friend is a great champion of the Royal Surrey at Guildford. The hospital has done a brilliant thing by, in short order, expanding its capabilities in this crisis, as have many other hospitals around the country. One of the positive things that has come out of it has been the dynamism and flexibility of parts of the NHS and their collaboration with local authorities. Both of those have risen to heights never previously seen, and I hope that we can bottle that best practice and make sure that we keep a dynamic, flexible NHS that works collaboratively with local authorities long into the future.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I accept that today we have to focus on Leicester, but perhaps I can revert to the general. Will the Minister, during the recess, prepare a national plan for recovery to announce when we reconvene in September, and does he accept that we may have to face up to the fact that we have to contain the virus, but we may have to co-exist with it? We are facing over the summer a tsunami of job losses and business closures, and we will have to get Britain back to work.
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on in highlighting the two vast challenges that this country, and every country, face: an unprecedented health challenge and an unprecedented economic challenge as a consequence. Both of those are extraordinary. Rising to and making sure that we deal with each of them as best we can is at the heart of every single Government across the world.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Secretary of State on coming to the House first to update us on the situation in Leicester. This week, a report from the Centre for Social Justice stated that we have 100,000 modern-day slaves in this country. It appears that many of those are in Leicester and that, unfortunately, created this high infection rate. What are the Government going to do to look into this matter and, if this is happening, to clamp down very hard on the people who are causing it?
Matt Hancock
The allegations my hon. Friend makes are ones that have been widely made and are widely understood to be a potential part of the problem. I speak carefully in terms of the language, because I know there are ongoing operations to deal both with the public health problem and with other illegality. This is a sore that has long gone untreated and undealt with in Leicester. It is absolutely vital that we add national resources to ensure we get to the bottom of the problem in Leicester once and for all, both the public health response and dealing with some of the potentially illegal employment practices that many people have raised.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement on the health update for Leicester. On masks, I fully understand the need to wear a mask when travelling on a bus, a train or a plane, as I do twice a week. Everyone else I have seen who travels also adheres to that. However, there is uncertainty around wearing a mask and we need to bring the general public with us. Does he not agree that the Government message on masks must be clarified, as many people are questioning the appropriate time and the appropriate place to wear a mask?
Matt Hancock
It will, by 24 July, be mandatory to wear a mask in a shop, on public transport and in any NHS setting. It is then recommended in a broader range of settings. That is based on medical advice and on the judgment that we want to bring confidence to people that they can and should go shopping, precisely because of the economic benefits, which were raised a moment ago, that would bring.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Medical nutrition has been vital for the treatment of covid patients in hospital, but it is also vital for those who require to be fed by tube at home. During this period, GPs have not, due to working remotely, been able to use the electronic prescription service in the most appropriate way. That has meant that many of the providers of medical nutrition have run up huge prescription debts. That is a risk for the future, so will the Secretary of State look at what can be done to ensure that the supply of these vital medicines can continue?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question, both because it is important and because in many places the electronic prescription was absolutely vital to getting through the covid period. I want to know of the examples he raises where it has not been able to be used during the crisis, because, in many parts of the country, using this sort of digital technology has been part of the way we have got through it.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Leicester’s director of public health said that getting the information needed about the outbreak in Leicester—data and so on—has been particularly challenging. That is of particular interest to my constituents, given that the demographic of Ilford South is remarkably similar, with large ethnic minority populations and many south Asian constituents. As we know from the recent Public Health England review, they have seen a disproportionate number of deaths from covid-19. I would therefore like to know directly from the Secretary of State what he is doing to get not only Leicester the information and data it needs, but every borough, including Redbridge.
Matt Hancock
This is incredibly important. As I said before, I bow to nobody in my enthusiasm for using data to inform better decision making, hence we have been constantly improving the data available at both national and local level. There are now very sophisticated systems in place to ensure that the directors of public health can get that information. We are constantly improving the information available for those who have statutory duties and have signed data protection agreements, so they can have access to much more information, and publicly where it does not give away confidential information about individual people.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The Secretary of State is working on a package of support for care homes with an unusually high rate of vacancies due to a lack of applications at the moment. May I impress on him that for some the situation is becoming desperate? In Trafford, the number of vacancies is now 160. A week ago it was 147. That is an increase of nearly 9% in a week. May I ask him to give those homes some hope by communicating when they can hope to hear about the support package?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend has pushed on this point repeatedly, and all I can tell him is that that is vital and ongoing work inside Government.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
The fourth annual report of the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review Programme was published today, and it showed that people with learning disabilities continue to die prematurely and from treatable causes. Since March, nearly 40% of the deaths notified to the LeDeR process were linked to covid-19, compared with a quarter of all deaths in the UK. That group of people have been let down by our health and care services. They die 22 years before their peers, and they are now dying disproportionately from covid-19. Will the Secretary of State look urgently at the 10 recommendations in the LeDeR report, and consider what can be done to reverse that tragic loss of decades of life for people with learning disabilities?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. The hon. Lady rightly references an incredibly important report. We brought in a system of annual reports precisely to bring such issues to public attention. I am also glad to report that the number of people with learning disabilities and autism who are in secure settings has fallen significantly over the past few months—that is a connected area in which I know the hon. Lady takes a great interest.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
May I offer my support to the Secretary of State, who has been working tirelessly during this crisis? Epilepsy Society is a major charity based in my constituency. It states that people with epilepsy are adversely affected by covid-19, particularly because the fever associated with coronavirus can trigger an increase in the number of seizures and cause breakthrough seizures. Despite that, the Secretary of State will know that people with epilepsy are not classified as clinically vulnerable for coronavirus or the flu, and they do not qualify for the free flu vaccine or any future covid vaccine. Will the Secretary of State look into that and ensure that that is remedied as soon as possible, so that we can protect that valuable cohort of people?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend is an incredibly strong voice for those who suffer with epilepsy, and I will ensure that the clinical decision makers who make recommendations on the order of priority for any vaccine, both flu and coronavirus, take a specific look at the latest evidence on epilepsy. I cannot give her the guaranteed assurance that she seeks, because those decisions are rightly taken on the basis of recommendation from clinicians. I would not want to break that important principle, but I can ensure that the latest information, including on the impact of coronavirus on those with epilepsy, is taken into account in the decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call Neale Hanvey let me appeal for quick questions, not statements. If the questions are quick, the Secretary of State, who is being most assiduous in answering thoroughly, will be able to give quicker answers.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) [V]
A learning culture is the hallmark of any robust patient safety strategy, and being able to own, reflect on and learn from past errors is a defining characteristic of that. Across health and social care, that tone is set by the Secretary of State, so when concerns such as those of Professor John Edmunds about the loss of life relating to the timing of lockdown are raised, it behoves him not to be dismissive but to take them seriously. How can clinical staff and the wider public have confidence in the Secretary of State’s leadership, when they can readily fact check that his assertions were wrong?
Matt Hancock
The last bit of the question was a bit broad. Not all my assertions have been wrong, but I do learn and try to learn. Indeed, I have discussed openly some of the things that went badly and wrong judgments, as well as things that have gone well. I have referenced, for instance, the fact that when we first brought in guidance on funerals, it had the impact of too many people staying away—spouses who might have been married for 50 years. We changed that, because it was an error. Absolutely, the learning culture is important. It is important that it is set from the top, and I am happy to be open about the errors that I have made—others can be open about their errors—and learn. I also think it is important to be robust where you think you have made a decision correctly.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend commit to use the experience of what has happened in Leicester to inform future measures in other areas, with a ruling on which essential workers should be able to keep working, with all the appropriate safeguards, such as those in our high-class engineering companies in South Derbyshire and elsewhere?
Matt Hancock
Yes. That links to the previous question, and this is one of the things we learned from Leicester. We had the power to close non-essential retail across the city. We will now take the power to enable the local council to close non-essential retail where necessary and therefore take a much more targeted approach. That allows us to fight the virus but with a lower negative impact on business. We are constantly seeking to improve the tools at our disposal—in this case, legislative tools—to fight the virus.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
This afternoon, the Government’s chief scientific adviser revealed that the SAGE committee urged the Government to impose a lockdown on 16 March, a week before they did. The Secretary of State has just suggested that he responded by advising people to practise social distancing on that date, but advising people to socially distance is not the same as imposing a lockdown. That week-long delay could have cost thousands of lives. Why did the Government fail to act when SAGE called on them to, and does the Secretary of State regret that delay?
Matt Hancock
The shadow Secretary of State said this, and the hon. Lady is now trying again. On 16 March, I said to this House—and it was welcomed by the shadow Secretary of State—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Do not shout at the Secretary of State. He is answering the question.
Matt Hancock
Thank you. What I said on 16 March was:
“Today, we are advising people against all unnecessary social contact with others and all unnecessary travel.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 697.]
That is when the lockdown truly started.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the actions he has taken, which have isolated the virus and protected nearby areas such as mine. For our neighbours in Oadby and Wigston, can he confirm that these decisions are being made based on scientific data and that the city and county councils have a significant voice in the decision-making process?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. The decisions that we have taken in Leicester are based on the data and the best public health, scientific and clinical advice, in consultation with the local leadership, hence the decision to ask for the advice of local leaders in terms of the geography of coverage and ask for their insight. As I said in my statement, I accepted those recommendations. As we have seen across the country, local councils have such an important role, such as in Blackburn and Darwen, where they took the initiative to take the action that was needed. I pay tribute to what the council did there, because I hope that it will stop their area getting into the position that Leicester got itself into.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
It was shockingly clear at Prime Minister’s questions this week that the Prime Minister had not read the report commissioned by his Government on the worst-case scenario for a second spike of coronavirus, which suggests that there could be upwards of 120,000 hospital deaths. Given the seriousness of this report, can the Secretary of State confirm that, unlike the Prime Minister, he has read it? What steps is he taking to implement the recommendations of the report, to prevent a catastrophic second spike of the virus?
Matt Hancock
The report was incredibly important in making sure that we cast ahead and look at all the challenges facing us, but it took the assumption that there would be no action from the Government should the R go to 1.7 and it is our stated policy not to allow that to happen. So although the report showed a worse-case scenario based on a set of assumptions, we are constantly vigilant.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
I appreciate the Secretary of State’s answer to several questions about the learning he has done, because 10 days ago I asked him about information for the people of Hinckley and Bosworth, in Leicestershire. They want to know where the boundary is and what the implication is of any changes. Would he be kind enough to point out exactly where the boundary is? For the people who are now out of lockdown, will he say what that means in terms of the measures they are taking, so that they have a clear message to take home tonight?
Matt Hancock
I am happy to give that answer, which is very clear. For those in the city of Leicester, and in Oadby and Wigston, the position is that of the measures that I have set out: releasing, on 24 July, the closure of non-essential retail and of schools and childcare facilities, but keeping all the other measures in place. Those not in those two specific areas return to the same measures that the rest of the country is living with, except of course that we will keep the higher vigilance, the higher level of testing and the communications in those areas. The decisions on this geography were taken on the advice of local council leaders. While I have been on my feet, I have seen that the Mayor of Leicester has made some comments on this. I did ask him whether he wanted to put forward a different geography within the city of Leicester and he declined to do so, but we work very hard and as closely we can with Leicester and especially with the public health officials there, who are doing a valiant job in difficult circumstances.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
On lessons learned, given the circumstances in Leicester, does the Secretary of State agree that the Government made a terrible mistake in cutting the Health and Safety Executive’s budget by 48% and by instructing the HSE to reduce inspections in the textiles industry by a third?
Matt Hancock
I have not seen those figures, but what I do know is that local councils have incredibly important responsibilities in this space and we will now act to make sure that we tackle some of the challenges that we find, especially in Leicester.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I welcome the targeted new approach to business closures in the local lockdown area. However, the current lockdown has affected businesses both within that area and outside it, because people have decided not to open for fear of an unmanageable number of people coming to their establishments. Will the Secretary of State look to offer additional support for those businesses?
Matt Hancock
The support available nationally to businesses, which is incredibly generous, is of course available to those outside the areas in question. I do understand the impact on businesses, both in Leicester and more broadly. All I can say is that that national support is available to all.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Over the past few weeks, I have exposed a significant risk of covid-19 in some York care homes. Those findings have wider application. Measures in the Coronavirus Act 2020, poor decision making and poor governance have undoubtedly led to increases in infection and mortality, and there are serious questions over the recording and reporting of deaths. Will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers urgently meet me before the recess to discuss these tragic findings, so that lessons can be learned and lives can be saved?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to ensure that the social care Minister meets the hon. Lady as soon as possible.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The Secretary of State is assiduous and energetic in making himself available to answer questions at all times, and I am grateful that he has agreed to come before my Committee next week so that we have longer than we would have had today given this statement. In March, we did not have the testing capacity in place to cope with the volume of testing that was needed, and it took until May to get it. Sir Patrick Vallance said to the Science and Technology Committee this afternoon that we do not currently have the testing capacity needed for the coming winter. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that it will be available long before then, and that we do not repeat one of the principal mistakes of the current pandemic?
Matt Hancock
I was heavily and personally involved in making sure there was that rapid increase in testing capacity back then, and I am determined to ensure that the testing that we need for this winter is available. We have plans in place to deliver it. Of course, that needs to be built; it is not there now, but it will be built. Even if there are no breakthroughs on testing technology that would make testing much easier to access, we have plans to ensure that the testing capacity that is necessary for winter will be available by winter.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We know that distinct areas of the country are seeing local rises in the number of cases, so can he explain what urgent steps the Government are taking to increase testing in those areas? With his indulgence, as someone who is on week 17 of long covid viral fatigue, may I also ask the Secretary of State what additional resources he is committing to NHS support services for those who are, bluntly, struggling to recover from the virus?
Matt Hancock
I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman is suffering from post-viral fatigue. It is a significant problem for a minority of people who have had coronavirus, and my heart goes out to him because I know how debilitating it can be. I am glad to say that we have brought in an NHS service. I will ensure that he has access to that service, as should anybody who is suffering from the symptoms of the fatigue that comes to some. I have also put just under £10 million into research to ensure that we get the best possible treatment. It is an area that is very close to my heart.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
Tapadh leibh, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his statement on 7 July, the Secretary of State agreed with me that 80% of positive cases are asymptomatic and said that we are using capability for testing of asymptomatic people. Unless we patrol for the virus, today it is Leicester but tomorrow it will be somewhere else. One serious gap for many communities is the people returning from work as merchant mariners and oil rig workers. Most workers are routinely tested going on to oil rigs, but not coming off them, and I know of some oil rig workers who have tested positive having taken tests for various reasons when they have come off a rig. Will the Secretary of State commit to testing returning mariners, and especially those coming off oil rigs, because it is a danger and a gap that we have left open—that unchecked people may be unwitting asymptomatic coronavirus carriers. Will he please do something to close this gap?
Matt Hancock
I would be very happy to look into that. We have a number of surveys to find out which are the highest risk groups by occupation so that we can put in place asymptomatic testing to address that risk. Of course, many oil rig workers come ashore in Scotland. The UK’s testing capability is significant on the west coast of Scotland, in Inverness, in Aberdeen and elsewhere. I would be very happy to work with my counterparts in the Scottish Government to test the hypothesis that the hon. Member proposes.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House as to the steps that Public Health England is taking to ensure that we are ready in the winter, if there is a second spike?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is quite right to ask about that, but it is not just Public Health England—it is right across the board. It is about taking steps in the NHS and in test and trace to grow capacity in contact tracing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) just asked about testing capacity; we need to know that that is there right across the board. Public Health England has its responsibilities, but so do we all.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted that the Secretary of State is so keen on data. My local clinical commissioning group tells me that it is still not getting the right data to GPs—it is quite clunky—and I think it is right in saying that GPs can see comorbidities, so it is particularly important that they get data about people who have been tested. We currently have an outbreak in the north of my borough and although we have the postcode data, we do not yet have the full address data, which is isolated to households. If we can get that very precise location, it will prevent a local lockdown. Surely the track-and-tracers are getting that data; can they get it to local authorities so that we can handle this situation locally?
Matt Hancock
I will personally ensure that all the data that we have on the hon. Lady’s borough is made available to her borough—subject to a data sharing agreement, which I think is in place with Hackney—so that it can best address the situation. It may be that we do not have the data that is being sought, in which case we will be straightforward and open about that and we might want to have a discussion about whether we can get any further data that is necessary.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State, the Department of Health and Social Care and the people of Leicester for their heroic efforts to supress the virus in the city and prevent further widespread infections throughout the country. However, will my right hon. Friend comment on the levels of support and co-operation that he believes these vital efforts have received from the Leicester Mayor Sir Peter Soulsby and from the Labour-controlled city council?
Matt Hancock
We have been working very closely with the city council, and the officers of the city council have been doing a heroic job. I think it is best if everybody pulls together and tries to come together to tackle the virus. Given that we have involved local leaders in all the critical decisions, it is best if people just try —try—to stay on the same page as much as is possible, no matter how hard some people seem to find that.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Secretary of State, two of the recurring themes of your statement today have been people asking—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Even at this late moment, will the hon. Lady please address the Chair, not the Secretary of State?
Christine Jardine
I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As we look at the lessons that we learn from the first wave of this virus, at the threat of a second wave and at the fact that the British public have been so keen to thank those working on the frontline—we talked earlier about clapping for the NHS—would the Secretary of State consider using his influence with the Home Secretary to offer migrants working in health and social care in this country the right to remain indefinitely?
Matt Hancock
We absolutely value enormously all those who work in health and social care. Just this week I was able to say that the exemption from the immigration health surcharge has been extended right across those who work in health and social care. That demonstrates the value that we place on them.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
My sympathies are with the people of Leicester. In north Wales, we continue to experience the low levels of infection that characterise a flat-topped curve, while containing local workforce outbreaks. I put on record my thanks to the care workers and staff at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board for tackling the different challenges presented by an outbreak of this kind. History teaches us that great tragedies present opportunities for innovation—for example, the great fire of 1666 gave us the origins of our fire service and modern insurance. Can my right hon. Friend give us any hope that any advances will come from this tragic pandemic?
Matt Hancock
I am a man who is an unashamed optimist. It is sometimes difficult to be an optimist in the middle of a global pandemic, but I am glad for the chance to answer my hon. Friend’s wise question with some enthusiasm because, amid the great tragedy of this pandemic, we have seen some big steps forward. The use of telemedicine and improved access to medicine for so many people through the use of technology is one example. Another is the advance and the march of British science, which has led the world not only in terms of the discovery of the first drug known to reduce the impact of coronavirus, but across the board in the scientific work that has gone on. I talked earlier about the flexibility and the system working in the NHS, which have to be the hallmark of the future of our NHS. Those are just three examples off the top of my head, but there are myriad others. Amidst this dark cloud, when we see a shard of light we must take great hope from it.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Historic Churches: Covid-19
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, let me say what a pleasure it is to have you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, on a subject matter that I know you have great interest in. I am very pleased to have an Adjournment debate; I usually intervene in Adjournment debates, but on this occasion I actually have one. I want to put on record my thanks to Mr Speaker for making it possible. I know that it is due to his forbearance and interest in this matter. When I spoke to him about it a week or 10 days ago he was obviously quite intrigued to see what was going on and wanted to ensure that this House had a chance to hear the story.
Obviously, we are very pleased to see the Minister in his place. He and I came into this House at the same time and are friends. We have done the armed forces parliamentary scheme together, and many other things. I am very pleased to see him in his place, and I look forward to his response.
I am very thankful to have the privilege and honour of being the MP for Strangford, which boasts much rich heritage and history, with Greyabbey being noted as the best example of Anglo-Norman Cistercian architecture in Ulster. It was founded in 1193 by Affreca, wife of John de Courcy, the Anglo-Norman invader of East Ulster. Poor and decayed in the late middle ages, the abbey was dissolved in 1541, but in the early 17th century it was granted to Sir Hugh Montgomery and the nave was refurbished for parish worship until the late 18th century.
At the south-east edge of Newtownards, the substantial remains of a Dominican friary founded in 1244 may be viewed. They are the only ones of their type in Northern Ireland. Built by the Savage family, the buildings were destroyed by Sir Brian O’Neill to prevent English soldiers from using them. Sir Hugh Montgomery restored the church in 1607 and added a small chapel, but it fell into disrepair in the middle of the 18th century. We also are blessed to host the St Patrick’s trail in memory of the legacy of St Patrick, the British missionary to Ireland, and many of the abbeys that were erected as his legacy exist only as ruins and relics.
Members may wonder why I am bringing up the history of those churches, but the reason is clear. Although they were designed as houses of worship, they are now wonderfully rich pieces of history, having lost their true purpose, and it would make my heart ache to see world-renowned St Margaret’s, the parish church of Westminster, become another wonderfully rich old building that is not fulfilling its true design as a house of prayer and worship. It is also our church, as was discussed the other night. It is very clear that it is the church for MPs and Peers as well.
I was absolutely gutted to receive notification last week that services were to be halted at St Margaret’s, and as time has passed I see that I am not the only one to feel that way. I thank every person who has signed the online petition, with more than 1,300 people asking for us to be able to make a way forward to enable that church to be a tourist attraction, because if we look at the background, it clearly is a part of the ceremony of this place—the House of the Commons and the House of Lords—and we want it to do what it was built for: to be a place for seekers of Christ to meet and worship Him. That is what the congregation are asking for, and that is what I am asking in this place. I am looking longingly and beseechingly to the Minister for that purpose: to facilitate as best we can the costs of churches, which are tourism attractions and places of worship, to ensure that they can remain open.
I think of St Mark’s church in Newtownards, my main town. That beautiful historic building is a real central hub in the town, with children’s work, work for disabled people, the women’s institute, the men’s group and a thriving community hub, whose primary aim remains to glorify God. That is what we need to see in churches throughout this land, and the fact that something completely out of our control—covid-19—has put some of those things in jeopardy means that we need to step up and step in, as we have done for almost all facets of life affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
I want to put on record my eternal thanks to the Government for all they have done.
I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) in his place, and I know that he wants a couple of minutes to make a contribution, if the Minister is happy with that. I am very happy to let that happen. The hon. Gentleman wants to raise some pressing matters, similar to what I am asking for, but for his own constituency.
Church tourism is a massive income generator throughout the UK. Four world heritage sites in the UK specifically include church buildings—Durham Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, Canterbury Cathedral and Fountains Abbey. Of the 16,000 Church of England church buildings, 4,200 are listed grade I, representing 45% of all secular or religious buildings listed at that grade, and a further 8,000 are listed grade II. There are 340 listed buildings of national importance in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust and other listed faith buildings include 622 Roman Catholic churches, 537 Methodist churches, 306 Baptist churches, 69 Congregational churches, 28 synagogues and one mosque. So that is the magnitude of what we are asking for. A further 146 ecclesiastical sites are in the care of English Heritage or the National Trust.
Statistics for English tourism revealed that 55% of all day trips include at least one visit to a cathedral or a church—the third most visited of all types of attraction. Church tourism is phenomenal, and one of the largest attractions is our own Westminster Abbey, which incorporates St Margaret’s, just outside the House of Commons. It has an enormous number of visitors each year and creates a revenue that sustains Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s. What we need is some help and assistance. The amount of revenue created through the visitors to Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret’s is a loss somewhere in the region of £9 million to £12 million. It is enormous, and I spoke to the Secretary of State about it. I always feel a bit guilty when I see Ministers at tea time or at meals and say, “I’m sorry to bother you, but can I ask you…” I nab those opportunities and then think, “Oh, I hope he didn’t mind me doing that.” But he did not, and I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place.
A scoping study by the North West Multi-Faith Tourism Association estimated 17 million visits to 45 cathedrals and 52 places of worship. That is an incredible figure, suggesting that each parish church typically receives around 700 to 4,000 visitors each year. That tourism absolutely provides revenue to keep those wonderful churches open and working, although they may need regular work carried out and may have smaller congregations. We understand that the size of congregations in churches across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is decreasing, and not just because of covid-19. But the virus has exacerbated that and taken away that revenue stream. I read in the paper one day that one Church of England church had 150 people in the congregation, but when it went virtual there were 25,000 people. So there are other ways of doing church, but speaking personally, I love going to church. I have done so probably nearly all my life. I went because my dad made me go when I was a wee boy, but I now go because I want to go. I believe it is important to have the communion and the chance to pray and worship, and to do that in fellowship with other people. I am very much a people person and always have been. I find Zoom incredibly hard to get used to and I find the virtual Parliament extremely difficult, but I love coming here and intermingling with people. That is important to me.
The issue was highlighted to me by members of St Margaret’s parish church who are desperate to find a way to retain their parish church. I believe there is a way to retain weekly worship, and I believe the House and the Minister can facilitate that. There has been a church on the site of St Margaret’s next to Westminster Abbey since the 12th century. In 1614, it became the parish church of the Palace of Westminster. It has a regular congregation of between 70 and 120 people and more than 250 on the community roll. When I first came here in 2010, I was made aware that there was holy communion once a month at St Margaret’s. That was my first attendance at a Church of England church on the mainland. I look forward so much to that Wednesday service. We were fortunate to have an opportunity for that just yesterday, not at St Margaret’s, but here in the House. I know that many MPs and peers look forward to the encouragement that we get on a Wednesday morning through a service, holy communion and then breakfast at Mr Speaker’s house. That cannot happen at the moment because Mr Speaker’s premises are being renovated, but we usually go there for breakfast and it is always part of the occasion—part of the fellowship and part of who we are.
Services at the church are spiritually uplifting and beautifully led by the priest vicars, and the choral music is absolutely exceptional. I have loved the choral services that St Margaret’s holds for the Palace of Westminster. We are blessed in the House to have some wonderful singers. Some right hon. and hon. Members have the most wonderful voices. I am sorry—I know their names, but I cannot remember their constituencies, so I will not name them because it is not appropriate. I have witnessed some of their contributions in St Margaret’s and they are truly uplifting.
The congregation of St Margaret’s is made up of an unusual mixture of local residents, employees at the Palace of Westminster, staff at Westminster School, Members of Parliament, parents of boy choristers, enthusiasts for top class choral music and many other congregants, some of whom come halfway across London on a Sunday. Not a week passes without a visit from a former chorister, or someone who was married at St Margaret’s, or someone who remembers it from their time working in London. I am sure that you personally, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members present can understand that because we meet people who have worshipped at St Margaret’s and they always say that it was a wonderful occasion. Tourists are not usually part of the congregation. Although they are welcome, they prefer to go to the Abbey. Sometimes the queues to get into the Abbey do not lend themselves to visitors being able to worship there.
There is an acknowledgement that worship will change—as has every church throughout the land. I understand that, but I honestly feel that aid from a specific churches fund will enable the Church to deal with the deficit caused by coronavirus. Indeed, perhaps new forms of income could be considered for during the week, such as conferences or exhibitions as long as Sunday worship is preserved. Sunday worship is critical for churches to survive. Could financial assistance be available through the £1.4 billion that the Government announced for culture, arts and heritage the week before last? Perhaps there is a way of doing that through the choral groups or the choristers. It is important to maintain St Margaret’s if we can.
I believe that, as a body that uses St Margaret’s when the need arises, we should play our part in this House not simply to secure that place. There are other historic churches that can normally stay open due to tourism income, but are struggling and I believe that we have a duty to protect them. It is not only about St Margaret’s and Westminster Abbey, which are important to us in this place; it is also about other churches. The hon. Member for Ipswich will refer to them during his contribution. It must be remembered that before this time, those churches were viable and the congregations were larger. They simply need support at this time, not in the long term. If we move towards pre-covid-19 normality—I do not know what normality is; I do not think any of us do, but we hope at some stage to get back to normal—we can resume services in churches and resume the tourism, and we will hear again the many different accents, languages and voices that we used to hear whenever we walked out of this place.
I look to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which has striven to secure our arts venues. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I ask that historic churches, and on this occasion our very own St Margaret’s, receives the help that is needed to see her through this troublesome time.
In this time of fear and despair, the mental health impact of lockdown and bereavement is very real. It is very real to me personally, and I believe it is probably very real to every one of us who represents our areas, knows our people and knows the losses that there have been. I have had two good friends who have died through coronavirus. I was unable to attend both of their funerals and pay my respects personally to the families because of adhering to the rule on 10 people at a funeral. We hope to celebrate their lives at some later stage, and I believe we will, whenever we get back to normality—but that is not just yet. So this bereavement is very real to us all.
It is clear that churches, which have a vital role in our relationship with the Lord Jesus and our God, also have a role to play as essential community hubs. People want to seek God and his guidance and comfort, and to attend church at Sunday services with the prayer and worship that are a key component of this need. We must, I believe, facilitate that, and not see more churches falling or failing due to something out of their control—covid-19. I look to the Minister for the help that we need in seeing what can be done and what will be done to secure churches not simply as historic buildings but places of vibrant and spiritually fulfilling worship. Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance, through this debate, to ask that in this House.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate on the effects of covid-19 on our historic churches. I completely appreciate how the closure of churches used as places of worship has been incredibly difficult for many people of faith.
Ipswich has 12 medieval churches, six of which are still used as places of worship, but I want to use this opportunity to briefly touch on some of the other six, which are now used to provide important community services. This includes the church of St Mary-at-the-Quay near the waterfront in Ipswich. After a bomb skidded into the chancery in 1942, the church went unused for 30 years and was eventually vested in the hands of the Churches Conservation Trust. With its fixtures and fittings moved to other churches, it was a shadow of its former self, but it had a renaissance in 2008 when funding was used to restore it and give it new life as the Quay Place wellbeing centre run by the local mental health charity, Suffolk Mind. Unfortunately, Suffolk Mind had to take a decision last month not to reopen Quay Place after lockdown, partly because of a loss of income caused by covid-19. Quay Place has been an important feature in our town since 2016, supporting many local residents, and it will not really feel like going back to normal without it there.
Next, I want to talk about the financial pressures caused by covid-19 touching St Stephen’s church in our town centre, with the borough council announcing that the tourist information centre located there will not reopen after lockdown. Even in the age of the smartphone, the centre was holding its own, selling theatre and coach tickets and advising tourists about Ipswich’s many attractions. It is a loss that this important way for our town to welcome visitors will not reopen. Like St Mary-at-the-Quay, St Stephen’s church faced a crumbling fate before its restoration in 1994.
The recent history of our local churches is a reminder that they have been through difficult patches before, and it is now up to us not to let them fall into obscurity again and find new uses for them so that they continue to be at the heart of our community as we recover from covid-19. All our churches in Ipswich are invaluable, whether they are used for worship or as places of community. They are fundamental parts of our town’s heritage and Ipswich’s story. We must not let the chapter that covid-19 represents in that story mean that our great churches are allowed to gather dust, risking them not being there for future generations to benefit from them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford. Whether places of worship or places of community, particularly in Ipswich—which we know is the oldest town in the country, as much as Colchester might like to dispute that—we know how important our wonderful medieval churches are. I urge the Minister to provide any necessary support to ensure that we can keep these icons and these bastions of what is so important in our town.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
First, I offer my sincere thanks to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a very good friend, for introducing this debate on this important issue. As always, he spoke with great eloquence and knowledge about the matter. His passion for the Church and churches came through clearly, and we all know that that passion is shared by many of our constituents right across the country.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for his comments, in particular about the important community asset that is St-Mary-at-the-Quay church. My understanding is that the Churches Conservation Trust is working to ensure that the space is able to reopen and serve his community again.
As the Minister for sport, heritage and tourism, I am always heartened to see our historic churches and places of worship of all faiths evoke passion and commitment. Our historic churches have served as focal points for their local communities for tens, hundreds and even thousands of years. Across the country, historic parish churches are the lifeblood of the communities they serve. The hon. Member for Strangford raised many important points, and I hope to give him some of the assurances he was seeking.
Supporting historic churches protects our cultural heritage and our community cohesion. Although heritage is a devolved responsibility, I am pleased to say that the Government support the maintenance of historic churches throughout the UK through the listed places of worship grant scheme. The vast majority of historic working churches are listed buildings, as the hon. Gentleman said, and are therefore eligible for support under the scheme, which was established in 2001 to provide grants towards VAT paid on repairs and maintenance.
Since its inception, the scheme has made grants totalling more than £285 million and has played a significant part in ensuring that listed places of worship are in their best overall condition for many years. The scheme presently handles around 7,000 claims a year, is open to all faiths and denominations and is delivered UK-wide. In 2012, my Department and the Treasury became joint funders of the scheme, with the annual funding increased to £42 million. The level of funding is guaranteed up to 31 March 2021, and any extension to the scheme is on hold until the completion of the spending review.
Further, since 1994, the Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded more than £985 million to more than 6,400 projects supporting the UK’s places of worship. In response to the extraordinary times we are now all facing, the fund has refocused its efforts, temporarily halting new awards through its core programmes to provide a package of emergency support to help the country’s heritage sector navigate the covid-19 crisis.
Covid-19 has had a profound impact on many of the individuals who regularly attend our places of worship and are responsible for their everyday care. It has affected the income of places of worship, including income derived from regular giving, tourism, venue hire, fundraising and many other measures, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. It has also affected the schedule of repair and maintenance for many places of worship, and over the past few months, I have had weekly calls with representatives from the heritage sector about the impacts of covid-19, including representatives from the Church of England. Those calls have been incredibly useful and provided valuable insight into the challenges that grassroots organisations and churches have been facing and the support they require.
The Government are committed to supporting all heritage organisations, including historic places of worship, through the coronavirus outbreak, and I would like to explain a couple of the measures we have taken. To help our historic places of worship get back on their feet, it is important that we help them reopen as soon as possible and as safely as possible. The heritage working group that I chair, together with the places of worship working group, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), have provided input into the guidance we published last month on the safe use of places of worship during the pandemic. That offers a blueprint for safe, socially distanced worship from 4 July onwards. It offers in-depth guidance for places of worship, with specific advice for those based in historic buildings. Hon. Members will be aware that places of worship are still operating under a number of restrictions in terms of the types of activity that can be carried out. The Government are keeping their advice under close review and will continue to work with places of worship on the issue.
I will also set out some of the financial support package that we have recently launched. In response to feedback received from organisations across all sectors, the Government have announced an unprecedented stream of support schemes. The highly visible job retention scheme is one part of that, but, with regard to support specifically targeted at the heritage sector, Historic England and the National Lottery Heritage Fund are also administering grant funding worth more than £55 million.
That funding comprises the Heritage Fund’s £50 million heritage emergency fund, which was launched on 1 April and is already helping places of worship right across the UK to respond to the crisis by supporting them while closed and preparing them to reopen, and Historic England’s covid-19 emergency response fund, which was launched on 17 April and extends a safety net worth £2 million to small heritage organisations. The grants will help organisations, voluntary groups and self-employed contractors to survive the immediate challenges posed by coronavirus.
Historic England launched a second emergency fund on 9 June to help to fund urgent maintenance repairs and investigations for heritage at risk. The £3 million fund will award grants of up to £25,000. Of course, listed places of worship are not precluded from the support package for the cultural sector recently announced by the Chancellor, the £1.57 billion fund that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. The new funding will mean an extra £188 million for the devolved Administrations, including £33 million for Northern Ireland and £96 million for Scotland, while Wales will receive £59 million.
That funding will support our vibrant culture and heritage sectors, supporting hundreds of projects. It will also protect hundreds of jobs in our heritage construction industry through a £120 million capital investment programme supporting highly specialised skills and businesses such as architects and woodwork restorers.
Jim Shannon
I did ask whether there would be any help for the choirs and the choristers, because I understand, and the Minister understands, the importance of encouraging and retaining the choirs. We cannot lose that talent either.
Nigel Huddleston
It is not a debate without an intervention, as well as a main participation, from the hon. Gentleman. The eligibility criteria for that grant are still to be detailed, but they will be released very soon, certainly by the end of July. Hopefully that will give him further guidance.
Finally, on covid funding, the charity support fund is a £200 million fund to support registered or excepted charities, including eligible historic places of worship, to provide essential services for vulnerable people affected by the current crisis. We recognise that, notwithstanding these generous support schemes, there will still be challenges for our historic places of worship. They will face these challenges over the coming months as we resume normal activities following the pandemic, and we are committed to keeping the dialogue going and seeking to support this sector in whatever way we can.
My thanks again to the hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate. I know how important our historic churches are and want to see them and the country recover and thrive. Our historic churches are vital assets, treasured for their heritage, community and social value, and they must be protected for generations to come and this Government will continue to vigorously support them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It should be noted that, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) almost always intervenes in Adjournment debates, he did not spoil his record as he managed to intervene in his own Adjournment debate. That is quite an achievement, but it was an excellent debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No.685)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I have sat in your Chair many times over the past 10 years, but this is the first time I have been here in my role as a Minister, so now I know how it feels.
The regulations were made on 3 July and came into effect the following day. They have not yet been formally cleared by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. This debate has been listed as quickly as possible to address Parliament’s concerns about delays between making regulations and scheduling debates. The regulations were necessary to give effect to the announcement made a few days earlier on 29 June by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that targeted measures needed to be taken to tackle the outbreak of coronavirus in Leicester.
The concern about the outbreak in Leicester was significant and was shared by local leaders, including the local authorities and the local resilience forum; by national organisations, including Public Health England; by the local directors of public health, Ivan Browne at Leicester City Council and Mike Sandys at Leicestershire County Council; and by the Joint Biosecurity Centre, Ministers and the chief medical officer.
Of course, the decision to take action was not driven by one number. It was a judgment about the overall situation, but some of the figures we had in front of us when the targeted lockdown was imposed bear repeating, because they are stark. At that stage, the seven-day infection rate in Leicester was 135 cases per 100,000 people, which was three times higher than the next highest area. Admissions to hospital were between six and 10 per day in Leicester, rather than around the one per day at other trusts.
Action had already been taken to protect people in Leicester by deploying mobile testing units and providing extra capacity at the regional test site. Extra public health capacity had been deployed to boost the local team. Additional financial support was provided to the local authorities to provide business grants, including £70 million to Leicester City Council. We hoped that the interventions and the work of the local public health teams would get the infection rate down without our having to take more drastic action.
By the end of June, however, it was clear that the high rate of infection was continuing. The cross-Government covid-19 operations committee, chaired by the Prime Minister, therefore decided on 29 June to take further measures to tackle the outbreak. The Secretary of State set out the measures in his statement.
Most of the measures taken did not require legislation. We increased testing capacity further: there are now 10 mobile test units deployed across the city, a regional test site and three local test sites. Four of the mobile units operate on a hyper-local basis, enabling teams of NHS and council volunteers to go door to door across the communities with the highest positivity rates.
We also gave additional funding to the two upper-tier local authorities involved. In addition to the £70 million, Leicester City Council was provided with approximately £2.5 million, and Leicestershire County Council approximately £2.3 million—that is £4.8 million between the two upper-tier authorities. That enabled them to enhance communications, including in locally relevant languages. Public messages on the virus in Leicester were translated into 12 different languages, and a wide range of locally relevant formats were used to communicate those messages, including various social media platforms, posters, and videos by GPs who speak different languages and by Ivan Browne, the local director of public health. Messages were also broadcast from local radio stations in different languages as well as through community leaders and volunteers on the ground.
We also concluded, however, in discussion with the local team, that the restrictions in Leicester would need to be tightened, even as the restrictions were being eased elsewhere in the country. People in Leicester were advised to stay at home as much as they could. We recommended against all but essential travel to, from and within Leicester. Shielding measures could not be relaxed, as they were in the rest of the country the following week. Schools in Leicester would close, except for vulnerable children and children of critical workers.
It would not be proportionate or practicable to ban travel altogether, but we concluded that it was necessary and proportionate for people living in Leicester not to be allowed to stay overnight away from home without a reasonable excuse. It was not safe to allow the easing of social contact measures, including those on gatherings, that the rest of the country benefited from on 4 July.
We also concluded that non-essential retail in Leicester would have to close again. We recognise how difficult and disappointing that was for citizens and businesses in Leicester, but it was the only way we could bring the outbreak in the city under control. We must keep people in Leicester, as elsewhere in the country, safe from this terrible virus.
I shall now move on to the regulations themselves. Given the concern about the situation in Leicester, we used the emergency procedure to make the present set of regulations as soon as we could. They give effect to the decisions set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In particular, they require the closure of non-essential retail; limit overnight stays away from the place where individuals live, or a linked household, without reasonable excuse; restrict gatherings to six or fewer outdoors and to no more than two indoors; and enable households containing only one adult, or one adult and one or more people under the age of 18, to link with another household.
The people of Leicester have responded well to these restrictions over the past two weeks, and I would like to thank them for that—as, I am sure, everybody would—and to recognise the impact that they are having on their daily lives. We are required to review the regulations every two weeks, and we will announce the outcomes of the first review shortly.
Coronavirus is the biggest challenge that the UK has faced in decades. The resilience and fortitude of the British people in complying with the national lockdown that we introduced in March has been a true national effort and something of which we can all be proud. It is of course welcome that we have been able to start easing the national restrictions in line with our road map. That reflects the continued decline in the daily death rates and the downgrade in our covid alert level from level 4 to level 3.
We always knew, however, that the path out of lockdown would not be entirely smooth. It was always likely that infections would rise in particular areas or workplaces, and we knew that we would need to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to those outbreaks. We are now working with local authorities, and at national level, to ensure that we have the data and analytical capability to spot potential outbreaks quickly. We have, and will continue to develop, a range of tools and powers that will allow us to respond effectively and proportionately.
We will be saying more in the coming days about our plans for responding to local lockdowns and the powers that will be available. The Leicester lockdown has demonstrated our willingness and ability to take action where we need to. We will of course use the experience of the lockdown in Leicester to inform and help us to develop our responses to any future local outbreaks.
I shall now talk through what the Leicester regulations are designed to achieve. I will not go into detail about the national regulations that sit alongside them, because they are being debated in another Committee Room along the corridor. In general, these regulations return Leicester to where the national lockdown was in the first half of June, before non-essential retail could be opened.
Part 1 of schedule 1 to the regulations lists the postcode districts covered by the regulations. In discussion with the directors of public health at Leicester City Council and Leicestershire County Council, it was agreed that the restricted area for the purpose of a lockdown needed to go beyond the boundaries of Leicester City Council into a number of suburbs of Leicester to the south, west and north of the city that are the responsibility of the county council. The boundary makes sense geographically, as can be seen from the map that was widely circulated, but the simplest and most certain way to describe the areas covered by the restrictions was to list all the affected postcodes. This means that people and businesses could be in no doubt about whether they were covered by the restrictions.
Regulation 2 requires the Secretary of State to review the need for restrictions and requirements by 18 July—this coming Saturday—and thereafter at least once every 14 days, if necessary. In any case, under regulation 12, the regulations will expire six months after they commenced on 4 July, if they are not amended or revoked before then.
Regulations 3 and 4 set out the requirements on non-essential retailers to close. The types of business that need to close are set out in schedule 3. In line with the national regulations on closure of non-essential retail, there are some detailed provisions to clarify how these regulations will operate in particular circumstances, and some necessary exceptions. The requirements will be familiar to businesses from the national lockdown.
Regulation 5 sets out the restrictions on movement. The restrictions prevent people living in the protected area from staying overnight away from their home without a reasonable excuse. They can stay in a linked household. A non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses is specified. For example, it would be reasonable to stay overnight in order to attend a funeral of a close family member, for work purposes, or to attend a birth.
Regulation 6 restricts gatherings of more than six people outdoors, or of two or more people indoors. There are some necessary exceptions to the restrictions on gatherings—for example, if the person is attending a funeral, or if the gathering is reasonably necessary for work or educational purposes.
Regulation 7 sets out the implications of the lockdown in Leicester for linked households. Households in Leicester may be linked with households outside Leicester.
Regulations 8 to 10 set out how the provisions will be enforced. As with the national regulations, there is the possibility of fixed penalty notices. We have published guidance for people living in Leicester, to help them understand what they can and cannot do under the restrictions.
As I said earlier, we will be saying more in the coming days about the outcome of the initial review of the Leicester regulations, and whether the impact of the lockdown so far allows us to ease them. We will also be saying more about how we plan to deal with future localised outbreaks. I am grateful to all Members for their continued engagement with this challenging process, and their scrutiny of the regulations. We will, of course, reflect on this debate as we consider our response to any future local outbreaks. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I will begin by saying that Members on the Labour Benches support these regulations. As one of the three Members of Parliament for Leicester, I am extremely concerned about the impact of this extended lockdown on children who are missing out on school, on local businesses and jobs, and on our universities and voluntary groups, as well as the mental health and other long-term health consequences for people in our city. However, keeping people safe and getting on top of this virus must be our top priority, so we will not be opposing the regulations.
I do, however, want to put on record my concerns about how these regulations and Leicester’s lockdown as a whole have been handled, and to ask the Minister some serious questions about where we go from here. This is because I want Leicester to get out of this lockdown as quickly as it is safe to do so, and because I hope the Government will learn lessons from what has happened in Leicester so that they do not make the same mistakes in any further local lockdowns.
In summary, I think Ministers were too slow to act; have been too centralised in their approach; and have so far failed to provide the additional support Leicester’s businesses and public services need. That is not only unfair; it makes no economic sense, because if more businesses close and more people lose their jobs and our public services struggle to cope, it will cost not just Leicester but our whole country far more in the longer term.
I want to start with the failure to act quickly enough and share vital information with Leicester at an early stage. I am told that since the launch of the NHS test and trace system at the beginning of May, Leicester’s director of public health repeatedly asked Public Health England for the results data from pillar 2 tests—essentially, all testing outside of hospitals—preferably at postcode or what is called lower-super-output areas of below 2,000 people. That data was not forthcoming to Leicester or any other council, apparently because it,
“wasn't in a fit state”.
That was the data from a test and trace system that, you will recall, Sir Christopher, the Prime Minister launched as “world-beating”. Can the Minister explain why the information was not available from the start? Even if it was not perfect, how could local councils possibly know whether they had a problem without that vital data, especially as the pillar 2 testing was a growing part of the overall test numbers?
The Government finally published the total number of positive tests for pillar 2 data at the beginning of June. I am told that our director of public health immediately raised concerns that Leicester’s rates were higher than in other parts of the country. He asked for more detail, especially at the postcode level—at this stage we got the total numbers for the whole city, not individual wards or smaller areas—and what action should be taken. I understand he received reassurances from Public Health England that there was no cause for concern, and that it was probably a data collection or small numbers issue. He raised the same issues the following week and received a similar response.
On 15 June, Leicester’s director of public health was actually told by Public Health East Midlands,
“We have not identified an obvious geographical hotspot... nor an outbreak to date.”
Yet three days later the Secretary of State said in a press conference that there was an outbreak in Leicester. One would think that in such an urgent situation—I have never denied that it was not an urgent situation—with a dangerous virus that spreads so quickly, we would have immediately been given all the possible data, at the very least broken down by postcode. However, it was not until 25 June, 11 days later, that postcode data for pillar 2 testing were finally sent through to our director of public health.
I am going through all of this in what seems like an awful lot of detail because detailed local data, including on ethnicity and where people live and work, is absolutely essential to identifying the location and cause of any problems and taking action to prevent them from getting any worse. I am afraid we are still not getting all the data that we need in a timely enough fashion. We have only just got the total number of both positive and negative tests. We still need household data, not just postcode data, because not everybody with the same postcode works, eats and worships in the same place. We need data on people’s ethnicity and where they work, which is not mandatory—it says only what is people’s occupation. What we really need to know is where people work so that if there is a problem in a food factory or somewhere else, we can go in and sort it out.
We also need contact tracing data so that we know how many people who have been in contact with someone who has tested positive have been followed up for additional tests and possible isolation. All of that is vital to getting on top of the situation, and we need all of that data daily, not weekly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said on Tuesday, the virus does not wait a week, so why should our director of public health? I am afraid the problems do not stop there.
The way in which the lockdown and by extension the regulations have been brought in was, I am afraid, badly organised and ill thought through. Over the weekend of 27 and 28 June, it was briefed that Leicester was to be subjected to a further lockdown—a briefing by the Home Secretary in The Sunday Times. That announcement was made without warning and without the involvement of the city council, the local police or our NHS. A front-page headline might feed the ego of those responsible, but it does nothing for the people it actually affects, other than cause serious anxiety and confusion. That is no way to treat people who have already made huge sacrifices and are being asked to make them all over again.
As if that were not enough, the official announcement on the lockdown was not made until very late on the evening of Monday 29 June; the map of the lockdown area was not published until 12 hours later; and the regulations to implement the lockdown, which we are now finally voting on, were not published for another four days. I cannot tell you the chaos and confusion that that caused. My inbox was absolutely inundated with messages from worried constituents, as were other hon. Members’ inboxes. Given all that, I want to put on record my thanks to our city council and, in particular, Leicestershire police for handling the situation with calm confidence, patience and skill.
I say to hon. Members here that we all know that this pandemic is unprecedented. It is one of the hardest things that any Government have ever had to deal with, and mistakes will inevitably be made, but you do not have to be Einstein to realise that you should not announce a lockdown that will affect hundreds of thousands of people in a national newspaper and until you know exactly where, when and how it will be put in place. That is the very least that our constituents deserve.
People in Leicester also want the Government to acknowledge the additional financial and other consequences of putting us back into this extended lockdown. That is something that Ministers—I should say that this is directed not at this particular Minister but at other Ministers in the Government—have so far failed to do.
After receiving so many emails in the course of Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday as the lockdown was coming into place, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who is responsible for business and industry, to ask whether additional support for businesses and employees would be available as a result of the lockdown. He replied to me on 7 July, saying:
“The Chancellor has already said that there are no plans to change the scope or extend any of the schemes currently available.”
I am told that that explicitly contradicts commitments made by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to the Labour leader of Leicester City Council and the Conservative leader of Leicestershire County Council. I ask hon. Members in this Committee just to think for a minute about this happening to their own constituency and what their constituents, local businesses and others would be saying to them.
Local businesses are having to stay shut, or close back down, through no fault of their own. They have spent huge amounts of time and money getting ready to reopen, only to see their efforts go to waste. I am thinking of businesses such as North Bar and Kitchen, a brilliant and highly recommended restaurant in my constituency, which says that
“we are now really struggling being forced to close for a second lockdown...Through no fault we feel isolated and we need additional financial support from government for the extra strain this has put on us and our small business.”
I am also thinking of hairdressers such as Malcolm Murphy Hair and Jeana Louisa’s Hair Salon, which worked so hard to get everything in place—they were ordering stock, juggling their staff to comply with social distancing and getting all the appointments up—just to see their hopes dashed again.
These businesses are not arguing against the lockdown. They accept that it is necessary to keep people safe and they know that they have to play their part, but they are asking for the Government to acknowledge that they need extra help just to keep the show on the road and their heads above water, and for doing the right thing.
The Government have also failed to offer any reassurance to people on the furlough scheme. Again, I ask hon. Members to consider this. What happens if Leicester’s businesses are still in full lockdown when the Government stop paying national insurance and pension contributions and start reducing furlough payments, because the rest of the country is opening up and businesses are going back and making money, making a profit? My constituents are understandably worried. They are thinking, “If my employer can't pick up the strain because they’re not allowed to open, I’m going to lose my job.”
The East Midlands chamber of commerce says that the failure to provide Leicester’s economy with extra support is “a massive mistake” that could create “a two-tier recovery” that puts Leicester “at a long-term disadvantage”.
Will the Minister tell me, or ask her colleagues, this: why are Leicester’s businesses being unfairly penalised? I am not denying that the Government have done a huge amount to support businesses during this awful pandemic, but I am asking them to recognise the additional problems that we face. Why will the Government not guarantee that the full furlough scheme will continue for as long as Leicester is in lockdown? Do they recognise that the inevitable increase in unemployment as a result of the pandemic could be even worse in Leicester, a city where 40% of children are already growing up in poverty, with all the awful long-term consequences that that brings? If the Minister recognises that, will she speak to her Treasury colleagues and ask them for a more flexible approach that acknowledges that local lockdowns will have an additional impact on local businesses and jobs that should be recognised and funded?
Our public services and voluntary groups need extra support too. For example, throughout the extended lockdown the city council will have to continue to provide an uplift in fees to care homes to cover their additional costs and higher than normal vacancy levels; help for those who will have to stay shielding; support to keep homeless people off the street; and help to our countless food banks to ensure that thousands of people have enough to eat. That extra work comes with an extra cost. Will the Government meet it?
Do the Government recognise that there is extra work for our police? That was particularly so during the first weekend when the lockdown came in. The media said all sorts of things about whether people would be going out into the county, to the pub where everyone else was going, and what they would be doing. We had more police on that weekend than on a typical new year’s eve. Our two universities are seriously concerned about the impact of the extended lockdown, particularly on whether international students will decide to come to Leicester. Our schools are worried about children falling even further behind and how they will ensure that parents are confident that it is safe for their kids to go back to school in September.
Our vital local community organisations and charities face extra costs because they are being locked down for longer, and cannot rely on their usual sources of income. LOROS, which runs an incredible hospice in my constituency, had just reopened 11 of its 29 shops when the renewed lockdown came in. Six of those shops are in the city. As a result LOROS is losing about £15,000 a week. Its chief executive asked me to find out whether any extra help is available. I wonder whether the Minister can respond, or ask one of her colleagues to do so.
Above all, people in Leicester and Leicestershire want to know when and how we will exit the lockdown. Our businesses want to know when they can go back out and try to get back on their feet. People want to know when they can go out and start earning a living. The Secretary of State originally said that the lockdown would be reviewed on Saturday 18 July. In his statement to the House of Commons on Tuesday he said he would be reviewing the data today. I hope that the Minister will confirm when people in Leicester will hear the news. Will it be today or Saturday? Surely, if there is one thing that we have learned from this whole business it is that leaving people hanging is unfair and a recipe for chaos and confusion.
Will the Minister explain the criteria that will be used to judge whether the lockdown will be lifted? Will it be the total number of positive tests or the proportion of positive results per 100,000 of population? Will it be the rate of increase or decrease in positive tests? Will it be the famous R rate that the Government initially said they would use to determine the exit from lockdown for the country as a whole? Will it be the rate of hospital admissions due to covid-19, care home infection rates or death rates in either or both? I know that it is difficult, but it seems unbelievable to me that we still have no sense of how the Government will judge whether Leicester can exit the lockdown. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us.
I will conclude—the Committee will be glad to hear—with some thoughts about the future. I know that my constituents and people across the city are worried about the long-term implications of the pandemic and, in particular, Leicester’s extended lockdown, on lives and livelihoods and people’s perceptions of Leicester as a whole. However, by working together and with the right support and leadership we will, I know, get through and build a brighter future.
Ours is a great, diverse and thriving city. We have amazing businesses, arts, culture, sport and universities. Leicester could and should play a key role in levelling up the midlands economy, particularly in the east midlands. The Space Park in my constituency is a partnership between the University of Leicester and industry that has the potential to create thousands of high-skill, high-value jobs in a global market worth billions. Our financial services sector and IT companies have grown hugely in recent years. We have a burgeoning tourism sector, following the amazing discovery of Richard III. That is not to mention our great restaurants, comedy festival, theatres and vibrant music venues.
In order to fulfil our potential, however, we need a Government who work with us. We need a Government who take their responsibility for helping to crack down on exploitation in the textile industry. Contrary to many reports in the newspapers, we do not have evidence that that is the cause of the outbreak in Leicester. That is not to say it is not, but the local director of public health and Public Health England have found no evidence that that is the cause. However, there are serious problems that need to be addressed. In order to do that, we need a Government who properly fund the bodies responsible for enforcement, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Health and Safety Executive, instead of slashing their budgets. We need a Government who actually implement the recommendations to tackle worker exploitation that were made by the Environmental Audit Committee in its report on fast fashion last year, rather than simply ignore them. We need a Government who invest in our infrastructure and people, because today’s global economy is utterly unforgiving towards people without skills.
We need a Government who understand that, with the right support, we will emerge from this crisis stronger than before, play a critical role in boosting the lives and livelihoods of people across the east midlands, and contribute towards the success of our country as a whole. I hope the Government listen to our concerns, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Chair
If no one else wishes to participate in this important debate, I call the Minister to respond.
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Lady for her—as always—reasonable, intelligent and impassioned response. Some of her points were much wider than the scope of the regulations, so I cannot respond to them, but I will try to respond as well as I can to her substantive points about Leicester.
I want to correct a number of the hon. Lady’s points. We both know whom we are talking about: Ivan Browne, the local director of public health in Leicester, who has done a fantastic job. However, he does not need to wait a week for anything; in fact, as a result of the Joint Biosecurity Centre, all local authorities have daily access to all the data relating to their area. Ivan has an authentication code with which he can log on each day to find out the daily data. No one has to wait a week for anything; if that were the case, we would be in a difficult situation with regards to the epidemiology of the virus.
I do not believe that any announcement was made—this is another one of the hon. Lady’s points—about extending Leicester’s lockdown. I am not aware of the article that she mentioned, but there have been no statements on extending the lockdown. She asked me when an announcement will be made—will it be today or on Saturday? All I can say is that the decisions regarding Leicester will be made very shortly.
The hon. Lady asked whether the decision to lockdown Leicester was based on the R rate or the number of infections. Actually, the decision to lockdown Leicester was based on a number of factors They include not just the positivity rate and the R rate—the transmission rate—but the way people live their lives in Leicester and where they travel to and from. I have never been to Market Harborough, but it has been mentioned to me numerous times in the past two weeks that people have been travelling from Leicester to Market Harborough during lockdown. Lots of considerations were pulled into the decision-making process.
I first spoke to Ivan—I believe it was before the lockdown took place—when we were aware that there was a spike and that the rates were rising, and he named a number of his concerns about households, living conditions, working conditions and the movement of people across Leicester. The hospital is on the far west side of Leicester, but one of the areas most affected is in the east, so Ivan was concerned about travel across the city. There were a number of considerations, and the same issues will be considered when easing the lockdown in Leicester. It will not be down to one issue, but a number of issues. We are advised on those issues on the ground in Leicester. It is not a decision that is just taken in Whitehall; it is taken with local leaders, the local director of public health, Public Health England via the Joint Biosecurity Centre, and the chief medical officer. There is a huge number of considerations and people who have input into the decision
On funding, we have assisted 9 million people across the UK with furlough, and the furlough scheme will continue until October, so people will not be out of pocket in terms of salary. Very few would say that the Government are not being generous in their provision to compensate people under threat of losing their livelihoods, businesses or jobs during the epidemic. We stepped up to the plate, and we have supported people throughout so far. The people of Leicester are no different in that consideration, and they will continue to be supported.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the boundaries. I make the point that the Mayor of Leicester set the boundary himself. He drew the map, and I was at the meeting at which he explained where he had put the boundaries and why he had drawn the map as he had, along with Nick Rushton, the leader of Leicestershire County Council. Overnight, between them, with their officials, they drew the boundary plan; we approved it the next day, on the basis of their recommendation. They recommended, “This is where we think the boundary should fall”, and we approved it. The hon. Lady made issue of the postcodes, areas and local geography, but it was the Mayor of Leicester who decided where the lockdown boundaries should fall. If I have missed any other points, I am happy to speak to the hon. Lady afterwards, but this is all very fast moving.
On finance, we have made £4.8 million available, including for the management of the local outbreak plan and support for local businesses. The funding is there for Leicester. We will continue to review Leicester and any area that goes into lockdown as we move forward.
I felt the passion in the hon. Lady’s voice when she was talking about Leicester, as I have in the voices of many people who have spoken about it. It is as though some people feel upset and almost embarrassed that Leicester has gone into lockdown, but 153 councils across the country have put in place local management outbreak plans. We have put £300 million into supporting those plans and helping every area—every upper-tier authority, which has responsibility for public health management—to be ready for when an outbreak occurs anywhere. Leicester is not the first and it may not be the last—living with coronavirus will be part of our lives.
In my opening speech, I said that we will learn from Leicester and what has happened there. I do not think that we were too slow in what we did. We worked with the data, which was made available, and I have a timeline of when that was available. It does not concur with the hon. Lady’s timeline: on 11 June, the new local dashboards went live and the authentication code was provided to local directors of Public Health England, not just in Leicester, but across the UK; and Leicester accessed its dashboard on 19 June.
Even before we began the enhanced testing—with discussions taking place on the ground a considerable time before that—we were aware at the Joint Biosecurity Centre, as the data was coming in, that a problem was arising. We analysed the data daily, and we could see that a problem was coming in Leicester. Public Health England worked with Leicester long before we announced the lockdown. On 19 June, Leicester used its authentication code to access the Joint Biosecurity Centre to get hold of its data.
I take on board the hon. Lady’s points about ethnicity and named households. That is being considered by the JBC. Obviously, a number of considerations have to be gone into to release that information and data. That is for authorities far higher than here. However, I take on board what she said, and she is not the only person to make the point; the Mayor of Manchester made similar ones. The issues are being discussed.
In conclusion, I thank Members for taking part in the Committee. I emphasise that some of the hon. Lady’s questions will be answered shortly—she will be relieved to hear that. The restrictions we debated today are necessary, and they are important for three reasons: first and most important, to protect the people of Leicester and the surrounding area from this terrible virus. The lockdown we have had to impose has been difficult, but I think that people in Leicester recognise that letting the virus spread unchecked would have been far worse for their continued livelihoods, businesses and future.
Secondly, the restrictions are important because they protect those of us who do not live in Leicester. As a result of the lockdown, few people will travel out of or to Leicester, and that greatly reduces the risk of transmission and of the high infection rates in the city spreading elsewhere. We should recognise that the restrictions and difficulties faced by the people of Leicester will benefit the whole country.
Thirdly, the restrictions show our absolute determination to respond to outbreaks of the virus in a focused and effective way. As I said, we will learn from what has happened in Leicester as we work with local authorities and others to develop our response to any future localised outbreaks. We will say more about that in the coming days.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution today. I will conclude by placing on the record on behalf of the Government my thanks to the people of Leicester and particularly the NHS and care workers in Leicester—indeed, all key workers across the city—for their ongoing hard work to keep our vital services running and to save lives throughout this difficult crisis.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 685).
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind the Committee that Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
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, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations (S.I., 2020, No. 684).
What a privilege it is to serve on the Committee for your very first time in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I hope it will be an enjoyable sitting for us all. The regulations, which were made on 3 July by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), came into force on 4 July. We had previously amended the original regulations, but the amendments made at this stage resulted in a significant number of changes.
It is for that reason that the original regulations were revoked and replaced with a set of new regulations, to make the legislation clearer and easier for the public to understand. The SI has not been formally cleared by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Further changes were made following the announcement made on 9 July by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), and a set of amendments to the regulations that were made on 10 July came into force on 11 July and 13 July. Those changes will be debated on 20 July.
I am aware that there are concerns in Parliament about allowing for the timely scrutiny of regulations that have been laid and made in response to the public health emergency caused by coronavirus, particularly relating to the timing of debates. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will bring these matters to the fore today. We have listened to those concerns and have endeavoured to hold this debate as soon as possible after the regulations were laid.
I acknowledge the situation in Leicester and appreciate how hard it must be for the people who live there. Although the rate of infection is declining nationally, we have been clear that we must take swift action to keep people safe when local outbreaks are identified. It is now vital that everyone in the protected area in and around Leicester stays at home and avoids non-essential travel. Anyone with symptoms needs to come forward for a test and share their contacts with NHS test and trace if they test positive.
We will continue to monitor rates of infection across the country, to work with local authorities, and to take action locally where necessary. In the event that the local response is not sufficient to deal with an outbreak, including to prevent the virus from returning to general circulation, the Government will act rapidly. We are in the process of drafting new regulations to enable action to be taken, and we will be ready to reintroduce national measures if necessary to control the spread of the virus.
We are now in phase 3 of our recovery strategy, as the Prime Minister set out in the Government’s roadmap on 11 May. Through continuous review of the measures, we have gradually and cautiously replaced existing social restrictions with targeted measures to ensure that any remaining restrictions are proportionate and necessary. In his statement to the House on 23 June, the Prime Minister announced the changes that we are debating, which came into force on 4 July.
The regulations enabled the reopening of many businesses across different sectors of the economy—a welcome change for many and a significant moment in our journey to restart the economy. Most of the restrictions on social gatherings are no longer set out in legislation, but the Government continue to issue guidance to support the public in meeting friends and family in a safe and appropriate way. We understand how vital it is for people to maintain contact with friends and acknowledge the positive impact that has on wellbeing and mental health. As we have done throughout the pandemic, we are trusting the British public to remain alert and stick to the published guidance.
I will now outline the changes made on 3 July, which came into effect on 4 July. These include: easing the restrictions on gatherings and overnight stays by removing most of the relevant rules from legislation and issuing guidance to support the public to meet their friends and family safely; allowing more sectors to reopen, including hospitality, leisure, tourism, recreation and sport; allowing further public and community services to reopen; and continuing to require some businesses considered too high risk to remain closed. The regulations also provide new powers to close public open places where it is considered necessary to do so, to prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of coronavirus.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Last week I received a letter from someone who delivers complementary therapies. What consideration has the Minister given to allowing such treatments to recommence, as many patients seem to find them useful?
Jo Churchill
The opening of massage parlours, spas and so on was laid out in subsequent regulations, and they have been allowed since 13 July. Perhaps I can have a conversation with my right hon. Friend on the specifics of the type of treatment to give him a fuller answer on whether they are allowed. It is about the context. As we have seen with beauty parlours, which are reopening, there are still restrictions on facial treatments that require proximity.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I think many of us have received such representations. Does the exchange we have just heard not illustrate that one of the problems with the regulations and the law is that their sheer complexity and swiftly changing nature make it difficult for even the most assiduous of observers to keep up to date with where we are? In that regard, the guidance to which the Minister has just referred is incredibly important. How will she ensure that people can understand the fast-moving current state of the regulations and the law?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Lady. If she will excuse me, I will take another intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby and then answer both.
Mr Goodwill
I support what the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood said. My constituent was a sports physiotherapist, but he was also representing people who do acupuncture, yoga or homeopathy, which are still not permitted.
Jo Churchill
What both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Lady are outlining is that the approach has had to be measured and consistent with Public Health England advice for specific areas. That guidance is available on gov.uk. My right hon. Friend has articulated different treatments, some of which need a degree of invasiveness. Guidance on that is incremental, and the Government are endeavouring to give people accurate information in a timely fashion.
However, I would readily say that there are times when there is perhaps a degree of confusion. At that point, if one refers to PHE guidance and gov.uk, one will find that it articulates why PHE is making changes incrementally. I am sure that no one on the Committee would have wanted us to open up at a more rapid rate and seen a rise in the R number. All of this is about us working permanently to keep control of the R number while trying to allow the economy to reopen.
On 6 July, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport announced that further amendments would be made to continue to ease existing restrictions and reopen many businesses and facilities. The changes being made, along with the updated guidance, have allowed team sports, rehearsals and outdoor performances to resume, with close contact services—including nail bars, salons, tanning booths, spas, massage parlours, body and skin-piercing services—and outdoor swimming pools and waterparks to reopen from 13 July. Those amendments will be debated on 20 July in the House. Our assessment that we are meeting the five tests, which we set out as considerations for change, mean that more restrictions will be lifted.
Covid-19 is the biggest challenge the UK has faced in decades.It threatens to take both our way of life and our loved ones from us. That is why the Government put in place strict social distancing measures, to slow the spread of the virus so that the NHS would not be overwhelmed. Thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of the public, and despite the extremely tragic loss of life, the UK has slowed the spread of the virus. We have been working with and consulting widely with businesses and organisations throughout the pandemic and continue to receive expert scientific advice from SAGE—the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, as we continue to work on easing the restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so.
I have already noted that further amendments were made to the regulations on 10 July, which will be debated in due course. I am grateful to all parliamentarians for their continued engagement in the process and for their valuable scrutiny.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I hope that your début is memorable for all the right reasons.
I thank the Minister for her introduction. As we know, this is the fifth iteration of the lockdown restrictions, although it is only the fourth time that we are actually debating them. In that lies a tale, which highlights the far from satisfactory approach to parliamentary scrutiny that has been a feature of the Government’s response to the pandemic.
Maria Eagle
Is my hon. Friend content that we are discussing today a set of regulations that have already come into force and that have since been changed? However one describes scrutiny, that is a strange definition.
Justin Madders
I will be expanding at length on the unsatisfactory nature of the way these regulations have been dealt with from the start. I think it is fair to say that at the start of the pandemic we understood why it was not possible to debate the regulations straightaway, but there is no longer any reason why regulations cannot now be debated in an orderly fashion, before they are formally made law.
Nearly a fortnight ago we saw the reopening of pubs, restaurants and hairdressers, among other businesses. I am sure that many of us were very pleased to be able to support those businesses in our constituencies, but I am sure that we are all equally concerned at the scenes we now regularly see where social distancing appears to have gone out the window. The chairman of the Police Federation, John Apter, commented that it was “crystal clear” that
“drunk people can’t/won’t socially distance.”
That rather begs the question of what consultation was going on before the regulations came into force. On the face of it, they are creating additional risks.
To be clear, none of the regulations has ever stopped people from being closer than 2 metres. That has never been a law that could be enforced, but it is an important element of the guidance designed to help stop the spread of the virus, so changes to the regulations should always consider whether they make social distancing easier or harder to adhere to.
Unfortunately, the Government do not seem to have learned from their experience, because we know that the police were not consulted on the face mask announcement that was made on Tuesday either. That is just one reason why it is frankly ridiculous that we are not debating the regulations before they are introduced.
The Minister was gracious enough to acknowledge the concerns that we have raised on every occasion about the timing of these debates; when we debate the regulations is getting a little bit closer to the due date—next week we will get even closer—but the fact is that we are debating changes that came into effect nearly two weeks ago, and a new set of regulations have already been introduced. That makes a mockery of the parliamentary process for approving legislation.
That brings me to the previous amendment to the regulations, which we were due to debate last Monday—well after they were first introduced, of course. In the end, we did not actually get to debate them at all, because a few hours before the Committee was due to meet, we were told that the sitting had been cancelled—the reason being, apparently, that the regulations had already been superseded and there was no need to debate them. Well, I respectfully disagree with that analysis.
Parliamentary scrutiny is not something that can be ditched because it is inconvenient or the dates do not match. It is why we are here and why we have parliamentary debates, especially for regulations that have huge ramifications. It is not only right but essential that we debate them in Committee. I believe that we should find the time and make it a priority. These issues are too important not to be debated; they demand timely and full parliamentary scrutiny. I make the plea to the Minister, as I have done on previous occasions, that whoever timetables parliamentary business should be made absolutely aware that the Opposition believe that contempt is being shown towards parliamentary scrutiny.
The fact that we were not able to debate the last set of regulations matters because they included what can only be described as a most remarkable and disorderly U-turn, as they enabled outdoor areas, aquariums, visitor farms, zoos and safari parks, as well as drive-in cinemas, to reopen. Members may well wonder why that is a particularly memorable U-turn, given that we have seen quite a few of them in recent weeks. It is because the last set of these regulations that we debated included laws to close those places down. The debate on those regulations took place on the same day that the next set of regulations came into force to open those places up again. We ended up debating one set of laws that had been expunged by another set of laws that Parliament was not debating. If that is democracy, it is a farce. It was all the more remarkable that at no point during the debate did anyone on the Government Benches point out that that was happening.
Even if the Government are not making it up as they go along, they are doing a very good job of creating the impression that they are. As I have said previously, of course we accept that the initial regulations had to be hurriedly introduced in response to the rising number of infections, but since that time the House has been up and running for more than two months and Members on both sides and in the other place have expressed concern about time not being provided to ensure that future changes are debated before they are made. I see no good reason for the Government to continue in this way.
Paragraph 3.1 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“It is the opinion of the Secretary of State that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft being so laid and approved so that public health measures can be taken in response to the serious and imminent threat to public health which is posed by the incidence and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2”.
I think that was a perfectly reasonable thing to say at the start of the crisis, but we are now four months on and it really ought to be possible for there to be a little more formality and order to these things.
The regulations require there to be a review at regular intervals—it was every three weeks, but it is now every four weeks. That is because the Secretary of State has a duty to terminate any regulations that are not necessary or proportionate to control the transmission of the virus. That also means that, from the introduction of the first set of regulations, we have had a clear timetable for when new regulations might be created, and therefore a clear opportunity to factor in parliamentary time for their scrutiny. There is therefore no excuse for us to debate the measures late once again, and neither is it acceptable for us to debate them without the full extent of the information upon which the Government have based their decisions.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend, as always, is making some extremely important points. To go back to his point about the frustration with the enforcement of the regulations as laws, the difficulty for businesses and members of the public is not just in keeping up to date with the laws, but in trying to understand if they will be enforced and how seriously. As he said, the police are totally frustrated by these pieces of legislation because they do not really know what their powers are. Likewise, local authorities do not know what they should be doing. If they do not know, there is no chance of anyone taking this seriously.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the blurring of the lines between what is guidance, and therefore advisory, and what is the law. It is important that people do not act unlawfully or, indeed, against the guidance. The police do not enforce issues in which there is only guidance, rather than law.
For example, we know that it was advised that face masks should be worn on public transport back on 11 May, but that only became a legal requirement approximately one month later. The police have been clear that they do not see it as their role to enforce that, which poses the question of who exactly will enforce such rules. We will see the same issues with face masks in shops. It is important not only to have clear sight of what is lawful or not, but that the bodies charged with enforcing the rules and laws have the necessary resources and power to ensure that they are adhered to.
In a previous debate, I asked the Minister to commit to the review of 25 June and the introduction of more relaxations being debated before implementation. Obviously, as we can see from the fact that we are in Committee today, that was not possible. I am grateful that the Minister acknowledges the concern, but it really should not be happening. In previous debates, I asked the Minister why the legally required reviews of 16 April, 7 May and 28 May have not been published. I ask the same question again in respect of the review of 25 June, which again we have not seen.
It is not only me who thinks that that is a problem. On 25 June, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee specifically expressed concerns about the Government’s refusal to publish reviews, stating that
“it would assist the House and the Committee if the Explanatory Memorandum in such cases included specific information about how and where the outcome of any review is to be promulgated and… We expect Government departments to ensure that in future this information is always provided.”
We have no review and all we have published alongside the regulations is an explanatory note telling us that no consultation has been carried out, no regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken and, worryingly, this time, no declaration that scientific advisers agree that the changes are likely to have an acceptably small impact on transmission rates. That is important, because there are no SAGE minutes to state that such matters have been considered.
In fact, not only do the regulations not state that they will have an acceptably small impact on transmission rates; they actually state that there is recognition that the changes may lead to an increase in transmission rates and will continue to be kept under review. As we have not seen the scientific evidence, will the Minister please give us more detail on that important statement? Is she able to provide clarity about which measures, individually or collectively, are considered likely to lead to an increase in transmission rates? That, above anything else that she says today, has to be the most important thing for us to hear from the Government Benches on this piece of legislation.
It would be better if the review of the regulations were published in full, alongside the full scientific evidence and a full impact assessment, but unfortunately we have none of that. I hope that the Minister will be able to come back to us on some of those concerns before the end of the Committee.
As we heard yesterday, the Imperial College research data commissioned by the Government showed that lockdown significantly reduced the rate of coronavirus infection in the community. The study did not cover care homes or hospital places, which is where we know there has been a significant issue with transmission throughout. Will the Minister confirm when the findings for June—when we saw the easing of lockdown restrictions—will be available? Have those findings been taken into account as part of the consideration in the review of the regulations today?
That is particularly important for public confidence, given that a whole raft of new measures are included in the regulations, as outlined by the Minister. As we have heard, they allow for the reopening of indoor and outdoor public houses, restaurants, cafés and bars, hairdressers, barbers, holiday accommodation, and several leisure and recreational attractions.
The regulations also impose restrictions that require certain businesses to remain closed, including night clubs, dance halls, discothèques, sexual entertainment venues, hostess bars, casinos, nail bars, tanning booths, spas, beauty salons, massage and tattoo parlours, and piercing services. Certain leisure and recreational facilities must also remain closed, including indoor skating rinks, indoor and outdoor swimming pools, water parks, indoor play areas and soft play areas, indoor fitness and dance studios, indoor gyms and sports courts and facilities, and bowling alleys. Conference centres and exhibition halls must also remain closed to external bookings.
As we have already touched on, Members will notice that that list is now out of date, following the amendments to the restrictions that came into effect on 11 and 13 July: those now allow swimming pools and water parks, nail bars, tanning booths, spas, beauty salons, massage and tattoo parlours, and skin piercing services to reopen. That re-emphasises the point about the confusion and lack of clarity about what is and is not permissible. We will be back here on Monday to debate those changes, so I will not go into more detail now, except to reinforce the point that it is wrong for us to be debating regulations to be brought into law to close these places down after they have already reopened.
The regulations significantly change the rules around gatherings. They prohibit gatherings of more than 30 people in private dwellings or on a ship or boat, other than for public transport, or in unmanaged outdoor spaces, save for a small number of exceptions. There is prohibition on indoor raves involving more than 30 individuals. Gatherings of more than 30 people are permitted where reasonably necessary for work, for voluntary or charitable services to provide emergency assistance, to avoid injury or illness, to escape from harm, for education or childcare, or to fulfil a person’s legal obligations.
These are now the only restrictions on people gathering together. Gone completely are the regulations about who people can meet, where and when. Those rules have now become guidance. The guidance on seeing friends and family is still that people should only be socialising in groups of up to two households indoors or up to six people from different households outdoors, but it is only against the law for gatherings of more than 30 people to take place in private homes. I am not sure everyone could fit that many people in their homes anyway, but there is clearly a difference between what the law says and what the guidance says.
It is particularly unfortunate that the Government website that lists what people can and cannot do has not been updated since 9 July, despite the new regulations coming into force on 11 and 13 July. We need clear and consistent messaging from Government on the rules, the laws and the changes that lie ahead. The confusion we have seen this week around face masks proves that there is still some way to go on consistent and clear public messaging.
With regards to compliance, following the scenes of overcrowding and poor social distancing on Bournemouth beach and at other locations, I note that these regulations also provide the Secretary of State with the power to restrict or prohibit access to a specified public outdoor place or public outdoor places of a specified description, in order to prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of covid-19. I am sure local authorities will welcome that support as we enter the summer holiday period, but they may also be wondering why on earth this was not put in place prior to the easing of lockdown restrictions last month. Can the Minister set out what procedure and consultation will take place with local councils and police forces before such decisions are taken? Presumably, they will be the ones tasked with enforcing the measures.
Finally, as with previous regulations, these regulations provide that fixed-penalty notices may be issued by authorised persons to persons over 18 whom they reasonably believe have committed an offence under the regulations. I have some questions about that, too, as there is a lack of transparency in those situations where fines are issued for a breach of the regulations.
I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service is doing a monthly review of every charge, sentence and conviction under emergency powers in England and Wales, during which it has found that eight wrongful charges were brought under the regulations in May. That figure is proportionately worse than the previous month, with a 10% rate of unlawful charges, increasing from 6% in April. Those failures included the charging of four homeless people and two people in England who were charged under the Welsh regulations. The lack of any appeals process means that the risk of miscarriages of justice is greater.
It is a concern that the regulations appear to be disproportionately impacting the BAME community. Some 12% of fixed-penalty notices were issued to those identifying as Asian, who represent 7.8% of the population in England, and 35% of the fixed-penalty notices were issued to those identifying as black, despite the fact that they represent 3.5% of the population in England. Analysis by Liberty Investigates and the Guardian found that BAME people were 54% more likely to be fined than white people. What are the Government doing to deal with regulations that appear to be being applied in a discriminatory manner?
We will not oppose the regulations today, because we want people to be able to get back to work and to see their families and loved ones; we also want children back at school and the economy to reopen. However, that does not mean that we do not have concerns. Relaxation must be carefully planned and clearly communicated. The country cannot afford for the Government to get this process wrong, but what we have seen through these regulations from the start is an alarming lack of clarity and a disorderly approach to changing the rules.
We also know that an essential component of the successful relaxation of the lockdown will be a fully functioning test, track and trace system. However, instead of the “world-beating” system that the Prime Minister promised on 1 June, we have a system that still has a long way to go because the Government have got the planning wrong and have been too slow in putting matters right.
We have serious questions about these measures that the Minister needs to answer. Why, for example, are a quarter of people still not being contacted by the test and trace system? Why is the current system not reaching about two thirds of those who are suspected of having covid-19? Why are more than a quarter of people who are being tested at regional testing stations waiting more than 24 hours to get their results back? Home tests are even worse, with virtually everyone who takes one waiting longer than 24 hours for their results.
We have also heard today about the problems with the Randox tests. Can the Minister please set out, if possible, what the issue is? The risks around this process are too great to be underestimated. The risks associated with a failure to develop an app in time can be highlighted by the fact that about half of those who have had close contact with someone who has tested positive are not being reached. That is an awful lot of people who will potentially go on to infect others.
These are not minor points; they are integral to developing an effective system to combat the spread of the virus. We need greater candour about the problems in meeting the targets and a little more detail about what is being done to put matters right.
Finally, I hope that the Government will implement as a matter of urgency all the recommendations in the Academy of Medical Sciences report, which was discussed at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. The report stressed the importance of an effective test and trace system. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will be able to confirm that that report and all its recommendations will be implemented in full as a matter of priority.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for once again asking for proper scrutiny. However, as he articulated the challenges, he also very readily showed how dynamic the situation is and why the challenge of using parliamentary procedure and the normal channels, which are scheduled through House authorities in conjunction with the Whips, leads to a disconnect.
The hon. Gentleman will also be very much aware that Parliament expressly gave the Government the power in section 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984: it is under that provision that we are now having this debate. It gave the Government the power to respond quickly in an emergency, such as the one we now face, before they have to come to Parliament for the right and proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Given that just along the corridor in another Committee room Members are debating the lockdown regulations for Leicester, I gently push back against earlier comments: we are making great progress, and the assertion that this crisis is still not the complete focus of the Government is wrong. That is why we are coming forward in this way. The Government will keep the restrictions under review; as the hon. Gentleman said, the Secretary of State has a duty to keep them under review in a timely fashion and a duty laid upon him to make sure that he releases these restrictions as rapidly as possible. That is what we are involved in.
I do, however, hear the point that this is, once again, a timing issue for the Opposition in respect of being allowed to scrutinise measures in an effective way. I hope that my comments have set out, in part, where we are.
Matt Western
The point is that all the Opposition and Members from across the Committee are trying to do is help come up with the best legislation. It is a surprise that a lot of this is not being done in anticipation of what is likely to happen, so that we can help collectively to ensure that any inconsistencies are avoided. To use an example from my constituency, someone who provides beauty treatments asked me a very simple question: “Why is it that a barber can work on a man’s face, but I cannot work on a woman’s face?”
Jo Churchill
I agree that there are challenges to making guidance seem consistent, but we are led by advice from PHE and the risk assessments done in each individual business.
To answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, there is a duty on each and every business to ensure that it has done suitable and sufficient risk assessments to allow itself to restart. Yoga, for example, is an activity that can take place outdoors. However, there are restrictions on covered areas for indoor sports, so at the moment it cannot take place in an indoor sports venue.
We have made progress in the past few weeks. I hope that my right hon. Friend, who was previously a business Minister, welcomes the fact that we are reopening the economy for, among other things, people’s wellbeing—one of the biggest determinants of inequality is people’s ability to work, which has a long-term effect on their mental and physical health. It is important that we push forward and open businesses, with proper scrutiny from Public Health England, and ensure that they are safe places for work, for staff and for people visiting them.
My right hon. Friend spoke about having more oversight of the reviews and so on. We recognise that transparency is important in these times. SAGE has been publishing its statements, and the accompanying evidence as it is reviewed, to demonstrate how the scientific understanding of covid-19 has continued to evolve as new data emerges. SAGE’s advice has quickly adapted to new findings that reflect the changing situation.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Imperial College study, which gratifyingly noted that the R number was lower than had been thought. That shows the benefits of the lockdown restrictions. I am sure all MPs agree that the vast majority of our constituents have behaved extremely responsibly. I trust them to continue to do so, notwithstanding the fact that over the past 17 weeks we have all had in our inboxes challenging stories of people who wanted to meet a grandchild or say their last goodbyes to someone.
This has been a national effort. The releasing of these regulations and guidance is the next step to ensuring that we get to where we want to be and start to resume life with our new normal, ensuring that social distancing still applies where possible—the advice is incredibly clear that social distancing is the primary measure for stopping the transmission. In places where that is not possible, we have the 1 metre-plus rule, with interventions such as Perspex screens in shops—or even in Parliament, as we now see in some of the Committee Rooms—to keep people safe, and the wearing of face masks.
I gently say that the face covering regulations come in on the 24th. We have been having conversations about enforcement with the National Police Chiefs Council and the College of Policing, and they have released guidance on each set of regulations. We are in daily contact with them to ensure that there is consistency around enforcement. People with inside businesses will not be expected to enforce.
The equalities impact has been considered throughout the restrictions across a range of protected characteristics, but the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will have to raise the more specific instances for different protected groups with the relevant Department.
The hon. Gentleman asked two very specific questions on testing: on the Randox test and comments from yesterday. If he will forgive me, I will write with a more comprehensive answer on testing. He will be well aware that we now have the capacity in this country to test some 300,000 across the suite of tests per day. On the turnaround time, we get 91% of the tests done at either the satellite or mobile testing back within a shorter than 24-hour period, and 97.5% within the day.
Justin Madders
The Minister will be aware that some 3 million tests are unaccounted for. Is she able to advise what the understanding is on where those have gone?
Jo Churchill
As the shadow Minister well knows, some of the tests that are sent out are counted on the out and we do not have the ability to ensure that the test is used and sent back to us. As I said, I will write to him with full and comprehensive details on testing.
The hon. Gentleman may or may not be aware that in the Leicester local lockdown, we are going door-to-door in order to ensure that asymptomatic testing and testing throughout Leicester is ramped up. We are also using translation services, both on the doorstep and on some of the phone lines.
This has been an unprecedented situation. We are dealing with a new virus and we have ensured that each time we have taken the learning and tried to deliver an enhanced service. It is well recognised that the numbers we are testing have grown. It was a stretching target and we have matched it. We are now providing one of the most comprehensive testing systems—across mobile testing, satellite testing, the Lighthouse testing, home testing, testing in care homes and hospitals, which now stretches out into asymptomatic as well as symptomatic testing—ensuring that anyone is now able to ring and get a test.
On testing information, pillar 2 is being fed back into local areas so that they have a much clearer idea of what their locality looks like, as per the number of tests.
Justin Madders
It is indisputable that the number of tests has significantly increased, but what has happened to the false negative rate? We heard earlier on that it was about 30%. Is it still in that area?
Jo Churchill
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have said that I will write to him on testing. I fear that we are straying slightly from the point of today’s debate on the regulations. I thank everyone for their contribution—
Justin Madders
The Minister is about to finish, but it is really important that we hear from her about the statement in paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory notes, which says:
“There is recognition that these changes may lead to an increase in transmission rates”.
What is the scientific advice in relation to that risk? How is the Minister going to be able to report back and monitor that, particularly in terms of parliamentary scrutiny?
Jo Churchill
As far as the R rate is concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State meets regularly with the chief scientific adviser and the chief medical officer, plus SAGE, the new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory group—NERVTAG—and the Joint Biosecurity Council. All that information is fed back into the decisions that are then made in and around the R number. If he will forgive me, I am going to push on, because I feel we are straying off into areas away from the regulations.
We will continue to keep the restrictions placed on individuals, businesses and society under continual review over the coming weeks and months. The new regulations debated here today have been a major step in the gradual return to normality for individuals, businesses and society as a whole, and, as we have heard, that is something we welcome.
I am pleased that, as of 10 July, we have continued to take those steps and have made further amendments to reduce restrictions in a safe way. We appreciate that restrictions have placed a significant strain on individuals. The Government will only continue to impose restrictions that are necessary and proportionate, but we remain prepared to impose further restrictions should that become necessary.
Today’s debate has provided an opportunity for hon. Members to debate the range of activity that the Government have undertaken in response to coronavirus. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 684).
Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Just before I call the Minister to move the motion, I ask all hon. Members, if they speak, to email details of their speaking notes to Hansard, please.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 680).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
As the Committee is aware, on 6 July the Government laid the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The regulations were made on 5 July.
On that day, in a statement to Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs set out the Government’s vision for a truly global Britain. He underlined our commitment to the United Kingdom being an even stronger force for good in the world: on climate change, as we host COP26; on gender equality, as we champion 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world; and on human rights, as we defend media freedom and protect religious freedom.
The regulations demonstrate that the Government are acting on that commitment. They give the UK a powerful tool to hold to account those involved in the worst human rights violations and abuses around the world.
The idea of taking targeted action against human rights abusers originated, as Members know, as a cross-party initiative. The Foreign Secretary has paid tribute to the contribution of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I echo that. My colleagues and I have been grateful for the strong words of support that we received from all parties on laying the regulations last week.
Targeted human rights sanctions were a clear commitment in the Conservative party manifesto. I am proud that under this Prime Minister and this Government, we are bringing into force the UK’s first autonomous human rights sanctions regime.
As the Foreign Secretary stated, we have designed the sanctions as a forensic tool, which will allow us to target perpetrators and abusers without punishing the wider people of a particular country. The regulations will enable us to impose travel bans and asset freezes on those involved in serious human rights violations and abuses. The rights in question include: the right to life; the right not to be subject to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and the right to be free of slavery, servitude, or forced or compulsory labour.
The powers also enable us to target the larger network of perpetrators, including those who facilitate, incite, promote, support or profit from such crimes. That extends beyond state officials to non-state actors. The regulations are the next step forward in the long struggle against impunity for the very worst human-rights violators.
We are already considering how a corruption regime could be added to our armoury of legal weapons. In particular, we will look at the United Nations convention against corruption under existing frameworks and jurisdictions such as the United States of America and Canada.
We also published a policy note, which sets out how we will consider designations under the regulations for maximum transparency. The legislation will enable due process to be followed in relation to those designations, reflecting on the rigorous process rights contained in the 2018 Act. In practice, the designations will be able to request that a Minister review that decision. As a matter of due diligence, the Government will review all designations at least once every three years.
As the Foreign Secretary said, we welcome the ongoing and rigorous engagement by Members of this House in all parties. We will continue to report to Parliament as requested under sections 30 and 32 of the 2018 Act, to provide Parliament with regular opportunities to scrutinise the operation of the human rights sanctions. Of course, parliamentarians can continue to engage with the Government in the usual ways, including writing to the Foreign Secretary and asking parliamentary questions.
In addition to introducing this new legal regime, the Foreign Secretary announced the first set of designations under the regulations, including individuals and organisations involved in some of the most notorious human rights violations in recent years. These names are published online in the UK’s sanctions list for these regulations. Those sanctioned include those individuals involved in the torture and murder of Sergei Magnitsky, the lawyer who disclosed the biggest tax fraud in Russian history; those responsible for the brutal murder of the writer and journalist Jamal Khashoggi; those who perpetrated the systematic and brutal violence against the Rohingya population in Myanmar; and two organisations bearing responsibility for the enslavement, torture and murder that takes place in North Korea’s wretched gulags, in which we estimate hundreds of thousands of prisoners have been punished and perished over the past 50 years.
With these first designations, this Government and this country will make it crystal clear to those who have used their power to inflict unimaginable suffering on others that we will not look the other way. Given the sensitivities involved, including the risk of asset flight, I cannot and will not speculate on who may be the target of future sanctions under this regime, but, rest assured, we continue to consider targets, guided by the regulations’ human rights goals, as well as the evidence.
In practice, targeted sanctions are most effective when they are backed by co-ordinated, collective actions. We will work closely with our Five Eyes partners, in particular the United States of America and Canada, which already have Magnitsky-style sanctions legislation, and Australia, which is considering similar legislation. We also strongly support the efforts to bring an EU human rights sanctions regime into effect and stand ready to co-ordinate closely with our European partners in the future.
I welcome the opportunity to set out these regulations to Members, and commend them to the House.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
The Labour party is pleased to support today’s statutory instrument. As we said in the Chamber, we welcome the introduction of the sanctions. As my hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary recently made clear to the House, for too long there has been a sense of there being a haven for individuals who use torture, murder and corruption to achieve their goals, and seek a place to stash dirty money. Those days must end, and we have to stand against those individuals. These sanctions are a good first step. The Government have been right to make it clear that actions will have consequences.
As this is a cross-party matter, I place on record my own tribute to the family of Sergei Magnitsky. We all know that the family has waited far too long to see justice, and to see the Government and our allies take action against those who took Sergei Magnitsky’s life after he exposed the web of international corruption involving so many individuals and corporations. In doing what we can to punish those involved in Sergei Magnitsky’s death, and those involved in other appalling human rights abuses in other parts of the world, we have the chance to send a strong, principled message that Britain will not look the other way when offences are committed and that we will not allow perpetrators to use the UK as a base to profit from their criminality. That has to be the cornerstone of our foreign policy and our approach to the world, with our historic and ongoing international commitments.
That being said, we have concerns that the sanctions do not go far enough. While action has been taken against those involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky, it must be matched by action against Russian Government officials who oppress lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the Muslim community and other minorities, and who use chemical weapons on the streets of the UK. We also need real and tangible action against other regime officials in parts of the world where gross human rights abuses continue. As we know, the world is increasingly uncertain and unpredictable, and a scattergun approach to a sanctions regime does not meet the scale of the challenges.
I am also concerned that the sanctions may have been undermined by the short-sighted decision to resume arms sales to Saudi Arabia, only days after those involved in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi were identified by the sanctions regime. Mixed messages are not appropriate. As we all know, there are serious concerns about abuses of human rights in Saudi Arabia and in the execution of the war in neighbouring Yemen. We must be consistent in our approach. It cannot be right that we hold people to account one day and reward their state shortly afterwards. In the spirit of cross-party working, I hope that the Government will reconsider the decision to resume the sale of defence equipment to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and, in general, that they will press for peace and a settlement in Yemen. People there have suffered for far too long.
Our allies in the US and Canada have introduced similar sanctions regimes, but have gone further and specifically covered corruption in the scope of their legislation. Corruption is a cancer that blights the most vulnerable people in the world. The UK must follow suit with Canada and the US and prevent London from remaining home to the ill-gotten gains of corruption. We have a unique chance to get that right, and I sincerely hope that the Government will expand the scope of the sanctions in the near future. I was pleased that the Minister mentioned that, and I hope for genuine action on that front. We all know that, as British MPs, the thing that we have the most control over is the question of tax status in the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. While the matter is being debated, and there is a lot of cross-party support, steps have still not been taken to close the loopholes completely. I hope that we are taking a step in the direction of doing what we can closest to home on the question of corruption.
I must draw the Minister’s attention to one further serious concern: the possibility that the introduction of sanctions can make, and indeed has made, the work and life of in-country human rights defenders more precarious. After US sanctions on the Chechen President Kadyrov, public officials in Chechnya doubled down on their vilification of and attacks on human rights defenders in the territory. That is just one example. I would like the Minister to suggest how human rights defenders can be protected when sanctions are imposed. We need to be alive to the risk and do what we can to safeguard human rights defenders who take enormous risks to highlight human rights abuses and to improve their day-to-day lives.
I also draw the Minister’s attention to the procedure relating to the sanctions. I heard him say that there can be parliamentary questions and urgent questions. However, I was unsure whether he would outline the role of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs or the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am happy, if he does not have an answer, for him to write to me on that point. It is important to have a cross-party commitment to human rights, and to enjoy that vision together on that particular point. There is nothing better than Select Committee proceedings for pursuing that.
Advocates have raised some concerns that sanctions may not work, particularly if they are unilateral rather than multilateral. I would be grateful to hear assurances from the Minister about how we will judge the effectiveness of the measures in changing the culture and climate around respect for human rights. To maximise the effectiveness of our sanctions regime we need to ensure that there is a procedure for Parliament—I have mentioned Select Committees—so that we can all have confidence that sanctions are transparent and thought out, and flexible enough to cover a range of issues.
The sanctions also need to be tied into the working of a wider human rights-led foreign policy. There are a range of existing measures that the UK can use in all regions to help to improve human rights. One is halting all military, security and policing transfers and training —I mentioned the Yemen example. Another is pushing for the imposition of multilateral targeted financial sanctions—against Myanmar, for example, where there could be a more comprehensive approach. Another is exercising universal jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute. That would apply to Syria, for example. Another is pushing for a United Nations Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court, in the case of Sudan, among others.
The sanctions regime should be seen within the wider family of other measures by which people can be held to account. I am sure everyone present would like to see President Assad in front of the International Criminal Court at a future point. A full use of the suite of measures, as well as targeted sanctions, will allow the UK to be a serious player in human rights and to put it genuinely at the heart of foreign policy.
In conclusion, the Opposition welcome and approve of these sanctions, but we have made it clear that the Government need to go much further and wider to ensure that we achieve a robust and fit-for-purpose independent sanctions regime. A narrow focus on the human rights of individuals does not befit the challenges facing the world. Labour will support the Government in establishing a wider framework for these sanctions, and we will work with the Government in improving the regulations in the weeks and months ahead.
James Cleverly
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who maintained a balanced, thoughtful and constructive tone in the Committee, as she and her party have done throughout the process in response to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House. I thank her for engaging in that spirit, because it will enable this regime to become stronger over time, to transcend any future changes in Government, and to be a serious, meaningful and effective means of dissuading human rights abusers and of targeting and punishing such abuse where it takes place.
I listened to the hon. Lady’s examples of other potential targets for the sanctions regime. She will understand that, as I said, we will not publicly speculate in order to prevent things such as financial flight, but I listened to her points. It is important to understand that the sanctions are designed to target individuals and to separate the targeting of such individuals from the wider populations within those countries, or indeed from the Governments of those states. That is important to ensure the appropriateness and effectiveness of the sanctions regime.
The hon. Lady mentioned human rights defenders, and she is absolutely right to do so. We have to be careful to ensure that the work we do at an international level to dissuade human rights abusers does not have the perverse effect of increasing targeting, but the simple reality is that human rights defenders are often the target of aggressive action. We recognise and value their work.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Britain has always been strong on human rights and a world leader in adhering to the rule of law. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that these sanctions regulations come under the sovereignty of the UK and no other external jurisdiction?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. She is right: this is a domestic UK sanctions regime—the first such regime of its type. We will, of course, work with other like-minded partners around the world to ensure there is a co-ordinated effort. I mentioned the United States of America and Canada, and we will work with Australia in the future. Of course, we will maintain a close working relationship with our European partners, even though—or perhaps because—we have left the European Union. This is the United Kingdom’s discrete sanctions regime.
We will continue to fight human rights abuse and to highlight the plight of human rights defenders. It is important to understand that the sanctions regime is one weapon in a broader arsenal of protections for human rights and human rights defenders. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Government as a whole are absolutely committed to continue the UK’s position as a force for good in the world and to defend human rights defenders.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green mentioned scrutiny of the process, and she was very generous to say that she would be happy for me to write to her on the subject. I suspect that, as often with these things, the exact nature of the scrutiny of the Government’s actions on this will evolve over time, because this is a new process. Quite frankly, this is something of which the Government are incredibly proud. We want to celebrate and champion the work we do, and we welcome the positive spirit in which the scrutiny we have received on this issue has been given thus far.
I repeat my thanks to the hon. Lady and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for their points. We are proud that the United Kingdom is taking a global lead with a sanctions regime targeting human rights abuse, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Service Pensions Consultation
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
Today I have laid in Parliament the consultation document “Public service pension schemes: changes to the transitional arrangements to the 2015 schemes” (CP No. 253) detailing proposals regarding public service pensions. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal identified that transitional protection arrangements provided to older judges and firefighters in 2015 gave rise to unlawful discrimination. The consultation sets out options to deliver the Government’s commitments, made in July 2019 (HCWS1725) and March 2020 (HCWS187), to address the discrimination across the public service pension schemes and for all affected members. It also sets out the Government’s intention to move all affected public servants to the 2015 reformed pension schemes from 1 April 2022. The consultation will run from 16 July to 11 October 2020. Furthermore, the Government are today announcing that the pause of the cost control mechanism, which was implemented in 2019 (HCWS1286), will be lifted. The Government will also proceed with the previously announced review by the Government Actuary as to whether the mechanism is working in line with original objectives.
Proposals for addressing discrimination
The consultation published today sets out proposals to address the unlawful discrimination arising from the transitional arrangements introduced when public service schemes were reformed in 2015. There are two possible mechanisms for achieving this: an immediate choice exercise or a deferred choice underpin. Both will enable all affected members, whether they originally received transitional protection or not, to decide whether to take the legacy or reformed scheme benefits for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022. These options differ in the point at which the member makes the decision: the immediate choice exercise would be held in the years after the point of legal implementation in 2022; whereas under the deferred choice underpin, the decision would be deferred until the point at which a member takes their pension benefits. Until that deferred choice is made, all members would be treated as having been in their legacy scheme between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022. Where members are already in receipt of their pension, they would get the choice as soon as practicable after the policy is implemented.
These proposals apply to all members who were in a relevant public service pension scheme on or before 31 March 2012 and remained in a relevant pension scheme on or after 1 April 2015.
The public service schemes affected by this announcement are the main public service pension schemes managed by the UK Government, Welsh Government and Scottish Government. Changes to the local government pension scheme in England and Wales, and the equivalent scheme in Scotland, as well as the UK-wide judicial pension scheme and the public service pension schemes in Northern Ireland will be consulted on separately.
Future pension provision
From 1 April 2022, all members who are not already in the reformed schemes and who are still accruing benefits in legacy schemes will be placed into the 2015 reformed pension schemes. The reformed schemes are important in ensuring that the cost of public service pensions is affordable and sustainable, while providing vital public servants with a generous, inflation-protected income in retirement. The reformed schemes are also fairer to those who do not see their earnings increase greatly during their careers such as many lower and middle earners.
Cost control mechanism update
The 2015 reforms also introduced a mechanism to control the cost of public service pensions.
This assesses the value of schemes to members and is designed to ensure members receive fair entitlement while ensuring costs remain sustainable. It has both a ceiling and a floor—when costs increase above the ceiling or fall below the floor, member benefits are adjusted to meet the target cost.
Following the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Government announced a pause to the “cost control” element of the 2016 scheme valuations, as the judgment led to significant uncertainty about benefit entitlements, meaning that at the time there was not enough certainty to assess the value of benefits to members.
Progress has now been made in the employment tribunals to determine a remedy for claimants, and the Government are now setting out their proposals for consultation. As the uncertainties about the current level of benefits have receded, I can therefore announce that the pause to the cost control mechanism will now be lifted, and the Government have started the process to complete the cost control element of the 2016 valuations.
When the mechanism was established, it was agreed that it would consider “member costs”: i.e. costs that affect the value of schemes to members. As the proposals in the consultation published today will increase the value of schemes to members, this falls into the “member cost” category.
As a “member cost”, this will be considered as part of the completion of the cost control element of the 2016 valuations process. Current employer contribution rates will not be affected. The Government have published an “Update on the cost control element of the 2016 valuations” today, providing additional details.
In September 2018, the Government announced their intention to ask the Government Actuary to review the cost control mechanism to assess whether it is working in line with original objectives. The review has been on hold, but I can today announce that it will proceed and report ahead of the completion of the 2020 valuations.
The Government remain committed to public service pensions which are fair to public servants and fair to other taxpayers.
Copies of the consultation document (CP No. 253) are available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office, and it is published on gov.uk.
[HCWS380]
Regulating Consumer Smart Product Security: Call for Views
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
This Government have ambitious plans to ensure the UK’s smart technology, products and services are more secure by having cyber-security designed into them by default.
From January 2017 to February 2018, my Department conducted a review, in collaboration with the National Cyber Security Centre, to identify proposals for improving the cyber-security of consumer smart products and associated services. This led to the creation of our code of practice for consumer internet of things (IoT) security, which was published on 14 October 2018.
The Government initially encouraged industry to adopt the guidelines in the code of practice for consumer IoT security voluntarily. However, in many cases, poor security practices remain commonplace.
In a consultation held in 2019, we found widespread support for the introduction of a mandatory cyber-security baseline for consumer smart products sold in the UK. As part of the Government response to the 2019 consultation, in January 2020 I announced the Government’s intention to implement regulation to ensure that stronger security is built into consumer smart products, aligned with the top three security requirements of the code of practice for consumer IoT security.
Since then, my officials have been working with the National Cyber Security Centre, industry leaders and cyber-security experts to develop world-leading legislation in this space. Today I am pleased to inform members that we are launching a public call for views on the Government’s proposed regulatory approach to consumer smart products on 16 July. This will run until 6 September 2020, and represents an important opportunity for us to test our proposed approach, and for industry to input and build a regulatory framework that is world-leading, promotes innovation, and protects consumers.
Our proposed regulation will set a cyber-security baseline for consumer smart products sold in the UK. The call for views will detail the scope of products the legislation would apply to, security requirements that we are proposing to mandate, obligations on producers and distributors, and a proposed enforcement approach. Following the conclusion of this call for views, we will develop our regulation approach further, before introducing legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
As a reserved matter, these proposed amendments will apply across the UK. The safety of consumer smart products is a priority across the whole of the UK, and my officials will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations on this policy.
[HCWS375]
Covid-19: Higher Education Restructuring Regime
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The establishment of the higher education restructuring regime in response to covid-19 has been announced today.
On 4 May, I put forward a higher education (HE) stabilisation package which reprofiled public funding and introduced measures to stabilise admissions with a view to mitigating the impact of covid-19 on HE providers’ finances. This package, along with the Government-backed business support schemes, provided substantial support to the HE sector. On 27 June, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced further support to preserve research capacity and capability in the research stabilisation package.
Many providers may continue to be affected by income losses across teaching, research, commercial and other activities resulting from covid-19. There remains significant uncertainty around the extent of financial challenge providers will face and the full picture of this will not become clear until the autumn term.
I recognised at the time of my announcement in May that there may be a case for Government intervention to support an otherwise sustainable provider’s efforts to restructure its business and overcome ongoing financial threats caused by covid-19.
That is why I am announcing today the establishment of the higher education restructuring regime to support, in the right circumstances, individual HE providers in England at risk of market exit as a result of covid-19 and to intervene where there is a case to do so.
Providers in scope for consideration for support through this regime are those on the Office for Students register in the approved (fee cap) category.
The Government’s intention is not to provide a blanket bail-out to the sector. It is not a guarantee that no organisation will fail. Instead, the Government will consider supporting restructuring of providers as a last resort and provided there is an economic case to do so. Restructuring plans will need to combine financial rigour and business efficiency with a strong focus on emerging from the challenges of covid-19 to deliver higher-quality provision to meet the needs of our economy and society.
The regime will take into account the following overarching policy objectives which will guide my Department’s assessment of cases:
Protecting the welfare of current students.
Preserving the sector’s internationally outstanding science base.
Supporting the role that HE providers play in regional and local economies through the provision of high-quality courses aligned with economic and societal needs.
Providers facing financial difficulties should continue to engage with the Office for Students as the regulator for HE in England. They may choose to approach the new DFE restructuring unit to begin discussion about potentially becoming engaged in the HE restructuring regime.
I will receive advice to support my decision on whether the Government should intervene in the case of an individual provider and the nature of the intervention from an independent restructuring regime board. This board will include experts on restructuring and the HE sector. Any financial support will be in the form of a repayable loan with clear conditions that support Government objectives. An assessment of the individual provider’s business model and restructuring plan will determine the precise terms and conditions to be attached to any public funding.
I have deposited a copy of the announcement document in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS382]
Human Rights and Democracy Annual Report 2019
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
I have today laid before Parliament a copy of the 2019 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) report on human rights and democracy (CP number 273).
The report analyses human rights developments overseas in 2019 and illustrates how the Government work to promote and defend human rights globally.
The report assesses the situation in 30 countries, which the FCO has designated as its human rights priority countries. These are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Libya, Maldives, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
Almost 75 years ago, the UN charter established the three pillars of the UN’s work: maintaining international peace and security; promoting and protecting human rights; and fostering development. As we mark the UN’s 75th anniversary, the UK’s commitment to these three pillars remains steadfast. This report details the UK’s partnerships with human rights defenders, our leadership on promoting media freedom and gender equality, our work to eradicate modern slavery, and our commitment to deliver change for those who are abused, targeted, or killed for their religion or beliefs.
[HCWS379]
Cyber-security: Foreign Interference
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
I am today updating Parliament on the ongoing investigations into the leak of the UK-US free trade agreement documents ahead of the general election in 2019. The chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee has been briefed on the details of this incident.
The Government have robust systems in place to protect the UK against foreign malign influence. These bring together Government, civil society and private sector organisations to monitor and respond to interference, to ensure our democracy stays open, transparent and resilient. During the 2019 general election a cross-government election security cell was stood up to co-ordinate responses to threats and hazards relating to the election.
On the basis of extensive analysis, the Government have concluded that it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked Government documents.
Sensitive Government documents relating to the UK-US free trade agreement were illicitly acquired before the 2019 general election and disseminated online via the social media platform Reddit. When these gained no traction, further attempts were made to promote the illicitly acquired material online in the run-up to the general election.
Whilst there is no evidence of a broad spectrum Russian campaign against the general election, any attempt to interfere in our democratic processes is completely unacceptable. It is, and will always be, an absolute priority to protect our democracy and elections.
There is an ongoing criminal investigation and it would be inappropriate for us to say anything further at this point.
The Government reserve the right to respond with appropriate measures in the future.
The UK will continue to call out and respond to malign activity, including any attempts to interfere in our democratic processes, alongside our international partners. We fully support the recent action taken by our German partners who exposed Russian responsibility for the hack of their Parliament in 2015, as well as their intention to act against those responsible under the cyber sanctions regime. The UK Government laid the statutory instrument for our own cyber sanctions regime on 17 June.
[HCWS384]
Liberty Protection Safeguards
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
This statement provides an update on the implementation of liberty protection safeguards (LPS). The Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019, which received Royal Assent in May 2019, introduced LPS to replace deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS).
LPS will authorise deprivation of liberty in order to provide care or treatment to an individual who lacks capacity to consent to their arrangements, in England and Wales. It will replace a system that many agree is overly bureaucratic and complicated.
It is paramount that implementation of LPS is successful so that the new system provides the safeguards needed. The intention to date, subject to the Department for Health and Social Care’s work with stakeholders and delivery partners, was for LPS to come into force on 1 October 2020.
It is now clear that successful implementation is not possible by this October. We now aim for full implementation of LPS by April 2022. Some provisions, covering new roles and training, will come into force ahead of that date. I will continue to update the sector and stakeholders on timings.
The Government will undertake a public consultation on the draft regulations and code of practice for LPS. That will run for 12 weeks, allowing sufficient time for those that are affected, including those with learning disabilities, to engage properly.
The sector will need time following the publication of the final code to prepare for implementation. We will give the sector sufficient time to prepare for the new system to ensure successful implementation. I am considering a period of approximately six months for this.
After we have considered responses to the consultation, the updated code and regulations will need to be laid in Parliament to allow for proper scrutiny. This needs to happen well in advance of the target implementation date, first to allow for that scrutiny and second because some of the regulations need to come into force earlier.
Health and social care has been at the frontline of the nation’s response to covid-19, with social care providers looking after many of the most vulnerable in society. We have received representations from public and private bodies from across the sector over the last few months, outlining the pressures they face if they were to implement by October 2020.
My overall objective remains to ensure implementation of an effective system in particular for those whose lives will be most affected by this legislation.
The forthcoming draft code of practice and regulations will also offer more detailed information about how LPS will operate in practice. I will provide a further update on the progress of implementation in due course. I hope that the additional time announced today provides reassurance to the sector.
[HCWS377]
Patient Safety Incidents and Deaths: Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
Following questions raised about the management of the Liverpool Community Health NHS Trust an independent review chaired by Dr Bill Kirkup CBE was established. The review report, published on 8 February 2018, found that there were significant failings in the trust from November 2010 to December 2014.
It is important that these failings are investigated, and lessons learnt to improve services. In response to these serious patient safety incidents described in the report the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care commissioned Dr Bill Kirkup to conduct an independent investigation into patient safety incidents at the trust.
These terms of reference cover patient safety incidents that occurred in the same period as the initial independent review addressed, namely November 2010 to December 2014.
This independent investigation is being conducted over three stages. Stage 1, which identified individual serious patient safety incidents that had not been reported or adequately investigated by the trust, and stage 2, an examination of a series of historic mortality reviews.
We are now entering stage 3, which will fully investigate those individual serious patient safety incidents identified from the previous stages to determine the scale of deaths and patient harm and identify local and national learning.
The work of the independent investigation panel is expected to complete by the end of 2021 and arrangements will be made for publication of its report to Parliament.
A copy of the terms of reference will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS376]
Learning Disabilities Mortality Review: Fourth Annual Report
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I am announcing today the publication of the fourth annual report of the learning disabilities mortality review programme (LeDeR). A copy will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Addressing the persistent health inequalities faced by people with learning disabilities is a priority for this Government and this report is an important contribution towards that.
The LeDeR programme was established in June 2015 to help reduce early deaths and health inequalities for people with a learning disability by supporting local areas in England to review the deaths of people with a learning disability and to ensure that the learning from these reviews lead to improved health and care services. The programme is led by the University of Bristol and commissioned by NHS England and NHS Improvement.
As in previous years, the report makes a number of recommendations for Government and its system partners to improve the care of people with a learning disability which does not always meet the high standard we would expect for each and every individual. We must carefully consider these recommendations to better support those who need care and take the right action as soon as possible.
Earlier this year, we provided an update on action being taken in response to the third LeDeR report and any ongoing actions highlighted in previous years’ reports. This week, NHS England has also published its “Action from Learning Report” alongside the fourth LeDeR report, which sets out a range of work taking place to improve the safety and quality of care to reduce early deaths and health inequalities.
The fourth annual LeDeR report covers the period 1 July 2016 up to 31 December 2019, with a particular focus on deaths in 2019. This means the report will not include reference to deaths from covid-19, as the reviews it includes, and the analysis of them, were completed before the pandemic. From 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2019, 7,145 deaths were notified to the LeDeR programme. Some 3,450 of these were notified in 2019. In 122 of the cases reviewed, people received care that fell so far short of expected good practice that it significantly impacted on their well-being or directly contributed to their cause of death.
Based on the evidence from completed LeDeR reviews, the report makes 10 recommendations for the health and care system, as follows:
A continued focus on the deaths of adults and children from BAME groups is required.
For the Department of Health and Social Care to work with the chief coroner to identify the proportion of deaths of people with learning disabilities referred to a coroner in England and Wales.
The standards against which the Care Quality Commission inspects should explicitly incorporate compliance with the Mental Capacity Act as a core requirement.
Establish and agree a programme of work to implement the from the “Best practice in care co-ordination for people with a learning disability and long term conditions” (March 2019) report and liaise with the National Institute for Health Research regarding the importance of commissioning a programme of work that develops, pilots and evaluates different models of care co-ordination for adults and children with learning disabilities.
Adapt (and then adopt) the national early warning score 2 regionally to ensure it captures baseline and soft signs of acute deterioration in physical health for people with learning disabilities.
Consider developing, piloting and introducing: Specialist physicians for people with learning disabilities who would work within the specialist multi-disciplinary teams; a diploma in learning disabilities medicine; and making “learning disabilities” a physician speciality of the Royal College of Physicians.
Consider the need for timely, NICE evidence-based guidance that is inclusive of prevention, diagnosis and management of aspiration pneumonia.
Right Care to provide a toolkit to support systems to improve outcomes for adults and children at risk of aspiration pneumonia.
Safety of people with epilepsy to be prioritised. The forthcoming revision of the NICE guideline “Epilepsies in children, young people and adults” to include guidance on the safety of people with epilepsy, and safety measures to be verified in Care Quality Commission inspections.
For a national clinical audit of adults and children admitted to hospital for a condition related to chronic constipation.
The inappropriate use of do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions is highlighted in this fourth report, as it has been previously. DNACPRs should never be used in a blanket way and this has been reiterated during the covid-19 crisis through letters from the NHSE, including the NHSE medical director on 7 April 2020, and by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 15 April 2020.
I am clear that we must tackle the issues raised in the LeDeR report to ensure the care that each individual deserves is provided. We will consider the report and its recommendations in more detail in the coming weeks, in order to determine the action that must be taken.
[HCWS378]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: 1 March to 31 May 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 31 May 2020) 6 Number of new TPIM notices served (during this period) 0 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 31 May 2020) 6 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 1 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 1 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 0 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 2 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation (during this the reporting period) 3
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. Second quarter TRG meetings took place on 31 May 2020.
One individual has been charged with two counts of breaching their TPIM notice. The criminal trial has been listed to be heard in January 2021.
[HCWS374]
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme Review
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Today I have laid before Parliament a public consultation on proposals following a review of the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme (the scheme).
No amount of compensation can ever make up for the harm and suffering caused to victims and families by violent crime. However, compensation, alongside victims’ services and other practical and emotional support, can help victims of violent crime to start to rebuild their lives.
In 2018, in the first-ever cross-government victims strategy, we made two commitments: to abolish the pre-1979 “same roof rule”, which denied compensation for some victims who lived with their attacker prior to 1979, and to undertake a comprehensive review of the scheme, the last having been undertaken in 2012.
We met the first commitment in June 2019 when an amended 2012 scheme came into force. Victims who have never applied for compensation, perhaps because of the existence of the rule, can now do so. And we have also made provision for victims whose applications had previously been refused under this rule to reapply. I am pleased to announce today that over £10 million has been made available to hundreds of victims who applied under the amended scheme in the period to 5 April 2020. Under the amended scheme, victims can continue to apply up to 13 June 2021.
The review of the scheme has been thorough. We have looked at how the scheme takes account of trends in violent crime and attitudes within society, and we have examined the impact of the scheme’s rules on particular victim groups who might apply for compensation. We have considered carefully the scope of the scheme, eligibility rules, requirements in relation to decision-making, the value and composition of awards, and the affordability and financial sustainability of the scheme.
The review has taken into account recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, and the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, and examined topical issues. We have listened to concerns and feedback, and tested criticisms and perceptions. Analysis of a three-year period of caseload data has given us a detailed picture of the operation of the scheme and the impacts of different rules on victims. We have found that for the vast majority of applicants the scheme is working well and as intended, but we recognise there are areas where it may not be serving victims as effectively as it might.
Underlying the proposals in this consultation are key principles that have been woven into the fabric of the scheme and which I believe must be retained: that it is a universal scheme that exists to support all eligible victims of violent crime who have suffered the most serious injuries, and that compensation is an important and public recognition of their suffering.
I want to make it easier for victims to understand and engage with the scheme. We have identified changes that I believe will improve the experience of victims applying to the scheme, by making it simpler and easier to navigate, and more transparent. We are asking for views on proposals including on:
Ways to simplify the tariff of injuries and to update provisions for disabling mental injury;
Reducing burdens in cases where a loved one is lost, by moving to a single bereavement payment for all qualifying relatives and to a flat rate funeral payment;
And removing the remaining “same roof rule” that has applied since 1979.
We are also consulting on the merits of a separate scheme for victims of terrorism, both domestic and international, and for views on legislating to make provision for families bereaved by homicide that occurs outside Great Britain.
The consultation is available in full at: https://consult. justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/criminal-injuries-compensation-scheme-review-2020/.
[HCWS381]
Judicial Pensions and Mandatory Retirement Age
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I am today launching three Government consultations on proposals for judicial pensions and the judicial mandatory retirement age.
The independent judiciary is a pillar of our democracy and plays a unique role in ensuring our freedoms and prosperity. Every day, judges take decisions on critically important issues that directly impact on people’s lives.
The importance and influence of our judiciary also reaches beyond our shores. Its reputation for integrity and impartiality helps attract international business to the UK, contributing to a legal services industry worth around £25 billion a year to our economy.
As Lord Chancellor, I have a duty to ensure that we have enough judges and that we continue to attract the very best legal practitioners to the bench. In its major review of the judicial salary structure, presented to this House on 26 October 2018, the Senior Salaries Review Body identified clear evidence of growing recruitment and retention issues at all tiers of the judiciary and pointed to pension-related changes as the main cause. The Government response to the major review, published on 5 June 2019, included a commitment to provide a long-term solution to these problems by making changes to judicial pensions.
Proposals for reforming the judicial pension scheme
The first consultation being published today sets out our proposals for reforming the judicial pension scheme to address the significant problems of recruitment and retention that we continue to experience. If we fail to tackle this issue, we put at risk the effective functioning of our justice system and its reputation. Without enough judges, cases will take longer, seriously affecting all jurisdictions. It will also undermine our ability to compete internationally for legal services, which are of such importance to the UK economy.
The proposed approach to pension reform offers a remuneration package which is both fair to the taxpayer and attractive to potential candidates for judicial office. I am confident that it will enable us to attract and retain high-calibre judges, ensuring the proper functioning of our justice system and supporting the UK’s wider prosperity. The aim is that the reformed scheme will come into operation from April 2022.
This consultation document is available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-a-reformed-judicial-pension-scheme.
Proposals for responding to the McCloud litigation
Alongside the consultation on future reform of the judicial pension scheme, we are consulting on proposals for addressing the unlawful age discrimination identified in the case of McCloud in respect of the 2015 reforms of the judicial pension scheme.
The consultation proposes that the Ministry of Justice will run a single options exercise, which will give judges in scope of the McCloud judgment the choice of whether to have retrospectively accrued benefits in the 2015 pension scheme or the legacy scheme from 1 April 2015. Membership of the chosen scheme would continue until 31 March 2022, following which the reformed pension scheme is scheduled to come into operation.
Owing to the unique characteristics of the judicial pension schemes, the Ministry of Justice proposals are distinct from the approach being taken to most other public service pension schemes, as set out in HM Treasury’s McCloud consultation, which was also published today.
The consultation document relating to the judicial scheme is available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-proposed-response-to-mccloud.
Proposals for increasing the judicial mandatory retirement age
Finally, we are also publishing a consultation on proposals for changing the mandatory retirement age for judges. The make-up of our judiciary has changed significantly in recent years and so have the resourcing needs of our courts and tribunals. We have responded to this change by increasing our recruitment programmes, but challenges remain. At the same time, life expectancy has increased. We are therefore consulting on whether to raise the mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders.
The proposals in this consultation would allow judges, coroners and magistrates to sit for longer and continue to contribute to the justice system. These proposals only relate to those judicial offices for which the UK Parliament has sole competence to legislate. The Ministry of Justice will continue to engage the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales on approaches to the mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders across the UK.
This consultation document is available online at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/judicial-mandatory-retirement-age/.
The consultations close on 16 October 2020 and the Government will publish their response to each in early 2021.
The three consultation documents have been placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS386]
Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Today I am establishing an independent commission on race and ethnic disparities. This cross-government commission will review inequality in the UK, across the whole population.
The commission’s work will touch upon many areas of public policy. It will make recommendations for action across government, public bodies and the private sector, and will inform a national conversation about race, led by the evidence.
I have assembled a group of 10 talented and ethnically diverse commissioners. They bring a wealth of experience from across a range of important sectors. In order to understand why disparities exist, what works and what does not, they will consider detailed quantitative data and qualitative evidence. They will also commission new research and invite submissions where necessary.
The commission will set out a new, positive agenda for change—balancing the needs of individuals, communities and society, maximising opportunities and ensuring fairness for all.
I have placed the list of commissioners and the commission’s ambitious terms of reference, in the Libraries of both Houses. Commissioners will be supported by a secretariat in the Cabinet Office race disparities unit and will submit their report by the end of the year.
[HCWS383]
“A303 Stonehenge” Application: Update
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I have been asked by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, to make this written ministerial statement. This statement concerns the application made under the Planning Act 2008 for the proposed construction by Highways England of a new two-lane dual carriageway for the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down in Wiltshire (also known as the “A303 Stonehenge” application).
Under sub-section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make his decision within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under sub-section 107(3) to extend the deadline and make a statement to the Houses of Parliament announcing the new deadline. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down development consent order application on 2 January 2020 and the deadline for a decision was previously extended from 2 April 2020 to 17 July 2020 to allow for further work to be carried out.
Following notification of a recent archaeological find within the world heritage site, the deadline for the decision is to be further extended to 13 November 2020 (an extension of four months) to enable further consultation on and consideration of this matter before determination of the application by the Secretary of State.
The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to give development consent.
[HCWS385]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Digital Platforms: Impact on Democracy
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of digital platforms on the functioning of democracy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
Digital platforms can play a positive role in public debate, helping to connect people and hold our political figures to account. The Government welcome the steps that some of the major social media companies have taken to help users make more informed decisions, including increasing transparency and working with independent fact-checkers. However, clearly they need to do more, and we continue to work with them to develop solutions that promote our democratic values.
Perhaps I may note on behalf of the department how much we welcome the report from the Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee. I thank, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, for having chaired it and my noble friend for being part of it. I thank all who contributed.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that platforms must be made responsible for the content they push, promote and amplify? It should be a case of “We support freedom of speech; there is no right to freedom of reach.” Will she give the House a hint as to when the online harms Bill will appear, and will she assure the House that none of the provisions in the Bill will be unwittingly traded away in any upcoming trade deals?
Baroness Barran
In relation to my noble friend’s first point, we have been very clear that the framework we will use for the upcoming legislation will be that social media platforms have a duty of care to those using them and that there should be an element of proportionality in that; that is, the higher the harm, the greater the duty. In terms of the legislation’s timing, we will respond formally to the consultation in the next few months and legislation will follow that.
The Archbishop of Canterbury [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest in that certain funds across the Church of England and the Anglican Communion hold shares in social media companies, and vast numbers of churches and Anglicans, including me, use platforms for the promotion of the Church’s work. The Minister will be aware that, although social media has immense power for good, some social media platforms are used to incite hatred, stirring up social disruption and even extreme violence in some parts of the world, as I have recently heard from bishops in the DRC. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government looking at to motivate and encourage responsibility to be taken by such platforms to prevent their use in everything from hate speech to genocide?
Baroness Barran
The most reverend Primate captures the essence of both the potential benefits and the potential risks of social media platforms—a problem that arises particularly in countries where they represent almost the exclusive source of news. We will set out in great detail what we will do in relation to all those elements in our response to the consultation and then in the upcoming legislation. However, we anticipate that the international aspects will require intensive international collaboration to be effective.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on raising this issue. For me, the issue is still open and the jury is out, and we shall see how these things develop. I suggest that noble Lords should emulate the Conservative Party in 1945, which accepted the result of the election, which brought in a reformist Government. They should realise that the recent election that we have had has the potential to change the state of our democracy and should be treated with more respect than some noble Lords have given it over recent weeks.
Baroness Barran
I am happy to agree with my noble friend that we should accept the result of the recent election.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
The United Kingdom is home to ground-breaking domestic legislation—such as the recently passed age-appropriate design code and the upcoming online harms Bill—that seeks to protect children online. However, the protections that these measures offer are at risk from an aggressive lobbying effort that is leveraging the US-UK trade negotiations and might undermine our domestic regulation. In doing so, it is undermining promises made to an electorate who have voted repeatedly for a Government who have promised to protect children online. This is in a context where today, right across the BBC, we see programming highlighting the risks to children online, including a 50% rise in child sexual abuse material during Covid. What steps is the DCMS taking to ensure that UK children are protected in the US-UK trade talks, and will the Minister be willing to liaise with the Secretary of State for Trade so that I and other concerned parliamentarians can put the case clearly for a carve-out in the trade deal to protect UK children from online harms?
Baroness Barran
My Lords, protecting children online is perhaps the greatest priority in our online harms legislation. Obviously, we are working very hard to understand the interaction between our trade policy and our online harms policy in future trade agreements, but we stand by our online harms commitment and nothing in the US trade deal will affect that. I am more than happy to do my best to liaise with colleagues in the Department for International Trade, as the noble Baroness suggests.
Lord Wills (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I recognise what the Minister said earlier about the duty of care but will she now rule out placing explicit obligations on social media companies to police advertisements with political content on their platforms? To save time, a simple “yes” or “no” would be sufficient as an answer.
Baroness Barran
I cannot give a simple “yes” or “no” at this time; all these things will be considered in detail, as I have mentioned already.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, rightly says:
“The digital and social media landscape is dominated by two behemoths—Facebook and Google … Platforms’ decisions about what content they remove or stop promoting through their algorithms set the de facto limits of free expression online”—
a concern expressed by Facebook’s own recent audit. The Minister will be aware of the boycott of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram by leading companies over their approach to hate speech and fake news. Will she now ensure that all government departments join that boycott?
Baroness Barran
I would hope that government departments are putting nothing on Facebook or any other platform other than helpful and accurate information, so I cannot give the noble Lord that guarantee.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, my question may be more for Parliament than for Ministers, but does my noble friend the Minister nevertheless agree that, with a highly informed, although also often sadly misinformed, and digitally connected electorate, Parliament itself badly needs to strengthen its committees, where there can be proper and sustained inquisition in the face of a hugely expanded and much more intrusive Executive, and where the increasingly visible dangers of growing presidential, technocratic and much too centralised government—none of which sit easily with genuine democracy—can be effectively scrutinised and curbed?
Baroness Barran
I cannot comment more widely on committees but, judging by the report produced by your Lordships’ committee in this area, it has been an exemplar of rigour.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Puttnam and his committee on their excellent report. As it says in paragraph 294, the Government already have the powers to introduce a requirement to include digital imprints on online political adverts. They have already consulted and committed to action in 2019; indeed, this is already the law in Scotland and it can be done by secondary legislation. The case is overwhelming. Will the Minister explain when we can expect this legislation?
Baroness Barran
I believe that this will form part of the online harms legislation.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I apologise to the three noble Lords who were not able to ask their supplementary questions.
Covid-19: Prisoners
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards the implementation of the recommendations in the report by the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody “Keep Talking, Stay Safe”: A Rapid Review of Prisoners’ Experience under COVID-19, published on 31 May.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome this report from the IAP on the experience of prisoners during Covid-19. The Government are committed to making safety a priority for all those in custody as well as staff. We have reviewed the recommendations in the report and are making good progress against a number of the areas identified, with many discussed further at a Covid-19 sub-meeting of the Ministerial Board on Deaths in Custody on 7 July 2020.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The IAP report said that early release was important to protect life. We were told that 4,000 prisoners would be released; indeed, the MoJ bought 2,000 tagging kits for those released. But, so far, only 209 prisoners have been released early. What went wrong? So far, 23 prisoners have died from Covid-19 in a prison population of 80,000. Each death is a tragedy; those prisoners were under the care of the state, and the state had a duty to keep them safe. However, to keep the numbers to such levels, many prisoners are confined, essentially in solitary confinement, in their cells for 23 hours a day, with limited access to exercise or basic rehabilitative activities, exacerbating mental health problems. There have been 36 self-inflicted deaths so far this year. Can the Minister tell us what proportion of prisoners are currently restricted in this way and when he expects that figure to improve?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the end-of-custody temporary release on licence scheme was there essentially as a safety valve for capacity reasons. As the noble Lord observed, there have been 209 releases as at 3 July. That is consistent with maintaining appropriate capacity within the prison population. There have tragically been 23 prisoner deaths since the start of the pandemic, again based on data available at 3 July, as against a model in March of 2,300 deaths—I emphasise, a model. Nothing has gone wrong with the release system as such. With regard to the situation within prisons, we have now seen a majority of prisons move to a less rigorous regime within the parameters set for prisons; indeed, a proportion of prisons are now able to admit visitors as well.
Lord Bradley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, noting my interests in the register, this report reminds us of the need for robust and effective alternatives to custody. This is especially so for people with mental health problems, whose experience of prison can worsen pre-existing conditions, including the risk of self-harm. Will the Minister therefore assure me that the planned investment in community sentence treatment requirement programmes will continue in the current 12 test areas, and that national rollout will be prioritised to ensure universal sentencing options for the courts and necessary treatment for offenders?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we are committed to developing a more robust community sentencing framework. We recognise the importance of that. With regard to the health of those within the prison system, we have been taking steps to ensure that appropriate support is in place. The Ministry of Justice, working closely with Cruse Bereavement Care, has established a series of interactive webinars specifically designed for chaplaincy and welfare teams.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, in his follow-up report just a few weeks ago, the Chief Inspector of Prisons said that “large and increasing” numbers of new prisoners are arriving and that
“the End of Custody Temporary Release Scheme … had failed to reduce the population meaningfully.”
With overcrowding and capacity still major problems, and with prisoners locked in cells for 22.5 hours a day, what is the point of having a release scheme which, according to Her Majesty’s chief inspector, has failed?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the scheme is there to ensure that there is a safety valve for capacity within our prison system. It has worked in that respect. The primary issue has to be public protection. We have to take great care over the early release of those who have been imprisoned, particularly for offences that might otherwise inflict further danger on the public. At present, the Government have fully implemented compart- mentalisation in 98% of prisons and introduced strong measures to protect not only prisoners but staff. The remaining matters of compartmentalisation simply await the completion of temporary accommodation.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
I refer to my interests in the register. While recognising the point that my noble and learned friend has just made about security, can he tell us what progress has been made in implementing the report’s second recommendation—namely to streamline and expedite the early release scheme to create the headroom needed to take active steps to protect life? Does he agree with the report’s suggestion that:
“Given numbers of medically vulnerable people who need to be shielded”,
we should
“overhaul the process of release on compassionate grounds and review and halt the misuse of prison custody as a place of safety”?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we are not going to rush into reviews of the kind that my noble and learned friend refers to at this stage. However, we are of course anxious to build on improvements within the prison system, for example by building on some of the recommendations in the report, such as those concerned with the key worker scheme and with greater prisoner engagement and peer support.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
In view of the Government’s general acceptance of the very sensible recommendations of the independent advisory panel, will they make a further report on the progress of their implementation when the House resumes at the beginning of September?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am perfectly content to take further questions on this issue as we seek to implement some of the recommendations of the IAP report. As I indicated, it has already been the subject of consideration at a joint sub-committee ministerial meeting and we are taking forward some of the recommendations. I have mentioned two; the others I would mention are improvement in family contact, and the introduction of bereavement support and counselling for prisoners.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the independent advisory panel on its report. One problem at the moment, because of coronavirus, is the fact that there are very few jury trials or magistrates’ courts trials, the consequence of which is that more prisoners are spending longer on remand. Can the Minister describe to the House what steps have been taken by the Prison Service to facilitate having more, and quicker, jury trials and magistrates’ courts trials, in particular by facilitating video links to prisons, courts in prisons and lawyers being able to take instructions from people remanded in custody?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the Prison Service is not directly facilitating the issues relating to jury trials, but we are taking steps to introduce additional courts so that we can, essentially, restart and develop the criminal justice system.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The last full report of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman suggested that 70% of people who died of self-inflicted means in prison had already been identified as having mental health needs, but that these needs had been flagged to the Prison Service in only half those cases, while 29% of them had not even had a community referral for community mental health services. What is the Government’s target to ensure that 100% of those admitted to prison with mental health needs are flagged up to the Prison Service, and that they are able to continue to receive treatment?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we have encouraged prison governors to continue to operate peer support schemes, where possible, and issued guidance on how and why they should be maintained. We have also continued our partnership with the Samaritans by providing a further grant until 2021 to run its Listener scheme, which operates in 111 prisons and provided something like 30,000 hours of emotional support last year.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to ask for robust and full implementation of a Lammy recommendation, and I add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Harris on the implementation of this report. I am disheartened to learn that we did not secure the release of significant numbers of prisoners during the pandemic, particularly those who are pregnant and women with young children. The numbers of black and Muslim men suffering at the hands of our police remain grim and deaths in custody are a scar on our democratic system. I have spoken about Zahid Mubarek in this very Chamber; he was killed in 2000 at the hands of a racist prison inmate and denied human decency when he sought assistance from prison officers. I could list hundreds of others; I wish that I could. I honour the women and families still campaigning for justice. What steps are being taken to enable the justice system to be fit for purpose and to have trust in upholding a humane justice system, eradicating the physical and mental cruelty inflicted disproportionately on black and Muslim men, be it on the roads with stop and search, through arrest or in police custody?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we have taken considerable steps in the implementation of the recommendations in the Lammy report.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Covid-19: Human Trafficking
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on human trafficking in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, during the Covid pandemic we are working closely with law enforcement to ensure that high-risk modern slavery cases continue to be pursued and that any changes to the threat of modern slavery are assessed. As a priority, we are continuing to deliver essential services and support for victims during the Covid pandemic.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol [V]
My Lords, in conjunction with the National Crime Agency, the Clewer Initiative has today released an app to help agricultural workers and their employers understand their rights and responsibilities. In the light of current travel restrictions across the world, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact that the Government’s proposed points-based immigration system will have on seasonal agricultural workers? Will the Government give the sector advance warning of any changes, following the review of the pilot later this year?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, whether we have a points-based system or not, people who work in our agricultural sector should be protected from exploitation by unscrupulous people who might employ them. Therefore, I cannot see that our points-based system will have a particular effect, but we should always be on guard against people who might exploit those vulnerable to it.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, before Covid-19 child migrants were already vulnerable to trafficking and suffered problems with health and social care. Could the Minister say what extra support for such children is now available at a local level, and how it will be monitored?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness points to something that we have been very mindful of throughout this lockdown period. I did not quite hear what she said about whom we might support. Was she talking about vulnerable children?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Absolutely, we have been very mindful of the vulnerability of children in all sorts of ways, whether it is from the effects of domestic abuse, online malicious intervention or drugs and gangs. We have secured £1.73 million for charities to provide emergency support to victims, and we have provided a further £1.4 million this year to continue our dedicated funding for the police to tackle modern slavery under the new modern slavery and organised immigration crime programme. This year, we will invest £7 million to safeguard victims of modern slavery.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, human trafficking is graphic, and it is a form of modern -day slavery. There are more slaves today than at the height of the transatlantic slave trade. What further action will the Government take to ensure that companies—for example, those in the textiles and fashion industry—eradicate slavery from their supply chains?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Sadly, I agree with my noble friend; I fear that, having ruled against slavery over 200 years ago, it is now back on our shores in a different and far more difficult way. We do not require companies or organisations to certify that their supply chains are slavery free, because in many cases that might be impossible, but we do ask businesses to be transparent about their risks and the measures they take to mitigate this. Leicester is a very good example of where we have stepped in, and a task force, led by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, has been set up to bring together the enforcement bodies.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
The Walk Free Foundation, a human rights group, found that 75% of hospitality businesses were flouting anti-slavery legislation. As we emerge from lockdown, debt bondage will have increased and traffickers could capitalise as pressure on the hospitality industry to survive grows. Will the Government increase the number of workplace inspections and ensure that inspectors are highly trained to identify victims of trafficking?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. However, as I said earlier, modern slavery can be a hidden crime, so it is incumbent upon all agencies in their work to try and identify the signs of modern slavery and tackle it. The noble Baroness makes a very good point about the hospitality industry.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, Covid-19 has increased vulnerability to human trafficking and pushed victims into more risky work. At the same time, financial and other resources allocated to anti-trafficking efforts are likely to be stretched during the pandemic. Are extra measures being looked at, such as expanding the referral helpline and working with local government to place prominent notices in public areas to highlight the issue of victims and their need to be able to contact local authorities?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I mentioned earlier some of the funding mechanisms that will be available. My noble friend is absolutely right that we have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of potential victims of modern slavery being referred to the NRM—in 2019, it was 52% more than in 2018. In response to that, we have surged resources into caseworking teams to ensure that those victims receive the decisions and the support that they need in a timely fashion.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, during the Covid-19 pandemic, might it be a sensible move, as well as a way of saving money, not to put children through the NRM?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble and learned Baroness in the sense that we have paused an awful lot of the processes that might be in place for people seeking asylum. Protecting people during this period and making sure they get the support that they need is at the heart of our endeavours. She has a point—children need specific intervention. I am not entirely sure what the position is with regard to NRM, but the Home Office is very focused on supporting children who might be vulnerable.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister first join me in paying tribute to the work of the Clewer Initiative and the leadership shown there by the right reverend Alastair Redfern, the former Lord Bishop of Derby, whose wise words are much missed in this House? Secondly, does the Minister accept that the exploitation of vulnerable people has continued and increased during the pandemic, with victims finding it more difficult to escape their abusers as front-line services have been either reduced or shut down? Can the Minister tell the House what remedial action will be taken to help victims as the country reopens?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I join the noble Lord in his praise for the Clewer Initiative. We feel that victims have been more in danger not because local services are not available to them but because we fear that many of them, particularly in situations of domestic abuse and slavery, are actually locked in with the exploiter or the abuser.
Baroness Barker (LD) [V]
The initial review from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of abortion services delivered by telemedicine during Covid showed that staff, highly trained in safeguarding, have found trafficked women. Will the Minister’s department work with the Department of Health and Social Care to evaluate and make this telemedicine service permanent?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I fully support what the noble Baroness has said. I will certainly go back to the department in terms of the permanency of this, but she is right to point out that it is another indicator of what might be going on.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Covid-19: Personal Protective Equipment
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Andrews
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of personal protective equipment for (1) hospitals, and (2) care homes, in the event of a second wave of cases of COVID-19.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have made our supply chains more resilient by massively expanding both our supply from overseas and our domestic manufacturing capability. We are now confident in our supply of PPE to meet the needs of health and social care over the next seven-day and 90-day horizons and are looking further ahead. We continue to model future demand from health and care services to cover the approach of winter and bring resilience to the supply chain.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government are being warned, urgently, on all sides to prepare for a second wave of Covid this winter. I hear what the Minister has said but last week, the Public Accounts Committee found that the Government are still not treating the supply of PPE with similar urgency. Will the Minister now commit to publishing a detailed plan by September, as the committee has asked for, explaining what exactly will be different, so that mistakes are not repeated and health and care workers are better protected?
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, I completely share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, about a second peak and we are working to prepare for that. I respect the views of the PAC and emphasise that our approach to PPE is incredibly serious. A huge amount of work has gone into it and a huge amount of progress has been made.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
Can my noble friend identify what lessons have been learnt so far from both the quantity and quality of the PPE that has been used in homes and hospitals? What action will be taken to minimise cross-infection for those who have to go into people’s domestic homes and who often work in more than one location?
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, the big lesson from Covid is that the quantity of PPE needed for a disease like this is massively more that could ever have been expected, particularly compared with our past experience. It has hit every country in the world and has hit the global supply chains incredibly hard. A benign lesson is that British manufacturers are capable of stepping up the challenge, and I salute their work. Contamination from itinerant workers was always one of the greatest challenges of the care sector, and we have put in a huge amount of work and financial resources to avoid the need for workers who move from home to home.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, when I asked the Minister on 24 June to ensure that interpreters in the NHS would not be forgotten when stockpiling PPE in case of a second wave, he very helpfully told the House that he would continue to press the department on this. So, I am mystified that I still have not had a reply to my simple question of 12 May, asking who is responsible for providing PPE for freelance NHS interpreters. Can the Minister enlighten me today?
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Baroness is entirely right to champion the role of interpreters. Their role in the recent Leicester lockdown has been incredibly important: there could not have been an incident that better highlights the importance of language skills in the healthcare setting, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for championing those. The care of interpreters is an incredibly complex question and entirely depends on where they are sited. It is the responsibility of individual trusts to look after interpreters in hospital settings but, in other settings, it may be that of other organisations.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
Do the Government now accept that there is no further excuse for secret, non-competitive contracts for PPE channelled through the friends of Ministers and special advisers? There are thousands of UK companies ready and willing to bid for contracts to produce PPE—why not use them? China may not be reliable in the future.
Lord Bethell [V]
I completely reject the implications of the noble Lord’s question. While British companies have stepped forward and we are pleased to have made many contracts, there are not, I am afraid to say, thousands of domestic producers capable of providing the billions of items we need in the British health service. I pay respect to all the companies that moved quickly and contracted under difficult circumstances for major contracts. I also salute the companies overseas with which we have good relationships, and which remain our trusted partners.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, alongside PPE we must have a comprehensive test and trace system to prevent a second wave. Today, the Health Service Journal reports that virtually all the top team of test and trace are leaving, and that McKinsey is contracted to review the governance and entire form of test and trace. Why would the Government bring in a multimillion-pound consultancy firm to review a so-called world-beating test and trace system?
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, turnover of the test and trace team is an inevitable consequence of an organisation that was set up using temporary staff, many of whom are on short contracts and need to return to their previous roles. It is regrettable, but I owe them a huge debt of thanks for the work they have done. The work of McKinsey is focused on governance, not on HR. It was commissioned some time ago and it is an entirely proper and regular appointment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I refer back to what the noble Lord said about the amount of PPE that is needed. It is actually the case that in the 2016 report it was signalled that we would need a gigantic quantity. I am sure we would all agree that we need better organised and effective preparation if there is to be a second wave, and the centralised purchasing of PPE, managed by local public health agencies, will ensure effective distribution. I want to ask about the care sector. Does the noble Lord believe it is acceptable or wise for care homes to have to pay over the top prices and compete for PPE? Does this not put the wider public health interests at risk? What steps is the Minister taking to end discrimination against the care sector in the supply of PPE and ensure essential protection for care workers, residents and visitors?
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, it is a reality that the cost of PPE has gone through the roof. There is nothing that I or the Government can do about that. It is something we are going to have to live with and budget for: it is part of the new reality. As to the procurement of PPE, as the noble Baroness knows, within the care sector it was previously the arrangement that local providers would source their own PPE. The Government have stepped in to bring resilience and confidence to that supply chain and to offer alternative sources of supply to local care homes. We have moved emphatically and sought to bring both affordability and resilience to the supply chain.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was going to ask my noble friend about private sector provision of PPE, but I shall move on to something which may be even more significant—the hopeful news of developments in Oxford scientists identifying a vaccine against Covid. Is my noble friend able to offer any update on that news? Can he set out what role the private sector has in the development and, we hope, eventual manufacture of any such vaccine?
Lord Bethell [V]
My noble friend is entirely right: the news from Oxford appears to be incredibly encouraging. Coronaviruses are typically very difficult to provide vaccines for, but the Oxford team is clearly confident that it is making serious progress. It has a contract with AstraZeneca, which is its private sector partner in the UK and globally. The administration of that vaccine, should it be successful, or of any other successful vaccine, is a matter of huge national importance. Thanks to Kate Bingham and the Vaccine Taskforce, we are putting a huge amount of work in to ensure that the administration of that vaccine into the arms of the country will be done in a speedy and efficient fashion.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, was appointed last April, with much fanfare, to resolve a national PPE crisis. Is he now responsible for ensuring adequate PPE, both clinical and other types—particularly for care homes, to deal with any second wave and the expected higher numbers infected through the winter months—for the whole of the UK, or just for England?
Lord Bethell [V]
My noble friend Lord Deighton is still in place: I spoke to him recently. His impact has been immense, and I owe him a huge debt of thanks for that. He is particularly focused on the “make” leg of the PPE project, and within that he has recruited firms such as Medicom, Redwood, Photocentric, Ramfoam, Elite and Macdonald & Taylor Healthcare—British manufacturers that are, between them, providing hundreds of millions of items of PPE.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and Question Time has now finished.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. We now come to the Motion in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford. The time limit is one hour.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 July be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at “substantial”. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning. The threat we face from Islamist terrorism remains significant but, as Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service and national lead for counterterrorism policing, Neil Basu, has said, right-wing terrorism is the fastest-growing terror threat in the UK.
We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise the danger it poses and keep the public safe. The nature of terrorism is constantly evolving. There are organisations which recruit, radicalise, and promote and encourage terrorism, as well as those which commit terrible acts of violence against innocent people. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the full range of terrorist activities.
The group we now propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000, is Feuerkrieg Division, or FKD. This is the 25th order under Section 3(3)(a) of that Act.
This Government are committed to tackling terrorism, regardless of what motivates it. FKD is a white supremacist group, the views and ideology of which stand in direct contrast to the core values of Britain. Its actions, which seek to divide communities and stir up hatred, are entirely contrary to the interests of our nation.
Proscribing this group will prevent its membership growing and work to stop the spread of propaganda that allows a culture of hatred and division to thrive. It will also help to prevent FKD from radicalising people who may be vulnerable to extreme ideologies and at risk of emulating the terrorist acts which they glorify.
Under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe that organisation. The Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors when considering whether to exercise this discretion, including the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
The effect of proscription is to outlaw a listed organisation and ensure that it is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support, or arrange a meeting in support of, a proscribed organisation or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Proscription acts to halt fundraising and recruitment and makes it possible to seize cash associated with the organisation.
Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. This includes open-source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-government Proscription Review Group supports the Home Secretary in her decision-making process. The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of a particular case and it is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that FKD is currently concerned in terrorism and that the discretionary factors weigh in favour of proscription. I cannot comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities.
This order proscribes FKD, a white supremacist group founded in late 2018 which has an international footprint, with members across North America and Europe. The group celebrates the concepts promoted in a collection of essays which advocate the use of violence and mass murder in pursuit of an apocalyptic race war. While the bulk of its activity is online, members have engaged in distributing violent, racist and anti-Semitic propaganda. In mid-2019 the group reportedly called for the deaths of a European Parliament politician and YouTube’s chief executive officer.
FKD members have been arrested on terrorism charges in the UK and overseas. In 2019, US authorities charged several individuals with a variety of offences, including weapons charges, plotting to bomb a synagogue and attack members of the LGBTQ community, plotting to bomb a major news network, and distributing information related to explosives and weapons of mass destruction.
In September 2019, UK police apprehended a 16 year-old on suspicion of the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism. As a result, the group distributed among its members a list of police buildings and an image of the chief constable of West Midlands Police with a gun to his head and the words “Race Traitor” across his eyes, urging members to carry out attacks in retaliation for the arrest of one of its followers. In October 2019, a 21 year-old appeared in court in London charged with terror offences related to his purported support for FKD. He allegedly encouraged the mass murder of members of the Jewish and LGBTQ communities. FKD members have condoned and glorified acts of terrorism, including the Charleston church shooting, the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, the Oklahoma City bombing and the Christchurch shooting.
Our strategy to combat terrorism looks at the full spectrum of activity. This includes ensuring that groups which call for violence and mass murder and which unlawfully glorify horrific terrorist acts are prevented from continuing to stir up hatred and encourage violence. In addition, the Government’s counter-extremism strategy challenges extremism in all its forms. Alongside this, and our Prevent work, we will continue to monitor whether extremist groups have crossed into terrorism.
It is right that we add FKD to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, the order will come into force on Friday 17 July.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the facts of the case with regard to FKD. I of course support its inclusion on the proscribed terrorist organisations list. I have a couple of brief questions about the system by which terrorist organisations get proscribed.
First, with reference to previous cases, particularly Kurdish terrorist organisations, can the Minister explain what material difference it makes to redesignate an organisation on the proscribed list as a separate terrorist organisation rather than an affiliate of another large organisation? That has been the subject of previous orders and I am sure will be the subject of future ones.
Secondly, does the Minister agree that there is a need for a better, more internationally co-ordinated system for the designation of proscribed terrorist organisations? I declare an interest as chair of the United Nations Association UK. There is currently no UN system for designating terrorist organisations, just a collection of organisations with approved sanctions passed by individual resolution. Each country has its own list, which may or may not overlap with those of other countries. Should the UK not argue for a multinational regime capable of providing a comprehensive and authoritative list of proscribed organisations that would be at least expected to be binding across countries?
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the case for adding the Feuerkrieg Division to the list of organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act seems strong. Its very name, Fire War, is calculated to convey violence and hate, and I trust the Home Secretary to be acting on sound intelligence about the activities of this group. The current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, has called it
“a violent extreme white supremacist group”.
If this SI passes, it will join National Action and the Sonnenkrieg Division as banned far-right groups. It is encouraging that the system is getting to grips with this strand of terrorism as well as with others.
However, I want to say something about the unsatisfactory state of affairs regarding the list itself, expressed forcefully by successive independent reviewers such as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and by the current one. In his 2015 report, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, called the continued proscription of 14 groups which no longer met the statutory test
“an affront to the rule of law.”
During the passage of the last counterterrorism Bill he sought unsuccessfully to get a review scheme, with support from my party.
Mr Hall’s first report, relating to 2018, was published in March this year. In it he noted that proscription has powerful effects on persons and groups beyond the proscribed body itself. This is particularly true for agencies and charities working overseas. But unlike for financial sanctions or designated area orders, proscription is neither time-limited nor subject to periodic review. He concluded that
“there is little excuse for not keeping the list of proscribed organisations up to date.”
He noted that in its sole decision to date, on the PMOI case in 2007, the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission stated—albeit obiter—that it was the duty of the Secretary of State to hold periodic reviews. Mr Hall went on:
“The judges observed that … it was ‘incumbent’ on the Secretary of State to ‘consider at regular intervals’ whether the power to deproscribe should be exercised”,
because
“it cannot have been Parliament’s intention that an organisation for which there were no longer any grounds for believing is currently concerned in terrorism should remain on the list ‘for any longer than is absolutely necessary’.”
The court was told at that time that the Home Secretary did carry out approximately annual reviews, but this practice ended in 2014. Mr Hall’s recommendation, perhaps to get round the Government’s objection, however flimsy, that they would have to divert resources to regular review exercises, was that proscription orders should automatically lapse after three years, unless extended. When will the Government agree to that sensible reform?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out the position with such clarity. It is chilling that right-wing groups—a white supremacist group in this case—are the fastest-growing terrorism threat to our country, as Neil Basu of the Metropolitan Police has rightly said. There are obviously echoes of this in the Prevent programme; I know the Minister is familiar with the fact that the far right-wing threat is growing. We very much value the work of the police and our security services for the incredible work they do.
The threat of terrorism is of course evolving, and I appreciate the need to be nimble and stay ahead of the curve. My point, perhaps in contrast to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is more about groups that should be added to the list rather than deproscribed, although I will say something briefly on that too.
I appreciate that my noble friend will not want to comment on groups that pose particular threats and which may be added to the list but I seek reassurance—I know that this was also raised in the Commons—about groups that are well known and which have been highlighted, for example, by HOPE not hate, which does valuable work in this regard; I know that my noble friend is familiar with the work it does as she has worked with it. Will she confirm that we will, where necessary, have a laser-like scrutiny of these groups and act swiftly where there is a clear and present danger, as I believe there is from some of those groups?
On deproscription, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised, the Explanatory Memorandum to this order it makes it clear at paragraph 14 that if a proscribed organisation or any person affected by the proscription raises the issue and applies to the Secretary of State,
“the prescription of the organisation will be reviewed.”
That should not be done too readily. I appreciate that that is a reasonable mechanism but I seek reassurance from my noble friend that we are not too swift to deproscribe organisations where there remains a clear and present danger from them. However, I accept that if there is no such danger, there seems little reason for continuing proscription.
Lord Hussain (LD) [V]
My Lords, the United Kingdom has suffered immensely and continues to be under threat from terrorism, and we have a responsibility to legislate and amend existing legislation whenever demanded to protect our people from the menace of terrorism.
The FKD is a dangerous, far-right organisation which is to be added to the list of banned terrorist groups, and I very much welcome this move. It seems that it has been extremely active online and has encouraged violent action against sections of the community, including Jewish and LGBTQ people, and welcomed the Christchurch killings. The rise of far-right terrorist organisations is a threat to peaceful people around the world, and there is evidence that they groom and poison the minds of young people to their violent and hateful cause. We must be constantly vigilant towards organised groups such as this which advocate hate and violence. The rise of the far right has become a big threat to our democracy, although the perception is that it is always the Islamist groups.
I support this amendment but add how proud we are of our freedom of expression and democratic values that we enjoy under British law. This freedom has also allowed many people from different parts of the world to escape oppression and persecution in their own countries and take refuge in the United Kingdom. From here, many of them continue to fight their battle for rights in their country of origin. I am sure that many of your Lordships have come across some such cases during your political life—I certainly have. Through their campaigns they highlight the plight of people like them in their own countries and expose their Governments. That is often seen as an insult and embarrassment for their native Governments, and as a result, from time to time we may find some of those individuals or organisations being outlawed by the Governments of their native countries. In some cases, those Governments may go even further by using diplomatic channels to ask the British Government to follow suit and ban those organisations and/or extradite individuals involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that under no circumstances will the British Government entertain such a request from any country, no matter how strong the links Britain may have with it, unless the individual or organisation concerned has broken the law of this country.
Lord Bowness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her presentation and explanation of this measure. However, I question why we are considering it in July 2020 when, according to the policy background in the Explanatory Memorandum, this organisation has been on the radar here and elsewhere since late 2018, arrests were made in the UK and the US, and its alleged leader, a 13 year-old boy, was tracked down in Estonia at the beginning of the year. Furthermore, the organisation has apparently been dissolved, so will we need a fresh order if it reappears under another name? Do we know who the members might be who have become active in other organisations?
Also, reference is made in paragraph 3(1) of the Explanatory Memorandum to three organisations, but I assume we are dealing only with this one organisation. I fear that we are a bit behind the curve with our timing: according to reports, the group was established in the Baltic region, probably in Estonia, and the Estonian security service intervened in January 2020, seven months ago. Did we get information about this directly from Estonia or through EU agencies?
A much wider question arises. If we are to react expeditiously when such a group emerges, what arrangements will we have in place with the European Union post 31 December? I again remind my noble friend that the political declaration signed by the Prime Minister spoke of
“an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership”,
the security element of which would include
“law enforcement, judicial co-operation in criminal matters, security and defence”.
Future arrangements should allow for
“timely exchanges of intelligence and sensitive information between Union bodies and the United Kingdom”.
I put it to my noble friend that that includes information about organisations such as this. With great respect, I hope that she will not repeat the usual answer I receive to Written Questions or from the Dispatch Box—that it will depend on the outcome of the negotiations—and that she will let us know what progress we have made and what the consequences will be if we have no agreement on 31 December.
I understand that we are planning to advertise the problems that individuals and businesses are likely to face post December of this year. Does that not signal that there is not much confidence about the outcome of the negotiation and an acceptance of no deal? I ask my noble friend: is the desire to be free of arrangements so great that even security matters are sacrificed?
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the order before your Lordships’ House proscribing the FKD. The FKD is clearly an odious, racist and anti-Semitic organisation which is a threat to our individual and collective security; it should be banned. For too long, the UK has tolerated fascist and terrorist groups in our midst, not only those like the FKD but Middle Eastern extreme Islamist groups. Unfortunately, the UK has had a long history of tolerating or even supporting such groups. A prime example was the UK’s and US’s support for Osama bin Laden and the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, which led to the foundation of al-Qaeda. Our meddling in the Middle East has not gone well—in Iraq, Libya or Syria. The UK has often granted asylum to terrorist groups or taken them in after ill-fated adventures. Today, we learned that Shamima Begum, and possibly other ISIS refugees and fighters, will be allowed back into the UK. Does the Minister have a comment on the Court of Appeal judgment, and will Her Majesty’s Government challenge it?
The UK has also funded and financially supported the White Helmets, despite that organisation operating only in terrorist-controlled areas of Syria. It has been filmed taking part in terrorist executions. The Netherlands and the United States withdrew their financial support but last year, the UK gave asylum to 100 members of the White Helmets and their families. Will Her Majesty’s Government now declare the White Helmets a proscribed organisation?
The UK faces many security threats, both externally and from within. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will do everything necessary to protect our citizens from terrorist organisations that seek to destroy the cohesion and fabric of our society.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support this instrument and the proscription of the Feuerkrieg Division, FKD, which has tried to stir up hatred reminiscent of Europe’s darkest times. I commend the Government on the work they are doing to stop the spread of the propaganda that cultivates the culture of hatred and division that we have worked so hard to overcome. It is important that we ensure the proscription of such groups—whether they are from the left or the right—which are all threats to our way of life and directly contrary to our core values.
Can my noble friend reassure the House that the police are resourced sufficiently to ensure that they can keep an eye on all the people involved in those activities? As other noble Lords have mentioned, this group was dissolved in February this year, but the people have not gone away. It is therefore vital that, regardless of the organisation’s name, we have in place ways in which we can sufficiently track the activities of such people and send a strong and unambiguous message that condoning or glorifying acts of terrorism will never be tolerated.
Clearly, it is difficult to act swiftly and also uphold the necessary due processes, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister can assure us that counterterrorism policing and its strategic partners have sufficient resources to deal with these challenges. I also add my support for the excellent work of HOPE not hate, which my noble friend Lord Bourne mentioned. Equally, I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Bowness about potentially departing from the EU without a deal and what that would mean for security co-operation. Can my noble friend the Minister give the House an idea of how much security co-operation from the EU fed into the process that led to the banning of the FKD under this order?
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
I congratulate the Minister and the Home Secretary on their appropriate action in relation to FKD, and the Sonnenkrieg Division and the Atomwaffen Division previously. I also commend the Anti-Defamation League, in America, which has been critical in exposing both those organisations, and with which I have constant communication and contact.
Have there been discussions with Estonian ministerial counterparts, given that the FKD and the Sonnenkrieg Division appear to have strong Estonian links? If not, would the Government consider such discussions to see what we can learn about the reason for the growth in such organisations in the Baltics?
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, the question is not just “Why?” but “Why now?”; I am certainly satisfied as to the former. The FKD seems to be—or have been—a thoroughly nasty, dangerous extremist organisation and it is hard to find words to describe what one reads about it:
“A small international neo-Nazi organisation that embraces the most extreme interpretations of white supremacist ideology”
according to a website—not its website, obviously. Apparently, it
“criticises and demeans other white supremacist movements, such as the alt-right, for being too focused on public perception and unsuccessful in creating real societal change”—
a rather sinister application of “deeds not words”.
It says that there needs to be a war against a society controlled by Jews, and that that is inevitable and the only way to reset cultural and societal norms—“Black lives don’t matter”. I am sure that the Official Report will understand that those last four words are in quotes. It advocates killing and, as I think the Minister was alluding to, it targets teenagers and young adults.
I ask, “Why now?”, because the actions referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum and by the Minister have mostly been outside the UK and took place a little while ago. Activities in the UK, at least those cited, took place last autumn; there was one arrest without prosecution and one alleged offence, as I read it, although ironically, there was an announcement in February this year that the group would dissolve. I do not challenge the assessment that the group and its members remain active through channels other than Telegram, but would this order catch them? Can the Minister address this in her response? This links to the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Wood and Lord Bowness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I am glad that they raised the international and EU dimensions.
The House has heard that a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation described how the regime of proscription is undermined. More than that, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, described it as
“an affront to the rule of law”
by keeping on the list organisations that have changed and are no longer concerned with terrorism. It is an affront, given the implications of proscription for freedom of speech and the penalties carried with it.
Yesterday, the campaigning organisation HOPE not hate—its name describes its purpose—welcomed this proscription but demanded to know why a group with only a handful of members in the UK was to be proscribed but not the Order of Nine Angles, which it says is a violent Nazi group actively organising in the UK whose beliefs have inspired several young people recently convicted of terrorism. Yesterday, HOPE not hate encouraged people to tweet the Home Office asking it to proscribe that group, which is still a threat to British people. Obviously, I do not expect the Minister to comment on that group; I do not know whether she has been briefed on those tweets.
There have now been many calls for regular and frequent proactive reviews of proscription orders by such reprobates as the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, the Home Affairs Select Committee and my noble friends Lord Paddick—during the passage of the then Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill—and Lady Ludford. I, too, take the view that the Government should have a duty to keep orders under review to bring this into line with sanctions and the designation of areas—so, a duty to deproscribe.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, referred to what I think is the standard paragraph—paragraph 14—about the right of a person affected by proscription to apply for deproscription. I seem to remember that, during the passage of the then Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, we queried how realistic this was as the individual would draw attention to himself. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to Northern Irish groups having difficulty in pursuing this.
The Minister in the Commons talked about orders such as this
“ensuring that groups who call for violence and mass murder … are prevented from continuing to stir up hatred”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/20; col. 1632.]
I wish that could be ensured. The orders are one tool to do so; of course, we do not oppose this order. Given how precious our freedoms are, again, we call for the most careful and well-justified use of powers to restrict those freedoms, as well as for the converse: the use of powers where that use defends those freedoms.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of this order, which we support. It adds Feuerkrieg Division—FKD—to the list of proscribed organisations covered under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is, I believe, the 25th order under that Act. To pursue points made by others, can the Minister indicate how many organisations are still on the proscribed list, and confirm that the Government still consider that they all remain in existence and continue to be concerned in terrorism?
The Home Secretary can seek to have an organisation proscribed if, and only if, she believes that it is concerned in terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act, and then decides to exercise her discretion to do so. Proscription means outlawing an organisation and preventing it operating in the United Kingdom; it then becomes a criminal offence to belong to or support such an organisation.
As has been said, the organisation we are discussing today is a white supremacist group founded less than two years ago. It has members in North America and Europe, and advocates the use of violence and mass murder in pursuit of an all-out race war. Most of its activity is online but it also distributes violent, racist and anti-Semitic propaganda.
As we know, right-wing terrorism is the fastest-growing terror threat in the United Kingdom, and indeed in other countries. The Government need a coherent and comprehensive strategy in place to tackle far-right extremism, including availability of resources. I hope that the Minister can outline in her response what that strategy is beyond proscription orders.
As the Minister said, FKD members have been arrested on terrorism charges both in the UK and overseas. Last year, US authorities charged several individuals with offences including weapons charges, plotting to bomb a synagogue, plotting attacks on the LGBT community, plotting to bomb a major news network and distributing information related to explosives and weapons of mass destruction. As we know, 10 months ago, police in this country apprehended a 16 year-old on suspicion of the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism, which led to the group urging members to carry out attacks in retaliation for the arrest of one of its followers. In October last year, a 21 year-old appeared in court charged with terror offences relating to his purported support for FKD after allegedly encouraging the mass murder of members of the Jewish and LGBT communities. Group members have also condoned and glorified acts of terrorism, including the Christchurch shooting.
In February this year, FKD announced that it would be dissolving but no reason was given and it is apparently considered that the group and its members remain active through other channels. As others have said, on the face of it, it is a little odd that when FKD did not seek to hide its existence, the Home Secretary did not take the necessary action to have it proscribed but once it claimed it would dissolve, the Home Secretary decided to act. Can the Minister comment on that in her response?
When the Government say that it is considered that the group and its members remain active through other channels, does that mean that it is suspected that the group has likely merged with another organisation; that it may have, in effect, simply renamed or unnamed itself and be operating exactly as before; or that it is operating in a different way, albeit continuing to be concerned in terrorism?
If FKD claims to be dissolving, does that claim also apply to the United States or is it only in this country or in Europe? If it does apply to the United States, do the US authorities also hold the view that the group and its members remain active through other channels? Can the Minister confirm that the Government do not consider that there would be any insuperable difficulty in proving membership of, or support for, FKD once it has been proscribed, despite its claim that it would be dissolving?
We support this order since we are committed to tackling all forms of terrorism and ensuring the safety of our nation and our citizens. We express our thanks to our police and security services for their work in this regard. I agree that there is a strong case to be made for FKD’s proscription. I accept that much of the information on which the Home Secretary has based her decision to pursue this order is likely to be of a nature and content that precludes it being disclosed for national security reasons. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond not only to my few brief questions but also to the questions asked and points made by the other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank all noble Lords for the points they have made on this proscription debate. I shall start with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and confirm that if I cannot answer specific questions, it is because those answers cannot be disclosed. Similarly, on any decision that the Home Secretary might make about proscription, those sorts of decisions are not generally shared.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the difficulty of deproscription applications, but last year, the Home Secretary deproscribed the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group following its application. Deproscription applications do work and it is a simple form that is used. The noble Lord asked about the number of groups that are currently proscribed: the number is 75, plus 14 Northern Ireland groups. As I said, I cannot go into details on the system by which decisions are made, but I can comfort noble Lords by confirming that the system is based on a range of evidence, and decisions are taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of that available information.
My noble friend Lord Bourne asked whether we can act swiftly on groups that pose a threat. Absolutely we can, but, given the impact this has on people, we need to be very careful to make the right decision based on all the evidence we have before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, referred to foreign Governments’ requests for proscription, deproscription and extradition, or any activity of that type. The Government do not and will not make decisions based on pressure from a foreign Government, or indeed political pressure; that would be quite against the democratic process. The Home Secretary makes decisions based on the facts before him or her.
A number of noble Lords have asked: why now and why? Why now? Because decisions of whether to proscribe this organisation have been taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of all available information.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and my noble friend Lady Altmann asked what happens when we leave the EU and whether we will consult member states. We engage with other member states on intelligence-sharing; that will not change when we leave the European Union. In fact, I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, making that very point in this House. The intelligence sharing will always go on, within or without the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, made the point that the group claims to have dissolved. We can be cynical about that, and what we require is evidence of ongoing threat or not. When we leave the European Union, we will want as robust a security arrangement as possible.
For reasons I have already outlined, I will not comment on the White Helmets or any other group, and I certainly will not be commenting on the Shamima Begum case; the Home Secretary will consider the court’s judgment, note it and decide on the next steps to take.
My noble friend Lady Altmann asked whether the police are adequately resourced to deal with groups such as this and about CT policing specifically. It is ring-fenced, and I am quite certain not only that CT police are adequately resourced but that the 20,000 new police officers will very adequately meet the changing demands of policing.
The noble Lord asked about ministerial discussion with Estonia. I have already said that we engage with other nations, but I cannot confirm whether we engage with Estonia on this particular case.
There was one final point I was going to make, which seems to have escaped me, but it might come back to me—I literally cannot remember. I think those are the main points, and with that, I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, a limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak; please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted again after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. I remind the House that our normal courtesies in debate still very much apply in this new hybrid way of working.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published and is in my brief, which Members should have received. I also have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members’ microphones will be muted by the broadcasters except when I call a Member to speak. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard.
During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Agriculture Bill
Thursday 16th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (16 Jul 2020)
The Earl of Caithness
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that financial help can be given to help reduce climate change emissions.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 73 stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. This is a simple amendment. About 25% of greenhouse gases come from agriculture. That percentage will increase as more green energy production comes online. What we can grow, and what we will be able to eat, will be determined by climate change.
We are watching the rapidly changing climate in the Arctic with some horror. That is of huge importance to us, as four of the six main systems that determine this country’s weather are driven by conditions in the Arctic. One example, and a pretty sobering one, is that the “beast from the east” that we experienced in March 2018 cost the UK about half the annual budget paid to farmers.
The Paris Agreement states that countries should be
“holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C … and pursuing efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C”.
We are likely to break that threshold of 1.5 degrees before the next general election.
All of the pathways in the IPCC’s special report say that there has to be the use of negative emissions; that is, the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. This is not an alternative to reducing emissions but an essential extra if the planet as we know it today is to survive. Our land is not absorbing as much CO2 as it could, and the priority should therefore be to restore nature to allow it to sequester increased amounts of CO2. That is what my amendment seeks to do.
I commend the NFU on the progress that it has made on this and on its template aim of net zero by 2040. We must give every encouragement to farmers to help them meet the reductions that will be necessary, and I believe that the Bill could do more on that. I had thought that my amendment would sit well at the end of Clause 1(1)(j) relating to soil, but I prefer it where it is, so that any financial payment would be conditional on meeting the reduction in sequestration condition. That is no more than what the Climate Change Committee asked for in its 2019 report, when it recommended:
“Financial payments in the UK Agriculture Bill should be linked to actions to reduce and sequester emissions, to take effect from 2022.”
I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and an even greater pleasure to hear a Conservative Peer—a hereditary one at that—speaking so eloquently about climate change, because this is a problem that the UK is not facing up to in a coherent way, so the more that we can do with this Bill, the better. It is not really a surprise that the concept of zero carbon is not in the Bill, because most of it was written before we signed up to that. It was drafted three years ago, and I regret that more redrafting was not done before it came before your Lordships’ House. The Government have had over a year since they put a commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 into law. I will be very forgiving with the Minister and suggest that they have just not got around to updating this legislation yet.
The amendments in the group, including my Amendment 274, seek to bring the Bill up to date with our net-zero carbon commitment and ensure that agriculture and land management play their proper role in achieving net zero. Agriculture plays a huge role in our carbon footprint and it will grow proportionally as other sources of emissions are reduced. It is therefore essential that the Government should set out a clear trajectory for agricultural emissions and a credible strategy to achieve that. Of course, we have to think about other parts of the economy as well. If we insist on carrying on flying as we did in the past pre coronavirus, other bits of the economy will have to do more to bring our emissions down to zero carbon—so there is that thought as well.
There are some differences between Amendments 272 and 274. Amendment 274 would require net-zero agriculture emissions by 2050, whereas Amendment 272 does not contain this net-zero requirement. Instead, it would require the Secretary of State to have “due regard” to Section 1 of the Climate Change Act. This would mean that agriculture would make some contribution towards the wider goal of net-zero emissions across the economy, but I believe that net zero is possible, and indeed achievable and desirable, for agriculture, and I urge noble Lords to aim to include the amendment in the Bill on Report.
I turn now to the Minister. I have a few things to which I hope that he or she—I cannot see who it is—can give a response. Does the Minister think that net-zero carbon emissions in agriculture is actually achievable by 2050, and what about the important role that setting this out in law will play at stimulating innovation and investment in the right things? Will the Minister undertake to work with noble Lords from across the House to update the Bill by Report stage to reflect the big change in net-zero legislation that occurred last year after the Bill was first drafted? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, we spent the first three days of this debate discussing the baubles that were to adorn the Christmas tree under Clause 1 on ELMS. We are now somewhat getting to the meat of the matter and considering, in my view, the Christmas tree itself. But I am concerned that if this Christmas tree Bill is allowed to pass into law in the manner in which it is currently drafted, it may well wither and die before any of those ELMS baubles can be appreciated. The reason for that—I raised this issue at Second Reading—is the transition gap, or perhaps more pertinently, the transition chasm across which many farms may not make it in the years between 2021 and 2028, when ELMS are due to come into effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke about the “cataclysmic changes” that will occur to farming as a result of this legislation, and I do not think that she is overstating the position. As a result of this legislation, we will see over the coming years a dramatic decrease in the basic payments that farmers receive. At some point, those payments will be replaced by a series of payments under ELMS, but, as we are well aware after three days of interesting but very varied and somewhat random debate, the details of the scheme are years away from completion, and farmers simply do not know what will replace the essential income that they currently receive. My real concern is that this will have a dramatic effect on the environmental impact and environmental outcomes of farming. This is based on personal experience as well as discussions with the NFU and others, and it stems from a number of different angles.
For a number of farmers, the loss of the BPS will be fatal to their businesses, and those businesses will go out of business. The result will be that land will either fall fallow and therefore deteriorate—the environmental impact of that is considerably negative—or it will be sold to a more commercial neighbouring farmer who will be able to increase productivity and thus increase environmental degradation. Other considerations are that those farmers who are able to survive the transition chasm will do so only by tightening their belts. From a personal perspective, I have been advised not to invest heavily in capital projects at this time; why invest in something now for which you might well be paid by ELMS later? The conversations that I have had with agricultural and environmental advisers along the same lines conclude exactly the same thing: they are advising all their clients to hold off making any major productivity and environmental investments at this time because we simply do not know what is going to happen and we may be paid for these things at some point in the future. The net result of that will be a catastrophic drop-off in environmental gains.
My amendment is a very simple one that I recommend to noble Lords as a somewhat shorter amendment than Amendments 272 and 274, although I believe that it is targeted at the same thing. It asks that the Secretary of State should confirm that the implementation of this legislation will not negatively impact our progress towards net zero by 2050. The amendment is worded in that way for a specific reason. It is not that it will stop us achieving net zero by 2050; it is that, during the time between 2021 and 2028, our progress towards those goals will not be negatively impacted; that is, we will not go backwards.
The next five, six or seven years are absolutely crucial if we are to have any hope of reaching the monumental target of net zero, but introducing a system that simply forces us to take backward steps is not, I believe, appropriate. My amendment was inspired by the decision of R v Secretary of State for Transport with respect to the Heathrow runway. It seems that Parliament should not be passing legislation that is contrary to those net-zero targets and we should not be passing legislation until we have satisfied ourselves that this will not have a negative environmental impact.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 274, although I am thoroughly behind the other amendments in this group. I will not go down the line of Heathrow; it always gets me excited because I am firmly opposed to any expansion there.
There is really nothing further that I would say; the eloquent speech of my noble friend Lord Caithness really said it all. I also pay tribute to the NFU for its work on trying to reduce carbon emissions. I am very keen for us to get on with this discussion and debate, so the only thing that I will say is that one thing that is sometimes forgotten when we talk about sequestering carbon emissions is wetlands. That is something that we can look at very seriously in the Bill. If the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is correct and there will be problems, wetlands may be the answer. The Bill may supply the answer to how that is done.
We want to get on with the Bill, though, because while we have been congratulating and paying tribute to farmers and land managers all along, if we are not careful and do not get this legislation through, we will not be able to pay them.
Baroness Worthington (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is my pleasure to speak to Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and Amendment 274. I also strongly support the other amendments in this group.
Like many, I have been listening to the many varied and fascinating debates that have surrounded the Bill in Committee. I am holding myself back and contributing only to this group of amendments. This is partly because, while this is not my area of expertise, I look at this through the lens of the need for us to take a whole-economy approach to climate change. This is therefore the group on which I thought I had the most relevant comments to make. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I speak for a little longer than others have on this group, just to articulate why it is so fundamental to the Bill’s success that we address climate change front and centre in the Bill.
The Agriculture Bill is essentially a framework piece of legislation, but the collection of measures in it lack an overriding purpose and an overriding legislative goal for which we can hold the Government to account. The function of moving from the current system of the common agricultural policy to a new set of parameters and rules that the UK can set for itself is welcome. We all know that the current system of subsidies for agriculture has had many impacts, many of them environmental but many of them social, and this has affected how we interact with our land. We now have an opportunity to set a new path, and the Government should be commended for the policy statements they have made and the signals they have given about this new change in direction. That is very timely and will be very significant for generations to come.
With that, I ask the Minister if the Government could seriously consider adding a clause to the Bill that would make it perfectly clear that it is part of an endeavour to realign our agricultural and food sector with that goal of being climate-compatible and net zero by 2050. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has eloquently made the point that this sector, more than any other, will feel the impact of a disturbed climate—a climate that can no longer be predicted, where extreme weather events impact our ability to grow food and sustain our land in the way that we have been accustomed to. It is imperative that we take action in the long term to secure a stable climate.
The other interesting fact about agriculture and food is that both are a source of climate change emissions and greenhouse gases but also a significant sink—a way of absorbing more of the excess greenhouse gases back into our soils, our forestry and our land. So the sector is in a unique position, both to reduce its own impact and to increase its ability to be a central part of the solution for getting to net zero. For those reasons, it is imperative that we make that clear in the objectives of the Bill. Clause 1 says that future payments will be tied to environmental sustainability, but that is not precise or clear enough to give the Bill the direction of travel that it really needs or to give clarity about the purpose of the Bill and this change of direction.
At the moment, when we think about tackling climate change, one of the most politically difficult issues is that of who will pay for taking actions that at the moment may cost more but that we know will be beneficial for future generations. With agriculture, we are in a unique position in that we already see large sums of public money going into the sector. There is no need to discuss how we introduce a carbon price and no need to talk about taxation. We have a system that already sees a large amount of money from taxpayers flowing into the sector. It is fully understood that that can continue through a transition period, but we will be attaching a requirement that those payments deliver a public good. That public good, as defined through the lens of climate change, would see large amounts of money being given to farmers who found innovative ways and solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance our ability to store carbon in our land.
This is a huge and exciting opportunity for the Government. We have set out for this net-zero target, we have legislated for it and we have led the world in doing so, but now we really need to demonstrate that we understand what that means and we know what policies we will need to get us there. The more cost-effective those policies are, the more we can point to our success and see other countries follow that path. We have an opportunity with this redirection of public money to demonstrate that it is eminently possible and hugely exciting to achieve net zero in our agriculture, food and forestry sectors at an accelerated pace.
If the Government are able to craft their own version of this group of amendments, clearly setting out that it is a core aim and we will see net-zero provided through this sector, it will be a fantastic opportunity to provide clarity for the sector. As we approach the next conference of parties of the UNFCCC in Glasgow next year, which we are hosting, we will also be able to point to our own domestic legislation to show that when we talk about the need to drastically reduce emissions and stabilise the climate, we are not just talking about it but doing it. We are putting in place the sectoral policies and sectoral laws that will drive investment.
This will be an opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind that, as we transition from the current subsidy system to a new system, it will be greatly beneficial to have a carbon target for the sector because it will draw in investment from other parts of the economy. If we wish to reduce our taxpayers’ subsidy into the sector, what better way than to do so through private sector investment paying for the public good of carbon reduction, carbon removal and carbon abatement in this sector? It will relieve pressure on the public purse and enable money to flow into the sector from those sectors finding it harder to abate. That is a wonderful opportunity, and with a bit of thought we can make that explicit in the Bill.
To summarise, this group of amendments deserves careful attention from the Government. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply, and we hope to see the Government take this on and bring something forward. This is not just about climate change; it is an opportunity to create clarity and drive inward investment and private money into the sector. It is an opportunity for the UK to develop a set of framework legislation that we can be duly proud of and which we can announce and discuss in the global context in Glasgow next year.
I, too, pay tribute to the NFU and all the farmers who are potentially running ahead of many in government and many commentators in acknowledging that this can be done and that it is an exciting opportunity. They believe that we can get to net zero in this sector earlier than 2050. We should be giving them legislation that makes it completely clear that we as a society, as a whole, are backing them in that and want to create the right framework to enable them to do it.
I will not detain the House any longer, but I hope I have conveyed my enthusiasm for this group of amendments. It would be fantastic to see a version of any of the four of them in the Bill in its next stage. I very much look forward to the reply from the Front Bench.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a very important amendment. It is a rather historic occasion, because I cannot recall any other occasion on which I have associated myself with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, politically, but I completely associate myself with him on this occasion. For me it is quite simple: if we will the ends, we have to will the means. It is clear that agriculture not only contributes to the problem but could be doing far more to help solve the problem. We all have to think, wherever we are in society, how we can change our ways in order to play a practical part in this urgent priority for the survival of the human race. I therefore commend the amendment and am very glad to see the other amendments in the group addressing ways in which agriculture can contribute towards the objective—not just how it can restrain itself, but how it can contribute. This is a practical priority, and I hope the Government take it very seriously.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, all Members have emphasised just how significant and timely this group of amendments is. I particularly support Amendments 272 and 274. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to last night’s shock report from the Met Office-led investigation into the effect of manmade carbon emissions in the Arctic and the effect, therefore, on UK weather. That should be a very loud alarm call. I think we are all very conscious of the problems that have arisen from the sequential scrutiny of this Bill and the forthcoming Environment Bill. Very clever co-ordination is obviously essential. In agricultural circles I think we would refer to it as cross-compliance.
I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues believe that the thrust of these two amendments is essential. Indeed, it is difficult at this stage to decide between them: we may want to find ways in which they could be brought together at Report, depending on the Minister’s response. We are very proud of the role that our colleague, Ed Davey, played as the Cabinet member who prepared the UK for the Paris climate change conference in 2015. For that reason, to some extent, I have a slight preference for Amendments 272, since it seems to be firmly rooted in the Paris agreement and the developments, policy and commitments in the process since then. The link to the Climate Change Act 2008 in both amendments is, of course, entirely right in UK legislative terms. However, we respect and wish to encourage recognition of the way in which British Ministers have taken a leading role in the EU, in a real partnership, to maintain momentum since Paris in 2015. That is specifically acknowledged in Amendment 272 at subsection (1)(b).
The detailed rules, procedures and guidelines adopted at the follow-up UN conference in December 2018 are critical in this context and, of course, they are binding on the UK, as any other treaty obligation. This country will be obliged to report on success in meeting emission reduction targets in agriculture in a transparent, complete, comparable and consistent format. Should that not be spelled out in the Bill? It would be very helpful to do that as we look forward to Glasgow next year.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests in Suffolk as in the register. I am rather doubtful of the wisdom of some of these amendments on climate change, especially Amendments 272 and 274. I believe they are too declaratory and unrealistically mandatory to be part of the Bill.
Of course, the great majority of us believe that we must do what we can to reduce carbon emissions and the consequences they can have on the climate, and much can be done. Farmers have to live and work within the constraints of climate. There is probably no group that keeps a closer eye on the weather: the climate is a practical reality for farmers. The weather can and does have a huge impact on farmers’ prosperity and, indeed, economic survival. For example, the drought in England this April and May will have a severe effect on the 2020 harvest. But the idea that the Government can:
“Within 12 months … publish a strategy outlining how Her Majesty’s Government plans to reduce the emissions resulting from agriculture”,
is so unrealistic as to be absurd.
I warn noble Lords that quite a lot of misinformation is used in this climate change argument. I shall give one example. A few years ago, I heard my noble friend Lord Deben, who is a great panjandrum on this issue, start a speech on climate change with the story that one of his constituents had had to abandon growing apples because of the great reduction in rainfall in recent years. I live and farm in my noble friend’s former constituency. Like many farmers, we keep daily rainfall records. From 1945, rainfall has been measured with the same gauge, located in the same part of Marlesford. Over those 75 years, the results are revealing. The average annual rainfall over the whole period has been 25.81 inches. This data is based on more than 27,000 measures of rainfall. The 2019 total was 28 inches, about 9% above the long-term average. The rainfall in 2018 was 22 inches, about 22% below the average. But the most recent 10 years, 2010 to 2019, at 26 inches, has been remarkably close to the 75-year average.
The 10-year period with the highest rainfall was 1999 to 2008, when there was nearly 29 inches—20% more than in the 10-year period with the lowest rainfall. The first 10 years after the war averaged 24.67 inches. The wettest year in the whole 75 years was 2012, with 34 inches, which is virtually double the rainfall in the two driest years—1953 and 1959—when there was 17 inches. The 10-year average has helped to iron out short-term weather-related fluctuations, but the question must be: how do we interpret a 5% increase in this part of Suffolk over the 75 years from 1945?
Climate change is a crucial issue and there will need to be regulations to encourage, and indeed require, farmers to reduce emissions, but let these come forward as and when they are ready, based on their own merits. There is quite enough in this important Bill without loading it with what are in effect political declarations.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and Amendments 272 and 274, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Protecting the environment is important to me. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I believe that over the last 10 years we have seen many severe weather events that have had a direct impact on our land, our nature and, above all, our soil texture and quality. The land has been leached of essential nutrients, thereby disabling agricultural production and the capacity to produce food. This debate is really all about food and the quality of food for consumption by all our citizens.
There is a value and a benefit to the environment in making financial provision, financial entitlement and financial qualification a means of encouraging a reduction in climate change emissions. It is worth remembering that our Select Committee report entitled Hungry for Change, which was published last week, stated that the features of a sustainable food system are that it should be environmentally sustainable, that land must be managed to ensure that it is used appropriately and is continuously viable for food production, and that the negative impacts of GHG emissions and water and air pollution on habitats and diversity must be substantially reduced, while carbon sequestration and flood management are enhanced. It is important that the forthcoming national food strategy considers those factors, as well as ensuring that our food supply is socially and economically viable.
Therefore, I have no problem in supporting these amendments, because I believe that we have to reduce our CO2 emissions. We have to make that contribution to net-zero emissions and there should be financial payments to our farming folk that recognise that. What better way to do that than to recognise it on the face of the Bill? I hope that in replying the Minister will indicate the Government’s response to these amendments and set out how they intend to contribute to net-zero emissions through farming and food production.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 272 and 274 in the names of the two noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Jones, respectively—you can never have too many Lady Joneses, in my view.
These amendments would put an urgency and a framework into the objective of substantially reducing the carbon impact of farming, and would include a series of targets and interim targets in line with successive carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said that the amendments were too declamatory and mandatory, and that is why I support them. We need a bit of backbone to make sure that this vital purpose is achieved.
Agriculture accounts for 11% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, and that percentage has not reduced very much over the last 10 years. Unless change can be incentivised financially, agriculture will account for a greater proportion of our UK emissions, as other sectors decarbonise quickly. On the other hand, land is an essential resource for tackling climate change through its ability to sequester and store carbon, and that needs to be taken into account at the same time.
I know that the Minister will say that the purposes in Clause 1 already enable support to be provided for measures to combat climate change. However, the amendments before us provide a much stronger framework to drive the urgent changes required in agricultural practice, and I urge him to consider the extra welly that they will provide for this vital purpose.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much associate myself with the thrust of these four amendments. They highlight something which is absolutely critical, and we can think of this as we go through Covid-19, because, although the pandemic is serious, it is not as serious as climate change.
Here, we have a set of amendments that sets modern agriculture in Britain within the context of our climate change challenge. It is a big challenge but one that we have to face and, in fact, win. I very much associate myself with the comments of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. In particular, I support Amendment 272 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, although I equally support the amendment in the name of the other noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
If we had to invent a machine to lead the campaign against carbon emissions, that would be quite difficult, but nature has provided us with just such a machine. It has provided us with trees. Trees absorb carbon as they grow and retain carbon as they mature: in their leaves, their trunk, their bark, their roots and their soil—it is all there. Although we do not have many woods and trees in this country, we all have ambitions to have more. To give one statistic, one young mixed wood captures 400 tonnes of carbon per hectare. It is a very efficient way of meeting our climate change target, and this Bill will help, because more trees will be planted.
I want to raise something with the Minister which I hope he or she will look at. We all talk about planting trees because they provide so many benefits—in this case, we are talking about climate change—but if you remove trees, you do exactly the opposite, with the saving grace that if you replant, you start the whole process again. There is a law in this country that says that before a tree of a certain size is felled, a licence must be obtained. However, I am afraid that that legislation is hardly ever applied. It is when it comes to large areas of trees, because, just as individuals might get grants to plant trees, they have to get permission to fell.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I venture to say that the amendments in this group can be summed up as: what purpose profit if there is no habitable planet to spend it on? What purpose fine produce if there is no habitable planet on which to enjoy it? Does the Minister agree that the potential to achieve net zero will completely depend on the combination of talent and technology? I thank the NFU for all the work it has done in this area; it is ahead of a number of curves in this respect. Does the Minister recognise the need for far greater consideration of and investment in all the elements of 4IR, not least distributed ledger technology and robotics? If we are to achieve the purposes set out in these amendments—or indeed the overall governmental purpose—we need to accept and be proud that nuclear will be part of that mix. Would the Minister care to say something on the investment potential, not just for small modular reactors to assist in this but in the race for nuclear fusion? This could enable such innovation, not just in agriculture but across the economy. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
For the benefit of Members tuning in remotely, it might be helpful to know that the Minister responding will be the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, that is indeed helpful. I am pleased to speak in support of all these amendments but particularly Amendment 272, tabled by my noble friends Lady Jones, Lord Grantchester and Lord Judd. I endorse everything said by my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere about trees. He speaks with authority as a former chair of the Forestry Commission. I hope the Minister will take account of every word he said.
Central to all these amendments is incorporating in the Bill the principle that our future farming framework has climate change and our net-zero emissions target at its very core, as was outlined so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Worthington. I am pleased to be a member of the organisation Peers for the Planet, which she and my noble friend Lady Hayman were instrumental in setting up. They have been doing an excellent job in driving forward discussion and debate on the key issues relating to this Bill. Like them, I want to see a more sustainable farming system which incorporates a good balance between food production, sustainable land use, biodiversity protection and emissions reduction. As we know—most of us, anyway, I hope—time is of the essence. We need a clear plan to put these goals into action and give ourselves a fighting chance of meeting our 2050 target. Important to this is providing the necessary tools, funding and infrastructure to support our food and farming industry in order to make this transition possible.
I support the specific requirement, outlined in Amendments 272 and 274, that the Government must publish a strategy within 12 months of the Bill becoming law. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, claimed that this was absurd but he did not give any reason why. It is not absurd; it is absolutely vital. This strategy must outline plans to reduce emissions from agriculture and its associated land use, and it must set out interim emissions targets for 2030 so that we can make substantial progress towards the 2050 target.
I turn to another aspect of Amendment 272. I am speaking as a Scottish Peer, along with many others today. Looking around, I see Peers from Caithness, Montrose, Old Scone, Glenscorrodale, whose contribution is to come; and there is me, from Cumnock. We represent almost every corner of our great country of Scotland. I am keen to highlight the need for strong co-operation among all the nations of the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may recall that I raised this issue in Committee last week. Amendment 272 would require the Government to publish a future farming strategy and oblige the Secretary of State to consult devolved Ministers. We have already had disputes between the UK Government and devolved nations, and these look increasingly likely after Brexit. It is therefore critical that any discussions and decisions about a future farming strategy place the devolved nations, as well as the industry and farmers themselves, in the starting line-up, rather than relegating them to the subs’ bench—if I can be excused a footballing metaphor.
As many in the farming industry and beyond continue to argue, we need a whole-system approach to support this transition—critically, one that instils collaboration across our four nations. I hope the Minister can assure that that will happen.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, as he bangs the drum for Scotland’s place in the union. I declare my interest as a lifetime livestock producer. I support my noble friend Lord Caithness in his Amendment 73, which flags up one of the great challenges facing agricultural production. Noble Lords will know that when the Kyoto Protocol was signed in December 1997, there was an awareness that, as well as the industrial emissions on which the subsequent climate action was largely focused, emissions from land use would need to be incorporated.
At that point, knowledge about emissions from agricultural production had not got much beyond rarefied academic studies. The difference now is that, since the Paris Agreement of 2015, Governments are required to pursue agricultural emissions as a major policy consideration. These amendments focus on that aspect. From a practical farmer’s point of view, I see immense scientific research around the world into both emissions levels and ways to reduce them. This indicates that we have not yet arrived at a full understanding of how these complex systems work and interact. I particularly think of the Oxford Martin School studies on the lack of persistent methane emissions in the atmosphere.
One of the quainter remedies I have come across to alleviate cattle emissions is mixing biochar—a form of charcoal—into the regular feed. As we strive to improve our current understanding of emission levels, I put it to my noble friend the Minister that the one thing we must not do is import agricultural produce—I think particularly of beef—which has a higher carbon footprint than that which we have achieved here, no matter how cheap it appears to be. It is important that our government policy and research have this element firmly in their sights. This amendment would ensure that it was on the face of the Bill.
I have much sympathy with Amendment 144A, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon; this is obviously dependent on what methods are found to reduce greenhouse gas production. On Amendment 272, we need more clarity regarding what is meant by
“agriculture and associated land use”.
A great deal of government policy on achieving net-zero emissions seems to be based on taking land out of agriculture. The idea that agriculture on its own could reduce emissions to 100% below 1990 levels appears a bit fanciful.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I support the general thrust of these amendments and I hope that the Government will listen carefully to this debate and perhaps come back with the best of each amendment in future stages. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made a very powerful contribution in support of his Amendment 73.
Obviously, there are some differences between Amendments 272 and 274, but I will address in particular the point that my noble friend Lord Foulkes made about the fact that Amendment 272 mentions specifically the need to work with the devolved Governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. At each level of government in the United Kingdom, there is a responsibility to tackle climate change and each of these devolved Governments have specific legislative responsibilities for agriculture. If we are to make the case in this debate, and perhaps beyond, for a tighter connection in the Bill to the climate change targets, it makes sense that engaging with the devolved Governments would be a key component of that. There needs to be, in my view, far better co-ordination and agreement at all levels of government—local, national and UK—if we are to meet these targets by 2050.
The idea of including the climate change targets in this Agriculture Bill is inspired. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, made that case very powerfully when she talked about the leadership that the United Kingdom could show in what may end up being the largest Bill to come before your Lordships’ Chamber—and maybe our longest debates—this year. This Bill, taking back powers from the European Union and setting out a new strategy for British agriculture to be so closely aligned with the climate change targets, would be a very powerful signal not only inside but outwith the United Kingdom in the run-up to the summit in Glasgow, now in 2021. For reasons of the opportunities that the noble Baroness outlined and the leadership that we could show, I think these amendments are on the right lines.
If I may be allowed to digress slightly for a second, I tried to intervene last Thursday in Committee but had connection problems and was not able to make one very small specific point that in fact relates to this topic today. Amendment 12, which was debated last Thursday, used the phrase:
“the impact of climate change on agriculture”.
The amendment proposed this as one of the additional purposes to which the Government could provide finance. I felt at the time that this was the wrong way round and that it should have been about the impact of agriculture on climate change. That would be more in keeping with the amendments in front of us today, which are about the impact of agriculture on climate change. Perhaps those who were involved in moving Amendment 12 last week might think about that before we reach Report. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness the Minister has to say in response.
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I know that the Government are frustrated at the very slow progress of the Bill and, although we are very grateful for the extremely assiduous responses we have received from both Ministers—the noble Baroness and the noble Lord—I know there is concern at the slow progress.
In my experience of legislation passing through the House, a pattern establishes itself and, once you see the pattern, you understand the underlying issue of the approach that the House is taking to a Bill. It is very clear to me what the issue is in respect of this Bill. The Bill—which is of huge significance for the future of one of our major national industries as we leave the European Union—is, essentially, a framework Bill. It contains very little policy. It sets out a whole range of permissive provisions that enable the Government to do X, Y and Z but only one or two broad-brush policy statements, such as the noble Lord’s statement in our earlier debates that the Government will not subsidise food because that should be left to the market; in fact, is it clear to me that, even in our debates on that, when it comes to issues of shortage, scarcity and crisis, the Government not only have, but are proposing to take, significant new powers in that regard. Leaving aside very broad-brush statements of that kind, we do not know what the Government’s policy will be hereafter.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, this suite of amendment deals with the critical issue of climate change. Agriculture has an important part to play in helping the UK meet its emissions targets. I have spoken previously in support of the introduction of an interim emissions target for 2030; 2050 is a long way off and I certainly will not be here to see that day, but with luck I just might be here in 2030. I would like to think that I could contribute in some small way to reducing the emissions the country produces. Having an interim target at 2030 gives a much more realistic goal for everyone to aim for. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, it provides backbone.
Industry, agriculture, local authorities and individual households all have their part to play. For all these sectors, 2050 is just a date in the future and means little, but 2030 would be a much more meaningful goal—especially if agriculture has its own carbon target. Children born this year will be 10. Those now aged five will be 15 and very definitely waking up to the type of world they inhabit. We have a duty and responsibility to ensure that we have made strides towards reducing emissions and tackling climate change. I can hear their voices now, shouting as only enraged teenagers can, “What did you do about it, when you knew the disastrous impact of not tackling climate change?”. I wonder whether they will care about the Paris Agreement.
Zero carbon is really important and flying abroad for our holidays—as some of us may be considering at the moment—will not help achieve this. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, spoke knowledgably about realigning agriculture to reduce the impact on emissions and climate change. The system is already there to make payments for public goods, store carbon and reduce emissions.
My noble friend Lord Tyler raised the Met Office report on the impact of our activities on the Arctic, which is really shocking. This is not something to be left to some other piece of legislation. He also raised the inextricable links with the Environment Bill. It is not acceptable to leave this issue solely to the Environment Bill; there must be synergies between these two Bills. Beginning with a substantial commitment in the Agriculture Bill will be the start that everyone is looking for. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, tells us that 75% of greenhouse gases come from agriculture, and the NFU offers encouragement to farmers to reduce their emissions.
It is a pity that I am speaking before the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, so have not heard her arguments in favour of her Amendment 272. Having heard her speak on this subject before, I have no hesitation in supporting what she will say, especially on consulting and working with the devolved Administrations.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asks for clarification on policy as this is a framework Bill and gives no information. I agree with him completely that this is what has produced all these probing amendments. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lord Tyler, who spoke about the effect of draining peat bogs and cutting down trees. I look forward to the Minister telling us when a future farming strategy will be produced, as promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I hope I will be able to agree with the Minister’s response when she makes it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords have commented, we have Amendment 272 in this group. It sets out a requirement to publish within 12 months a strategy setting out how agriculture and land use will play their part in delivering our 2050 net-zero obligations under the Climate Change Act, with regulations to set an interim emissions target by 2030. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I hope to be around for at least that date, if not longer. Several noble Lords have welcomed that it also requires consultation with the devolved nations and other interested groups on how we will deliver those targets.
I believe that our amendment and Amendment 274 aim to do the same thing. I thank all noble Lords who have supported those amendments and Amendment 73. Forgive me if I do not name-check everybody who has spoken, but I think we have more or less reached a common cause.
We obviously welcome the reference in Clause 1(1)(d) that funding will be available to manage
“land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change”,
but here the details end. We believe that confronting the threat of climate change should be at the heart of the Bill. This is why we have tabled a new clause to help deliver a strategy for agriculture that would set us on our way to meet those targets.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the Government are already a signatory to the Paris treaty. Indeed, the recent Heathrow judgment shows that they already have a legal obligation to have regard to that treaty, so we need a plan to deliver what is effectively a legal obligation, declaratory or not. That is why our Amendment 272 specifically links back around to the Paris treaty and our obligations under it.
Meanwhile, the Committee on Climate Change’s latest report, published last month, shows once again that we are nowhere near being on target to meet the Government’s net-zero target of 2050, and agriculture has a long way to go to deliver its share of the greenhouse gas reductions. Its report says that
“the current voluntary approach has failed to cut agricultural emissions, there has been no coherent policy to improve the resilience of the agriculture sector, and tree planting … has failed outside of Scotland … Progress remains significantly off track in adaptation to build climate resilience.”
In a separate letter from the committee to the Minister, Victoria Prentis, on the potential of the environmental land management schemes, it also raises a critical issue that has been a running theme in our recent debates: the lack of a joined-up government approach within Defra to the climate change crisis. Its letter says:
“Defra has yet to set out how ELM, the Environment Bill, the 25 Year Environment Plan and various policies … for trees, peatlands and nature will fit together. In turn it is unclear how the different strategies together will support the Government’s climate change mitigation and adaptation goals.”
This is extremely well said, and this has been our experience whenever climate change targets are raised. We are always told that this work is happening in another department or another policy brief within the department, but it is clearly not happening with any serious impact. As the recent Natural Capital Committee report commented, the 25-year environment plan, which should be monitoring progress, remains a long list of ambitions with “little evidence of improvements”.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for Amendment 73, with which I will take Amendment 144A from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, Amendment 272 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 274 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate.
From listening to many of the contributions, one would hardly think that, last June, the UK became the first major economy in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the UK economy by 2050. The UK already has a very strong foundation of action and leadership to build from, having cut our emissions by 42% since 1990, while growing the economy by 72%.
Climate change is a global challenge, requiring action across the whole economy. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I believe that urgency is felt across government. Defra has worked with the industry to reduce emissions through improved productivity. Since 1990, we are producing a litre of milk with 20% less greenhouse gas emissions, and a kilogram of pork with 37% less. Efficiency gains in dairy farming mean that we now produce 9% more milk than we did in 2000 with 23% fewer cows and 9% less greenhouse gas emissions.
Targets are set under the Climate Change Act, but we do not have sector-specific targets under that Act. Indeed, we are following the whole-economy approach advocated so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. This is to ensure that we meet our climate change commitments at the lowest possible net cost to UK taxpayers, consumers and businesses, while maximising the social and economic benefits to the UK of the transition. To take up the points made by the noble Baroness, we think that the whole purpose of Clause 1 is clear, as expressed in subsection (4). In framing financial assistance schemes, we will have regard to the need to encourage environmentally sustainable food production, which will align the agriculture and food sectors.
However, I note with interest that the Committee on Climate Change’s Net Zero report from 2019 says:
“It is difficult to reduce agriculture emissions to near-zero given the inherent biological processes and chemical reactions arising from crops, soils and livestock.”
Therefore, I cannot reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that net zero will be achieved by 2050, but we are doing everything we can to let it happen.
In its June 2020 report to Parliament on reducing emissions, the Committee on Climate Change provided recommendations for government departments, including Defra, on policy priorities to address net-zero climate mitigation and adaptation. We will consider this advice and provide a response before 15 October. I believe that the Bill addresses these targets in a very coherent way.
The Government recognise the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions made by the livestock and dairy sectors, while valuing the importance of our farmers in feeding the nation and managing our rural environment. Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions have reduced by 16% since 1990, as I said, with many farms using more efficient agricultural practices. Land use, land use change and forestry continue to provide benefits in carbon sequestration.
The Government recognise the importance of reducing emissions further in these sectors. The clean growth strategy and the 25-year environment plan should reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, since they set out a range of specific commitments further to reduce emissions from agriculture, including through environmental land management, by strengthening biosecurity and control of endemic diseases in livestock, and by encouraging the use of low-emission fertilisers. The Government welcome the National Farmers Union’s ambition on this—indeed, its target is to reduce emissions by 2040—and the fact that the industry is taking this strong lead. Climate change represents a significant challenge, but also opportunities. We work closely on this issue with the NFU and other leading stakeholders, including the greenhouse gas action plan partners.
Clause 1(1)(d) enables the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the purpose of
“managing land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change”,
which provides coverage for the reduction and sequestration of carbon emissions. I believe that that statement is very clear. With particular reference to my noble friend Lord Caithness’s Amendment 73, I note that all agricultural or horticultural activities that contribute towards this purpose would already be in scope of funding support under Clause 1(1)(d). For example, financial assistance could be used to incentivise farmers to manage their livestock in a way that reduces their greenhouse gas emissions by adjusting animal feed practices, or to incentivise crop rotation. This provides a foundation for continued improvements, which the Government will drive forward through giving productivity grants alongside introducing the new environmental land management scheme. ELM will ensure that farmers and other land managers are rewarded for delivering environmental outcomes that benefit us all. This new scheme will aim to deliver a range of environmental benefits, including the mitigation of, and adaption to, climate change. Land management activities that could be funded under ELM to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon include tree planting and peatland restoration.
At present, UK forests capture about 4% of our greenhouse gas emissions. We need those trees and forests to grow to capture more carbon. Defra is taking necessary steps to deliver a step change from current planting rates. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Having announced the Nature4Climate fund, the Government are now consulting on a new England tree strategy. We invite input to shape our proposals to plant more trees, protect those we have and support the economy. I will certainly take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, endorsed, regarding licences for the destruction of trees.
On Amendment 144A from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the sooner the Government introduce these new schemes, the better for the environment. Reducing direct payments from 2021, as planned, will allow us to do so. Direct payments are untargeted and poor value for money, and deliver little for the environment. All ELMS will come into effect in 2024. Reductions to direct payments will free up money so that the Government can introduce pilots of the ELMS. It can also work to increase the number of farmers who are in new countryside stewardship scheme agreements.
The noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord McConnell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, also mentioned financial assistance for the devolved authorities. While agriculture is, as they all know, a devolved matter, I would like to reassure them that we are working very closely with officials in all the devolved authorities to establish common frameworks on agriculture. With these explanations, I ask my noble friend Lord Caithness to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from four noble Lords: the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner of Parkes, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Boycott, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I call first the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her speech. which covered most of the points I wished to make. However, I want to emphasise the importance of Amendment 75. The Minister drew attention to the improvements that have already been made. The detailed categories are set out in this amendment, but I believe they would benefit all. Public health outcomes must be borne in mind all the time. Our present virus situation has made us all much more aware of the need for this protection of the public. Allying that with improvements in the agricultural world is good. I do not wish to take up more time because this has been a very interesting and complete debate, but I support Amendment 75.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I note my noble friend’s comments. I think she probably meant to refer to Amendment 73, which is in this group. I thank her for her comments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will speak after the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and to note that she is reflecting the support that is to be found on all sides of your Lordships’ House for the inclusion of the climate emergency in the Bill. I thank the Minister for her responses thus far. She brandished the “we have legally binding targets” stick that the Government very much like to bring out. I point out that we also have a Fixed-term Parliaments Act which supposedly sets the date of elections every five years—and we have had three elections in the past five years.
What we need is action. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, pointing to the report that has just come out from the independent Committee on Climate Change, we have not had, and do not have in mind, anything like the action that we need. The Minister quoted a 2019 report from the same committee pointing out the difficulties of making agriculture net-zero carbon. But the National Farmers’ Union, which is representative of many farmers in this country, particularly the larger ones, has set that target for itself. It is therefore surprising that the Government are lagging behind the farmers and are perhaps in conflict on yet another subject with what might traditionally have been seen as their natural constituency.
There are a number of amendments in this group, but it will not surprise your Lordships’ House to know that my favourite is Amendment 274, which was tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and is backed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. This amendment goes furthest and says that we must ensure that we meet our legally binding target under Paris and that we need real action in six months’ time. I also commend the elements in Amendment 272 about working with the devolved Administrations. That is a very strong element that I hope the Government will also take forward.
When we were last in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said that politics,
“is not the stuff of fundamental legislation but for the political hustings.”—[Official Report, 14/7/20; col. 1626.]
I am not sure whether the noble Lord would consider tackling the climate emergency—the existential threat that is facing us all—politics, but it is crucial to this Agriculture Bill and it has to be there.
I very much hope that we will hear in coming days and weeks a more conciliatory approach from the Government on this. They often talk about following the science; the science is that we need action. We have a special role as the chair of the—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
Can I ask the noble Baroness to wait a moment? I think it would be a courtesy to the Committee if the noble Baroness could keep remarks to a short intervention. She is speaking after the Minister and I think it would be polite if she were to ask the noble Baroness the Minister a question, rather than making a speech.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
I thank the noble Lord for his comment. I was coming to my last sentence, which is this: does the Minister acknowledge that there is support from all sides of your Lordships’ House for including a commitment to climate change action in the Bill? Will she and the Government at least go away and think again?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I acknowledge the support from all sides of the House for all that we can do to encourage climate change mitigation, but I believe that that intention is already fully provided in Bill.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 272. I shall make a few points, while being mindful of what the Minister just said.
Healthy land is also healthy food. At the moment so much of our acreage is given over to growing grains that end up in very cheap, white, processed bread and the like. These fields are covered in chemicals. Any move that we can make in the right direction not only improves our biodiversity—agriculture is to blame for the 80% loss that has been suffered across the world—but is a win-win situation. I do not understand why the Government appear to be afraid of setting a target. We cannot make this target without agriculture being part of it; it is too big a part of our system.
Henry Dimbleby is producing a report for the Government, and I am very proud to say that I am an adviser on it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that an interim report is coming soon. If the Agriculture Bill does not set up sufficient pillars and legislation to change the way we farm, which can then change the way we eat, Henry Dimbleby’s terrific report will not have the impact that it needs.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I agree with everything the noble Baroness has said about healthy land meaning healthy food. The Bill is designed to do all that we can to encourage farmers to produce healthy land. We do not have a sector-specific target for agriculture because the Committee on Climate Change advised that emissions reductions would be needed in all sectors. We know that to achieve net zero more is needed from this sector, and we are looking to reduce agricultural emissions controlled directly within the farm boundary with a broad range of cost-effective measures, primarily through improvements in on-farm efficiency and land use change.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I am sorry to return to this point—I am being forced to become something of an environmental campaigner. I have a simple question which has not yet been answered. Are the Government satisfied that the agricultural transition will not slow or reverse our progress towards net zero in 2050?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I can confirm that we are absolutely confident that we are doing everything in legislation and encouragement in order to achieve that end.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
After the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I will call the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, who has requested to speak.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend on being the only person in this debate who has raised the question of whether the net-zero target for agriculture is feasible. Does she agree that probably the most realistic assessment of realistic steps to achieve net zero is the report Absolute Zero by the Universities of Cambridge, Oxford, Bath, Nottingham and Strathclyde, and Imperial College, which said that even a massive expansion of forestry will have only a small effect? It therefore concludes that to achieve zero emissions from agriculture would require,
“beef and lamb phased out by 2050 and replaced by greatly expanded demand for vegetarian food.”
I hope she will make it clear to the House that if we accept these amendments we are mandating the end of lamb and cattle farming in this country.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
We are not accepting these amendments. I take my noble friend’s point. We should always have absolute zero as our goal because it will enable us to move as far towards that goal as possible.
Baroness Worthington [V]
I am grateful to be able to speak a second time. I echo the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and ask the Minister how she can be confident that we will not see backsliding and an increase in emissions, given that we will lose cross-compliance and we have no sectoral targets for this very important sector. If they were set, it would drive investment into the sector, since it is the sector that can help to offset emissions in other parts of the economy. I simply ask the Minister to reconsider. This would be a beneficial addition to this framework legislation, to prevent backsliding and drive investment.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
As I have said already, from next year we will bring forward grants and new countryside stewardship and productivity schemes that will prevent the backsliding that we all want to prevent.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and for the very helpful comments that have been made all around the Chamber. It was interesting to hear my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s statistics. I would only say to him that the whole pattern of rainfall is changing. Last winter, the rainfall in Caithness was significantly below average, whereas in parts of Hampshire it was about 170% or more above average—so the year’s average might equate, but the time and quantity of rain and drought that one is now getting have changed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, was absolutely right to say that the amendments are of prime importance and something should be included in the Bill. Therefore, I was a little disappointed by what my noble friend said in her reply. I will read with care what she said, but I think that she missed two crucial points that I sought to make in justification of my amendment. Her examples were all of mitigation. I am not worried about mitigation: mitigation is to make less severe or alleviate, which is but one aspect of what we are talking about. Adaptation is to adjust or modify. That is another aspect. What the Bill does not cover satisfactorily, according to the legal advice that I have had, is the word “sequester”, which is a hugely important addition that needs to be made to the Bill at the next stage.
The other point that I sought to make in justification of my amendment was that it should be a condition of financial assistance that sequestration of climate change emissions is included in whatever ELM one is talking about. We desperately need to take more carbon out of the atmosphere, not just mitigate it. I hope that, between now and the next stage, the Minister will meet me to discuss this because, as the Bill stands, it does not meet the point that I have been trying to make. Meanwhile, I am reluctantly content to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Trees
Member’s explanatory statement
To enable assistance to be given in an appropriate case to a licensed abattoir which, for example, provides a private kill service or enables slaughtering facilities in an area otherwise without adequate provision.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak to this amendment in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register, and particularly my role as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare.
This is an enabling Bill, and I note that many amendments to date have been seeking more detail on how the Bill’s objectives will be realised. This amendment, adding one small word—slaughtering—puts some meat on the bones, if noble Lords will excuse a veterinary pun. It offers a means of helping to achieve two of the strategic objectives of the Bill: namely, to improve animal welfare and to enable the financial self-sustainability of farming and, in this case, of livestock farming.
First, with respect to welfare, there has been a huge reduction in the number of abattoirs in the UK in recent years. Since 2007, we have lost 40% of the abattoirs that existed at that time, as the industry has consolidated into bigger units. There is nothing wrong with bigger units, but bigger means fewer, and that means that animals in turn must travel longer distances in order to be slaughtered. It is a laudable commitment of this Government—and also a recommendation of a recent animal welfare committee report and a recent resolution from the British Veterinary Association—that animals should be killed as close to the point of production as possible. Fewer abattoirs runs counter to that admirable welfare goal.
On the financial self-sustainability of farming, one way that livestock farmers can achieve that is to add value to their product and retail directly. This is enabled by abattoirs that offer the so-called private kill option. These are, for the most part, the smaller abattoirs. Private kill returns the products of slaughter to the primary producer or their collaborators for processing. It enables local food production of good provenance and low food miles. It offers livestock farmers, especially those in upland areas, a viable business model. It offers them a much fairer and higher share of the price that the consumer pays. But it depends on the existence of suitable abattoirs.
Clause 1(5) currently lists “ancillary activities” for which the Secretary of State may give financial assistance, which are
“selling, marketing, preparing, packaging, processing or distributing products”
from agriculture. Spot the missing link in the farm-to-fork food chain. As a livestock farmer, how can one do any of those ancillary activities without slaughtering?
The amendment is not about subsidising abattoirs. It would merely allow as eligible for assistance certain abattoirs that recognise the higher regulatory standards rightly required for operations that are relatively low throughput and local. Conditions of support can be developed in statutory guidance or schedules and could for instance include capital grants for equipment needed to comply with new legislation, such as the recent introduction of CCTV or to achieve more sustainable and carbon-efficient waste disposal.
Given the key role that small abattoirs can play in improving animal welfare, enabling local food production and enabling the financial sustainability of livestock farming, while contributing to the wider rural economy and our national food security, I submit that there is a strong case for their eligibility for support, subject to conditions, under this Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my farming interests are set out in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has just pointed out the word that is very obviously missing from the list in Clause 1(5). Livestock farming has to produce meat in the main and “slaughtering”, the most essential and first step in the process of all those set out in the list, is missing.
I do not think that this is an oversight. I am afraid that it might be deliberate, and there are two possible reasons. The Minister may consider that the word “preparing” includes slaughtering. If this is the case, could he or she please make it clear in plain terms for Hansard and then we can all go home happy? If the Minister will not do so, I am afraid that the omission is deliberate and has been made because so many small and medium-sized abattoirs have closed and the Government are frightened of making a commitment that they fear might require them to prop up a line of possibly failing businesses.
That is not my intention in putting my name to this amendment, nor do I believe that this very small amendment, if accepted, would result in public money being thrown away on a pointless, uneconomic enterprise. I hope that government money would not be spent under any of the other categories included in Clause 1(5) on other enterprises without a good reason and a good business case. This simple one-word amendment is important for livestock farmers, of which I am one, particularly farmers in the uplands, of which I am one. It is important for small producers, and vitally important for family farms, which the Government say they want to support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I lend my support to Amendment 87. I declare my interest as an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association.
In the 1980s, we had an extensive network of small, family-run, easily accessible abattoirs, then along came an innocuous draft EU directive on slaughterhouses. As an MEP, I took soundings from many in rural communities. We worked very closely with what was then MAFF. Off his own bat, after years of waiting, and in a classic example of gold-plating, an official in MAFF took the opportunity to drive a coach and horses through the abattoir network and close many of the well-functioning, perfectly safe, smaller abattoirs serving the rural communities.
That brought devastating results in the early 1990s and again in the early 2000s, when we experienced BSE and foot and mouth disease. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said in moving this amendment, that led to longer journeys for livestock being taken to abattoirs, and potentially the spread of those diseases at that time. The noble Lord quite rightly identified this problem, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has just said, there are now parts of Scotland, particularly the islands, without abattoirs and completely dependent on mobile abattoirs. That raises costs to the producer, which goes to the heart of the viability of livestock production in the rural areas of the Highlands and Islands and, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, raises serious animal welfare concerns.
We must revert to a better and more extensive network, as we enjoyed before. This network of smaller, family-friendly, easily accessible slaughterhouses should be put in place and Amendment 87 provides the means to do so.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on this amendment, so ably proposed by him and the two noble Baronesses who have just spoken.
I am no expert on agriculture, but I live in the Isles of Scilly, and I want to give a small example of the need for an abattoir there, which may be similar to the example of Scotland just given by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. There are five inhabited islands in the Isles of Scilly. They all have livestock—cows and often pigs—and they provide some good conservation grazing, overlooked by the Isles of Scilly Wildlife Trust. All the farmers are very much in favour of having an abattoir on the islands and would probably increase the number of cows they have if this were the case.
One problem at the moment is that they go from the off-islands in their trailers in a small freight ship to St Mary’s, and then on to another freight ship to Penzance, which takes about five hours on a good day—it does not travel on a bad day. They may then be trailed as far as Plymouth, which probably takes another five hours or so, and then, as we all know, the animals are rested before being slaughtered. Another problem is that there is an enormous cost to this. Some farmers say that the feedstuffs they have to buy cost three or four times as much as on the mainland.
There is an enormous interest in having a fixed abattoir on St Mary’s. The Duchy of Cornwall, which is the landlord here, has told me that it would be keen to see one built here now that the problems of remote veterinary oversight, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, have been overcome. All the farmers would use it but the problem, of course, is the capital cost. It is expensive and would not be used all the time but, once it was operational, it would wash its face because there is a big demand for local meat here, grown locally. Even when it goes to the mainland and comes back in butchered portions it is very popular—I think it is really good.
My only comment on the amendment itself is that for us in Scilly, “slaughtering” would need to include a cutting room and butchery. They may need to be part of it. Again, I am no expert on this; some other noble Lords who have spoken, or the Minister, may be able to put me right. But if we are going to slaughter the animals here on this island—or, I suggest, in other remote areas in the Scottish islands or parts of the mainland—we need to butcher and prepare them, and then be able to sell them locally. That would be really beneficial to the local economy at this time, when many hill farmers and remote farmers are very concerned about what will happen after Brexit.
When the Minister comes to wind up, I hope that he will either agree to this amendment or invite us to a meeting or two and come up with his own suggestions on this small but very serious problem. It could enable the hill farmers and island farmers—and probably remote farmers in Cornwall as well—to survive and prosper, using local and rare breeds on occasions, along with many other benefits of local delivery. I fully support the amendment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as on the register. In addition, I chair The Prince’s Countryside Fund and this is an issue of deep concern to that fund, which has attempted to provide support to some of the threatened abattoirs, particularly on the Scottish islands referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I also declare that I speak as a former chair of the Meat and Livestock Commission, which I was when much of the EU legislation to which she also referred was introduced, leading to the closure of a lot of small abattoirs.
I very much support Amendment 87, sponsored by my noble friend Lord Trees. The geographical network of abattoirs across the United Kingdom is essential to ensure that local livestock producers have slaughtering facilities. These UK livestock producers are becoming increasingly worried about their future at present and feeling threatened on a number of fronts. There is high-profile media support for plant-based protein, for example, as referred to in debate on the Bill earlier this week, and that land should be converted from meat production to plant-based food. A vast proportion of the landscape of Britain is incapable of producing plant-based food for direct human consumption. It delivers a huge range of environmental benefits by grazing livestock, including biodiversity and carbon capture. This was referred to comprehensively by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in debate on the previous group of amendments.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, as has already been urged, there is a compelling case for paying attention to the plight of small abattoirs and for the Government to offer financial support to enable their survival. They are relied upon by farmers who market the meat from their own animals locally.
A small abattoir is one which slaughters fewer than 1,000 livestock units each year. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, in spite of strong and growing local demand, they are being driven out of business by a combination of factors beyond their control. For example, in the last 12 months a further seven have had to close. The Government seek to protect local farming communities and their ancillary services, and to increase rural employment. In the conditional and qualified way that the noble Lord has outlined, it is therefore all the more consistent with the Bill that they should now assist small abattoirs.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us reassurance about this today. Meanwhile, in supporting this amendment, I pay tribute to the Food Standards Agency for doing as much as it can in difficult circumstances, as I do to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for the useful recent report he has written on small abattoirs, as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, in line with this amendment, I support the principle of slaughtering animals as close as possible to their place of growth and finishing. To me, there are three main reasons why this is a good idea, some of which have already been touched on.
First, it minimises the stress on the animals, which must be a golden rule or ambition underlying everything that our livestock industry stands for. I might add that this lack of stress has also been proven to improve the quality of the meat.
Secondly, local abattoirs allow specialist producers to generate premium prices from the sale of meat, based on branding due to genuine local provenance and high animal welfare. For some of our breeders, especially those in remote and special landscapes, this USP is crucial to the success of their enterprise.
Thirdly, local slaughter allows for the handling, cutting, processing and marketing of the meat to be done close to the point of production, thus enabling the economic and social benefits of the whole production process to be captured by the local rural economy.
All three of these reasons are important for remote rural communities, and particularly island-based communities, as mentioned by noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the shenanigans and even cruelty involved in the process of getting animals bred on the Isles of Scilly to slaughter is a prime example of how to almost destroy a perfectly good-quality local organic food business. Clearly, small abattoirs result in an expensive system, but with the market emphasis focusing more and more on high-quality and specialist production, particularly local production, it is to be hoped that the Government will support such schemes wherever they can.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests as declared previously. I too will speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu, Lady Jones and Lady Bakewell. I had hoped to put my name down to it too, but was too late getting in.
Noble Lords have already eloquently laid out the case for this amendment and I do not propose to repeat all the arguments. However, I too emphasise the benefits that this amendment would bring. Clearly, reducing travel times has to be a priority. Slaughter should take place at the closest point possible to where animals are raised. Also, the more individual handling that takes place in a small abattoir is, I hope, less frightening than a big processing abattoir. Not only would that enable the provision of private kill, as described previously, thus helping farmers who wish to sell their meat themselves; farmers would also be able to ensure that animals are killed in the way they prefer and that they are pre-stunned.
Much as I respect the needs of our multicultural society in the UK—I emphasise that—I am also concerned about welfare standards. The RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have highlighted that more animals are killed without stunning than are needed for UK halal and kosher consumption, and that they are more flexible for sale. A Food Standards Agency report last year highlighted that 90,000 of the 2.9 million non-stunned animals slaughtered for kosher-certified meat were rejected as unfit for religious consumption and went into the general market unlabelled. Enabling private kill for local small abattoirs will give farmers a choice if they do not wish their animals to be slaughtered in that way. I also ask the Minister for better labelling of all meat products regarding the method of slaughter, so that those who wish to eat meat that has been pre-stunned are able to do so.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers Union. My interest in this amendment relates to private kill mainly in upland and less-favoured areas for specialist farm shops. I agree with everything that has been said. There have been many Second Reading speeches in Committee, which does nothing to speed up the passage of the Bill, so that we are able to pay farmers next year. Therefore, I see absolutely no need to prolong this process and to repeat the arguments that have been made so eloquently earlier this afternoon. I agree entirely with all that has been said and I support very strongly the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, for me, the impetus to take an interest in the Bill was going back to my constituency—an urban constituency in Northampton, although surrounded by some of the finest pasture in the United Kingdom and with a lot of sheep production. I was reminded by my farmer friends who took me round of the closure of our cattle market, which had been there for centuries, and of our abattoir, so that the animals had to be taken much further to be slaughtered. Having thought about it a bit further, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and I say thank you, sir, to him. His was a fine presentation, and I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is a leading legal person. They both put the case very strongly. As far as I can see, animal welfare today is ever more important, and it dictates that slaughtering should be as close to the means of production as possible. Secondly, I am in no doubt, having visited a couple of abattoirs, that the ease of handling in a small abattoir is much greater.
I am a little concerned about the high costs of the smaller abattoirs—maybe the Minister will shed some light on this. I do not know what the differential is, and I do not see any reason why a smaller abattoir should be excessively more expensive than a medium-sized or large one. I do not need to say any more on this amendment; it has my support and I wish it well.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 87. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, have made a compelling case for financial assistance for the slaughtering of animals closer to the farm, which also reduces food miles. On many occasions I have heard the Minister say that animal welfare is extremely important. Over the years, we have seen the closure of many small local and rural abattoirs, which has led to larger abattoirs further away from where stock is reared, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said.
The regulations on abattoirs are stricter than they used to be. The installation of CCTV ensures that animals are not distressed at the point of slaughter, vets are present, and paperwork is kept for future inspection. However, this does not assist with the passage of the animal from the farm to the abattoir. The shorter and less stressful this journey, the better for the animal—and for the quality of the meat, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, pointed out. I do not subscribe to the view that this does not matter as the animal is about to die, so why worry about its journey to the end? Animals deserve to be treated with compassion at all times. A network of smaller abattoirs serving local communities is essential for the farming community, especially small farming families. It will help them to process their animals on to the food industry or, in some cases, back to the farm for sale in the farm shop, thereby supporting the local economy.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a powerful case for abattoirs on both the islands of Scotland and the Scilly Isles. There will be a cost involved in increasing the number of abattoirs, but they are essential to preventing distressing long journeys for animals. Consumers are keen to support locally grown and fed produce, and wish to buy the meat from a reputable source where they know the animals have been well cared for and fed. Slaughtering has to be included in the list for financial assistance. Concentrating all slaughter in larger, remote venues is not a satisfactory answer to the issues of animal welfare and convenience for the local farmer, whose time is limited. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the arguments raised in this debate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to this amendment, and I will speak briefly in support of it.
Many local farmers have trusted and long-standing relationships with their local abattoir, and it is therefore very distressing when they have to close. As we have heard, it means longer and more stressful journeys for the animals concerned and clearly has a negative impact on their welfare. It also means that the Government are failing in their stated objective to reduce travel times for slaughter.
For farmers wanting to sell their meat as a specified farm product, through so-called private kill arrangements, it also means a more complicated process for retrieving the carcass and ensuring that it is properly labelled. Yet we are all in favour of local food production with specified provenance, which is really appreciated by consumers and can help to add value and boost the rural economy.
Of course, it is important that local abattoirs meet our high slaughterhouse standards and are properly supervised and certified, and this amendment would do nothing to undermine that important principle. I therefore hope that the Minister will feel able to support this small but significant amendment. It is not the total answer to the fate of our small abattoirs, but it would represent a small step forward.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his amendment, which highlights the many activities associated with the production of food along the supply chain. In doing so, I acknowledge the fine work of the APPG for Animal Welfare, which he chairs so ably. The Government are committed to addressing the issues raised by its recent report on small abattoirs.
Given his detailed work as chair of that group, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the issues faced by small abattoirs are complex and unlikely to be resolved through intervention alone. I know at first hand the advantages of small local abattoirs from the days when I used to deliver my Black Welsh Mountain sheep to the Witney abattoir on the school run—actually, it was on the return from the school run, as I was a little squeamish for the children.
I am delighted to say that we have had it confirmed that the definition of ancillary activities in Clause 1(5) covers slaughtering under either “preparing” or “processing”.
Noble Lords asked a number of questions, which I would like to address. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked why micro-abattoirs are not listed as a public good. They are an important part of the agricultural supply chain, but they operate on a commercial basis and therefore do not directly meet the principles of public good. Public goods that may be derived from small abattoirs, such as improved animal welfare or environmental impact, are obviously already covered by Clause 1.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, ably asked many questions about religious slaughter. The Government encourage the highest standards of animal welfare. Although our policy is to prefer that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, we accept the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat killed in accordance with their religious beliefs. No regulations require the labelling of halal or kosher meat, but where any information of this nature is provided voluntarily, it must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer. The Government expect the industry, whether food producer or outlet, to provide consumers with all the information they need to make informed choices. The Government have committed to a serious and rapid examination of the role of labelling in promoting high standards and high welfare across the UK market and will consult on this at the end of the transition period. I should also say that farm assurance schemes apply standards of production that include slaughter requirements; for example, Red Tractor and RSPCA-assured schemes require stunned slaughter.
I hope that I have given noble Lords sufficient assurance that this issue has already been dealt with. With that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Trees, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Trees [V]
I thank everybody who has spoken so eloquently in support of this amendment. I am very grateful. I thank the Minister for her response. She said something significant: that slaughtering is covered by “processing”. I would appreciate it if we could have that confirmed in writing or in a subsequent meeting; I am sure that the other noble Lords who put their names to this amendment would also appreciate that. We need to be assured that that is the case; otherwise, we would want to bring the amendment back on Report. Meanwhile, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We come to the group beginning with Amendment 90. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 90
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 90, I will also speak to Amendments 196 and 206 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which concern animal welfare and which I commend to the Committee, and Amendment 207, which concerns the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
I shall speak to Amendments 90, 184, 188, 189, 286, 287, 288, 292, 293 and 294; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her support on them. They are all about references to fungi. I have to credit the campaigning group Plantlife, which identified this issue for me and did all the fine-comb work to produce these amendments. I feel that I am contributing to successful answers to pub quizzes up and down the land in saying that there are three kingdoms in the living world—plants, animals and fungi—which together make up the eukaryotes: the organisms with complex cells with features such as mitochondria and nuclei. In fact, fungi are closer to animals than plants. They are not producers of energy but use external sources of it; indeed, the world would soon be covered in undigested waste if they did not.
On many occasions in your Lordships’ House, I say, tongue in cheek, “I am sure that the Government will agree with me,” but in this case I say it with absolute sincerity. I am sure that the Government want our legislation to be scientifically literate. As this legislation currently says, “‘plants’ includes fungi”, it is not. It is like saying, “For ‘apples’, read ‘pineapples’”. That is very easy to fix—and would, I believe, have the added virtue of legal clarity. I am sure that we all recall the arguments about the classification of Jaffa Cakes as cakes or biscuits with regard to VAT. We do not want to see similar arguments in relation to support under this Bill. This Committee must consider why we currently have such confusion. The importance of fungi is grossly understated and still little understood.
I outsourced this speech in part to social media, where mycologists leapt in to offer some suggestions. To start with the familiar, I point your Lordships to fly agaric, the red and white fairy tale favourite, but until mycologists started talking to me, I did not realise how crucial it is, to the growth of birch trees in particular. I also cannot resist noting Phallus impudicus—I leave noble Lords to look up its common name—which is thought to have a close ecological relationship with badger setts. Its scent attracts blow-flies that quickly clean up the bodies of badgers, which most typically die underground—unless there is a badger cull, of course. I note that up to a third of plants’ products of photosynthesis feed fungi and bacteria in the soil. For example, relationships between bacteria help mycorrhizal fungi to use their hyphae to seek out and scavenge particularly biologically valuable elements such as phosphorus from rocks or decaying organic matter.
These are immensely complex and little-understood natural systems. Other noble Lords have said that they imagine the countryside operating like a giant, human-directed machine, with robots buzzing around and everything controlled by chemical application and genetic modification. I would point to the complexities I just outlined to illustrate how faulty that vision is. We do not understand all that, but we do understand the basic biology and we can get it right in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 177, 179, 180, 182, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194, which are in my name. We are moving away from fungi, but I say this to my noble friend the Minister: it is not helpful to group such a mass of contradictory and different issues together. My amendments deal with the supply chain and the collection and processing of data, which are rather different to what the noble Baroness was just talking about.
The Bill has incorporated some safeguards around the collection and processing of data to ensure that it is clear how information will be used and how it could be used in accordance with data protection legislation. However, I still have concerns that not all the purposes for which information can be processed relate directly to improving supply chain transparency or supporting the development of risk management tools to help farmers to manage volatility. I therefore want to see these purposes drafted in a more focused way to ensure that they achieve the legitimate aims of improving transparency and managing volatility.
The purpose for which information can be processed under this clause should be linked directly to the overarching objective of improving fairness and transparency in the supply chain. The requirements to provide information will inevitably lead to an increased administrative burden for businesses, and it is therefore important that any information collected is focused on helping those in the agri-food supply chain to make improvements—hence the need for Amendment 177.
Turning to Amendment 190, the Bill as currently drafted provides for information to be processed for wider environmental and waste purposes which do not link specifically to assisting those in the agri-food supply chain. This amendment would focus the processing of environmental and waste information and avoid it being used to pursue wider environmental objectives more appropriately pursued under other legislation such as the Environment Bill. It would enable the Government to collect the kind of information they have stated they are interested in, but would curtail the use of the provisions for purposes which go beyond specific issues in the agri-food supply chain in future.
The Minister will know that the data collection provisions are welcomed by farmers. They should be used in a focused and proportionate way to ensure that the additional administrative burden placed on businesses directly improves the fairness and transparency of the agri-food supply chain. Most of us will be able to remember the days when MAFF was notorious for gold-plating regulations. Therefore, it is very important that these regulations and this part of the Bill are sensibly drafted so as not to impinge too much on farmers.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name in this group.
Amendments 178 and 181 suggest an additional scope for the power to get information. We should look at activities which affect the UK and not just at those that take place in the UK. A lot of these food supply chains are international and many of their activities and decisions take place outside the UK—indeed, all that may happen in the UK is that some goods turn up and are dropped off at someone’s warehouse, with all the information about where they have come from, what they are and what the resilience of the food chain is being held outside the UK. So it seems to me that we should have the wording “activities affecting the UK” rather than “activities in the UK”.
These amendments also extend the power to get information to Clause 17, which is on food security. We say that we will do a lot of things with information there, but I cannot see that we have given ourselves the power to get the information we need, which again is likely to be held outside the UK in many cases.
Amendment 185 argues for a wider definition of persons “closely connected” with the food chain and lists a number of activities that are fundamental to a food chain but are not presently listed in the Bill.
Amendment 183 comes back to the plants and fungi of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It is not clear to me that the present wording in Clause 22(2)(c),
“any creature or other thing taken from the wild”,
includes plants. Clearly there is a substantial trade in plants and fungi taken from the wild, which ought to be comprehended in this Bill. I entirely sympathise with the irritation of the noble Baroness at fungi being subsumed into “plants”—but in a House where male embraces the female, perhaps this is a fault that we are used to.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 195 in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I note that there are a variety of amendments to this amendment, including one from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, about which we will hear shortly.
The explanatory statement for this amendment says that it
“requires the Government to provide regulations for fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products.”
I am sure that we would like to see a day when farmers were not reliant on subsidies to maintain a sustainable income, but, on the other side of the coin, it would not be possible to encourage a rise in food prices when so many people in this country are suffering from food poverty as it is.
The fundamental point I wish to make with this amendment is that the distribution of income within the sector, from the production of food to the retail sector, is not balanced. It is fundamentally unfair. For many years, it has been the case that profit margins within the processing and retailing sectors can be substantially more while the primary producer—the farmer—can barely make a profit on the produce at all.
As a Minister in Northern Ireland who dealt with the food processing sector for a number of years, I saw examples of producers driven down to maybe half a penny of margin on a product. In the days before the Groceries Code Adjudicator was appointed in 2013, there were examples where companies would just say to the producers and processors, “We’re going to extend our credit terms and we’ll not pay you now for 90 days instead of 30”, and apply continuous pressure to drive down the margins. Now business is business, but when you have to substantially subsidise the primary producer through the taxpayer, you need a proper structure to ensure that there is a fair balance at the end of the day.
The remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator is too narrow. It does not cover indirect suppliers to supermarkets, meaning that many farmers and small food businesses are not protected by the adjudicator or the code. We need an expansion of powers to cover the widest possible extent of the food supply chains that serve our supermarkets. This is not a new idea; in 2008 the Competition Commission looked at grocery supply chains and proposed the establishment of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to tackle unfair trading practices. This report also anticipated that the GCA’s remit may be insufficient, noting that that, if these practices continued, the Government
“should consider the introduction of appropriate measures, including the extension of … the role of the Ombudsman”—
namely, the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
During the past two decades, there has been significant consolidation within the retail and food processing sectors, adding to an imbalance in the market. Primary producers generally do not obtain fair prices and on many occasions do not cover the costs of production. This situation requires political intervention to protect what remains of our farming sector and to assist its rebuilding. We know about imports, weather and other factors, but the fact is that there is a persistent imbalance in the distribution of wealth within the sector from the primary producer to the retailer.
We are at a point of almost generational change with this Bill, and this is an opportunity to reset the clock on how we do this fairly and reasonably. We know that we want to see more food produced in the UK, and we want that food to be of an even higher quality than it is now. We want to see standards maintained. However, we also need investment by the primary producer, and a primary producer cannot invest properly in that business unless they are making money. Therefore, it is in all our long-term interests—not only for food security but for a whole lot of other reasons—to take this opportunity to take positive action to assist our farming community.
It is not simply to add costs to the sale of food in shops, it is to help with the equitable distribution of income and reflect a reasonable return on capital in the profits a farmer can make. That is nothing dramatic: all businesses need that, and I do not see why it should be any different with primary producers. I therefore support this amendment and others of a similar nature in this group.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
In speaking to this very extensive group of amendments, I will speak to Amendments 195A to 195F in my name, and to Amendments 197 to 200 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, with implications for Amendment 207 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
These amendments are primarily focused on Clause 27, which deals with the “fair dealing” of agricultural producers in the agri-food supply chain. They come from my experience—as shown by my interests declared on the register—representing mostly dairy producers and dairy processors, and my directorship of a farmers’ co-operative that processes members’ milk and markets produce in the supply chain, and, crucially, from my understanding and experience of the disruption of the food chain following the difficulties of the Covid-19 pandemic.
I very much welcome the “fair dealing obligations” introduced into the Bill in the provisions of Clause 27 and others. The relative imbalance in market power between primary producers at the foot of the supply chain and those at the top of the chain, selling the finished product or meal to the consumer, has long been understood. What happens in between can be a murky business of relationships, given the many channels to the market and the perishable, short-shelf-life product with its various, highly regulated processes.
This imbalance in bargaining power was recognised again as recently as February 2018, in the Government’s response to the call for evidence in the case of extending the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s remit in the groceries supply chain. The Government recognised examples of unfair terms and unclear contracts that led to a general lack of trust and transparency, discouraging good relationships across the supply chain. That the Government recognise that the problem is ongoing, and are now addressing it in the Bill, is to be welcomed.
Clause 27 gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations “in relation to contracts”. My first amendment, Amendment 195A, is an amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—I thank him for his opening remarks—and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, which seeks to replace “may” with “must” and to establish a timeframe of 12 months in which regulations must be introduced. Progress must be made swiftly; the problems are well known. The impacts of Covid-19 on the supply chain have also become well known and have been answered in the competitive legal structure in emergency regulations, but their effects have yet to be assimilated.
Amendments 195B, 195C, 195D and 195E are designed to be all-inclusive: first, across all business purchases; secondly, across all farming sectors listed in Schedule 1, and, thirdly, across all dealings between purchasers and sellers. Lastly, the Secretary of State must promote fair dealing outside of a contract, as well as within the terms of a contract.
A contract is often drawn up by the purchaser rather than the seller and may contain only necessary provisions around the supply and payment for an agricultural product. It is important that Clause 27 must not be interpreted only with regards to the dealings in a specific contract but encompass all dealings. It would be important for the regulations to address, as a baseline, good basic business practice of fair dealings, and then to address fair dealings in contracts. The regulations must go to the heart of the matter: an enforceable fair dealing code of practice.
Amendment 195 reflects on the disruption to supply relationships caused by the pandemic. The immediate closure of all food service sector outlets—canteens, restaurants, cafes, coffee shops and snack bars, which make up 50% of all food purchases made out of the home—cut off at a stroke all the supply lines. There was suddenly nowhere for food products in the food service sector to go. There was a relative rebalance to retailers and local outlets following this. The effect was for purchasers of primary products to push enterprise risk down to the producers and sellers of products—the farmer—citing force majeure as a reason to refuse contract fulfilment. I am pleased to say that retailers largely stood by their responsibilities to the supply chain.
This experience has severely affected the faith of sellers in fair dealings. Will provisions on fair dealings in Clause 27 be sufficient to deal with these experiences in the future? How will they deal with a similar possible disruption, whether in the extreme—as in the pandemic— or in many other examples which may be more localised and more specific to the food sector, as in Schedule 1, where purchasers may have difficulties making payments for produce? How will the balance of risk be assessed in these regulations? Will the provisions of the Bill cover the situation?
I think the Minister will agree that this is entirely different from circumstances covered under “Exceptional market conditions” in Clauses 18 to 20, in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill. These clauses give powers to the Secretary of State similar to those pertaining to the EU Commission: to step into the market to stabilise it where there are disruptions from extreme weather circumstances.
I turn now to Amendments 197 to 200, and my comments are also made in relation to Amendment 207, on the same issue, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. These amendments are made to probe the Minister on how these regulations will operate in the marketplace, how they will be governed and by what authority or office. Subsection 9 of Clause 27 states that powers under subsection 1(b), to make regulations for the enforcement of obligations imposed by fair dealings, can be conferred on “any person”
who will have
“discretion in dealing with any matter.”
I ask the Minister to explain who any such person may be, and how this discretion will be made effective. My noble friend Lady Jones and I have suggested the Groceries Code Adjudicator, to stimulate comment and debate.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also suggests extension to the provisions of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013. I will not take up all the space on this subject, except merely to say that the exercise in the retail trade of fair dealing functions in relation to the 13 main retailers will be very different from what will be necessary across all sections and all sectors of the agri-food supply chain.
The remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator came out of two Competition Commission inquiries and considerable debate over the course of at least a decade. I pay great tribute to Christine Tacon, the adjudicator. She has operated with a very small office and has brought, over the seven years since enactment, a large understanding of responsible dealing in the retail supply chain, which, to some extent, has been embedded further down the supply chain by large retailers with exposure to the stock market and a recognition of reputational damage through strong audit and risk committees. It would be a very different experience across the whole agri-food supply chain, with thousands of sellers in business relationships with possibly up to 10,000 purchasers.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, this is quite a mixed bag of amendments, but I accept that if we separated them out, we might never see the end of the Bill before we all experience collapse. I of course support the amendments of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle on ensuring scientific accuracy in the drafting of the Bill. I stand—or sit—in awe of her erudition when explaining this subject.
I speak to my Amendments 196, 201 and 206 on animal welfare, and I support Amendment 207 on the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. My amendments would require improvements in animal welfare to be made via the mechanisms established in Clauses 27, 28 and 30. Amendment 196 requires contractual rules that raise standards above the statutory minimums. Amendment 201 requires trade groups relating to animal products to appoint a person responsible for monitoring and improving animal welfare. Amendment 206 requires the Secretary of State to consult representatives of the animal welfare sector.
These are all opportunities to improve animal welfare in our farming system, and to use the Bill as a force for good. I hope the Minister will commit to integrating more animal welfare measures into the Bill on Report. This is one of the issues very close to my heart; I am therefore more than happy to talk this through with the Minister to see if we can, perhaps, do it my way.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer and landowner, as set out in the register. I shall speak to Amendments 202, 203, 204 and 205 in my name. The basic purpose of these amendments is to set the conditions in which future delegated legislation under the auspices of this Bill is fair, transparent, responsive, proportionate and equitable.
Amendment 202, on publishing information related to producer organisation grants, seeks to delete the requirement to publish grant application decisions online. Such a requirement is disproportionate, and the publication could contain commercially sensitive information that buyers could seek to use against the producer organisation.
Amendments 203, 204 and 205 relate to competition law. I fear there are no baubles here; we begin to get technical. The Competition Act 1998 contains the following exemption in relation to agricultural products:
“The Chapter I prohibition does not apply to an agreement to the extent to which it relates to production of or trade in an agricultural product and—
(a) forms an integral part of a national market organisation;
(b) is necessary for the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; or
(c) is an agreement of farmers or farmers’ associations (or associations of such associations) belonging to a single member State which concerns—
(i) the production or sale of agricultural products, or
(ii) the use of joint facilities for the storage, treatment or processing of agricultural products, and under which there is no obligation to charge identical prices.”
I did not write that.
As currently drafted, the Agriculture Bill removes this exemption and replaces it with exemptions relating specifically to producer organisations, associations of producer organisations and recognised interbranch organisations. In doing this, the current exemption for agreements, which is necessary for the attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—in other words, the common agricultural policy objectives—is removed. There does not appear to be any justification for the removal of this exemption, particularly during the period when the UK’s domestic agricultural policy is being developed. If an agreement between farmers is necessary to achieve the current CAP objectives, it should remain exempt from the prohibition of agreements contained in Chapter 1 of the Competition Act 1998. The removal of block exemptions from specific aspects of competition law, with no clear justification, is concerning. It is necessary to understand whether there is any objective and sensible justification for removing the existing agricultural exemption. I would be most grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Boycott [V]
My Lords, I would first like to add my voice to the praise of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for Christine Tacon while she was in the role of Groceries Code Adjudicator. It is a very important role, and I would like to hear whether the Minister plans to beef it up and give her more powers.
Following what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said about animal welfare and the need for someone to look over it, it occurs to me that someone in a similar position to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, overlooking the welfare of animals with the power to fine and bring people to book, might be worth looking at.
I am here to make a brief intervention to support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, because I am a bit obsessive about fungi and feel that they are overlooked. They were once classified as plants because they come out of the soil and have rigid cell walls, but are now placed independently in their own kingdom with equal rank to animals and plants. In fact, they are nearer animals than plants.
An astonishing though not well-known fact, which I thought your Lordships might like to know, is that the world’s largest living organism is thought to be a honey fungus measuring 3.4 miles. It is across the Blue Mountains of Oregon and estimated to be 8,650 years old. Obviously, what we know better are varieties such as mushrooms, which are important to our diet and packed with vitamins and minerals. But they are also incredibly important to research. Penicillin, the foundation of all our modern medicine, comes from the fungus Penicillium. The everyday product yeast is also a fungus. While some can make you ill, they are essential in chemicals and drug manufacture. I know, as I travel to South America quite a lot, that scientists know that there is much more to discover about this amazing microscopic world.
From the point of view of the Agriculture Bill, fungi have the most enormous environmental benefit. They feed on dead organic matter, including leaf litter, soil and, of course, dead animals. They recycle 85% of the carbon from dead organic matter and release locked-up nutrients to be used by other organisms. This makes fungi completely essential to the ongoing health of our ecosystems. Sustainable life would not have a prayer without this magical, often microscopic, and too often ignored living group. This speech was to bring this to the Committee’s attention, and to say that I hope it maintains a proper place somewhere in the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 207 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and I thank them for their support.
Amendments 197 and 207 seek to achieve the same aim, which is to ensure proper scrutiny of the new supply chain measures being introduced under the Bill, which are to be greatly welcomed. I too congratulate and pay tribute to the Groceries Code Adjudicator, Christine Tacon, and her team for all that they have achieved under the code. The adjudicator has done a very good job in regulating the relationships between the major retailers and their direct suppliers.
However, I believe there has been a major regulatory gap in respect of relationships further upstream in the supply chain involving primary producers, the first purchasers and processors—what I refer to as the indirect supply chain. While it is good news that the Bill attempts to plug that gap, it is disappointing that seemingly little thought has been given to how the new arrangements contained in the Bill are to be governed. I understand that there have been discussions between officials and interested parties, and within those it has been suggested that for some reason the Rural Payments Agency could provide the oversight for these aspects of the Bill. I beg to differ. The RPA is not the appropriate body. It lacks the necessary skills, capacity and gravitas to be able to adequately deal with these aspects of the Bill, and is in any event sufficiently employed with its daily work.
Although the Bill is sponsored by Defra, it would be good to see a little joined-up thinking within the Government so that Defra and BEIS were on the same page in their approach to this. BEIS would like to expand the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to cover these new and important provisions, thus creating one single regulator from farm to fork. I hope that Defra will hold the upper hand and ensure that supply chains are functioning well for the long-term benefit of UK citizens, and the Groceries Code Adjudicator is the right body and team to do that.
These matters were considered in a recent review of the role and remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and it is disappointing that at that stage BEIS decided against an expansion of the adjudicator’s remit. However, now that Defra has identified the need in the Bill for further supply chain provisions, with which I wholeheartedly agree, it seems perfectly sensible to give responsibility for the oversight of those arrangements to a body that is tried and tested and already has skills and expertise in this area. Without an adequate regulator identified in the Bill, we run the risk that the provisions on supply chains will simply not be adequately administered or enforced. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, those who have co-signed Amendment 207 and I have identified, the Groceries Code Adjudicator is the right place for this work to be conducted.
With regard to the wider remit, there are many reasons to include the indirect supply chain. More often than not, they are small growers or producers. It is very difficult for them to bring a complaint. I would like to see an own-initiative investigation started by the Groceries Code Adjudicator because it is difficult to rely completely on complaints from small producers and growers, which can so easily be identified with those with whom they have the contract and so fear losing the contract. With those few words, I commend Amendment 207 and support Amendment 197.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 90, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which includes fungi as subject to conservation, and Amendment 183 from my noble friend Lucas, which also covers wild plants within an agri-food supply chain. Through Amendments 178 and 185 respectively, my noble friend Lord Lucas also points to the need for a proper analysis of agri-food supply chains, not least to that for relevant data collection in the first place.
With Amendments 187, 190 to 192 and 194, on how information itself should be best gathered through tactful and fair-minded approaches to people asked to give it, my noble friend Lord Caithness offers excellent guidance, as does my noble friend Lord Carrington with a number of proposals, including Amendment 203, which would retain the current common agricultural policy objectives exemption from competition law for relevant agreements.
Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister may agree that, taken together, and if incorporated within the Bill, all these proposed adjustments, mainly concerning information and analysis, would provide useful and necessary checks and balances, and equally that he might feel able to support Amendment 195, tabled by my noble friend Lord Empey and myself, which would ensure the provision of regulations for fair-dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee; Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch; and Amendment 207 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I and others are signatories.
Clause 27 is about fair dealing with agricultural producers and others in the supply chain. For a considerable time I have felt that there has been an imbalance in the supply chain that has been disproportionate and has had a diminishing impact on producers. If we believe in public money for public goods, we should be trying to cherish and protect our farm producers.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator is perhaps a very good place for the regulations specified in Clause 27 to be enforced. I would like the Minister to indicate how the regulations will be governed; in the absence of that, I can see a need for proper scrutiny and oversight of the supply chain. That is a missing area. Surely the oversight could be provided by the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
I pay tribute to Christine Tacon. I recall that when the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, was chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, of which I was also a member, we took evidence from Ms Tacon and examined the relationships within the supply chain.
I also believe—and this is a singular view—that smaller retailers should be subject to scrutiny as well, because they have caused many major problems for producers in our supply chain.
We need greater joined-up working between Defra and BEIS, but to provide that oversight, we also need the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I see a direct link between Amendments 197 and 207. This would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts was given to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. As well as telling us how the regulations will be governed, perhaps the Minister will advise us about ongoing discussions between Defra and BEIS about a possible role for the GCA in this respect. Or perhaps there would be another body. But surely the body that has been tried and tested, and has proved its worth, should be the one.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 197, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to Amendment 207, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others. I very much welcome Clause 27. The Government’s commitment to include fair dealing within supply chains in the Bill is important and much needed.
I speak as someone who established a reasonably successful agricultural co-operative to market livestock, finished beef cattle and lambs, during the 1990s, so I am only too well aware of pressures in food supply chains. I still have the scars. Clause 27 goes into a huge amount of detail on how fair dealing obligations will be applied. That is welcome. For far too long, insufficient information has been available on input costs and benchmarks on which to base sensible modern contractual arrangements.
As has already been said, when pressure is applied to supply chains, the primary producer is, ultimately, the fall guy and the weak link in the chain. The buck stops there. So, however welcome the provision is, I am concerned because, in this part of the Bill, the Government are particularly vague about the location of the administration of the function. Like others who have spoken, I think I understand why. I am aware that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is reluctant to expand the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady McIntosh, have said, under the current chair, Christine Tacon, the office of the adjudicator has been established with huge credibility and influence. It is the logical home for this function, and I would encourage the Minister, in negotiations with his colleagues in BEIS, to persist in trying to achieve that outcome. There is no other logical place, even if we consider the RPA, with the experience for the function to be sited there. A new chair of the Groceries Code Adjudicator will be appointed later this year, when the current chair steps down, and that will present an opportunity to review and expand its remit. I support the amendments.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 197, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and I thank him for his detailed approach in introducing the amendments. This amendment to Clause 27 provides the opportunity to look again at the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and to examine whether it could be extended to include responsibility for overseeing fair dealing obligations in relation to farmers and producers. More importantly, perhaps, the amendment also provides an opportunity for the Government to explain and expound on their position.
Since the adjudicator’s role was established in 2013, there have been calls from farming unions in Wales and the rest of the UK to address fairness in this part of the supply chain by bringing the sector into her remit. Clause 27 allows the Secretary of State to impose new fair dealing regulations and to provide for enforcing those regulations, and allows
“complaints relating to … non-compliance to be referred to a specified person”—
in effect, creating a new body under a new leader.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place recommended that the adjudicator is
“a more logical entity to oversee fair dealing obligations”,
and it could
“see no reason why fairness in the food supply chain should be governed by two separate processes and enforcement bodies.”
In Wales, the Senedd’s Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee agreed with the sentiments of the Farmers Union of Wales and the Tenant Farmers Association Cymru, which expressed concern that the Government were not seeking to achieve the desired outcomes of Clause 27 by expanding the role of the adjudicator.
In their response to the EFRA Committee’s report, the Government said that
“no final decisions have been taken about the body that would oversee and enforce the new codes of practice”,
although their positive comments about the potential role of the Rural Payments Agency seemed to point in its direction. The Government do, however, rule out a role for the adjudicator, referring to the call for evidence in 2016-17, when they concluded that they would not extend the adjudicator’s remit to indirect suppliers, because
“there was insufficient evidence of a market failure across the supply chain to justify a major government intervention”.
It appears, however, that circumstances have changed somewhat in the intervening three or four years, and the Government themselves have now recognised that there is now a need for further regulations—hence Clause 27. It seems illogical that the new regulations should lead to the creation of a new body when a person and a body that operate in that field, and have the necessary expertise, already exist.
If, as they say, the Government have not made a final decision, my hope is that in the promised industry consultation they will be open-minded, and that the option of the new role being incorporated into the functions of the adjudicator will be included in that consultation. In the meantime, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity about the Government’s thinking and tell us, in particular, whether they consider a completely new body to be desirable, and how they view the relative merits of the Rural Payments Agency and the Groceries Code Adjudicator in relation to the new regulations. I support the amendment, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I also wish to support Amendments 197, 198, 199 and 207. The Minister will now be aware that there is strong support right across the Chamber for the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to be sustained and strengthened. Indeed, the evidence has shown how effective the adjudicator has been since it was established.
I make no apology for recording the fact that that Act was passed by the coalition Government and was very strongly championed by the Liberal Democrats Colin Breed, Andrew George, Ed Davey and Norman Lamb. They have been vindicated in the effectiveness that the adjudicator has demonstrated. Her latest annual report shows a refreshing drop in the proportion of suppliers who have issues with retailers, from 79% in 2014 to 41% in 2019, and 36% so far in 2020—although that suggests that there may have been an upturn, given that it is a part year, and I predict that that will intensify with Brexit and the consequences of Covid-19. It is still high, and I suspect that there is still a need for indirect representation as well.
All of us want to thank the outgoing Groceries Code Adjudicator, Christine Tacon, for what she has achieved and her vindication of the role. We appreciate that she has stayed on in the current crisis, and trust that her successor will be given the opportunity to continue and develop the good work. I suggest that, at this time, the office may be needed more than ever. The disruption we are currently facing, which will be compounded by Brexit, will put pressure on the margins of suppliers and retailers—inevitably.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is very keen that we should allow fungi to be recognised as a separate group within the kingdom of living things on earth. We have obviously moved on from “animal, vegetable or mineral?”, a game which I think many noble Lords will have played as children on long car journeys. I am not sure that we cannot still include fungi within a definition of plants, because it would keep the drafting simpler, and I am not sure that there is any clause of the Bill where fungi will need separate and different references from plants.
My noble friend Lord Caithness is right in his Amendments 177, 179, 180 and 182, which would restrict the powers with regard to data collection to the purposes contained in Clause 23. I also sympathise with his Amendments 186 and 187, which would restrict the definition of “a closely connected person” and the extent of the data which may be collected, and I ask the Minister to give a clear response on these points.
My noble friend Lord Lucas, in Amendments 178 and 181, seeks to provide that the data collection’s purposes should be widened to include the duty to report to Parliament under Clause 17. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he thinks there could be confidentiality issues here to protect members of supply chains, which are important. Amendment 183 seeks to include “plants”, but surely they are included in
“or other thing taken from the wild.”
I support Amendment 191 from my noble friend Lord Caithness, which seeks to release participants in supply chains both from the provision of unduly burdensome information and from a perceived requirement to disclose confidential information, which is very necessary. Amendment 192 seeks to include intellectual property rights, but surely they are already included.
I am not sure how many of the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, are necessary. With regard to Amendment 195D, I thought there was always an implied contract if there is a deal, but I would appreciate my noble friend the Minister’s confirmation of that. If I am right, the word “contractual” is otiose in Clause 27(2), which would make Amendment 195E unnecessary.
I cannot support Amendments 196 and 201 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, because product quality is not necessarily affected by animal welfare standards. Also, producer organisations are of course required to observe the high animal welfare standards that the law rightly requires.
I am interested in the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in Amendments 197 to 200, which seek to widen the responsibilities of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure fair dealing. My noble friend Lady McIntosh makes the same suggestion in her Amendment 207. I would have thought that the skills required are comparable and that it should not be too difficult to recruit some agricultural specialists to the adjudicator’s office. Indeed, would that not be better than setting up yet another quango to deal with this matter?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this group of 44 amendments covers a wide range of topics. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said that it is a mixed bag. Amendments 90, 188 and 189 and others deal with adding “fungi” to the financial assistance list. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Boycott, have spoken to these amendments and given us a list of the benefits of fungi.
Amendments 177 to 187 relate to data sharing. Amendment 190 would increase the purposes for which information may be processed to include to assist transparency and to prevent waste in the agri supply chain. Amendments 191 to 194 seek to reduce the burden on those who have to provide the information, and set out intellectual property rights and require that penalties should be proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has Amendments 195A to 195F, which would add safeguards for all sectors to be consulted. Fair contractual dealing is specified and liability for unforeseen events would be limited.
Amendments 197 to 200 would make provision for the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office to regulate contracts, and Amendment 207, to which I have added my name, seeks to make provision for the Groceries Code Adjudicator to be responsible for compliance with Part 3. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke eloquently about the importance of fairness and transparency for those at the bottom of the food supply chain. The Bill includes provisions for fair dealing to be implemented. However, it is vague about where that is to be monitored. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and all those who have spoken in their attempt to provide fair dealing across buyers and sellers in contracts and to provide clarity about how that will be achieved.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, spoke passionately about the importance of the Groceries Code Adjudicator in advising and enforcing the provisions of the Bill. The adjudicator has the expertise, knowledge and experience to bring reassurance to small producers. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, gave examples of how the adjudicator can provide the best possible role in monitoring parts of the Bill. That view is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. My noble friend Lady Humphreys asked that the Groceries Code Adjudicator be expanded to include farmers and growers and for clarity on whether a new body is needed. My noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie also supported the involvement of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and gave statistics on how effective it has been in the supply chain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spoke to Amendments 201 to 206 on animal welfare, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke to Amendments 202 to 205 relating to retaining EU competition law.
The Minister is always very assiduous in his responses to our debates, and even given a list of 44 amendments I am sure he will give us something to think about. I look forward to hearing his answers to the many points raised.
Lord Grantchester
I thank all noble Lords who have come forward with amendments and support; this is a daunting group of 44 amendments covering Part 3 of the Bill, Chapters 1 to 3, plus parts of Schedules 2, 5 and 6. It covers provisions on aspects of the agri-food supply chain; that is, the requirement to provide data and purposes for which data is provided, as well as enforcement of data requirements in Chapter 1. I have mentioned facets of fair dealing in Chapter 2, and Chapter 3 covers producer organisations and competition provisions.
Many amendments appear quite technical in effect; I applaud the assiduousness with which noble Lords have scrutinised these clauses. I welcome the provisions to make producer organisations more effective in legislation under the fair dealing provisions following their recognition under Clause 28. Regarding “competition exemptions” in Clause 29, can the Minister tell us whether the experiences of the Covid-19 pandemic caused any rethinking of the clause in the application of the Competition Act 1998? Given the opportunity to bring forward regulations in due course, with the consultations normally undertaken in that process, he may be able to confirm that the flexibilities around the framework are sufficient.
The importance of information and the collection of data in the supply chain has long been recognised. I thank the noble Lords who have pursued this in relation to how it is used with recognition of data protection legislation, to improve supply chain transparency and manage volatility. They have asked the Minister to clarify that the drafting of these powers will achieve this. I shall listen carefully to all the Minister’s responses to these amendments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate taking us through a range of issues. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling amendments relating to fungi. I listened to what the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Boycott, said on the matter. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
Clause 1(5)(b) already includes the conservation of fungi as conserving can relate to the restoring or enhancement of a habitat. In instances where it may be desirable to conserve wild fungi, or a rare species of fungi, this is possible through the power to conserve the habitat in which they exist. In Clause 22(6) and under Schedules 5 and 6, the definition of “agriculture” already includes fungi. In relation to Amendment 183, I assure my noble friend Lord Lucas that the current drafting includes wild plants, as well as wider aspects of farm-to-fork activity to be collected.
I turn to Amendments 177, 179, 180, 187, 191 and 192 on data collection. Some of the issues have been quite technical in this part of the Bill. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as possible but some might, perhaps, involve a more detailed response; I shall reply in writing on any outstanding points. The Government have taken deliberate steps to ensure that only information which fulfils a clear purpose can be collected. I agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness that this needs to be focused and proportionate—a point also made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard.
An exhaustive list of purposes is contained under Clause 23; the requirements for information must fulfil one of those defined purposes. Clause 24 sets out that, before an information requirement can be issued, the Secretary of State must publish a draft requirement and invite views over a four-week period from anybody who will be affected by it. Any views, including those about difficulties in meeting the requirements, will be considered by the Government before final publication. Clause 25(9) already ensures that, in circumstances where a proposal is made to disclose information in an anonymised form, consideration must be taken of how such a disclosure would affect commercial interests, including intellectual property rights. As regards information provided under a duty of confidence, a blanket provision would be inappropriate given that a duty of confidence could easily be established via a discretionary agreement between any two parties simply for the purpose of avoiding information requirements.
At Clause 21(5), the Bill includes safeguards to protect information subject to legal privilege. Clause 46(2) sets out that these powers cannot be used in ways that would contravene existing data protection legislation. The Government therefore believe that these safeguards are sufficient.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, in 2016, I chaired an EU sub-committee inquiry into building a more resilient agricultural sector. We took evidence on the financial impact on farmers of a number of supermarket contractual practices. One was overzealous specification, which could result in the destruction of up to 20% of some crops. The other was that because of such swingeing penalties for under-provision, farmers had to grow far more than they needed. Noble Lords may come on to this issue when we debate food waste in later groups of amendments, but I wanted to raise it this evening with regard to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, because no one else has. I hope the Minister will consider it in the list of items relating to fair dealing, to which I know he will be giving a lot of thought.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We are bringing forward these provisions in the Bill because we recognise that the current situation is far from satisfactory. We need to consult the sector on fair dealing provisions. We started with the dairy sector, but that is the beginning; we need to consult each and every sector so that we get the right response and find out how they are most directly affected by what I would call unfair arrangements. When we have reached a view with them, we can rectify any problems and find a way of enforcing the provisions. Regarding the consultation, it is a question of making this work for the farmer. Like everything else in this Bill, if this does not command the consent and support of the farmer, we will not have done a good job.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I want to take the Minister back to Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the important issue of fungi and the meaning of the word “plants”. I absolutely understand the noble Baroness’s wish for scientific accuracy, and I understand the points forcefully made in support of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. But I wonder if the Minister agrees that, at the end of the day, it comes down to the ordinary meaning of words, as indeed it did in the case of Amendment 87 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, on the question of whether the word “processing” included slaughtering. The Minister said that it did, and I agree.
Perhaps the Minister will take comfort from the meaning of “fungus” in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. As a lawyer, when it comes to the ordinary meaning of words, I tend to look in the dictionary. It defines “fungus” as a
“mushroom, toadstool or allied plant, including moulds.”
It goes on to give a botanical definition: a
“cryptogamous plant without chlorophyll feeding on organic matter.”
So far as the dictionary is concerned, plants include fungi. With the benefit of that definition, I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to say that wherever the word “plants” is used in the Bill, it includes fungi.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I wish that the noble and learned Lord had given me those definitions before I replied, because it would have helped the noble Baroness even further.
On our definition, I specifically mentioned Clause 22(6) and the schedules that contain “fungi”. As I said, I can confirm that in Clause 1, which is about wild fungi and habitat, “fungi” covers plants and fungi, as it does throughout the Bill. My lawyers’ interpretation is that fungi are included.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
I thank the Minister for his usual comprehensive and precise response to what is, as noble Lords have reflected, a hugely diverse range of amendments.
I do not intend to attempt to sum them all up, but I want to respond specifically to the noble and learned Lord who just intervened. My academic background is as a scientist. If the law can be scientifically accurate, reflecting modern understanding, many people might think that that is a good thing. I hope that the Minister will go away and talk to his officials and perhaps reflect on how many scientists there are in the Bill drafting team.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said in his interesting intervention, this is an issue of accurate language. As a feminist, I might come back to the other issues he raised with regard to the House another time, but not today.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for their support. Reflecting briefly on the animal welfare provisions, some of which were supported by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, came up with an interesting proposal in suggesting that there could be an animal welfare oversight body—something like the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Perhaps we can take that away and look at it in future.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to close consultation with groups concerned with animal welfare in the regulations. I am sure that we look forward to seeing that, but most of the amendments in this group relate in some way or another to fair dealing and the problem of our current distribution system. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was hugely powerful when he talked about how the supermarkets making massive profits from the current tragic situation bore down on smaller suppliers and producers. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, stressed how we need joined-up thinking in ensuring fair dealing. I welcome what the Minister said about consulting the farming and growing sector in this area.
That sums up where we are. We have all done a great deal of work. Perhaps we will come back to some of this but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 105. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or any other, amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 105
Lord Grantchester
“Minimum level of financial assistance
Before exercising the powers under section 1 for the first time, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement confirming—(a) the total amount of financial assistance available in the first year in which the Secretary of State intends to exercise the power under section 1,(b) that this is no less than the total amount provided in the preceding financial year, adjusted for inflation,(c) provisional total amounts for the subsequent three financial years, and(d) the reasons for the amounts specified under paragraph (c).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the transition to a new funding system does not result in a reduction in the overall financial assistance provided for agriculture and associated purposes.
Lord Grantchester
Amendment 105 is in my name and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for adding his name to it. I will also speak to Amendments 107, 112 and 123 in my name, as well as Amendment 129 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to which my noble friend Lady Jones has added her name.
Amendment 105 is very important as it lays out the “Minimum level of financial assistance” that must be provided by the Bill to the new system of support. Under this proposed new clause, the level of support must be maintained from year to year at the level made available in the first year, adjusted for inflation, at least for the subsequent financial years. There has always been anxiety that the Conservative Government, in keeping with their austere inclinations, would not maintain support systems at the level of payments previously made under the CAP as a member state. Under the May Administration, the Government stated that they would maintain the level of support in any future scheme for one Parliament—at that time, at least until 2024. This suggested that reductions would be made thereafter.
This new Administration, resulting from the December election, have not made emphatic statements beyond the provision of the direct payments to farmers Act 2020, which operates for one year only as an interim continuity provision while the Bill, when it becomes the Agriculture Act, is implemented. Indeed, it has been decided to make cutbacks in financial support as soon as the next year—that is, in this first transition phase—even before any new measures could be set up, as trials, to make up that shortfall. The first experience that farmers and land managers will have under this new scheme will be a cut to funding—hardly a measure to build confidence and trust.
This proposed new clause gives the Minister the opportunity to be clear and put the Government’s intention forward, giving a measure of certainty to all agricultural businesses regarding the funding levels envisaged not only for the next three years but into the future, when the ELM schemes and their benefits can be brought forward. As was said at Second Reading, this is a framework Bill where many of the mechanisms and provisions are not transparent, or even finalised, from the discussions published to date by the department. If the Government want ELMS to be a success, as we all do, the maintenance of at least total farm support transposed into ELMS must be looked at to provide rewards well beyond those at present experienced under stewardship schemes.
I will quickly speak to my other amendments in this group. Under Amendment 112, I propose that any funding not taken up in one year is
“carried over to a future year”.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding her name to this amendment. It is important in the early years that farmers and land managers, as they assess and make plans for their businesses, have time to come forward with applications. It would be unfortunate if any delay in applications resulted in the budget being cut in a future year in response by this Government.
Under Amendments 107 and 123, I propose that the Government are mindful of the purposes of the Bill and that the costs of administration and advice do not become seen as overly bureaucratic and consume an expanding proportion of the overall budget. They would also ensure that the important advice to the industry from consultants, which we would also wish to see taken up, does not consume a large slice of any application, especially in relation to the larger catchment area schemes that will come forward under the higher proposed tiers 2 and 3. We would want to see farmers and land managers given the tools to perform their activities, putting a scheme’s cash for projects on to the ground.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing so clearly his amendment and for speaking to other amendments in the group. The issues raised in my amendments refer back to Clause 1. I feel rather mean about doing that, having seen the fairly rapturous smiles on the faces of those on the Government Front Bench when it was agreed that the clause should stand part of the Bill, but I am afraid that that is where the radical stuff is; it is that simple. Clause 1 is where we have the statement that there will be quite a fundamental change to the way that some aspects of the countryside and agriculture are financed. The two amendments in my name refer to Clauses 4 and 5, covering planning and monitoring.
Let us talk about access again because that is what I have talking about, although the environment and agriculture are equally important—for others they are probably more so. If we are to have a plan that seeks to improve access, we need to monitor that and go back to review it. If the Minister can tell us how that is to be done, we will know about it and it will become more real—firmer, if you like. Is a new footpath to be just another line drawn somewhere, with money claimed for doing that, but then it is ploughed up and cannot be used for six months of the year? If a hard surface to stop people trampling over the rest of the field and ensuring a higher level of disabled accessibility is the plan, how will that be reported on?
Amendment 138 may be the more important of the two amendments because it covers reporting back on how things are working. We are going into new territory here. It is almost inevitable that some of the schemes will not work and that some will not be as successful as others. How do we find out how the plans are supposed to be implemented and how do we report back on them? That is very important.
It may be that the Minister has a wonderful answer waiting for me that will mean that I and people outside can totally relax about this, but we should be able to hear about it. With these schemes, with their cultural heritage and so on, you have to know that when you pump money in you will get something back for it— public money for public goods—and in order to know that, we need a better guide through this reporting process.
The farmer—the person who has to change their practices—needs to know as well. They are the implementation system, unless there is going to be a new clause containing a new agency to do it for us. Pigs flying would happen more frequently than that in the current environment, so it is the farmer who is going to have to do the work, or at least the vast majority of it. Knowing how this will be implemented is what we are trying to get at here, or at least what I am trying to get at. Other colleagues have their names to these amendments and they may well have their own takes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
After the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, I will be calling the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who were omitted from the original speakers’ list.
Lord Northbrook (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 126 in this group. I declare my interest as a landowner and arable farmer. Echoing what would be achieved by my Amendments 56, 60 and 69, this amendment would ensure that the requirement for the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England, and its production in an environmentally sustainable way, when framing any financial assistance schemes was explicitly taken into account in the development of the multiannual financial assistance plans required under Clause 4.
In earlier remarks on domestic food production support, the Minister said, if I understood correctly, that food production did not need financial support because this came to the farmer, who had a profit from the sale of his produce. However, in my view, this argument does not cover the situation where, for instance, dairy farmers sell their milk at a loss, or where farmers would like financial support to invest in new buildings, machinery, processes, new crops or different species of livestock, particularly when these take some years to develop. I believe that the scope of multiannual assistance plans set out in Clause 4 should be expanded to include the above. I ask the Minister for her views on this.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 124 and 138, which I have signed. While my thinking is very much informed by questions of public access in the way that my noble friend Lord Addington’s is, there is a wider point here about the operation of this new system that is echoed in one way or another by a number of amendments in this group. While I recognise that it is positive that multiannual assistance plans will provide a level of certainty both for farmers and for the public, who are interested in these things, this ought to be strengthened by a greater understanding of how the objectives align with the public goods in Clause 1.
As drafted, the Bill refers to the Government’s strategic priorities, but it is not really very clear how one would determine what those priorities are. I shall give the Committee an example: there is a national policy on flooding, for example, and we know that there are policies around climate change and the environment. That is probably clear. However, there are no strategic priorities established for the question of public access. It is quite difficult to see how assistance under the Bill will link to a government strategic priority that does not actually exist. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word or two about this because it would really aid clarity about what the funding is to deliver and ensure that there is a coherence in approach and predictability.
That then feeds into Amendment 138 regarding clarity in the financial assistance scheme, which I think most of us would agree is an essential part of transparency. We want to see not just what is being given to whom but how these strategic priorities—these public goods—are reflected in the spending once it has happened.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 134 and 137, relating to Clause 4, which deals with multiannual financial assistance plans.
Amendment 127, which I am delighted is co-signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, seeks to enhance the usefulness of the Government’s multiannual financial plans. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to produce these plans, as they will provide a degree of assurance to farmers and other land managers regarding the Government’s commitment to schemes and programmes. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to come forward early in the policy transition period with their first such multiannual plan.
However, I fear that the current provisions of the Bill lack any requirements on the Government to specify levels of expected expenditure and how those levels relate to the achievement of each of the strategic priorities set out in the Bill. Without seeking to bind the Government too tightly, it is sensible to have a framework that requires the Government to be clear about what it is planning to spend, and on what. Circumstances can and do change over time, but we must see a clear direction of travel from the Government now, so that we and farmers can judge how well the Government are doing in achieving their objectives and in the targeting of public resources.
Farmers and land managers too will need assurance about the certainty of funding if they are going to enter long-term relationships to deliver outcomes for the public benefit and for the improvement of productivity. Identifying specific levels of budgetary expenditure will also enhance the ability of Parliament to scrutinise government plans and policies, both in advance of them being implemented and by way of evaluating performance afterwards; both are important parts of good governance.
Turning to Amendment 134—which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for co-signing—in framing the financial assistance scheme, it is absolutely right that the department and the Government should have regard to advice from time to time on the funding required to achieve the strategic priorities of financial assistance for the duration of the plan, whether that advice is from the Office for Environmental Protection, or any other public body with a national remit and responsibilities for the natural or historic heritage. In Amendment 137—which I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for supporting—I go on to say that we need to know that, under the Bill, any advice received from the Office for Environmental Protection and any other public body with this national remit is sufficient to prove that the financial assistance provided is sufficient to meet the strategic priorities of the financial assistance.
It is very difficult for us to take a view on what the role of the OEP and its relationship with these other advisory bodies should be when we have not had sight of the Environment Bill in its current form, or the chance to adopt it. I make a plea to the Minister and her department that the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill are mirror images of each other, and their provisions reflect and fully complement each other.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 128 in my name, and declare my interests as set out in the register.
Time is running out to have all necessary legislation and implementation decisions and processes in place in the timescale set. There are still many aspects of transition and the success of future farming support policy that remain unclear, and the concern is that there will be a gap between alternative and effective schemes being in place and the start of the phasing out.
Amendment 128 allows the Government to return unspent funds to farmers as direct payments if they are not being used for other purposes. This enables Ministers to carry over any money left unspent at the end of a particular budget year for spending in subsequent years. Given the extremely welcome commitment of the Conservative Government to maintain current levels of funding, we must ensure that the precious resource of public money is used for its intended purpose of supporting agricultural businesses.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. I will speak to Amendments 131 and 133 in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on Amendment 131.
This turns again to the transition period—or transition chasm, as I described it earlier. Farmers are used to dealing with bad weather, but the thick fog that lies over the chasm is very foreboding. As I suggested earlier, the uncertainty is a major drag on investment and productivity in farming. Certainty and clarity are needed. My amendments seek merely to improve the clarity and certainty under the very welcome multiannual financial assistance plans.
Amendment 131 seeks more certainty by requiring plans to last seven years instead of five, permitting a greater length of commitment and avoiding the unfortunate coincidence with the election cycle. Agriculture and politics do not mix. To use a term popular in this Bill, we need to de-link them. I also note that seven years seems to be okay for the first multiannual financial assistance plan. Can the Minister state why it is not okay for the rest?
Amendment 133 merely seeks some clarity. At present a multiannual financial assistance plan is due to be laid before Parliament by 31 December of this year and will come into force the following day. That makes no sense—I do not wish to spend New Year’s Eve poring over a multiannual financial assistance plan. Parliament should have at least two months in which to review it. I suspect that farmers may want a bit more advance notice as well.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 132 in my name. These plans are the fundamental basis for planning farming in this country. It is really not acceptable that the Government should be allowed to let a plan almost expire and then introduce a new one. How does that allow farmers to plan properly? I know that they will not get it under these circumstances, in the first iteration, but thereafter they deserve two years’ notice of changes that will be made between one plan and the next.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
My Lords, I associate the Green group with the very useful amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about transparency and accountability, and Amendments 131 and 133 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. He displayed a touching faith in the regularity of the electoral cycle in his comments, but none the less a seven-year timeframe is much more realistic.
I will speak primarily to Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to which I was pleased to add my name. This is a simple and practical amendment which says that financial assistance should be rolled over if it is not spent in one year. The noble Lord referred to the risk of funding going down if it is not spent. There is the other risk—as I am sure Members of your Lordships’ House will know, having spent much time over their lives on committees—of the rush that often happens at the end of the year to spend money before it runs out or disappears. That is something we do not want to see happening and do not want to encourage. Thinking particularly about farming and growing, dependence on the weather will mean that sometimes things simply cannot be done in a particular year.
I was also pleased to add my name to Amendment 227, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She has not yet had an opportunity to speak to that amendment, which is also backed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I briefly reflect that this calls for a land use strategy for England and focuses on the two key issues of carbon storage and biodiversity. I am sure that most Members of your Lordships’ House would agree, for example, with the phrase “the right tree in the right place”. To get towards that goal we need a strategy to head in that direction.
I also suggest to your Lordships that any land use strategy would have to consider whether there are some existing land uses in England that cannot be allowed to continue because of the environmental damage they are doing all round. I refer particularly to driven grouse shooting, which has real issues as regards carbon storage and flooding, and which is spatially very closely associated with illegal persecution of raptors, which we saw this morning with the police releasing horrific information about the killing of a goshawk.
I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 228, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. This refers to supporting landowners to make land available particularly to new growers, new farmers—new entrants into the industry. We are seeing some exciting developments. I know that in Suffolk there is discussion of the concept of jigsaw farming, whereby a farmer or landowner might be able to welcome on to their land a large number of different growers occupying small parcels and developing their businesses. We have seen how organisations such as the Biodynamic Land Trust and the Kindling Trust have had to work very hard to find land to make it available to people who want to enter the industry, and we have had reference to county farms.
Of course, we have a huge problem in England with the massive concentration of land ownership. Your Lordships have heard me refer before, and will again, to land reform. We need to come back to that, but for landowners who wish to make their land available to others, it is important that the Bill includes provision to make sure that that happens, and financial assistance where that would be useful.
Briefly, I support Amendments 127 and 134, which are backed by my noble friend. Again, they look at strategic priorities and multiannual plans, creating certainty for farmers.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 124 and 138, which have my name attached, and which have already been ably covered by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market.
I have a couple of points to raise on Amendment 124. A strategic approach to financial assistance is required and should be necessary. Such an approach would specifically align the contents of the multiannual financial assistance plans with each of the purposes listed in Clause 1. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was absolutely right when she talked about the need to have a coherent long-term national plan for each of the public goods to be delivered through financial assistance to farmers.
Amendment 138 was tabled because it would allow for greater clarity on the different public goods delivered through the financial assistance scheme, including public access to the countryside, farmland, water—which I would like to see greater clarity on—and, of course, woodland. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendments 105 and 112, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 127, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I am a co-signatory. On the funding issue, it is important that there is rollover of funding, as Amendment 112 indicates, because that provides that level of certainty to the farming community.
It is also important to seek assurances from the Minister that there will be no diminution of funding for farming, agricultural and connected purposes in the new dispensation. For many communities, irrespective of farm type, whether in the lowlands or uplands, farming is the base of their economic activity. I would like the Minister to give us assurances on this matter, and an indication of whether resources or funding for the ongoing issues have been discussed at official and perhaps at ministerial level with the devolved regions.
On the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I agree that a framework for expenditure and a clear direction of travel have to be written into the Bill, and the budgeted annual expenditure available to achieve each of the strategic priorities, which underpin food production, farming and the principle of public money for public goods, has to be set out. I say to the Minister that if we are to provide security to the farming community and prove that the Bill works, it has to benefit farmers and those directly involved in food production in the supply chain.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, whenever I talk to farmers, read the farming press or otherwise see them in the media, they are worried that they do not know how this will work, and that it will simply result in a cut in their income and will be a danger to the future of their business. I have listened to what has so far been an extraordinary seminar on all this business—it will go on rather longer; I did warn people about that —but we still do not get answers from the Government. Those of us who will again be asked by farmers, “What will happen?”, will have to say that we do not know, but we can tell them what might. It is not satisfactory.
The CAP changed several times. Fifteen years ago, it changed very substantially. It was decoupled—that is always the word used on these occasions—from a production-based subsidy system to the area-based schemes: the single farm payment with cross-compliance, which morphed into the basic payment plus greening, which was a bit different but not a lot. It was a major change that inevitably had a seven-year transition period in this country, which resulted in complete chaos with the payments.
I remember that when I was responsible for Defra issues for our party I asked questions time and again in this Chamber about the fact that the Rural Payments Agency was not able to perform its functions properly. People were not being paid on time and some were not being paid at all. The Government will say that it has settled down substantially now. That is true, but that is because the transition has finished, the changes have taken place and people now know what they are doing.
What will happen now? The answer is that everyone will be plunged into a new transition period and another fundamental change where, the Government say, direct subsidies to farms and farmers will be abolished and people will be paid under the new environmental land management scheme. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, said that it will definitely start in 2024. Without wanting to be too cynical, my answer to that is, “Pull the other one.” It might start, but it will not be completed at all. I wonder whether it will even start then.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 131 because of the worry that political short-termism could interfere with what is a very long-term and often unstable industry. In farming, when you buy a bull, you are not likely to sell the progeny of that animal for at least three years. If you buy a dairy calf, it is two years before it produces its first litre of milk. If you invest in projects such as a new grain building or new milking equipment, you are likely to be taking out a 15-year mortgage, so that enterprise has to last for 15 years before you start to get any real return.
All this means that it would be incredibly helpful if you had a long-term perspective from whatever Government are in power or will be in power; you need a degree of certainty that the rug will not be pulled from under your feet after only five years. Of course, no business expects to operate in a world of total certainty, but farmers have enough uncertainty as it is without Governments removing key building blocks at short notice. Not only do we farmers get floods, droughts, pests and diseases, but our farm product prices sometimes literally halve overnight, dropping some 20% to 30% below the cost of production. It is difficult to make a decent living from a small farm.
All I am saying is that I think we owe it to our farmers to take government backing for agriculture, in whatever form that currently happens to be, out of the five-year political cycle and allow farmers the comfort of a seven-year, multi-annual financial plan. I realise that no Parliament or Government can bind their successor, but it would be politically much more difficult for them to change the rules if a seven-year term for a financial plan were in this Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he spoke a moment ago about the dangers of short-termism. That issue is vital when we are talking about long- term investment. I draw attention to my registered interests.
I have put my name to Amendment 134, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It requires financial provisions to be linked to strategic priorities, addressing the same issue as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. The central message of this and other amendments in this group is to ensure that the good purposes in the Bill and as committed to by Ministers at the Dispatch Box are tied to the financial mechanisms—that one links to the other, and there is certainty.
The lead amendment in this group, Amendment 105, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, focuses on the need to ensure adequate finance—specifically, no less than has been provided in the recent past. Given our present economic plight, it is clear that assurances along these lines are very much needed.
Amendment 112 deals with carry-over, as does Amendment 128, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. This question is one that we really need to give some attention to. We had difficulties in the National Assembly, as it then was, in Cardiff a few years ago when the Welsh Government very sensibly arranged not to spend money at year-end for the sake of it, but to carry it over into a consolidated fund for strategic purposes. That money was immediately taken back by the Treasury. If ever there was an example of short-term thinking and punishing people for sensible approaches to financial planning, that was it.
Maintaining the level of cash support for agriculture is clearly regarded by the farming fraternity as a key issue. A plethora of general commitments may well have been given to assuage their fears, but we need a specific commitment in the Bill, if possible. That is why I believe these amendments are important for the House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He feels passionately about these issues and I enjoyed his speech very much.
I agree with others who have said that this Bill is an enabling Bill. In essence, it gives the Government a lot of power and trusts them to go off and implement what we have decided without many checks and balances. I cannot imagine that there are that many people left in the UK who actually trust the Government any more, so why should members of your Lordships’ House trust them?
The collective theme of the many great amendments in this group is that they would, in one way or another, force the Government to show their working and allow Parliament to mark their homework. I think this is something that we need to take very seriously.
Turning to the amendments to which I have attached my name, Amendments 127, 134 and 137 are important because they will tie the Bill to the Environment Bill and ensure that funding is sufficiently allocated to achieve the environmental aims. There is little written into either the Environment Bill or the Agriculture Bill —two enormous Bills—to create a cohesive framework; both seem rather to create their own stand-alone systems. It is as if two teams drafted them and they were not allowed to speak to one another but just got on and produced their own Bill. Both Bills are setting up very long-term systems that will spread their tendrils throughout huge parts of our economy, and it makes sense to bring these together now, or we will be back here in a few years’ time, trying to close the gaps.
Lord Judd [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to support this amendment. It seems to me absolutely crucial that at this juncture, of all times, we should be committing ourselves to making sure that proper funding is available for agriculture. It is one of these difficult situations: for quite a long time in Parliament I have been concerned about it. We have a Minister in our midst who takes these issues very seriously, but he will not necessarily be there for ever—alas—and that means that we do not know what lies ahead; nor do we know how far the Treasury and other key members of the Government share the commitment and aspirations that we know he has.
It seems to me, therefore, very wise of my noble friend to table this amendment, because it is saying that we must not allow circumstances, inadvertently or deliberately, to create situations in which the amount of funding available for agriculture decreases. This is the very time that this should not happen, and I believe that this amendment relates to other amendments, not least those by my noble friend Lord Whitty which are coming up in a moment—or at least this evening, we hope—in which he talks about smallholdings and the rest. The point here is that I think we are entering an economic phase in which land and the opportunities it offers for productive, constructive and creative activity will become necessarily more available and more important than ever. I am very glad that my noble friend has wisely tabled this amendment.
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I have heard it said many times by Ministers that the total amount of agricultural subsidy to be paid in 2021 will be no lower than the amount to be paid in the current year. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s confirmation of this. However, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is quite right in his drafting of Amendment 105, because “the total amount provided” under Section 1 in 2020 is obviously zero. I think that what the noble Lord wanted to say was that the amount to be paid is no less than the total amount, including amounts provided under the direct payment scheme and other existing schemes.
I am not sure that it is fair to limit the proportion of financial support spent on administration or consultancy. A farmer might spend a high proportion on consultancy in one year and then nothing for several years. Different farmers categorise spending on administration in different ways, and if a farmer spends all his financial support on unnecessary administration, it follows that he will not be achieving the approved purposes and will not therefore qualify to continue to receive support. I am therefore unable to support Amendments 107 and 123, but I would support Amendment 112, permitting carry- over of unspent funds—but probably only to the next year, which I think is reasonable. Amendment 128, proposed by my noble friend Lady Rock, achieves the same purpose, although, again, I suggest limiting the right to carry over to the following year only.
Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 129 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It would require the Secretary of State to take into account the current environmental improvement plan in agreeing priorities for incentives. It is about a big concern of mine at the moment, which is that we start to join up some of these silos that are growing—environment, forestry, other land management purposes and agriculture. There are myriad schemes that are going to be coming towards farmers that will affect land, agriculture, forestry and the environment. There is the ELM scheme itself, as enshrined in this Bill, the 25-year environment plan, the provisions of the Environment Bill, the climate guarantee scheme, the Nature4Climate fund, the biodiversity net gain provisions and nature recovery networks. It feels more overheated than I have experienced for a long time in this area, which is great, because it means that everyone is putting effort, energy and funding into those sorts of issues—but it would be quite nice if we could join them up a bit.
Way back, I had a pious hope that we could have one Bill—a joint agriculture and environment Bill. I thought it would be a good idea. But in view of the pace at which this Bill is going through the House—and despite the aspirations of previous speakers that the Minister stay in his post for ever—I think that if we had had a joint agriculture and environment Bill, the Minister would probably have done a runner at that stage.
We need to find a way to bring all these initiatives together. Amendment 129 would at least be a modest start in joining up the environmental and agricultural agenda, as it should be.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness of Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has withdrawn. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She is right about pace. I am sorry that we have lost the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; I think he sacrificed himself to help this important Bill make progress. I congratulate him on the earlier debate on Amendment 73 and his closing emphasis on the importance of sequestration in meeting any climate change targets.
I agree with the spirit of the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 105, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I agree with him that the transition to a new funding system should not result in a reduction in the overall financial assistance provided for agriculture and associated purposes. However, this may go a bit far, given the disastrous impact of Covid-19; everyone, including the agriculture community, may have to make a contribution to recovery.
However, farmers will need continued support from next year, as we leave the CAP on 31 December, albeit for different functions. Farms are mainly small businesses. I understand the issues well, as my father was a farmer who went bust in the 1960s when his credit with the bank ran out—that was before the CAP changed everything. Farmers’ work is vital to the rural community, our landscape and our food webs, and a free market is not an option, particularly given the level of support for agriculture almost everywhere else in the world.
I refer also to Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and to the similar amendment, Amendment 128, in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock. These would allow unspent funds allocated in one year to be carried over into future years. The Treasury, where I had the honour to be a Minister, will rightly never allow this. The wider ramifications for control of public expenditure are unacceptable and it could be a recipe for wasteful spending.
My main interest—perhaps “concern” would be a better word—in this group is Amendment 135 in the names of the noble Lords, Lords Lucas and Lord Addington. This seeks financial assistance for the provision of advice, with less emphasis than proposed on regulatory enforcement and penalties. Others assisting with the scrutiny of this Bill have talked about a revival of something like ADAS for this purpose. I do not support either proposal. What we need—I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree—is a professional implementation plan for all the new schemes, especially ELMS, with proper training and lead times, as you would find in a commercial context. It needs to be very clear and consulted on, with a view to successful, easy compliance and not just to satisfy interest groups. As much effort needs to be put into implementation as to policy formation. Much of that is, unfortunately, still to do, as the Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out earlier.
We can learn from the initial failures in the health and safety context when the EU six-pack was introduced; that included things like manual handling, risk assessment and, indeed, PPE. It was burdensome and chaotic, providing opportunities for consultants, who flourished on the complications. There was uproar, especially in small businesses, but under a very able official, Jenny Bacon, the system was radically simplified with good guidance written by the HSE. The political heat went out of the issue despite the inevitable burden of these EU laws. The use of digital for documents and seminars for farmers and land managers makes all of this easier today.
I would be very happy to offer the Minister and his officials thoughts from my long experience at Tesco—I register an interest, as I am still a shareholder. Simplicity, clarity and training were essential to successful projects, whatever the scale. We do not want or need to set up a costly new advisory service, or to reimburse the cost of advice.
Finally, I do not agree with Amendment 232 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Of course data should and will be collected, but this should be done as part of Defra’s normal research programme and in the context of a five-yearly review of food security .
Lord Naseby [V]
My Lords, those are some wise words from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, which I hope the Minister will reflect upon. There is no doubt that her previous experience, both as a Tesco director and as a Minister, is enormously helpful in planning something as difficult and challenging as this transition—and that is what we are talking about.
I can comment only on those farmers in Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire, where all are worried—of course they are; I would be if I was any sort of farmer, but I am not. I think that Amendment 105 has the kernel of an answer; it may not be the ideal answer, but it is up to the Government to have a look at it.
The amendment covers the
“financial assistance available in the first year in which the Secretary of State intends to exercise the power under section 1”.
Secondly, it addresses the fact that the total amount provided in the preceding financial year should be adjusted for inflation. In other words, year 1 is whatever figure it is, and then there is inflation on top of that. The amendment proposes that in the third, fourth and fifth financial years there should be some forecast.
That seems to me a basis on which a farmer could work. The farmers I know in my part of the world, particularly those on the larger farms, are sophisticated businessmen. Although my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe says that Covid-19 may influence these figures, my view is that because this is such a big transition, from Europe to the UK, the farming community should not be asked to do that in this instance.
I note just a couple of other points en route. The noble Lord who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench said that the Bill implied a reduction after one Parliament. I have been in the House long enough to know that no one Government can be committed to something by their predecessors, so I just do not see that as being the case at all. I am not sure where his evidence comes from.
Amendment 128 sounds good, but it is pretty unusual in any organisation for underspending to be automatically spent somewhere else. It is perfectly normal, if there is a budget and something has not come up to scratch, to spend it on an existing project, but not on another one.
I think that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is absolutely right in Amendment 133. You need to have a minimum of two months to discuss any forthcoming budget. As for the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I remember starting life politically in a part of London where compulsory purchase orders were the methodology whereby you could dictate to landowners what should happen. They failed miserably, and I suspect her project on land use will fail equally.
I finish by saying that, in my judgment, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is full of detail but also full of despair. I would rather have the words of my noble friend Lord Trenchard—who is sitting there still, as I look across: there were a lot of wise words in his contribution.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am afraid that I could not hear much of my noble friend Lord Naseby’s speech, but I gather that he gave his support to Amendment 105, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I was certainly glad to ask for my name to be added to it because it seems a prudent, sensible and balanced approach. I will not weary your Lordships by going through a whole list of amendments.
It is important that our farmers have a degree of clarity and the opportunity to plan. They are going through a very difficult time. I live in Lincolnshire, a great farming county. I talked to a farmer whose family has farmed here for generations, going back a couple of centuries or more. He was a very worried man. He said, “We had those desperate floods in the latter part of last year and the beginning of this one. We then had the driest spring that we can remember. We have all the uncertainties created by Covid-19. Dairy farmers were pouring hundreds of thousands of gallons of milk away because there was no custom from the catering trade. This is creating a real deterrent to young people because we have all the uncertainty created by our leaving the European Union and we do not know precisely what is planned for us.” I hope that, this evening, my noble friend the Minister can give some real guidance, clarity and certainty.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, with his enormous knowledge of farming, spoke about this, but of course there are so many small farmers. We do not want to see the creation of a farming community that consists of, relatively speaking, a handful of major industrial concerns. The farmers who live on the land, who love the land, who have created the land and who, quite rightly, will be rewarded for maintaining it also have the duty of producing food for our people. We talked about this on Tuesday evening—that is, the security of the food supply being essential to the very defence and existence of the nation. They deserve some clarity and stability. I hope that, in responding to the debate, my noble friend the Minister will be able to give that.
Without our farmers, this country would be in a parlous state. We have a national duty to give them clarity and the opportunity for stability, and to encourage our younger generation to go into farming. It is one of the noblest callings; indeed, it is a vocation, with the hours that farmers work and the uncertainties of the weather that they face. We must not let down our farming community.
The Earl of Dundee [V]
My Lords, as has been intimated, many of us are particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for tabling Amendment 139. If adopted, it would greatly increase efficiency since the type of monitoring here envisaged is a comprehensive one that would apply to regulation, productivity improvements, ancillary activities and market interventions. However, to maintain consistent and improved clarity, competent monitoring must be allied with timely parliamentary scrutiny, as advocated in Amendments 133 and 232, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, respectively.
Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept both these qualifications and my noble friend Lord Northbrook’s Amendment 126, which, in calling for financial assistance to protect the production of food in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way, precisely reflects the central new joint purposes of the Bill.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 105. As we all made clear at Second Reading, British agriculture is now in a period of enormous uncertainty. This has run as a theme through the Committee stage of the Bill. As the NFU notes, British agriculture does not know what will happen in relation to its main market, the EU, or access to labour from the EU, let alone arrangements for other markets around the world.
Farming is an especially long-term enterprise—as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rightly emphasised—and is risky and uncertain, especially for small farmers and tenant farmers, who farm a third of the UK’s agricultural land. It is therefore vital that when the Government talk about the transition period from the CAP for agriculture, they sustain the level of financial assistance to this sector despite the many demands that will be in competition.
Amendment 105 aims to ensure that there is not a reduction in the level of that financial assistance. It has been striking how short a period the Government have attached to their funding commitments, and already there are cuts. It is all very well the Government saying they “may” take certain action, as the Bill has it, but that does not mean they must or will deliver it, as my noble friend Lord Greaves said. Like him, I recall the chaos of the Rural Payments Agency.
If we bear in mind the many changes planned for the United Kingdom from next January—right across the economy, including in agriculture, and as we may or may not be coming out of the pandemic—it is understandable that farmers are deeply worried. I therefore welcome Amendment 105.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I also will speak in support of Amendment 105 as well as Amendment 112, both in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester. Indeed, I associate myself with the remarks he made on those amendments. They are designed to give farmers some degree of certainty during a challenging time of adapting to new circumstances.
So many recent speakers in the debate have stressed the importance of a smooth transition, and we certainly need to ensure there is no gap between the new system of ELMs and the present system. Such a hiatus in payment at a time of such uncertainty would be completely unacceptable. I certainly know of farmers in my own part of the country who in the past have suffered both mental stress and financial hardship as a result of schemes not being fully operational or involving late payments. We need to ensure as far as we possibly can that those problems do not recur. I am not trying to make a party-political point here. I am well aware that administrative problems and problems of implementing schemes are not unique to Governments of particular political complexions.
I also support the principle of limiting expenditure on administration and consultancy as a proportion of overall expenditure. One or two of the amendments mention that, but this point has not been raised so far in the debate. I am not sure whether the 5% limit mentioned in one amendment is the best limit, but I am interested to know whether the Government have a view on that.
Finally, I very much support the point made in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that Parliament should be given time to consider the plans. Obviously, we are concerned here about how much time your Lordships’ House has to consider these proposals, but it will also be crucial that the other place, the House of Commons, has ample time. As Members of Parliament have constituencies, they will want time to evaluate what the effects will be on the areas they represent. They will also want to discuss these proposals with farmers, environmental organisations and others in their constituency before coming to a verdict on them.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is an honour to have participated in the debates today. They have been informed by the wisdom and farming experience of noble Lords who collectively have farmed this country and made our land what it is with over 1,000 years of experience between them. I refer to two Dukes, four Earls, a Viscount—and of course we Barons, who are 10 a penny. As a Scot, I might be right in saying that the nobility of Dundee and Montrose have about 1,000 years of experience of farming in Scotland between them.
However, tonight, I want to commend in particular a Baroness, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and her words of wisdom. We do not need a new ADAS; the best advisory service on nature-friendly farming, the environment, wildlife and ELMS is Natural England, and I declare my interest, as per the register, as a member of its board.
I did not seek to speak after the Minister, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, at the conclusion of his last wind-up but, wearing my hat as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I stress that the codes of practice that he referred to should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny simply via the negative procedure. Far too much government guidance and far too many codes that avoid parliamentary scrutiny are coming out, imposing possibly quite severe consequences for business and subjects. Parliament should have a chance to look at those codes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I often agree on things—to our joint consternation—but on this amendment I disagree with her. I trust and have trusted the Government, the Secretary of State and his predecessor before him when they have said that the Government will spend the same amount on supporting British agriculture, although by different means, as has been spent under the EU regime. I passionately support maintaining the same level of funding.
I am afraid that it is a bit naive of us, and it is also fairly meaningless, to try to put that commitment on the face of the Bill, since it guarantees nothing. If a Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to reduce the amount in the future, a simple amendment in the Finance Bill would negate such a provision and remove this clause. If it were possible to tie the Treasury’s hands to a future level of funding when passing a Bill, the statute book would be awash with such Acts of Parliament. I am confident that the Government will honour the promises they have made and that there is no need for this amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, this group also deals with funding and the snappily titled “multi-annual financial assistance plans”. We have heard much about the level of funding that the Government are guaranteeing for the farming community. This is set at £2.8 billion. It sounds sufficient, but exactly what it is proposed to cover is unclear. Many of the amendments that we debated on the first day in Committee sought to ensure that certain aspects of our agriculture were included in that funding.
Many noble Lords have spoken in favour of Amendment 105. Payments to farmers should definitely arrive on time. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is seeking to ensure that the overall financial assistance is not reduced and that no more than 5% of this assistance is spent on administration and consultancy. I am sure that we have all had experience of the costs of consultancy spiralling out of control. My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to this. The Government will have difficulty in reining consultancy back once it has begun. Similarly, it is important that any funds unspent in one year are carried forward to the next and future years, rather than being returned to the Treasury, when they will likely be lost to agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, drew attention to that. Can the Minister give us some reassurance that this will happen?
The question of public access to farmland, water and woodland, and how it will be funded and monitored, was raised by my noble friends Lady Scott of Needham Market, Lord Addington and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. This is also extremely important for the health, well-being and enjoyment of the public in general. It is necessary to understand how the plan will work to deliver public good in this area.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for tabling Amendment 105, with which I will also address Amendments 107 and 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 127, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. The Government’s 2019 manifesto guarantees the current annual budget in every year of the new Parliament, which gives significant certainty on funding for the coming years. We demonstrated our commitment to this further when, in December 2019, the Chancellor announced £2.852 billion of funding for direct payments in the UK for 2020.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned the cut in financial support. The maximum reduction of £150 million will immediately be ploughed back into the new countryside stewardship scheme and the productivity grant, which will be brought in next year. I hope that this also reassures the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Northover.
The Government have reflected carefully on the scrutiny by the other place during the passage of the previous Agriculture Bill, and we introduced Clause 4 to address the concerns raised about funding. The clause requires the Government to publish a multi-annual financial assistance plan before the start of the agricultural transition. This will set out the strategic priorities for the transition and describe the financial assistance schemes expected to be in operation during the transition. As part of our commitment under Clause 4, and to ensure that we keep stakeholders aware of the latest developments, I can confirm that the Government intend to set out our plans for financial assistance during the first years of the transition in the early autumn.
Clause 4(2)(b) already places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the strategic priorities established when making any decisions regarding what financial assistance schemes are to be supported under Clause 1. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about the Government’s requirements to report. This is covered in detail in Clause 6. In addition, Clause 5 commits the Government to publish annual reports on the total amount spent on financial assistance, as well as the total spent on each financial assistance scheme. Clause 6 requires periodic reports on the impact and effectiveness of spending on financial assistance schemes.
There are existing processes for determining funding arrangements. These will apply to domestic spending when we leave the EU. Parliament has the opportunity to vote on Defra’s budget each year through the estimates process, and of course the EFRA Committee takes a close interest in scrutinising Defra’s accounts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also asked about the link between public access and the Government’s strategic priorities. I believe that Clause 1(1)(b) embodies this link. Clause 1(1) also covers access. The multiannual financial assistance plan will require the Government to publish information about their strategic priorities and how the financial assistance powers in Clause 1 will be used in future years. The Government make decisions through a structured and comprehensive process, which allows us to assess spending in the round.
On Amendment 123, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, the running costs for Defra and the Defra group are considered separately from the payments being made to beneficiaries. As the Government continue to develop their future schemes, they may find that they need to include some administration costs for third parties, such as those potentially incurred to run farm clusters or other groups that bring multiple farmers and land managers together to work in partnership. There may be very valid reasons why administration or consultancy costs may be higher than 5%. For example, investing in the early years of a scheme, when development and testing are critical, could lead to greater efficiencies and refinements later.
On Amendment 112, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 128, in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock, the Government are determined that farming in the UK should not see a reduction in government support at this very important time. That is why they have pledged to guarantee the current annual budget in every year of the new Parliament. The Government recognise that even with the best financial planning, underspends can happen. The concept the amendments raise would, in principle, be beneficial. However, legislation is not the best route to pursue this. Instead, it is more appropriate that the Government first discuss such an arrangement as part of the spending review process, when they will look at spending priorities across government. We should not legislate now for such flexibility without going through the proper process to ensure that spending can be considered in the round.
I will address Amendments 131 and 133, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, alongside Amendment 132, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. Clause 4 replicates existing multiyear funding cycles, but provides for some flexibility as necessary around the length of individual plans. As the clause stands, it states that future plans must be for at least five years. The Secretary of State has discretion to design a longer plan, which I hope will reassure the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Wigley. The first plan was designed to cover the whole seven-year transition, to provide certainty to farmers while they adapt to the significant changes that the transition will bring. Although plans must run for at least five years, the Secretary of State has discretion to design a longer plan. The first plan will span the length of the agricultural transition and run for the seven years. This is an example of the Government’s commitment to designing plans appropriately with regard to farmers’ needs.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, why we could not confirm the budget for the length of the agricultural transition. Future funding allocations will be determined through future fiscal events, as is right and proper, to ensure that government spending is considered in the round. The regular cycle of spending reviews, single departmental plans and supply estimates at departmental level is well established. Parliament can vote on Defra’s budget each year through the estimates process.
The clause also states that the first plan period will run for the seven years. It will expire at the end of 2027 and the next plan must be in place by 1 January 2028. Therefore, it is likely that the renewal of plans will happen at a different time from elections, although of course that cannot be guaranteed. I assure noble Lords that there will always be a multiannual financial assistance plan in place, with no gaps.
The agriculture transition will be a key time for the development of government policy. Schemes will be tested and piloted, and the findings from those experiences will inform the development of future schemes and strategic objectives. Accelerating the production of future plans during the agriculture transition period would be counterproductive to our aim of assessing schemes and taking a considered view of what works and what does not.
Clause 4 requires that a multiannual plan be updated and put before Parliament as soon as it is practicable to do so. This requirement will ensure that the plan is a live document that can respond to any necessary changes to financial assistance schemes or strategic objectives.
On Amendment 126, tabled by my noble friend Lord Northbrook, Clause 4 already places a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider in as much detail as considered appropriate each financial assistance scheme that is in or will be in operation during the plan period. If deemed appropriate, this could include how the scheme is to give regard to the production of food in an environmentally sustainable way.
Amendment 138 concerns reports on financial assistance and is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Clause 5 as drafted already commits to providing an appropriate level of detail and clarity on the delivery of public goods through each scheme. Furthermore, it is important to note that many of the schemes that the Government are developing, and the individual actions within those schemes, cover multiple purposes. For instance, under ELM we might pay for hedge planting to protect or improve the environment while also restoring cultural or natural heritage and at the same time protecting from or reducing environmental hazards. It would not always be possible to unpick these relationships.
I turn now to Amendment 139 on monitoring the impacts of financial assistance in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. Clause 6 already requires the Secretary of State to monitor the impact of each financial assistance scheme and make one or more reports on the impact and effectiveness of the scheme, having had regard to the monitoring effects that have taken place.
On Amendment 129 in the name of my noble friend Lady Rock and Amendments 134 and 137 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the Government are committed to achieving their aim of leaving the environment in a better state than they found it. That is why they seek to legislate for environment improvement plans in the Environment Bill. Environment improvement plans will have the objective of delivering significant improvement to the natural environment. Plans must set out the specific steps that the Government intend to take to improve the natural environment.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked about the Office for Environmental Protection. Under the Environment Bill, the OEP is required to monitor progress on improving the natural environment. It must produce an annual report on its findings and could, for example, recommend that additional funding be provided to deliver the purposes set out in Clause 1 of this Bill. Where issues are identified, the OEP may engage in constructive dialogue with the Government and advise on necessary remedial measures. The OEP can also investigate alleged serious breaches of environmental law by public authorities and take legal action where necessary. The reports of the OEP must be published and laid before Parliament and the Government are specifically required to address any recommendations made. Therefore, when the Secretary of State determines the funding for the strategic priorities set out in the Government’s multiannual financial assistance plans, they will be able to consider any advice provided by the OEP under its duties as set out in the Environment Bill. The Secretary of State will also have had to respond to any advice. Both the OEP’s reports and the Secretary of State’s responses will be published and laid before Parliament.
The Government are actively engaging with many public bodies about the proposed future financial assistance schemes, for example, 17 environmental land management schemes and tests and trials projects are working with public bodies including national park authorities, Historic England, Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission and the National Association for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty to provide expert insight and input into the development of policy.
I turn now to Amendment 232 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The Government already produce reports that cover a number of these points. For example, Defra publishes a set of England biodiversity indicators to assist in the evaluation of progress on the outcomes and commitments of Biodiversity 2020, our strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystems. In addition, the Government produce the Agriculture in the UK report annually, which contains a range of data including farm incomes, land use, livestock numbers, prices, the production of key commodities, overseas trade, organic farming and the environment. A new requirement to report on the state of agricultural land would replicate what is already available.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked a number of rather gloomy questions, which I will endeavour to address. There are a lot of different schemes, and a lot of advice will be provided. The environmental land management scheme is running live tests and trials to test how elements of the scheme will work ahead of the national pilot. Advice and guidance is one of the priority areas, and 34 tests and trials are feeding into that theme. Evidence shows that for advice to be effective, it must be trusted, consistent, credible and cost effective. The Government are considering how these principles can be embedded into advice for all schemes and are working with farmers and other land managers to do so.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I remind noble Lords that these should be brief interventions.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I am sorry for keeping us late. I note that I can hear the combine rolling outside my window—today is the first day of combining. The farmers are still working late, so I am sure that noble Lords will not mind working a little late too. I thank the Minister for confirming that the multiannual financial assistance plan will be published in early autumn this year. Does that mean that the Government agree to Amendment 133?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Earl that assurance at this juncture.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister if I did not hear her answer correctly, but I did not detect an answer to my Amendment 132. Surely it is not acceptable for the Government to publish a new five-year plan on the last day of the old one. That would cause enormous disruption to agriculture. People would be unable to plan until the new plan was there and then it would then take them a year or so to put their new plans into place. We would get a year when nothing was happening. Surely there must be a decent overlap.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
As I think I said in my speech, we have built flexibility in to the planning stage, although it does not need to be five years, and in all cases there will be no gap between one plan and another.
Lord Grantchester
I thank all contributors to this debate for speaking to the various amendments. Even the negative comments were interesting.
If the Government commit to having multiannual plans, as stated in the Bill, it would seem conceivable that they would honour a package that financed the plan ahead in its entirety from the start through to the finish. The amendments scrutinise the Government’s plans around financial assistance in delivering outcomes that are sufficiently robust in their application—with the necessary oversight, as stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
I thank especially the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her amendment in sympathy with mine and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her emphasis on a robust implementation plan being adopted by Defra. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for adding his support.
As with so much in every group of amendments, the Minister has been exhaustive and considerate in responding to the many points raised. Along with other noble Lords, I will consider her reply carefully, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.