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
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mr Simon Clarke)
This Government believe in respecting the results of democratic referendums. Leaving the European Union has provided us with an opportunity to align the objective of the EU structural funds with domestic priorities, while continuing to support vital jobs and growth opportunities across the United Kingdom. The new UK shared prosperity fund will be our vehicle for delivering that. UK Government officials regularly speak to their counterparts in the devolved Administrations about this and other issues.
Neale Hanvey [V]
This vague waffle on timelines and content just will not cut it. The UK has received over €10 billion in structural funding since 2014 as an EU member, and it is now staring at economic disaster, with no information on what will replace those funds. Will the Minister guarantee today that the shared prosperity fund will not result in areas such as Fife seeing any reduction in funding?
Mr Clarke
The 2019 Conservative party manifesto committed at a minimum to matching the size of EU structural funds in each nation. It is very important that we get these decisions right. This is, after all, an enormous sum of money—our money—sent formally to the EU and then top-sliced and sent back to us with conditions. I very much look forward to controlling it for ourselves.
Alyn Smith
It is not just the Scottish Government who are looking for clarity on this. Just last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report that said that, four years after the Brexit vote, it is “high time” we had some idea of where the Government are going. Does the Minister agree with me, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly Government that it is high time we had clarity on these schemes?
Stephen Flynn
The report highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) did not end its criticism there. The IFS went on to say that it was “disconcerting” that the shared prosperity fund was still not finalised and suggested that
“With limited time left, one option the government could consider would be to continue with existing EU funding allocations for one more year.”
Will the Minister today commit to do just that, to protect all our communities and ensure that they are not left behind by this incompetent UK Government?
Mr Clarke
Obviously, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Government. We are working very hard to ensure that we deliver on the decision to leave the European Union. We will be in a position to give full details on the UK shared prosperity fund after the cross-government spending review, which will be so important to determining many aspects of our future relationship with Europe, as well as our commitments to our own spending priorities. We will continue working closely as one United Kingdom to understand the changing needs of local and regional economies, and I am happy to meet Ministers from the Scottish Government to find an acceptable way forward.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Five months before the transition periods ends, there is still lots of talk from the Government about future funding arrangements but no details. Last month, the Minister told me that he would make inquiries on this, yet his response only promised more details in due course. Does he appreciate that communities cannot afford to wait in perpetuity and need clarity on this now?
Mr Clarke
My officials meet fortnightly with those of the Scottish Government, and it is obviously very important that we maintain that dialogue. As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), we are clear that we are prepared to have talks at ministerial level with our Scottish counterparts. We want to provide that clarity, and we will be in a position to do so when we have had the spending review, which will detail our commitments in the round.
David Linden
I am grateful, but endless meetings do not give answers to communities and local governments who need that information and clarity. Another issue is the stronger towns fund. There has been lots of self-congratulatory back-slapping from Tory Back Benchers but very little detail. In the departmental spending debate on the estimates earlier this month, there was still no detail forthcoming. Will the Minister advise us today when Scotland will receive details and a timeline for the stronger towns fund?
Mr Clarke
The stronger towns fund is a vital part of our levelling-up work. I make no apologies whatsoever for saying that it is a really important tool to rectify long-standing economic imbalances in the country. The Barnett formula will be applied to investment for England in the normal way at the spending review. The funding is committed to the devolved nations, which means that the Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will receive a share of funding, with allocations to be confirmed in the next financial year.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 and the homelessness code of guidance set out that local authorities should try to place households within the area, that when that is not possible, they should place the household as near as possible, and that that should be a last resort. If a local authority places a family outside its area, it is required by law to notify the local authority in the area in which the family are placed.
Siobhain McDonagh
How does the law work without enforcement? We know from the programme “Ross Kemp: Living with...” that homeless families travel approximately 400,000 miles—or 16 times round the globe—each year to get to their temporary accommodation, and 60 councils are not informing the receiving authorities. That is the reality; what are the Government going to do about it?
Luke Hall
The hon. Lady cares passionately about this issue and has raised it in the House recently. If a local authority places a household into temporary accommodation in another area, it is, as I said, required by law to notify that local authority to ensure that there is no disruption in schooling or employment. Our homelessness and advice support team should hold local authorities to account for their performance on this matter, and the Local Government Association is doing work with local authorities from London and throughout the country to develop a protocol for out-of-area placements. We are clear, from the Front Bench, that councils should adhere to this basic legal requirement.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Our £3.6 billion towns fund will drive the economic regeneration of towns to deliver long-term economic and productivity growth. The towns fund will play an important role in the support of our country’s economic recovery, bringing forward public investment to create jobs and boost confidence in towns, as well as levering investment in from the private sector.
Simon Jupp
The beautiful towns across East Devon boast many independent shops on their high streets, providing the customer service that people just cannot get with a click of a mouse. As we reopen our high streets safely and encourage people to think local first, the Government must press on with plans to regenerate town centres. What plans does my right hon. Friend have for the next phase of the future high streets fund?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we will set out our plans for a competitive round of the towns fund later this year. As I said to him when I visited Exmouth with him last year, that is the kind of town that the fund was designed to serve, and I very much look forward to seeing its submission. In terms of immediate investment, the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership will receive £35.4 million from the getting building fund for shovel-ready projects across the area, including in Devon. We will announce 160 successful projects from across England at the end of this month.
Tom Hunt
Ipswich town centre is at the heart of life in our town, but it faces many challenges that have only been made greater by covid-19. A great deal of work is going into developing a coherent strategy to regenerate our town centre, with the input of both private and public sectors, under the Ipswich Vision partnership. Will my right hon. Friend recognise the excellent work that has gone into developing the strategy for Ipswich town centre as he considers our proposed timetable for receiving £25 million of town deal funding in October this year?
Robert Jenrick
I am delighted that the ideas developed over the past several years by the Ipswich Vision board are being used as the foundation for the Ipswich town deal. My officials are looking forward to receiving Ipswich’s proposals in the town investment plan that is, as my hon. Friend says, being submitted on 30 October. We have recently announced that Ipswich, like other towns that are recipients of the towns fund, can apply to my Department for up to £1 million to kick-start its work, create jobs, boost confidence and help the local economy to recover.
Mark Logan [V]
Bolton has shovel-ready town centre regeneration schemes including Le Mans Crescent and Church Wharf. Uncertainty created by covid-19 means that financial backers are looking to the Government to act as guarantor of last resort. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and the leader of Bolton Council to discuss ways to help support those well developed regeneration plans? As I am sure he will concur, Bolton is ready to be the epicentre of this Government’s levelling-up agenda.
Robert Jenrick
I congratulate Bolton and my hon. Friend on the very impressive work that they are doing with the council to transform the town. Bolton is one of the initial 100 towns selected to submit proposals for a town deal, and, again, I look forward to seeing the submissions shortly. As I said in my previous answer, Bolton can also apply to the Department for an advance of £1 million from the town deal to fund some of those projects that he describes. I also understand that, as a result of Bolton being part of the future high streets fund, it is likely to include support for Trinity Gateway, Le Mans Crescent, Church Wharf and Crompton Place—a number of extremely important regeneration projects.
Sara Britcliffe
Accrington town centre is one of the many places that have been left behind for too long. It is at the heart of my community and now that I am the Member of Parliament, I intend to be the strong voice that is needed to make sure that it is not a forgotten town any more. Will the Secretary of State accept my invitation to visit Accrington and our amazing local businesses to discuss with me how I can make sure that it gets the investment that is so desperately needed?
Robert Jenrick
I would be delighted to accept my hon. Friend’s invitation to Accrington. From what I have seen in her relatively short period in this House, she is exactly the strong voice that her constituents deserve. We have shown consistently through our initiatives, such as the towns fund, which we have been discussing, and the high streets fund, our commitment to levelling up all parts of the country, and we are doing that once again with our £900 million getting building fund, £34 million of which will benefit her constituents in Lancashire. I look forward to announcing, with her local enterprise partnership, those projects by the end of the month.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) [V]
Does the Secretary of State agree that the provision of appropriate community spaces and opportunities in town centres can be crucial to social cohesion? During decades of austerity, our communities have lost so much of their town centres. Will the Secretary of State tell me what steps are being taken to ensure that any town centre regeneration plan is drawn up with the help of the community members so that communities are prioritised and benefited, including through jobs and social spaces?
Robert Jenrick
I agree that we need to invest in our town centres and our high streets. The Government had begun that work even before the pandemic created so much additional economic disruption. The towns fund and the high streets fund are important initiatives that will help local communities to set a course for the future, with investment in infrastructure, in town centre regeneration, in skills, and in culture, and local people are at the heart of each and every one of those town deals or high street bids.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
The Government are investing around £150 million in infrastructure projects in Northamptonshire, unlocking the development of more than 19,000 homes in Corby, East Kettering, and at the A43, for instance. The Government are supporting schemes with almost £80 million, which will together unlock more than 12,500 homes. That is part of more than £10 billion of investment in new infrastructure for housing across England.
Mr Bone [V]
That is wonderful news from the Secretary of State, but he missed out one constituency in Northamptonshire and that was Wellingborough. We are planning to build lots of new houses at Wellingborough North, but to realise the full potential of that housing, we must have the Isham bypass. Why can we not get that bypass? It seems to be held up by red tape, so does the Secretary of State agree that the Isham bypass would be an excellent project for the Prime Minister’s Project Speed? Let us get the bypass built.
Robert Jenrick
We want to fast-track major building projects in all parts of the country to fuel the economic recovery and to create jobs, and Project Speed is just one part of that. With respect to the Isham bypass, I understand the Department for Transport has prioritised the project for major road network funding. Northamptonshire County Council is due to submit an outline business case later this year. The council has had to amend the route, and will require fresh planning permission and legal orders, but the Department for Transport’s officials are in touch with the council to discuss how best the scheme can be taken forward. Obviously, if there is anything my Department and officials can do to assist my hon. Friend, we will do it.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
We are committed to bringing forward legislation to deliver a better deal for renters, including repealing section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 as a priority. This will represent a generational change to tenancy, so it is only right that such legislation is considered and balanced to achieve the right outcomes for the sector, for tenants and, of course, for landlords.
Tonia Antoniazzi
The economic consequences of covid-19 could continue for years to come. Given the Secretary of State’s commitment that
“no one should lose their home as a result of the coronavirus”,
does the Minister agree that it is about time this Government looked at the measures the Welsh Labour Government are putting in place to protect renters from eviction by unscrupulous landlords?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Lady for her question. This Government have brought forward an unprecedented array of measures to support tenants through the coronavirus epidemic. We have protected 8.6 million households because of our actions: we have increased the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile; we have given local authorities £500 million of crisis grants; and we have introduced the furlough scheme, which the shadow Chancellor, in a moment of lucidity, described as a “lifeline”. This Government are acting, and will continue to act, for tenants.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The evictions ban ends on 23 August and the Government could have already brought in this Bill, raised LHA temporarily to average rents, scrapped section 21 or given courts discretion in arrears cases, but they have not done any of those things and thousands of people are struggling with rent now. So will the Minister guarantee to honour the words of the Secretary of State in March:
no one should lose their home as a result of the coronavirus”?
Yes or no?
Christopher Pincher
I know that the hon. Lady is coming under pressure from her extreme left wing to, in essence, write off all rents. I am not entirely sure who that is expected to help—it certainly will not help those people who are working very hard to pay their rents. As I said, the Government have brought forward an array of measures to support hard-pressed renters. We have introduced measures that will support those people. I believe my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is about to introduce a measure that will make it difficult for landlords who do not show “good cause” in bringing their application to court by describing what the effect on their tenants will be of an eviction—the courts will be able to adjourn those actions. That is practical support for people on the ground, not pie in the sky from the hon. Lady.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
My Department has brought forward a range of measures to support the safe reopening of high streets across England, including providing flexibility for outdoor dining, which has helped to create an al fresco dining renaissance in this country; enabling business to operate on takeaways; making it easier to hold outdoor markets; and pedestrianising town centres and high streets to support local businesses. That is in addition to the Government’s VAT cut for hospitality, the eat out to help out scheme and the £50 million reopening high streets safely fund.
Huw Merriman
The Secretary of State and his Housing Minister are welcome to come for a bit of al fresco dining in Bexhill and Battle whenever they are around. I give credit to both of them for the way in which they have helped to reform the planning system so that high streets can reopen. Will they take further steps, if required, particularly in respect of temporary structures, where help with permitted development rights could be given, if that were so needed?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. We are certainly open to further measures that we can take to make the lives of small businesspeople across the country easier as they seek to recover their businesses and livelihoods after the pandemic. In particular, I can give him reassurance that the existing legal framework that enables one to put up a temporary structure for 28 days is being extended to 56 days during 2020 to enable, for example, a pub to put up a marquee, a restaurant to do the same, or a market to operate for longer than it would ordinarily do—all designed to help local businesses to prosper in the weeks and months to come.
Mr Speaker
Question 16 has been withdrawn, so we come to the shadow Secretary of State, Steve Reed.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to ask the supplementary despite my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) being held up.
Does the Minister recognise that after all Government funding is taken into account, including the emergency funding, councils still face a funding gap of between £6 billion and £10 billion, while they are of course required by law to balance their budgets in-year and take appropriate measures to ensure that that happens? How many jobs does he estimate will be lost as councils are forced to make severe cuts to plug this gap?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mr Simon Clarke)
Our engagement with councils has enabled us to understand pressures at a national and local level across England. To date, we have announced £4.3 billion-worth of additional resource to councils, including £3.7 billion of unring-fenced funding. We have also announced the sales fees and charges co-payment scheme to compensate for irrecoverable income loss that is designed to flex according to the extent of the losses as they crystallise. We will also extend the period over which councils must manage shortfalls in local tax income relating to this financial year from one year to three years. All those measures are intended to prevent councils from having to make difficult in-year decisions. I reiterate the message that I have now sent out countless times to individual authorities: any authority facing an unmanageable situation should make contact with my officials.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mr Simon Clarke)
My Department has been working closely with the Joint Biosecurity Centre and the Department of Health and Social Care to develop a framework for the local management of further outbreaks of coronavirus, and councils will play a crucial role in this process. All upper-tier local authorities have published their local outbreak control plans. I am in regular contact with my counterparts at DHSC. We gave new powers to councils to control local outbreaks of covid-19 that came into effect only this Saturday.
Alex Cunningham
Eighteen of 55 patients who tested positive for coronavirus were transferred from North Tees University Hospital into local care homes between 1 March and 15 April. That was directly in line with the Government advice that a negative test was not required before discharge. A further 266 were transferred without a test. The policy changed on 16 April, but does the Minister accept that many deaths on Teesside, and perhaps thousands across the country, could have been prevented if the Government had got it right in the first place?
Mr Clarke
I pay enormous tribute to the care workers on Teesside and of course to our local NHS, which we share as Teesside MPs. This has been a constantly evolving and very complex situation, as Governments around the world, including our own, have obviously learned as matters have progressed. We have acted consistently and in good faith throughout. We have worked very hard with the care sector to protect patients. The £600 million infection control fund that we have instigated is designed to ensure that the care sector is safe, with a strong measure of containment against the disease for patients going forward.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
The Minister may not know this, but on 1 June, following the Prime Minister’s appearance at the Liaison Committee, I wrote to him about local authority involvement in tackling this virus. In particular, I asked him to
“give an assurance that data will be shared fully with all partners…In particular…directors of public health.”
I have not had a response to that letter, but I have heard from Greg Fell, the director of public health in Sheffield, and other directors that they are only getting generalised data—they are not getting, on a daily basis, the names, addresses and NHS numbers of those infected and those they have been in contact with. Does the Minister accept, therefore, that while this information is held by Public Health England, it needs to be passed on to directors of public health, and passed on quickly, and will he give an assurance that that will happen this week?
Mr Clarke
Since 24 June, all local authorities have been able to access postcode-level testing data through their director of public health, and that is securely shared by PHE on a weekly basis. I understand that that has been going on pretty much from the moment that it became available. PHE also shares information with local directors of public health as part of the routine investigation of outbreaks and incidents. That includes information on individual cases and their contacts, as required, to support the public health response.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
The Health Secretary quite rightly praised my local council of Blackburn for its efforts to bring down infection rates. I quote:
“On Blackburn, I think the council… are doing a fantastic job… they’ve taken… steps locally and I applaud that. This is exactly the sort of local action we want to see.”
Although Councillor Khan welcomes the praise, as do the communities that have worked closely with the council through this difficult time, does the Minister recognise that they have been failed by the test and track system? I raised that in the House last week. Data made available to me over the weekend shows that only 43% of people from the national service have been contacted successfully. Does he accept that the additional burden on the council requires resources to help keep services running and keep our communities safe? They need the funding now. Finally, will Minister agree to meet me and Councillor Khan to discuss the challenges going forward?
Mr Clarke
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is obviously very important we get control of the situation in Blackburn. Public Health England and NHS Test and Trace are actively working with Professor Harrison and his colleagues there to ensure a rapid solution is implemented to support their local work. Clearly, this is precisely why we have allocated £300 million to support the wider test and trace programme. We are also supporting Professor Harrison and his team with additional mobile testing capacity and a local visit in order to better understand how the needs of the community in Blackburn can be supported. I am obviously very happy to meet the hon. Lady and Councillor Khan to discuss how we take this forward, as I have with a number of other authorities in a similar situation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Our proposed future homes standard will ensure all new homes from 2025 result in at least 75% lower carbon emissions than those built to the current standard. Earlier this month, the Chancellor announced £8.8 billion of new infrastructure, decarbonisation and maintenance projects, including a £3 billion green investment package, which could help support around 140,000 green jobs, and upgrade buildings and reduce emissions.
Mr Sheerman [V]
Can I urge the Secretary of State to look at the letter from 18 conservation groups, deeply worried this morning by the fact that they believe that the planning system is going to be radically deregulated? Does he not agree that we want sustainably built homes in sustainable locations? Will he talk to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and get his act together over this suggestion that there will be no more environmental impact assessments worthy of that name?
Robert Jenrick
I can give this assurance to the hon. Gentleman: the planning reforms that we intend to bring forward in the weeks ahead will not row back on any of our commitments to the environment. This Government want to bring forward homes that are truly fit for the future. We do not want to see homes being built in the years ahead that will need to be retrofitted at huge expense either to the state or to individuals in time. We want to ensure that we meet our obligations to the environment, to biodiversity and to the climate change challenge, and that is exactly what the proposals that I intend to publish later this month, or at the beginning of August, will do.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
We are taking action with the biggest reforms of building and fire safety in nearly 40 years through the Building Safety Bill, which we are publishing in draft form today. To tackle the most urgent problems, we have made available £1.6 billion to remove unsafe cladding systems, so there should be no excuse for further delay. We have made progress. Over two thirds of high-rise buildings with the most dangerous Grenfell-type aluminium composite material, or ACM, cladding have either been completed or they have started their remediation.
Ian Byrne
With applications for more than 1,000 buildings made to the building safety fund already, it is clear that £1.6 billion will not be anywhere near enough to remedy all high-risk residential buildings that still have dangerous cladding, more than three years after the Grenfell Tower fire. The Government are trying to find ways to fit a potential £15 billion liability into a £1.6 billion funding pot. Will the Minister commit to release more funding in line with the Select Committee recommendation to ensure that all fire safety defects in every high-risk residential building are addressed, allowing residents to live safely in their homes without fear of bankruptcy?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question. To date, we have received 1,378 completed registration forms for the building safety fund. We expect the money made available by the Chancellor in this fiscal year to be fully allocated by March, so that the buildings that most need remediation where the owners were not able to act quickly can be helped. We have always made it clear that we expect a significant proportion of remediation costs to fall on the shoulders of those responsible for the original work or the building owners, and certainly not on the leaseholders.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Although we welcome the publication, finally, of the draft Building Safety Bill today, the Department’s own figures highlight the fact that 246 buildings are still wrapped in Grenfell-style cladding and thousands more are cladded in equally flammable materials. How will the measures outlined in the Bill speed up remediation while increasing the size and the scope of the building safety fund?
Christopher Pincher
Some 72% of buildings that had ACM cladding have had that cladding removed. I refer to the hon. Gentleman to the Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) to which I replied. I said that tough enforcement action is on its way for those owners that are responsible but are not taking action to remediate their buildings. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as the Building Safety Bill passes through this House and the other place to make sure that we have a good Bill that is fit for purpose. This Government are committed to doing so; I trust he is, too.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
We have announced a £12 billion investment in affordable homes, the largest in a decade. That will deliver up to 180,000 new affordable homes across England, with the vast majority delivered by 2026. That is building on our previous £9 billion affordable homes programme, which delivered about 250,000 affordable homes. Figures published last week show the highest number of starts of affordable homes since records began in 2010, and a 91% increase in homes for social rent over the year. We have also extended the previous programme by one year to ensure delivery of homes that would otherwise, regrettably, have been lost because of covid disruption.
Nicola Richards
The Prime Minister says that we need to build, build, build, and that is absolutely the right approach. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing join me in praising Bishop Llewellyn Graham and everyone at Nehemiah housing association for their amazing work in West Bromwich East, and work with them to ensure that local people are skilled up so that we can get the right homes built at affordable prices?
Robert Jenrick
I will join my hon. Friend in thanking Nehemiah housing association for its work on housing in the west midlands over the past 20 years. Compared with the start of the decade, the number of homes built in the west midlands last year had doubled. She is right to talk about skills; delivering the homes this country needs depends on having a skilled workforce. The Construction Industry Training Board estimates that we will need 688,000 skilled construction workers if we are to deliver our target of 300,000 new homes every year.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
We are committed to reforming the leasehold market and have already set out that we will reduce ground rents to zero on future leases and ban new leasehold houses. We are also working with the Law Commission on enfranchisement, commonhold and right to manage. Given the impact of covid-19 on the agenda and the Government’s wider work to restart the economy, we will bring forward legislation on leasehold as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Mr Speaker, if you and the Minister came to Worthing station and walked from there to my flat, you would walk past a site where Homes England could help Worthing Borough Council to produce extra social housing and potentially more leasehold or commonhold homes. Six times a year, on average, over the last 10 years, Ministers have talked of progress on ending leasehold abuse and providing better homes for the future, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said just now. This time, can we have action, and could Ministers also look at whether statutory instrument 2020/632, the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020, takes into account the disbenefits to leaseholders of people putting extra storeys on leasehold blocks?
Luke Hall
I know that my hon. Friend has raised issues about this particular statutory instrument. We believe we need to encourage the densification of our towns and cities to allow for additional homes. In the last four years, 60,000 additional homes have been delivered through permitted development rights for change of use. This new permitted development right could deliver an extra 800 homes a year for families across our cities and help to protect the countryside too. Of course, permitted development rights remain subject to prior approval by the local planning authority on a number of matters, including the amenity of neighbours and occupiers of the block.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), the Government are committed to building not just better and faster but greener. As we consider reforms to our planning system, we are committed to ensuring that they create better outcomes for the environment and that decision making is properly informed by the science. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary set out this morning our intention to develop a reform framework for environmental assessment and mitigation.
Sarah Champion [V]
In 1958, planning permission was granted for Droppingwell tip to open in my constituency. The local community managed to get the tip closed in the 1990s because of their serious environmental concerns. Now, with no consultation and the vagaries of the planning system, it has been given the go-ahead again. It is likely to reopen in the very near future and is an environmental timebomb. For the last four years, I have been raising this repeatedly with the Environment Agency and the Government but to no avail. Will the Minister please meet me to look into this disastrous plan and step in to stop this unwanted and environmentally damaging development?
Christopher Pincher
I have every sympathy for the hon. Lady and her concerns in championing her constituents. I would point out that in my quasi-judicial role I cannot discuss individual planning matters, but I will refer her concern to my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary, and of course if she wants to talk to me about a broader range of issues, I would be very happy to do that.
Ruth Cadbury
Hounslow Council’s new council housing will no longer have gas boilers installed, only the newest low-energy systems available. Both the leader of Hounslow, Councillor Steve Curran, and community organisation Brentford Voice have said they would like national planning policies to require all new developments to incorporate low-emission energy systems. Will the Housing Secretary’s reforms require all new homes to be zero-carbon and affordable to run, yet still to be warm in winter and cool in summer?
Christopher Pincher
We were the first Government in the world to legislate to be zero-carbon by 2050, and we intend to meet that pledge, which is why we have introduced the future homes standard to reduce carbon emissions from homes built after 2025 by between 75% and 80%. I am prepared to listen to and consider all proposals to make us greener and better, and I look forward to hearing those proposals from the hon. Lady.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
Second homes can bring significant benefits to local areas, including boosting tourism, consumer spending and investment in the local economy. However, we are aware of the need to balance this with the housing needs of local people. We have taken decisive action to address these challenges through the introduction of a stamp duty surcharge on second homes.
Tim Farron
Excessive second home ownership robs communities of life, schools and other services. Does the Minister understand, then, why people in the south Lakes are so appalled that the Government have chosen to give a £15,000 stamp duty bonus to those lucky enough to be able to afford a second home? When there are 3 million hard-working people excluded from Government support at the moment, are these not appalling priorities? Will he end the second homes bonus and instead support the 3 million excluded?
Christopher Pincher
Second home owners contribute significantly to the economy of many parts of our country, particularly those parts that rely on the tourist economy. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in 2013, we removed the requirement to offer a council tax discount on second homes, and 95% of the 253,000 second home dwellings now have council tax applied to them. It is very important that we balance the needs of the local economy with the rights of local people. We think we have got that balance right as we try to get this country through a very difficult epidemic, and every penny spent locally matters to local businesses and people.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
This week, we announced the most significant reforms to building safety legislation in 40 years, delivering new and enhanced regulatory regimes. I welcome the voices of all right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides of the House, as we move this critical legislation forwards.
Earlier this month, we set out our comprehensive financial plan to ensure that local councils can proceed with their crucial work with confidence, including a one-of-a-kind scheme reimbursing councils for lost income, measures to spread tax deficits, and an extra £500 million in un-ring-fenced funding. We are also making sure that as we recover from the pandemic, our communities can bounce back with investment in housing and infrastructure and for our town and city centres. Our announced reform of use classes will help to revitalise high streets and town centres, and the Chancellor’s stamp duty cut will help many to realise their dream of owning a home.
Sally-Ann Hart
Many councils have had to use emergency accommodation and hotels to house rough sleepers during coronavirus. As we look to winter, it will not be possible to build enough social housing within the timeframe required to ensure that people are able to stay off the streets, and many options will need to be considered: for example, social lettings agencies could be established to deal with private rental procurement for vulnerable people and homeless people to access accommodation. All options require funding, so what measures is my right hon. Friend considering to keep vulnerable people off the streets come winter?
Robert Jenrick
Can I say once again how grateful for and proud I am of the work of local councils and homelessness and rough sleeping charities across the country and the remarkable effort that they have made together to protect rough sleepers during the pandemic? That has undoubtedly saved hundreds, if not thousands, of people’s lives. We saw that in the recent Office for National Statistics figures that were published, showing that 16 rough sleepers had died in this country during the pandemic. Each of those deaths, of course, is a tragedy, but that number is far lower than that of any other major developed country. We are making £105 million of immediate support available for local areas to fund exactly the kind of interventions that my hon. Friend refers to.
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to get through topicals, so can we speed up a little?
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
YourNeighbour.org, a digital platform supporting over 1,300 churches, estimates that faith groups are providing more than 10 million meals a month to people up and down our country who would otherwise go hungry. Our faith groups have missed out on weekly donations and opportunities to raise funds, and they are running out of money and are in desperate need of financial assistance. What assessment has the Minister’s Government made of the financial hit to places of worship, and why have the Government not provided ring-fenced support to ensure that they can continue their very much needed work?
Robert Jenrick
I pay tribute to the work of faith groups across the country. I have been regularly meeting with faith leaders from all the major religions through our places of worship taskforce. I am extremely grateful for the hard work of that organisation, which has helped us to reopen places of worship safely. I am aware of the financial impact that the pandemic has had on many places of worship and faith organisations. The schemes created for charities by the Chancellor were open to those from faith organisations and many have taken part in them.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mr Simon Clarke)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There is no question but that we owe an enormous debt to town and parish councils for everything they have done throughout the pandemic. We have encouraged principal authorities to discuss the funding provided with their town and parish councils where they are delivering covid-related services. The grant funding of £3.7 billion is un-ring-fenced, recognising that local authorities need to make appropriate decisions about how to meet major covid-19 service pressures in their local area. I certainly hope that Cornwall Council will give that proper consideration.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Robert Jenrick
We have, for several weeks now, been in exactly those sorts of conversations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who holds the relationship with the judiciary and the Master of the Rolls. The Lord Chancellor has already set out today some initiatives and I am hopeful that further announcements will be made shortly to provide exactly the kind of protection the hon. Lady asks for.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Mr Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I had recent constructive discussions with both Lincolnshire MPs and all Greater Lincolnshire council leaders on this subject. It is now for them to develop proposals for local government reform and I am committed to working with them. Levelling up all areas of the country by devolving money, resources and control from Westminster is a priority for the Government. Our devolution and local recovery White Paper, to be published this autumn, will set out our detailed plans, including for restructuring local institutions and establishing more mayors.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
Robert Jenrick
I would be delighted to discuss with the hon. Gentleman that masterplan and to learn more of its details. It is extremely important to us that we not only build more homes, but tackle substandard homes in all parts of the country. That means making them greener and, in some cases, regenerating parts of towns and cities that desperately need it. That will be a focus both for our planning reforms and future investment.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I am extremely pleased that leisure centres will be able to open shortly, in a safe and socially distanced manner. The income guarantee scheme that we have already announced will reimburse local councils for 75p in the pound for lost income, including for the leisure centres that they own and operate themselves. I appreciate that many leisure centres are not owned and operated by local councils; I am working with my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary to see what further package of support we might be able to bring forward to assist.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
Robert Jenrick
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government said in his earlier remarks, we made a manifesto commitment to ensure that, at a minimum, each of the nations of the United Kingdom will continue to receive the same amount of funding as they did from within the EU. We intend to keep that commitment.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, who I know campaigns vigorously on these issues. I reassure Members on both sides of the House that the Government intend to bring forward a review of the planning system and how it interrelates with flood plains, to ensure that homes are not built irresponsibly on parts of the country that routinely flood.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Robert Jenrick
The fact that Tower Hamlets Council was preparing a new local plan that included a CIL schedule attached to it was a matter of public record; anybody knowledgeable about London’s housing issues would have known that. It is a perfectly legitimate planning consideration to ensure that a decision is made prior to a material change like that. That is exactly how my officials rightly advised me.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
Robert Jenrick
We have brought forward the now £1.6 billion fund tackling not just ACM cladding—on which there has been some progress, although far more progress is required—but other types of dangerous cladding such as HPL. I strongly encourage buildings to come forward, apply to the fund and get that money out of the door.
As I said earlier this week, we have also published the building safety Bill in draft form. Once again, I strongly encourage colleagues to participate in ensuring that that Bill meets the challenges and radically improves the standards of building safety regulation in this country.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Robert Jenrick
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Lady is now chairing the APPG. We were pleased to launch the Western Gateway initiative at the end of last year. I think it has huge potential to drive economic growth in that part of the country, to represent the south-west and south Wales on the international stage, and to attract international investment to her constituency and those of her neighbours.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
We are very sensitive to the issues that my right hon. Friend describes, and I have had a number of conversations with her already. I appreciate that her constituents have particular concerns about high-rise buildings. We do need to build more homes in London, and that is why we are bringing forward some of the reforms that we have already announced to enable gentle densification, building up on top of people’s individual homes or blocks of flats so that homes can be built in a manner that maintains the look and feel of the suburbs.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Robert Jenrick
We said at the outset of the crisis that we would ensure that councils have the resources they need, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have now brought forward over £4 billion of funding for covid-related expenditure. We have also created the income guarantee of 75p in the pound for lost income on sales, fees and charges, and I am working with the Chancellor with respect to tax losses so that councils have the confidence to move forwards and end the financial year in good financial health.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
The Chancellor announced the other day our £400 million brownfield fund, which will support projects across the country, and our planning reforms that we have already announced, such as the right to demolish a vacant building and turn it into new housing, are exactly designed for brownfield sites.
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 suspend the House for three minutes.
China
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead 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)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement updating the House on the latest developments with respect to China, and in particular Hong Kong.
As I told the House on 1 July, the UK wants a positive relationship with China. China has undergone an extraordinary transformation in recent decades, grounded in one of the world’s ancient cultures. Not only is China the world’s second largest economy, but it has a huge base in tech and science. The UK Government recognise China’s remarkable success in raising millions of its own people out of poverty. China is also the world’s biggest investor in renewable technology, and it will be an essential global partner when it comes to tackling global climate change. The Chinese people travel, study and work all over the world, making an extraordinary contribution.
Let me be clear: we want to work with China. There is enormous scope for positive, constructive engagement. There are wide-ranging opportunities, from increasing trade to co-operation in tackling climate change, particularly with a view to the COP26 summit next year, which the UK will be hosting. However, as we strive for that positive relationship, we are also clear-sighted about the challenges that lie ahead. We will always protect our vital interests, including sensitive infrastructure, and we will not accept any investment that compromises our domestic or national security. We will be clear where we disagree, and I have been clear about our grave concerns regarding the gross human rights abuses being perpetrated against the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.
It is precisely because we recognise China’s role in the world as a fellow member of the G20, and fellow permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, that we expect China to live up to the international obligations and responsibilities that come with that stature. That is the positive, constructive, mature and reciprocal relationship that we seek with China, striving for good co-operation, but being honest and clear where we have to disagree. We have been clear about the new national security law that China has imposed on the people of Hong Kong. That is a clear and serious violation of the UK-China joint declaration, and with it a violation of China’s freely assumed international obligations.
On 1 July, I announced that we are developing a bespoke immigration route for British nationals overseas and their dependants, giving them a path to citizenship of the UK. The Home Secretary will set out further details of the plans for a new bespoke immigration route for BNOs and their dependants before the recess. That bespoke route will be ready by early 2021, and in the meantime the Home Secretary has already given Border Force officers the ability to grant leave to BNOs and their accompanying dependants at the UK border.
Beyond our offer to BNOs, today we are taking two further measures, which are a necessary and proportionate response to the new national security legislation that we have now had the opportunity to assess carefully. First, given the role that China has now assumed for the internal security of Hong Kong, and the authority that it is exerting over law enforcement, the UK will extend to Hong Kong the arms embargo that we have applied to mainland China since 1989. To be clear, the extension of the embargo will mean there will be no exports from the UK to Hong Kong of potentially lethal weapons, their components or ammunition, and it will also meet a ban on the export of any equipment not already banned that might be used for internal repression, such as shackles, intercept equipment, firearms and smoke grenades.
The second measure relates to the fact that the imposition of this new national security legislation has significantly changed key assumptions underpinning our extradition treaty arrangements with Hong Kong. I have to say that I am particularly concerned by articles 55 to 59 of the law, which give mainland Chinese authorities the ability to assume jurisdiction over certain cases and to try those cases in mainland Chinese courts. The national security law does not provide legal or judicial safeguards in such cases, and I am also concerned about the potential reach of the extraterritorial provisions.
I have consulted the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and the Attorney General, and the Government have decided to suspend the extradition treaty immediately and indefinitely. I should also tell the House that we will not consider reactivating those arrangements unless and until there are clear and robust safeguards that can prevent extradition from the UK being misused under the new national security legislation.
There remains considerable uncertainty about the way in which the new national security law will be enforced. I just say this: the United Kingdom is watching and the whole world is watching. In the past few weeks, I have been engaged with many of our international partners in a concerted dialogue about how we should best respond to the unfolding events we are seeing in Hong Kong. On 8 July, I spoke with our Five Eyes Foreign Minister partners. We agreed on the seriousness of China’s actions and the importance of pressing Beijing to meet its international obligations. I welcome the fact that Australia, Canada and the US have taken a range of measures with respect to Hong Kong including, variously, export controls and extradition, as we have done today.
I also discussed the situation with our European partners, including Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs. The UK Government also welcome the EU announcement on 13 July, which sets out further proposed measures in response to the national security legislation.
A number of our international partners are also considering what offers they may be willing to make to the people of Hong Kong following the UK’s offer in relation to BNOs. I can reassure the House that we will continue to take a leading role in engaging and in co-ordinating our actions with our international partners, as befits our historic commitment to the people of Hong Kong.
As I said at the outset, we want a positive relationship with China. There is a huge amount to be gained for both countries. There are many areas where we can work productively and constructively to mutual benefit together. For our part, the UK will work hard and in good faith towards that goal, but we will protect our vital interests. We will stand up for our values, and we will hold China to its international obligations. The specific measures I have announced today are a reasonable and proportionate response to China’s failure to live up to those international obligations with respect to Hong Kong, and I commend this statement to the House.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. May I be clear that the Opposition strongly welcome both of the measures he has announced today? He is right to ensure that Britain does not allow our exports to be used against the people of Hong Kong, and I thank him warmly for taking this step forwards.
I am particularly glad that the Government have listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, and suspended the export of surveillance equipment alongside the suspension of the export of crowd control equipment, which was demanded of the Government by the Labour Opposition last year. Will the Foreign Secretary go further and also review the training of the Hong Kong police by the College of Policing and other UK police forces to ensure that we are playing a part in helping to uphold, and not suppress, the rights of the people of Hong Kong?
May I also welcome the indefinite suspension of the extradition treaty and the safeguards that the Foreign Secretary announced today? It affords protection to the Hong Kong diaspora community here in the UK, and particularly to the brave young pro-democracy activists, whom I recently had the pleasure to meet.
We believe it is vital that the world shows a co-ordinated front on this issue. I was heartened to hear that the Foreign Secretary had discussions with our Five Eyes partners. Canada, Australia and the USA have already taken this step. Will he speak to other key allies, including Germany, to ensure that there is a co-ordinated international response? He also made no mention of our Commonwealth partners. Has he reached out to those Commonwealth countries that have extradition treaties with Hong Kong, to ensure that BNO passport holders and pro-democracy activists can travel freely without fear of arrest and extradition?
The Foreign Secretary could take a number of other steps. He made a commitment today that the UK will not accept investment that compromises our national security. Will he confirm that that will extend to the proposed nuclear power project at Bradwell, and will he tell us what assessment the Government have made of the security implications of Sizewell C?
Elections are due to take place in Hong Kong in the autumn, and we are concerned that, just as in the case of Joshua Wong, the Chinese Government may seek to bar candidates from standing. A clear statement from the Foreign Secretary today that candidates selected through the primary process are legitimate and must be allowed to stand in those elections would send the message that, as he says, the world is watching. I also ask him to work internationally to ensure that independent election observers are allowed into Hong Kong to oversee those elections.
The Foreign Secretary was a little irritated by my suggestion yesterday that the UK ought to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Chinese officials involved in persecuting the Uyghur people and undermining basic freedoms in Hong Kong, but I gently say to him that we have known that Uyghurs have been detained in camps since at least 2017. Has any work at all been done on that by the Foreign Office? Given that the USA has already imposed similar sanctions, is he working with our US counterparts to build the case for UK sanctions, and will he discuss this with the US Secretary of State tomorrow when he meets him?
The Foreign Secretary may not have done the groundwork to enable him to impose Magnitsky sanctions now, but his Government have the power right now to take action. He could, as the US has done, bar Communist party of China officials from the UK. Why has he not done that? The Chinese ambassador said yesterday that he reserves the right to take action against British companies. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with British companies operating in China to offer advice and assistance? I have asked him a number of times whether he has had discussions with HSBC and Standard Chartered about their stated support for the national security law. He must condemn that support. We should be showing the best of British business to the world, not the worst.
I was pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary had discussions with Australia and New Zealand about their making a similar offer to BNO passport holders, but we are concerned, after asking a range of parliamentary questions, that there are serious holes in this offer. We have been told by the Government that BNO passport holders and their families will not receive home status for tuition fees, will not have access to most benefits and will have to pay the NHS surcharge. That seems wrong.
We are welcoming BNO passport holders to the UK for similar reasons to refugees, but these measures are completely out of step with that. Without serious action before these proposals are published, we will essentially be offering safe harbour only to the rich and highly skilled. That may benefit the UK, but it lacks the generosity and moral clarity that this situation demands. The Foreign Secretary will also know that many young pro-democracy activists are too young to be eligible for BNO passports. The Home Secretary said last week that she was considering a specific scheme for 18 to 23-year-olds. Will those details be published before the summer, and can he provide more detail today?
Finally, this must mark the start of a more strategic approach to China based on an ethical approach to foreign policy and an end to the naivety of the golden era years. If it does, the Foreign Secretary can be assured that he will have the Opposition’s full support. Like him, our quarrel is not with the people of China, but the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, the actions of the Chinese Government in the South China sea and the appalling treatment of the Uyghur people are reasons to act now. We will not be able to say in future years that we did not know. I urge him to work with colleagues across government to ensure that this marks the start of a strategic approach to China and the start of a new era.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her response and in particular for her support for the two measures that we are taking today: suspending the extradition treaty arrangements and extending the arms embargo. I note that there is a drastically different tone being taken by Opposition Front Benchers from that taken even a few weeks ago, but we welcome her support, and do so in a spirit of cross-party endeavour and the importance of sending a very clear signal to Beijing, and indeed to our international partners, about where we stand.
The hon. Lady asks about the review of policing. Of course she is right about that: it is a question of balance. We will keep that under constant review. She mentions a range of details on BNOs, and they will be set forward by the Home Secretary shortly in the way that I have described. I urge the hon. Lady to wait for the detail before critiquing it. The Home Secretary and the Home Office have been doing a huge amount of work since September last year on all that, and of course we also need to bear in mind the offers that other countries quite rightly and usefully will be making.
I welcome what the hon. Lady says on international co-ordination. She is right about the importance of working with my German opposite number. I am seeing him this week, and it is something that is squarely on the agenda. We have also, through the Five Eyes membership, already touched base with a number our Commonwealth colleagues, but I will continue to do that. She is right that it needs to be more than just the Europeans and the UK with the North Americans—the traditional Five Eyes and Europeans—because there is a whole range of non-aligned countries out there that are very much influenced by what China is doing and saying. We want them to support us in upholding the international rule of law, which in all areas, including, as she mentioned, the South China sea, will be very important.
We rigorously review not just all investments into this country from a security point of view but whether our powers are sufficient. That is something that we will keep under review, and I know that the Secretary of State for Business is looking at it very carefully.
The hon. Lady is right as well about the September LegCo elections. I have made it clear that we want to see them allowed to take place in the way that is recognised in not just the joint declaration but the Basic Law. I agree with her point about the disqualification of candidates. We also need to be realistic, if I am honest with her, about the likelihood of China, or the Hong Kong authorities, accepting international observers.
The hon. Lady asks about the Magnitsky sanctions. She is simply wrong to say that we have not done our homework on them; we have done our homework since August of last year, which is why we could introduce those sanctions for the situation with Jamal Khashoggi, Sergei Magnitsky and North Korea. Of course, the national security legislation, which we are responding to, has only just been enacted, let alone started to be enforced. We will patiently gather the evidence, which takes months. It is not, as the hon. Lady has previously suggested, just something that can be done on a political whim; indeed, it would be improper if that were the case. Of course, if we introduce those targeted sanctions in this field, and indeed any other, without having done our factual evidential due diligence, not only are they likely to be challenged but we are at risk of giving a propaganda coup to the very people that we are seeking to target.
The hon. Lady mentions HSBC. She may or may not have already heard the comments I have made about that. Certainly, we will not allow the rights and the autonomy of the people of Hong Kong to be sacrificed on the altar of bankers’ bonuses. We urge all businesses to look very carefully at how they respond. They are, of course, going to be nervous about any potential retaliatory measures that may be taken by Beijing. In any event, we are very clear on the path that we are taking.
As I have said before, we want a good relationship with China. It is very important that we have a balanced, open debate about this in the House, recognise the opportunities of a good relationship with China, but be clear-eyed, as this Government are, about the risks and what we do to protect against them.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I thank again—I am getting into a bad habit here—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for an extremely good policy change. This makes the fifth, by my count, that he has backed the Foreign Affairs Committee on, following the strategic alignment of the Department, the BNOs, the Magnitsky protocols generally, and foreign ownership control overseas. This is actually claiming credit slightly for his work, because he was so instrumental in many of those things during his time on the Back Benches.
Given my right hon. Friend’s time before even entering the House as a human rights lawyer, may I ask why he has not yet made an announcement on the abuse of the Uyghur Muslim population in western China—action that his opposite number in the United States, or rather the US Treasury, has already taken, and that has been campaigned on so forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)?
May I also ask what my right hon. Friend’s view is of article 38 and the extraterritoriality of the jurisdiction of the security law, the implications for British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand judges sitting on the Court of Final Appeal, and whether he has discussed that with his opposite numbers? Of course, the application of Chinese law to a common law jurisdiction could make the position of those judges untenable, and it is really for him to advise them on how to act.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for his and Select Committee’s full support for the action the Government have taken; there is plenty of credit to go around. The reality is that we have taken, I think, a proportionate approach and one that recognises the severity of what is happening in Hong Kong, but also, in the way I have described, seeks to have a balanced—and to telegraph a balanced—message to the Government in Beijing that our relationship is there, with good will and with respect for international obligations, to be a positive one.
My hon. Friend asks about Xinjiang. We have made very clear our position. Indeed, we led, for the first time in the United Nations Human Rights Council, on a statement on the situation on human rights in both Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Twenty-seven countries in total signed the statement, and it was the first time that has been done.
My hon. Friend asks about judges on the Supreme Court in Hong Kong. That is something we obviously keep under careful review, given the need—and, indeed, the commitment in the joint declaration and the Basic Law—for the autonomy of the judiciary as well as the autonomy of the legislators to be respected, so we will discuss that with our international partners.
Finally, my hon. Friend asks about extraterritoriality. It is not entirely clear, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, quite how that will work in practice—whether it would just apply to Hong Kong residents when they are outside the country or whether, indeed, it is intended to apply to non-Chinese and non-Hong Kong nationals. That is one of the factors, among others, that informed our approach to the suspension of extradition.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I also thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I commend him for its tone and the content. He picks up on the Opposition’s change of tone, and there has been something of a change in the Government’s position as well of late. I think we should all recognise that this is evolving fast.
I associate the SNP with supporting both the measures in the statement, which I think is proportionate and fair. We also want a positive relationship with China—it is a key partner in renewable energy, as the Foreign Secretary rightly says—but it is making things increasingly difficult with its actions particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and with one belt, one road; over Hong Kong, the South China sea, the situation in Taiwan, of course, and Xinjiang; and with commercial piracy and industrial espionage. There is lots of cause for concern about the actions of the Chinese state, so we do support these measures.
I will, however, press the Foreign Secretary on three further points. First, on the Magnitsky sanctions, I accept fully that this has to be done properly, but it could be done properly faster. I think there is a need to accelerate, particularly in the case of the Uyghur situation, proportionate sanctions there.
On the suspension of the extradition treaty, this is not something to be celebrated. The breakdown of criminal and judicial co-operation will make the fight against organised crime, which is prevalent in Hong Kong and London, harder, so what comes next? Will this be done on a case-by-case basis, or are we looking to evolve some new arrangement to deal with that pressing problem, because it is and will remain a pressing problem?
On students, which is where this debate will get to quite quickly, Stirling University in my constituency and universities up and down the UK, including in Scotland, welcome thousands of Chinese students. We value academic freedom and we are glad to see them here, but that is precisely the academic freedom that the state of China is looking to take advantage of. Could guidance be provided to universities about the implications of having so many Chinese students in their institutions from both a security and a financial perspective, and is any analysis under way of the Confucius institutes, which I believe do need a bit more attention than they have had today?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman and welcome his support on the two measures that we have announced today.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the Magnitsky sanctions. I made this point to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). I welcome the full and eager support for the regime that the Government have just introduced, but with cross-party support, which we welcome. I just call for a note of caution on speed. It is very important that these targeted sanctions are done right, not quick. If we do them too quickly, they will be legally challenged. Not only would they then be ineffective, but we would risk, as I said to the hon. Lady, giving a propaganda coup to the very individuals whom we are seeking to hold to account.
On extradition, the approach we have taken, and I set it out quite deliberately, was that we are suspending—not just wholesale terminating, but suspending—the extradition treaty arrangements, so that it is clear that they could be resuscitated in the future. As I also made clear, we would need to have clear, adequate and robust safeguards to protect against the potential abuses that we see in the national security legislation before that could even be contemplated. That is the approach that we would consider.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to my comment about there being a different tone on the Opposition Benches. I hope he does not mind my noting that it was not that long ago that the Scottish Government’s China engagement strategy called for Scotland to be seen as the “preferred” trade and investment partner in China. I sense that there is a slight nuance in position in 2020.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I unreservedly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement; he has taken the right decision. We have had good cause to suspend the extradition treaty, and I will now withdraw my amendments to the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill, although I suspect that that has not been keeping him awake at night.
I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on the Uyghurs. The Foreign Secretary is right that he has to be careful on the legal elements of what he does with regard to sanctions on individuals, now that we have the Magnitsky changes. The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China published a report on the forced sterilisation of the Uyghur women a few weeks ago, and there is lots of evidence of the officials who are involved in that. May I, along with many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members, encourage him to do what he can to get officials to look at that urgently, so that we may force sanctions on those responsible for what is happening to the Uyghur, and on Hong Kong—people such as Carrie Lam and her predecessor, Mr Leung?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for these measures and for withdrawing his amendments; I appreciate his magnanimity in that regard. On the Magnitsky sanctions, he raises two different issues: their potential application in relation to, first, Hong Kong and, secondly, Xinjiang. We, of course, have a process for gathering all the evidence on those potential cases. The national security legislation is newly enacted, so that will take some time, but he is right to point to that. I have been reading over the weekend reports by Amnesty International in 2019 and 2020 on the range of abuses in Xinjiang, reports by Human Rights Watch between 2018 and 2020 on the mass detention and political indoctrination, and the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination report in 2018 on the massive internment camps with no rights. We are looking at this carefully. As he rightly notes, it is important to assess this carefully, and it is a question of not only whether the abuses took place but whether individual responsibility can be ascribed to someone on whom we wish to impose a visa ban or asset freeze.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It seems wrong to be welcoming a suspension of extradition and exports, but backward steps though these may be, they are necessary, and my party will support them. Never mind the restrictions on exports—when will the Government start looking at the materials that we are importing from China, in particular those manufactured by Hikvision? It is some of the most intrusive surveillance technology to be found anywhere in the world, it is used widely in Xinjiang province, and it is now being purchased and installed by public and private authorities up and down this country. Will the Government look at that in a joined-up way?
On the subject of Xinjiang province, the world is watching, and what we are seeing is horrific. There was the drone footage at the weekend. Last week there was the interception of a shipment of human hair. I know that “genocide” is a term of art in law, and the Foreign Secretary is right to be cautious about its use, but it would make an enormous difference to tackling the issues in Xinjiang province if he would admit from the Dispatch Box that there are a growing number of adminicles of evidence that that is absolutely what is happening.
Dominic Raab
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his typically focused and well considered remarks, and for his support. In relation to UK regulation and the regime that applies to imports, we have a strong and rigorous scheme in place, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will of course look at any individual cases that he wishes to raise. We are joined up—he asked about this—via the National Security Council and the other structures in a more closely integrated way, and covid-19 has encouraged that more broadly across the board.
On the definition of genocide, I have worked on war crimes since well before becoming a Member of this House, and the real challenge of it is the question of deliberate intention that is ascribed to it. As important as that is—it does bring with it legal implications that help in respect of accountability—the reality is that it can also distract from the fact that we are increasingly confident that there is a strong case to answer, as the Chinese ambassador was unable to do yesterday on “The Andrew Marr Show”, in respect of systematic human rights abuses. Frankly, the legal label on it is to me secondary to the plight of the victims who are suffering under it.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, as we develop a new relationship with China. He mentioned Uyghurs just once in his statement, but he knows that the whole House is concerned about the human rights abuses taking place in Xinjiang. If there is enough evidence for the Americans to apply sanctions on officials in Xinjiang, can the Foreign Secretary have sight of that evidence to see whether we can do the same here? He of course repeatedly states that “genocide” is a legal term and we need international courts to apply it, but when it comes to the UN and China, the UN is a busted flush. Will the Foreign Secretary consider convening an independent inquiry so that we can collect evidence to see whether genocide is taking place in Xinjiang?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for the points that she has made. Of course, one of the points about the Magnitsky regime that we have introduced is that we have already put in place a co-ordination mechanism so that we can more regularly and generically co-ordinate with our Five Eyes partners and share information. There was quite a significant overlap—although not exclusively; it is the UK regime—in the designations that we have already made. We are putting in place that co-ordination. It is a reasonable point to make.
On genocide, I can only repeat the points that I have made before, but I have been clear that this is a gross violation of human rights and China does need to be answerable to and accountable for it. My hon. Friend talked about setting up an inquiry to examine the evidence and to glean it; we have to be realistic about what China would allow into Xinjiang. In the absence of that access, it is very difficult to see how we could do that. It is of course available to all the Select Committees in this House—as well as to the Government in their efforts to assess the evidence—to look at that independently of Government and, indeed, the United Nations.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Anyone who saw the footage on “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday would have found it chilling. In the light of that footage, when the Foreign Secretary meets Secretary of State Pompeo tomorrow, will he raise the implementation of the Magnitsky sanctions on Chinese officials implicated in the persecution of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that imposing sanctions on the individuals involved should be an absolute priority?
Dominic Raab
I have already raised with Mike Pompeo, as well as with my other Five Eyes partners, not just the Magnitsky sanctions regime that we have put in place but the designations. We have also given due consideration to co-operation on future evidence. It is important that there is an evidence-based approach, although there is of course political accountability, and we will carefully gather and assess the evidence.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about priorities, we have set out, through a policy note published in the Library of the House, the criteria that we will apply and the policy approach. That stresses the nature of the violations, their severity and our ability to hold to account the individuals at the right levels—sufficiently senior—so that we send the right message.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I agree with so much of what the Secretary of State is saying about the need for balance, about the criticality of China and about respect for what it has achieved, but the signal truth is that the China we hoped for is not the China that we are now getting. We need a much more significant reset in our relationship in respect of not only Hong Kong but foreign lobbying, foreign investment, espionage—industrial or otherwise—human rights and our alliances and defence posture. Will the Secretary State confirm whether we are approaching all these issues piecemeal or whether there is a wider reset? If there is a wider reset, will he explain how the Government are interacting with parliamentarians and outside experts, and how that more comprehensive reset is going to be presented to Parliament so that we can all get to debate it and contribute to it?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is an assiduous follower of China; I know that he takes a very close interest in it. On what the right balance is, he has mentioned all the areas of challenge. We could talk about universities, freedom of expression—there are many—but, for balance, it is important to say that there are also areas of co-operation. China is one of the biggest investors—the biggest investor, I think—in renewable technology. If we are to shift the dial significantly on climate change, China will to have to be a constructive and, indeed, positive partner, with which to engage.
More strategically, my hon. Friend asked how the measures that we take fit a broader strategy. We are considering that all the time not just through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office channels, but through the National Security Council. With the integrated review, of course, he and other hon. Members will get precisely the opportunity to scrutinise the more strategic, big picture.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement on BNOs, but will he outline the steps that his Government are taking to guarantee that young pro-democracy activists who do not have BNO passport holder status will be afforded the same visa rights, extensions and protections as BNO passport holders?
Dominic Raab
As I have said, we have made a very clear, bespoke offer to BNO holders. Further details will be set out by the Home Secretary. She has already made some comments about the potential gap in years, but I will allow her to set out the full detail and then the House can scrutinise it properly.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I very much welcome both the tone and the content of what my right hon. Friend has said today. He is surely right to emphasise the importance of co-operation wherever we can and not of confrontation wherever possible. After all, we have more in common with China when it comes to climate change negotiations than we do currently with the United States. Will he emphasise to the Chinese authorities that the Magnitsky legislation and the human rights measures that he has so ably and rightly introduced are not aimed at the Chinese per se, but at human rights abusers, corrupt officials and business people wheresoever they may be?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I welcome and thank him for his support. When the Magnitsky sanctions were originally debated, the Russian Government said that the measure was solely aimed at Russia and when it was originally debated, discussed and enacted in the US, there were different Bills in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. We were very clear in the model that we adopted that this would be a universal mechanism, that it would allow us to target the individuals, whether they were state or non-state actors, and that it did not involve us, as a wider economic embargo or sanctions would do, in punishing the individual people of the country. This is a very bespoke, forensic tool, but it gives effect to exactly what he describes.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
History teaches us that we cannot stay silent in the face of what is happening to China’s Uyghur community. That warning would be stark from anyone, but coming from the Holocaust Educational Trust, it should send a chill through all of us. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the Government will miss no opportunity to remind the Chinese Government that wholesale abuses of human rights are not an internal matter for China any more than they are an internal matter for anyone and that, where there is evidence, as there clearly now is, of large-scale breaches of human rights conditions in China, then the rest of the world has not only a right, but an absolute duty, to step in to protect the citizens of China, as we would protect the citizens of any other country on earth?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I have said, we respect China as a leading member of the international community and as a permanent member of the Security Council, with not just rights but the obligations that go with that, The commitment to international human rights law reflected under the UN charter of customary international law is incredibly important. We raised this issue with the Chinese Government—I raised it with my Chinese opposite number in Beijing. We have also raised, for the first time, the issue in relation to Xinjiang and Hong Kong in the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
When the Communist party of China decided to breach the Sino-British Joint Declaration, it knew that it put at risk extradition treaties from countries that value the rule of law. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we continue to welcome China’s development as a leading economic power, the rules-based international system protects us all and must be defended?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK has a strong reputation as a promoter and guardian of the international rule of law, and that is a good guide or lodestar for our relationship with China. That is why not only has the UK grounded our response to China in relation to Hong Kong in the obligations freely assumed by the Chinese Government reflected in the joint declaration, but other countries are doing the same.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The measures the Foreign Secretary has announced in the Commons today are supported by all parts of the House, I am sure, but I thought his preamble was a little optimistic. It is clear that in international organisations China has the objective of subverting those organisations, rather than either trying to change the rules or obeying them. Will he be more explicit about how he intends to work with China, given its attitude of undermining the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation and other international bodies?
Dominic Raab
I make no apology for being stubbornly optimistic about global Britain, including in our relations with China, but of course it requires China to live up to its international obligations. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about not allowing a vacuum to appear in multilateral institutions. We are discussing that with our US partners, our European partners and across the board. He gave a few examples; the most obvious recent example of concern is intellectual property theft, where there was a Chinese candidate to lead the World Intellectual Property Organisation, and there was a groundswell of diplomatic activity to support the Singaporean candidate for precisely that reason. We need not only to uphold the rule of international law, but to work closely with all like-minded partners to support the multilateral institutions.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I strongly support the measures announced today. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the inevitable pressure, both public and private, comes from China, we will stand behind the measures for as long as the national security law remains in its current form?
Dominic Raab
Absolutely. In taking these measures, we recognise that China will respond. That is why I was clear that we are taking well reasoned, focused and proportionate measures in response to China’s actions in Hong Kong. We are clear that, in relation to Hong Kong and more generally, we will not buck and bow. We will look for the positive, but prepare in terms of the resilience of our economy, our security and, indeed, our values.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome strong action over Hong Kong and the Uyghurs and to secure our critical national infrastructure, but I am concerned by reports over the weekend that the Government told Huawei that the exclusion from our 5G network was at the behest of the United States. Does the Secretary of State agree that when we take such action to defend our national security, we should say so clearly, and that it can never be in our interests to be seen to be hiding behind President Trump, particularly as we leave the European Union and seek new partnerships?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the measures we are taking today. It was clear in the original decision on Huawei that we wanted to reduce reliance on high-risk vendors; it is equally clear—we have to be honest about it—that we had to take the measures that we took based on technical necessity, following US sanctions and their impact on the supply chain. We have been clear and honest about that, but there is a much broader challenge for us and our international partners, which is diversifying supply chains and telecoms providers so that we can build up greater diversity of high-trust vendors in the field, and that is what we have focused on.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
If we are for human rights, we must be for human rights everywhere. If we are for the rule of law, we need to be for the rule of law everywhere. In welcoming today’s decisive actions in relation to Hong Kong, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that our commitment to pro-democracy campaigners and oppressed minorities across China does not end here?
Dominic Raab
Of course, freedom of religion and freedom of expression are not only under threat in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. There is a broader issue, which we continue to raise with China and international partners in the relevant multilateral forums.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
I hope the Foreign Secretary has noted that almost every hon. Member has touched on the persecution of Uyghurs, which is pointing towards a demographic genocide. Well over 1 million Uyghurs are detained in camps and they have been subjected to some of the most atrocious forms of torture. The Chinese Government are now taking draconian measures with the aim of curbing this Muslim population. So will he agree to meet the civil society groups that have evidence of human rights abuses in China against the Uyghurs ahead of the next round of designations under the Magnitsky sanctions, and will he raise this issue with Secretary of State Pompeo tomorrow?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to join others in expressing concerns. I made it clear that we regard what is happening in Xinjiang as a gross violation of human rights. I have already referred to the reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. A report by 11 UN special rapporteurs in November 2019 also raised the issues of not only arbitrary detention, but enforced disappearance and torture. We will look very carefully at all that evidence.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I strongly welcome this statement. Whether it is the pictures of Uyghur Muslim children who have been separated from their parents, the horrifying footage of Uyghurs in chains being herded off the trains and into the camps, or the news that the Chinese Government are selling the hair of Uyghurs on the internet, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will feel deeply that many of these things are reminiscent of the darkest moments of 20th century history. Does he agree that as we work across Whitehall to think about all our different points of leverage on the Government in Beijing, we must recognise, first, that they are on a path of increasing aggression externally and increasing repression internally? Does he agree that we must also recognise that some things we do to have the most leverage over them may also be in our economic interest, be that restricting takeovers of companies in this country or restricting their ability to extract technology from our universities? Does he agree that the only way to stand up to a regime that is becoming more and more bullying is to confront it now?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes a range of good points, and we will, of course, continue to look at all of them in the round. I share his concern about what we are hearing in some of those reports and the harrowing echoes of what we have seen in the past. He is right to say that we need to use every potential lever we have to try to positively moderate or change the behaviour of China. We also need to be realistic about the size and scale of China, and, whatever the debate in this House, about the likely appetite and disposition of not just Europeans and north Americans, but the non-aligned countries in the UN. We will be at our strongest when we unite people together.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
China stands condemned in the world court of rights for its abuse of Christians and Uyghur Muslims, and this week is the 21st anniversary of China’s persecution of the Falun Gong, whose followers have been subjected to commercial organ harvesting with the knowledge of the state of China—there is a strong World Health Organisation evidential base on this. So will the Foreign Secretary consider imposing travel bans and asset freezes against those involved in serious human rights violations in China against the Falun Gong?
Dominic Raab
As I mentioned, the challenge will be evidential, in terms of establishing not just the abuses, but the individuals responsible. We are deeply concerned about the persecution of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Falun Gong practitioners and others on the grounds of religion or belief in China, including, given the new national security legislation, the risk that that grip gets only tighter.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
For as long as China’s gross abuses go largely uncensored by the UN Human Rights Council, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the UK will continue to oppose resolutions made under item 7 at the UN Human Rights Council? That item seems grossly disproportionate, given that it singles out Israel for special attention, against its undeniably poor record, while China continues systemic, appalling institutional abuse against the Uyghur people and nobody at the UN Human Rights Council has anything to say about it.
Dominic Raab
I remember well from my right hon. Friend’s time as a Minister what a champion of human rights he was. The approach we will take is to hold the countries and the Governments to account for the worst human rights abuses and so far as we can—he will remember this from his time dealing with the UN—mitigate and avoid the politicisation of those by Governments and others who wish to subvert human rights more generally.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP) [V]
The decision to suspend extradition arrangements is a necessary step in protecting human rights, given the serious curtailing of freedom that has taken place as a result of the imposition of the new national security law in Hong Kong. Can the Foreign Secretary update the House on the FCO’s recent engagement with civil society organisations in Hong Kong? What steps will he take under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 to designate sanctions against officials responsible for human rights violations in both Hong Kong and China?
Dominic Raab
I think I have already answered the question about Magnitsky sanctions. We will assess the evidence; I do not want to prejudge any future designations, but we will look at that very carefully. We also are engaged and in touch with various civil society movements in relation to both Hong Kong and more broadly, and the Minister for Asia is meeting Nathan Law later today. That is one illustration of the engagement we have had.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
By taking this welcome step to suspend extradition to Hong Kong, we are saying clearly that we have little confidence in the judicial processes of China. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will be looking at other extradition treaties that this country has to make sure that there are no halfway house routes that China might exploit to get citizens with whom it disagrees back to Hong Kong or China to face questionable charges?
Dominic Raab
Certainly, all the recent extradition treaty arrangements that we have already have an inbuilt safeguard to mitigate against that potential risk. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the reassurance he needs.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I very much welcome the announcement made by the Foreign Secretary today. I was alarmed, like many others, to hear the Chinese ambassador to the UK this weekend, when asked about forced mass sterilisations, say that he
“cannot rule out single cases”.
The Foreign Secretary has already said that he will be looking to work with international partners on further establishing that evidence base of human rights abuses against the Uyghur people in particular. Can he go further and explain exactly what conversations he has had so that we can further inform our decision making and further actions?
Dominic Raab
I agree with the hon. Lady; I think the whole House—every individual—will share the disgust and the horror at the idea that, anywhere, there is any number of cases of forced sterilisation. The testimony that we saw on “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday was truly harrowing—I had certainly not seen anything of that nature before.
The hon. Lady asks, quite rightly, about how we are trying to assess the evidence base. We need to bear in mind two factors: first, the evidential points that I have already mentioned and, secondly, the balance of international opinion. We can work with our traditional partners, which is really important, but we also need to build up a groundswell of wider support among like-minded partners and countries—particularly those that share our values, but maybe in the region or more broadly—that feel vulnerable to pressure from China. That is a challenge. The way the debate is viewed in some of those countries and by some of those Governments is different from the way it is seen here, so we need to be smart about the way we approach this so we gain consensus and build up a groundswell of support for the measures we have taken. I believe that in the approach we have taken on Hong Kong, grounded in the joint declaration and the very specific obligations that have been violated, we are in the best position to do that.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I very much welcome the much more robust attitude that we are seeing from the Front Bench? My right hon. Friend speaks about China’s economic rise, but I believe that that has coincided with a demise in a collective sense of duty and responsibility of the west. For decades, we have turned a blind eye to China’s democratic deficit and its human rights violations in the hope that it would mature into a globally responsible citizen, but that clearly has not happened. So, given its actions in the South China sea and given its veto, which it constantly uses at the United Nations, as well as the fact that it ignores WTO advice and is ensnaring so many poorer countries into debt, is this now the turning point where we drop the pretence that China shares our values? I very much welcome the statement today, but it is tactical. Can we have a strategic overhaul of our foreign policy in relation to China?
Dominic Raab
Of course, under previous Administrations, my right hon. Friend was a Foreign Office Minister during that period, but I recognise that he was always assiduous and loyal during that process.
Dominic Raab
I couldn’t possibly comment, but he makes a reasonable strategic point and of course the integrated review is an opportune moment to address it.
Mr Speaker
I am going to run this for another five minutes and Members are going to make others miss out.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The catalogue of human rights abuses by the Chinese authorities is nothing new, and the extension of the national security law in Hong Kong is just the next step. While the suspension of extradition and export controls is necessary, why has it taken so long to reach this point, and how will the UK Government act more swiftly in formulating a strategic plan with international counterparts to make sure all those who are experiencing human rights abuses in Hong Kong and across mainland China are protected?
Dominic Raab
The national security legislation was only introduced on 30 June. We are now towards the mid to end of July. Not only did we move to extend a path to citizenship to BNO passport holders and those with eligibility, but we have now taken these further steps on extradition and the arms embargo. All these things need to be thought through carefully and require legal preparation. I believe we have moved swiftly, reasonably and proportionately.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I strongly welcome today’s announcement and thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that China must adhere to international law if it wishes to be treated as a leading member of the international community?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right. That is the relationship and the way we want to calibrate the relationship—looking for positives, militating against risk and guided by international obligations, multilateral but also directly bilateral, which, in the case of Hong Kong, China freely assumed and is now in clear and serious violation of.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the important financial contribution that Chinese students make to our universities and research sector in particular. What plans do the Government have should those numbers fall? Perhaps more importantly, what can he do to reassure Chinese students and those of Chinese origin in this country that they are safe and welcome here and what can he do to tackle Sinophobic racism?
Dominic Raab
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. I made it clear in my statement that we value the contribution that travelling Chinese make, both touristically and in terms of universities. This is also a timely opportunity to tell the British-Chinese community here, who are among the most hard-working, productive and socially engaged members of our communities, how welcome they are and that we will have no truck in this House—certainly not on the Government Benches—with this descending into jingoism or any racism against them. They are incredibly important members of our community and society.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his robust statement. Does he agree that the national security law is not only to the detriment of the people of Hong Kong but doing great damage to China itself, and that that needs to be pointed out to China?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right. In relation to Hong Kong, it is proving how counterproductive this step is, not just for the residents there, but for the broader people of China, given the economic, financial and reputational issues at stake.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome the Government’s new measures on Hong Kong, but I want to press the Foreign Secretary on the gross human rights abuses in Xinjiang. We said that never again would the world stand by while a state set out to eliminate an entire culture, yet it is happening again. As well as accelerating the Magnitsky sanctions on Chinese officials, will he accept that giving out investment opportunities in new nuclear to the state-owned CGN is giving out the wrong signal and that, if he wants to be able to demonstrate real seriousness about gross human rights abuses, he could start by reviewing that policy?
Dominic Raab
I share the hon. Lady’s horror and shock at the appalling human rights abuses in Xinjiang and more broadly. Of course, we carefully assess not just individual investment decisions but the integrity and resilience of the processes, and we keep that under constant review.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Could we make a study of essential technologies where dependence on China would leave us very vulnerable and then have a strategy for developing those at home or with our allies?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is right, particularly in relation to 5G, but there are the other areas, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government rejected an amendment to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill that was designed to stop human tissue involuntarily harvested in China entering the UK market. I have since met the Minister for Asia, and I am pleased by his commitment to this. In the light of what the Foreign Secretary has said today, will he make a commitment that, if those amendments are reintroduced in the other place, the Government will look at them seriously anew?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
In suspending our extradition treaty with Hong Kong, has the Foreign Secretary decided that one country, two systems in Hong Kong is dead, in which case it would be wrong for UK and Commonwealth judges to play such an important role in the Court of Final Appeal, or has he decided to wait to see how China implements the security law while working to preserve other aspects of the joint declaration—particularly Hong Kong’s independent rule of law, under which our judges have played such an important role in the CFA?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. We will watch very carefully to see whether and the extent to which the new national security legislation impinges on the judicial autonomy that, under the Basic Law and joint declaration, should be afforded to Hong Kong. We will consult widely across Government but also with the judiciary about what further steps we take in the light of that.
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 suspend the House for four minutes.
Coronavirus Response
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our action against coronavirus.
Thanks to the perseverance of the British people and the hard work of those on the frontline, this virus is on the back foot. For over three weeks now, the number of new cases each day has been below 1,000, and daily hospital admissions are down to 142. Because of this success in slowing the spread of the virus, on Friday, the Prime Minister was able to set out a conditional timetable for the further easings of the restrictions.
Throughout the reopening, we have acted carefully and cautiously, always vigilant, and we have been able to deliver on our plan. We have protected the NHS. We have cautiously replaced the national lockdown with local action. Thanks to our action against hundreds of local outbreaks, and thanks to NHS test and trace working well, NHS test and trace has now asked 180,000 people to self-isolate—that is up to 180,000 potential chains of transmission broken by this brilliant new service. What is more, in the hundreds of thousands of tests it delivers every single day, the vast—vast—majority test negative. That provides assurance to hundreds of thousands of people who can go back to work and sleep easy.
NHS test and trace is a brand new service. Putting together a massive service of this kind, at this pace, has been a remarkable job—almost unprecedented. I would like to thank the remarkable leadership of Baroness Harding for spearheading the programme and Tom Riordan, who has driven our vital work with local authorities. Everybody in this country who loves freedom should join me in thanking all those who work in NHS test and trace, in Public Health England, and in local public health operations for successfully delivering on our plan of moving from a national lockdown to local action. The plan is working.
I would like, if I may, to set out the next stages in this plan. We refuse to be complacent about the threat posed by the virus, and we will not hesitate to put the brakes on if we need to. Our goal is that this should be done through as targeted local action as possible, like we did in Leicester, where we can now start to ease the restrictions. On Friday, we published our framework for containing and controlling future outbreaks in England. From Saturday, local authorities have had new powers in their areas so that they can act with more vigour in response to outbreaks. They can now close specific premises, shut outdoor public spaces, and cancel events. Later this week, we will publish indicative draft regulations that clearly set out the suite of legislative powers that Ministers may need to use to intervene at a local level.
As I pledged to the House on Thursday, we are publishing more data and sharing more data with local bodies. I bow to no one in my enthusiasm for the good use of data in decision making. Properly used, data is one of the best epidemiological weapons that we have. From last month, local directors of public health have had postcode-level data about outbreaks in their area. From today, as I committed to the House last week, we are going further and putting enhanced levels of data in the hands of local directors of public health too. Of course, high-quality testing is the main source of our data, and having set targets radically to expand testing over the past few months—which have had exactly the desired effect, as each one has been met—so we are now setting the target for the nation of half a million antigen tests a day by the end of October, ahead of winter. I am sure that, as a nation, we will meet this challenge too.
The need for extra testing is not, of course, the only challenge that winter will bring. We know that the NHS will face the usual annual winter pressures, and on top of that, we do not yet know how the virus will interact with the cold weather. So we will make sure that the NHS has the support it needs. We have massively increased the number of ventilators available to patients across the UK, up from 9,000 before the pandemic to nearly 30,000 now; we have now had an agreed supply of 30 billion pieces of personal protective equipment; and we will be rolling out the biggest ever flu vaccination programme in our country’s history.
To support this, I have agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the funding necessary to protect the NHS this winter too. We have already announced £30 billion for health and social care, and we will now provide a further £3 billion on top of the £1.5 billion capital funding announced a fortnight ago. This applies to the NHS in England. Those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will also receive extra funding. This means that the NHS can keep using the extra hospital capacity in the independent sector and that we can maintain the Nightingale hospitals, which have provided so much reassurance throughout the pandemic, at least until the end of March. We have protected the NHS through this crisis, and that support will help us to protect it in the months ahead.
We all know that in the long term, the best solution to this crisis would be a vaccine, and I am delighted to say that Britain continues to lead the world on that. Two leading vaccine developments are taking place in this country, at Oxford and Imperial, and both are supported by Government funding and the British life science industry. Today, Oxford published an encouraging report in The Lancet, showing that its phase 1 and 2 trials are proceeding well. The trial shows that the Oxford vaccine produces a strong immunity response in patients, in both antibody production and T-cell responses, and that no safety concerns have been identified. That promising news takes us one step closer to finding a vaccine that could save lives around the world.
The UK is not just developing world-leading vaccines; we are also putting more money into the global work for a vaccine than any other country. With like-minded partners we are working to ensure that whoever’s vaccine is approved first, the whole world can have access. We reject narrow nationalism. We support a global effort, because this virus respects no borders, and we are all on the same side.
This morning I held a global conference call with other health leaders, including from Germany, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, the United States, and others, to discuss the need for global licensing access for any successful vaccine. Here at home, as well as our investment in research, we are working hard to build a portfolio of the most promising new vaccines, no matter where they are from. We have already secured 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, if it succeeds, and today I can tell the House that the Government have secured early access to 90 million further vaccine doses—30 million from an agreement between BioNTech and Pfizer, and 60 million from Valneva. We are getting the deals in place, so that once we know a vaccine is safe and effective, we can make it available for British citizens as soon as humanly possible.
Another long-term solution to eliminating this virus and its negative effects is through developing effective treatments, and it was British scientists, backed by UK Government funding, who led the first robust clinical trial to find a treatment that was proved to reduce the risk of dying from covid: dexamethasone. We now have preliminary results from a clinical trial of another treatment known as SNG001, which was created by the Southampton -based biotech firm Synairgen. Initial findings based on a small cohort suggest that SNG001 may substantially reduce the chance of someone developing severe disease, and it could cut hospital admission time by a third. The data still need to be peer reviewed, and we are supporting a further large-scale trial, but the preliminary results are a positive sign.
In the fight against this virus, our world-renowned universities, researchers and scientists are indispensable, so that we can develop the vaccines and treatments that will tackle this virus for the long term. We have a plan, our plan is working, and the measures I have set out today will help to protect the NHS, support our treatments and vaccines, and take our country forward together. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Before I move to the substance of his remarks, will he tell the House whether it is true that the chief nursing officer was dropped from the Downing Street press conferences because she refused to stick to the No. 10 line on supporting Dominic Cummings? Did the Secretary of State really acquiesce in the silencing of the chief nursing officer at the height of this pandemic?
We in this House would all be immensely proud if a British vaccine and British drug led the world away from this deadly disease, and this is encouraging and exciting news. Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is equitable access to a vaccine when it is developed? He has my commitment that when a vaccine is available, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him in taking on poisonous anti-vax propaganda. However, we also have to understand that there have been many false dawns in the history of infectious disease, so what happens if a vaccine does not become available? What scenario planning is the Health Secretary doing, should we be confronted with that awful prospect?
On Friday, the Prime Minister suggested that it could all be over by Christmas and that people must start returning to work by 1 August, but the chief scientific adviser said on Thursday that there was “absolutely no reason” for people to stop working from home, so will the right hon. Gentleman now publish an explanation of the scientific basis for the change in guidance with respect to home working?
On Thursday in the House, the Health Secretary insisted that we went into lockdown on 16 March, having previously told the House on 2 June that
“lockdown began on 23 March.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 704.]
The CSA revealed that SAGE advised the Government to lock down ASAP on 16 March, and Professor Ferguson has said that had lockdown been implemented sooner, we would have saved thousands of lives. The Prime Minister understandably wants to avoid a second lockdown—we all do—but if SAGE advises again on the need for a second lockdown, will it be implemented immediately, and on what criteria will he judge whether a second national lockdown is needed?
Last week, the Prime Minister also suggested that social distancing could be eased in November, predicated on a low prevalence of the virus. Can the Health Secretary define what low prevalence means, and is that the only threshold we need to meet if social distancing is to be removed by Christmas? There were no details last week about when relatives could visit care homes, even though the Secretary of State said on 9 July that an announcement was imminent. He will know that this is causing huge anxiety and upset for many families. Can he give us clarity today on when relatives can visit their loved ones in care homes?
The Prime Minister did indeed announce extra NHS funding, which is welcome, but there was no extra funding for social care. Can the Health Secretary tell us whether social care will get any more resources for this winter? We have always said—and we agree with him—that mass testing is the way in which we have to live with this virus and avoid going into a second lockdown, so we welcome the commitments to increased testing. We also know that local lockdowns may well be necessary in the future—indeed, that is the Government’s preferred response to outbreaks—but it is vital that local areas receive patient-identifiable test data on a daily basis. Why did he tell the House last week that local authorities were getting that data when in fact they were not? I think he is announcing today that they will start getting that data—he refers to “enhanced” data—but local areas could have possibly avoided lockdowns and outbreaks earlier had they had that data.
Local areas still need more clarity. In Leicester, we still do not know what metrics will be used to decide whether Leicester will be released from lockdown. Can the Health Secretary confirm, with respect to Leicester, that given the infection rate there and in neighbouring Oadby and Wigston, a decision on their future will be taken at the same time? And given that we are talking about local lockdowns—we will study the regulations carefully—will he deliver on his promise to provide support for businesses that are subject to a local lockdown, such as in Leicester?
It now appears that Blackburn is overtaking Leicester in terms of infection rates, so what does the Health Secretary make of the remarks of the director of public health in Blackburn, who said at the weekend that Test and Trace is failing and, in his words, is
“contributing to the increased risks of Covid-19”
because half of contacts are not reached? Nationally, 71% of people are being contacted, not the 80% that is needed for it to be effective. Indeed, in the Serco call centre element of Test and Trace, only 53% of cases are contacted, and a smaller proportion of contacts are identified in the most deprived areas. We still do not have an app either, despite the right hon. Gentleman’s promises, with Whitehall sources now briefing that he has a
“tendency to overpromise and only sometimes deliver”.
What a wicked, unfair thing to say about the Health Secretary! Seriously—which bit of all this is actually world beating, other than possibly the £10 billion price tag?
Today’s vaccine news is encouraging, but we still have a long way to go. We need mass testing and we welcome the Health Secretary’s commitments on that front, but will he also undertake to expand the rapid testing consortium, so that more British suppliers can be involved? Many complain about test kits and say the regulator takes ages when they give their test kits to be signed off and that emails go unanswered. We need an effective tracing regime. Rather than the ad hoc system we have at the moment, with all that money going to privatised firms, why does he not put local directors of public health in charge, backed up with primary care? We need to be preparing now for the second wave. We already have one of the highest excess death rates in the world. Lessons need to be learned. I hope the Secretary of State is learning them.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman was doing so well when he was supporting what we were saying. I am grateful to him for support on what we are doing on vaccines. I am also grateful to him for his offer to stand shoulder to shoulder against the anti-vaccination movement. Those who promulgate lies about dangers of vaccines that are safe and have been approved are threatening lives. We should all in this House stand shoulder to shoulder against the anti-vax movement.
The hon. Gentleman asks what happens if there is no vaccine. If there is no vaccine—no vaccine can be guaranteed—then the next best thing is good treatment. We have the first treatment here in the UK, dexamethasone, and we have promising news of another today. We put all the support we can behind finding treatments. In fact, the UK recovery trial is the biggest—I would argue, the most effective—treatment clinical trial for covid-19 in the world. From the start, we backed our science. We supported our science, and with the help of the NHS we are able to do scientific research here with great rigour.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the SAGE advice from March about lockdown. The SAGE advice that the CSA was referring to was implemented. That was precisely the point I was making on Thursday and I did so very straightforwardly. It was implemented straight away. If he looks at that SAGE advice and what happened, that is what he will find. I seem to remember that at the time he supported the action. Maybe now he is looking in the rear-view mirror. He should spend a bit more time looking forward, not backwards.
On social distancing, as on Leicester, the hon. Gentleman asked about the data and thresholds. We use all our data. We use all the data available to make these judgments. We do not put numerical thresholds on any particular figure. We use all data and we make judgments based on them. He also asked about data being made available to local authorities. On Thursday last week, I said I wanted to provide more data to local authorities and was going to provide more data to local authorities. We have done that today. We had provided patient-identifiable information based on postcode-level testing. We are now able to provide full information, including the name and address of those who tested positive, to local authorities where they have signed a data protection agreement.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the effectiveness of NHS Test and Trace. He needs to stop for a moment and recognise the enormous impact of NHS Test and Trace, and the 180,000 people it has been in contact with to advise them to isolate. On Blackburn, yes, it is hard sometimes in certain areas to find all the contacts, so we will be sharing with the local area the information on those whom NHS Test and Trace has not been able to contact, so that local directors of public health will be able to support the action there. Again, I think his tone on that, sniping from the sidelines, ill becomes that enormous effort and the previous work he did to support those measures across party lines.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks what we have learned. I would say that the thing he needs to learn—I have certainly learned it—is that things go best when we get the work of the public sector and the private sector coming together. He does not even believe his own attempt to divide us, but uses his argument just to play to his base. Honestly, there are more important things going on. We have set out a direction. We are going as hard as we can down that direction of travel, and we have announced to the House further action in that direction of travel. He should get alongside.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. If questions and answers can be as concise as possible, we will hopefully get many more Members in.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
This may be the last coronavirus statement before the summer break, so I congratulate the Health Secretary on his stamina over the past six months and in particular on his decision to introduce the 100,000 tests target in April, which I think will be seen as a turning point in our battle against the virus.
The central challenge we now face is that according to the latest figures and as the Secretary of State knows, about 1,700 people a day are being infected by the virus and about 400 a day are going into NHS test and trace, which is about a quarter. As we think about how to prevent a second wave, will he give the House some details as to how we are going to bridge that gap so that we can go into our Christmas holiday with the same cautious optimism as we are going into our summer one?
Matt Hancock
Yes. That is a really important point, and we monitor those data all the time. I am glad to say that the latest data are a little bit better than my right hon. Friend suggested, but the point is still important. The main cause of the gap is people who are asymptomatic and therefore do not know they have the virus and do not come forward for testing. We are going to ramp up our communications to make clear that, if in doubt and if people think they might have the symptoms, they should come forward and get a test. We are also going to ramp up our asymptomatic testing of high-risk groups, which he and I have had exchanges about before. I am grateful for what he said about the 100,000 testing target. Of course, he will recognise that I am as delighted as he will be that the Prime Minister set me a new target on Friday to hit half a million by the end of October, so there is my summer sorted.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
I, too, welcome the progress being made regarding vaccine development by research centres and companies across the UK, including Valneva in Scotland, but a widely available vaccine is still some way off. In the meantime, avoiding the social and economic impact of repeated local lockdowns depends on driving down community transmission. Professor Dominic Harrison, public health director of Blackburn with Darwen Council, has highlighted that only half of contacts are being traced by the central system and called to be given information in individual covid cases so that their contacts can be traced and isolated in the short window before they, too, become infectious.
In the covid statement last Thursday, I again raised the issue of delays in providing individual test results to local public health teams. The Health Secretary said he could not answer so many questions from me, so he chose not to answer any. To make it simple, I will ask only one. Postcode information was utterly insufficient, so by what date can he guarantee that every single director of public health in England will receive the identifiable details of all new positive cases on a daily basis?
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
My South Derbyshire constituents have strong links with Burton and Leicester. In light of the recent spikes in the covid virus there, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that local authorities have the necessary powers to take local action to control the virus? Does he agree that localised action will be key to managing the virus as we move forward?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I agree strongly with my hon. Friend, who makes the point very clearly. No matter the level of new infections in any area, having better and better data helps us give more support to those who have coronavirus. Whether it is an outbreak with large numbers, as we saw for instance in Leicester and some other cities, where there is clear concerted action with support from national Government to go in and root it out, or whether it is an area with very low levels of background infections, like her own, where the local authority having the data will allow it to support the few positive cases, better data will help the co-ordination of the national and local response. We have said all along that tackling the virus is best done by the national level and local level working together, and I am really pleased that we are able to get this increased data out to increase that co-ordination still further.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I want to thank the Health Secretary for two things while I have the chance: the deal on Kaftrio for cystic fibrosis patients, which is so important to so many of them; and for meeting my constituent, Jake Ogborne, recently to talk about access to the drug Spinraza—I hope we have some news on that soon. However, for people with such conditions who have been shielding for the last few months, there is still a great deal of uncertainty, concern and confusion about whether it is safe for them to go outside and about what they can actually do, especially when other people are breaking social distancing, not wearing masks and so on. What reassurance can he give that people will be safe if they tentatively put a foot outside?
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s campaigning on these issues. We have worked closely together to bring really positive news on the treatments for cystic fibrosis on which she has campaigned so strongly. She also made the case very clearly on Spinraza, which I have since discussed with NHS England. It is, of course, NHS England’s statutory responsibility to take a decision, but I discussed it with NHS England, as I committed to do so to her and her constituent, Jake.
I say to all those in the shielding category that we have recommended that shielding restrictions come to an end at the end of this month because it is clinically advised that the levels of new infections are low enough that it is safe to do so. It is safe to do so. I plead with those who are shielding to listen to this clinical advice, because we also know that staying at home and not seeing other people has downsides to health too. If anyone wants proof that we will not take this step unless we are confident that it is safe, we have paused the end of shielding in Leicester exactly because rates of infection are higher—to keep people safe. People can be assured that it is safe, from the end of this month, for those in the shielding category to go out into the community, taking the precautions that everybody should take.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the significant drop in hospital admissions? As we continue to come to grips with this virus, does he agree that local response and local action is key to preventing and containing future spikes? Will he join me in praising the excellent work of Buckinghamshire clinical commissioning group and our local authority, which worked together to create a joint action plan to keep admission rates low?
Matt Hancock
I am pleased to congratulate all those working in Buckinghamshire—the council, the CCG and the other parts of the NHS—on their work to keep Buckinghamshire safe. The number of infections across Buckinghamshire is very low now, and we want to keep it that way.
I also take this opportunity to answer part of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) that I did not answer. More powers, as well more data, will be available to local areas to take more local action themselves, without having to refer up to the Secretary of State to use my powers. Of course, national Government hold further powers for significant action, which we have had to use just the once, but we will give local areas more powers, as well as more data, to be able to grip this issue locally.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)[V]
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his announcement today and congratulate the scientists looking into the research that will hopefully solve this covid problem. On Friday, he announced a review into Public Health England deaths data, which is incredibly important. Does he have any indication of how inaccurate that data may be? If so, how is that impacting future planning for the covid response?
Matt Hancock
I do not have anything further to add yet. The problem was that anybody who had had covid at any point and then subsequently died, whether or not from covid, was being counted in this data. Right at the start of the crisis, that was a perfectly reasonable approach to take, but clearly it needs to be reviewed. It is likely that the number of deaths has been overestimated on this measure, hence the urgent review, and I hope to have more information this week.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
We know that, for some, the recovery from coronavirus can be long and often bring with it debilitating symptoms, including fatigue, headaches and pain. What additional support is the Department giving GPs to ensure that they have the necessary resources to care for patients who are suffering with long-term symptoms and to help them come to terms with this, cope and readjust where necessary?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady asks a very important question. There is increasing evidence that there are some long-term, debilitating consequences of having had covid for a minority of people, and for that minority—which includes at least one Member of this House—it is very substantial. We have therefore started a whole NHS service to support people recovering from covid who have long-term symptoms. Primary care is, of course, an important part of the service that the NHS provides.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Up to last Friday, the rates of covid-19 infection had dropped in Kirklees over the previous seven days, but we have had recent outbreaks, raising fears among my constituents of local lockdowns. Does my right hon. Friend agree that timely postcode-level data will assist Kirklees Council’s director of public health and all its officers, who have been doing an excellent job, so that they can continue to target the outbreaks with local measures in our community?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is exactly the plan. They got that data at postcode level last week, and they will now get even more detail, including the identities of people who have tested positive, so that they can support them and work with NHS test and trace yet more effectively. Kirklees has been proactive in how it has managed the outbreaks it has had so far. It had outbreaks about a month ago, which it got right on top of, and it is working very hard in the current circumstances.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
Yesterday saw the single largest daily recorded number of global covid cases, as well as a protest against masks on the streets of London and an illegal rave attracting thousands of people outside Bath. How can the Secretary of State persuade people to get behind his Government’s public safety message?
Matt Hancock
I am glad to say that the vast majority of people respond positively to the public health messages that we have been putting out throughout, and it is a very important part of the policy.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Secretary of State reminded us of the importance of a vaccine. I was interested to hear on the radio as I drove into Parliament today a representative of a drug company saying that we might have a vaccine by October and a doctor based at a university telling us that today is a great day. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Matt Hancock
I am cautiously optimistic. The team are optimistic. My job is not to speculate on the likelihood of the Oxford vaccine coming off. It is to make sure that, should it come off, we are ready.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The £3 billion for the NHS is, of course, welcome, and the Secretary of State has rightly spoken passionately about protecting the NHS, but may I respectfully remind him that he is the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care? I have real concerns about social care being overwhelmed if there is a second surge, with hospitals having to discharge people into the community quickly, as we have seen with the first wave. What further package of support will he announce for social care?
Matt Hancock
Of course it is important to support social care as well, as we have financially right from the start. The vast majority of discharges from hospital were into the community, with care packages. Social care is a very important part of this issue. We announced the money for the NHS last week, but we continue to look at what we can do to support social care too.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the update that he has given today. I particularly welcome the news with regard to the vaccine programme. I wonder whether he can provide us with a little more detail about the work being undertaken on the risk of getting the virus again. How long does he think it will be until we know whether having antibodies will give us some form of immunity?
Matt Hancock
We are undertaking that research into immunology. It is incredibly important for people, like me, who have had the disease to know the likelihood of getting it again and of transmitting it again. Both are very important for obvious reasons—one for personal health; the other for public health—but it is not just about the antibody response; is also about the T-cell response. Both of those are different parts of the immune system responding. We are making progress in our understanding of that, but not yet enough to be able to recommend that people who have had the disease, or have antibodies, act in any different way from the rest of the community.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
On 26 June, there was letter to the Secretary of State from the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on access to medical cannabis under prescription about the desperate plight of epileptic children due to covid. On 9 June, there was an urgent email to the Under-Secretary of State following a meeting at the suggestion of the Secretary of State in this House on 2 June. On 22 May, there was a joint letter from eight cross-party chairs of cancer APPGs about an urgent need for a covid national cancer recovery plan. I have received no replies to any of that correspondence. Does the Secretary of State just not like me, or does that point to a bigger issue with his Department?
Matt Hancock
We have spoken about that in this House. It is absolutely true that during the peak of the crisis the Department was working incredibly hard and absolutely flat out, and we are now working hard to catch up on our correspondence.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
As part of the reopening of pubs, cafés and restaurants, they are being encouraged to open in the open air. That has implications for people who do not smoke. I understand that the Government will issue guidance for smoke-free areas outside pubs, restaurants and cafés. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will be consulted on those proposals, that they will be issued before Parliament rises, and that they will be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny?
Matt Hancock
I can certainly confirm that we will be consulted on those proposals as they are brought forward. I have not yet seen them. I know that work is ongoing, and I think that they are incredibly important. It is important that parliamentarians such as my hon. Friend, who have a long and proud history of fighting smoking and the consequences of it on people’s health—not only the health of smokers but of others—can ensure that those considerations are brought to bear as we bring the proposals forward. He knows what I think.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State. He will know that I have reputation in the past for being a bit hard on him, but in recent weeks he and his team have been very supportive when there have been challenges in my part of the world. I thank him sincerely for his and his team’s actions and good communication.
There is a news story today that there is a rise in infections in France, so this dreadful virus is still there. Does the Secretary of State agree that more firm leadership on the importance of wearing masks is very important, and will he take my assurance that the anti-vaxxers have to be confronted? I have just seen statistics that a quite high percentage of NHS employees are very resistant to getting the flu jab in the winter. That is a great challenge. Together, does he agree that we can face it down?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I like the new Barry—he is like the old Barry, before he got very cross with me over Brexit. Welcome back; it is really nice to see you. If I may, I will make this clinical point, which I normally avoid: it is also really good for your blood pressure.
We have been working really hard with Huddersfield and the local authorities in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world to bring the virus under control. It has been a real team effort and an example of how things should be done working together. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s words on that. I hope that the whole local team will see that this is a big cross-party effort and that there is not some sort of fake attempt to create division. This is everybody working together to try to tackle this virus, and that is how it should be.
On the latter point, I agree with the hon. Gentleman very strongly about tackling the anti-vax movement, and he is right to raise that. He is also right that this is not just about the covid vaccine, but the flu vaccine too. We are moving to make sure that a far higher proportion of people in the NHS get the flu vaccine. This winter, the expectation will be that every single person who works in the NHS will get the flu vaccine, unless there is a very good, essentially clinical, reason. Making that happen is a big part of the work I am doing with Simon Stevens and the NHS leadership, to drive that through.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. He referred to an additional £3 billion for the NHS to help keep the temporary Nightingale hospitals open over the winter, should they be needed, and to keep non-covid sites available for routine healthcare. Will he confirm how that funding relates to Wales?
Matt Hancock
Yes—and I imagine that you might have an interest in this too, Mr Deputy Speaker. The extra funding announced on Friday by the Prime Minister of course also means that we will be increasing the funding that goes to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We can provide a high-quality response to this disease only if we have the financial firepower to support the NHS and the action necessary. That is only possible because we have one United Kingdom. Scotland will receive an extra £250 million with which to tackle the disease; Wales will receive an extra £150 million and Northern Ireland an extra £90 million. That means that across the UK we can fight the disease better because we are all part of the same UK.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Earlier this month, Baroness Harding told a House of Lords Select Committee that people were unwilling to self-isolate because of financial pressures. We also now learn that test and trace does not make the same inroads in poorer areas, where the pressure not to self-isolate because of financial pressures is higher, as it does in more well off areas. Can I again ask the Secretary of State to make an announcement about sick pay and access to extra help for those who need to self-isolate but who perhaps cannot really afford to do so?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but the No. 1 cause of people not self-isolating is if they have coronavirus without symptoms and do not get a test. That is where we need the most effort. However, I hear the point that she is making, and I will take it away.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that co-trimoxazole is receiving tests against covid in Bangladesh and that the increasingly good results from there and India will be published very shortly? When are we likely to see it in use here?
Matt Hancock
I will immediately look into the proposal; I would be surprised if my scientists were not already across the trial. If there is a positive signal from that trial, we will make sure that we will absolutely bring it forward.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Today, I wrote to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the need for more support for those high-risk people who are currently shielding. Does the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care agree that it is essential that those currently shielding have faith in Government advice? If so, will he commit to publishing a full risk assessment for each category on the shielding list before 1 August? Now is the time to use the full capacity of Government communication to reassure people; will the Secretary of State do that?
Matt Hancock
I very much agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiments; the challenge is that the number of different groups within shielding is essentially as big as the number of people who are shielding. We have taken the approach that individuals will get individual clinical advice on what is right for them. That is the best way forward.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
A young couple contacted me over the weekend to ask why it is that any number of people without restriction can spend the whole evening eating and drinking in a pub, yet as from 1 August only 30 can go to a wedding reception. Can the Secretary of State give people in their position any comfort?
Matt Hancock
The explanation is that in the pub they will have to be socially distanced at 2 metres, or 1 metre plus mitigation. Unfortunately, this virus is still at large, so having very large groups of people in a situation where it is absolutely normal to be in very close contact is a risk. These are all judgments and unfortunately that is one of the judgments that we have had to make.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Covid, long-covid and lockdown are creating a tsunami of mental health crises. My local mental health trust has lost four black and minority ethnic workers in the line of duty on the national health service frontline. What is the plan to provide a comprehensive mental health strategy that meets the challenge, particularly for young people or for people who never thought they would ever have a mental health crisis, and to meet the workforce challenge so that we have a plan in the autumn for what is going to be a very difficult emotional time for people who have had covid or lockdown stress?
Matt Hancock
There is undoubtedly a challenge in respect of people who have not come forward during lockdown and are presenting now with severe mental health problems. I am working on that with both the NHS and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. There is good news: for non-pharmaceutical treatments, there is evidence that they are better done by telemedicine. Psychiatry can be better done by telemedicine, which helps, but obviously that does not help at the most serious end of cases of mental ill health, and that is something we are working very hard on.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I am sure it will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend that some of the solutions come from Southampton. I commend Synairgen’s work on the treatment it is producing. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend specifically about vaccinations. It is crucial not just that we put the anti-vax argument to bed but that he provides reassurance to those who might be anxious about a vaccination for covid. Can he provide any information on what plans he has for a reassurance programme?
Matt Hancock
Yes—we are planning to provide exactly the reassurance that my right hon. Friend seeks, in two ways. First, the essential point is that we will not approve a vaccine until we are clinically confident that it is safe. We would never approve a vaccine unless we were clinically confident that it was safe.
Secondly, we will also have a communications campaign. To answer a point that was raised earlier but to which I did not respond at the time, we have already published a plan for the order in which people will have access to the vaccine, starting with the most vulnerable. In essence, it consists of going down by age through those with comorbidities and health and social careworkers. We have to make sure that we reassure people and that we assure them that we are doing the roll-out in a clinically valid way.
Finally, on Southampton, my right hon. Friend is an assiduous representative of the environs of Southampton. When Southampton is doing well, Romsey is undoubtedly part of Southampton. In this case, Southampton is doing very well; let us hope that it continues.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does not the fact that local public health directors are getting access to the individual data that they need to avoid another local lockdown only from today, and only if they sign a data protection agreement, illustrate that the Government’s slow and over-centralised approach has been a problem? Why would a local public health director not sign such an agreement?
Matt Hancock
I doubt any would not, but we have to ensure that people are assured that their data will be used sensitively. On the timing, we have been constantly improving this throughout the process. Some people complain that everything is not done by yesterday. Well, we put this together in a matter of a few months. The right hon. Member would do far better standing up and supporting the work to put together this amazing programme in a few short weeks, rather than sniping from the sidelines.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will know, my neighbouring constituency of Blackburn now has the highest infection rate in the country and my constituency of Hyndburn and Haslingden is served by Blackburn Hospital. My constituents are rightly very concerned. As a local lockdown seems very possible, can he assure me that the Department will engage with me and local authorities closely to provide the guidance and advice needed?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend is quite right to say this. She has already been in contact and making sure she represents Lancashire and the needs of people across her area and across Lancashire. I absolutely commit to doing that and to working with MPs in all those areas that are affected across the country. I know how concerning this is to constituents in an area with a much higher rate, or close to an area with a much higher rate. A case in point has been the MPs in Leicester and across Leicestershire, with whom we have worked closely to try to tackle this problem. I know that my hon. Friend will do a fantastic job looking out for the interests and needs of her constituents.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Mercifully, our R rate in Warrington is low, but I am concerned about surrounding areas that many of my constituents commute to for work and that local authorities have not been getting patient-identifiable data, which would help them to quickly identify and address workplace outbreaks. I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurance that local authorities will be in receipt of this information from today, but what powers will they have to co-ordinate data sharing with each other to sit alongside this?
Matt Hancock
Yes, if a local authority—say, an upper-tier local authority—gets the data and wants to conclude a further data-sharing agreement with a lower-tier local authority, that is absolutely open to them.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hard work and sacrifices of the amazing people of Wolverhampton. Will my right hon. Friend stand with me in this and ensure that, whenever they need testing, they can easily still get access to it?
Matt Hancock
I stand with my hon. Friend and the people of Wolverhampton in saying that, if they need more testing, they will get more testing, but right now I know for sure that anybody in Wolverhampton who needs a test can get one if they have symptoms. If in doubt, get a test because that is the most important thing people can do to help control the virus across the country.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Independent SAGE has estimated another 27,000 deaths in the UK by spring without a second wave of the virus, if the UK Government continue with their current approach, so will the Secretary of State agree to follow the example of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and pursue a strategy of eliminating the virus, rather than accepting the terrible projected death toll that living with the virus will cause?
Matt Hancock
Those projections did not take into account the actions that the UK Government are undertaking.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I welcome the news today about the successful trial of the Oxford vaccine. The question on my constituents’ lips is: when will that be available on the market? I know my right hon. Friend cannot give those assurances, but could he assist my constituents first by saying when the trial is due to end, and secondly by giving assurances that the route to market for a successful vaccine will be as quick as that for dexamethasone?
Matt Hancock
On the first point, I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the clarity that she understandably seeks on behalf of her constituents, because it is a scientific question. As the rate of new infections has fallen, so the clinical trials have had to be a bit longer, because they are trying to prove a negative: that if someone has had the vaccine, they do not then get the disease. As a result, AstraZeneca has taken the vaccine around the world and put trials in countries where there is a much higher rate of infection. The rule with clinical trials is that, as soon as a trial comes to a conclusion that is beyond reasonable scientific doubt, the results are brought forward immediately. It is not a trial with a specific end date; it is a trial that runs until it is concluded scientifically, one way or the other. I hope that explanation—well, it is not as good as a date, but I hope that people accept it.
On the second point, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been working hand in glove with these brilliant scientists, and we should put it on the record, even though it might take me an extra 30 seconds to say it, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has done an amazing job. Alongside the scientists, it has made sure the trials are designed so that it can approve the results as soon as the results come forward—essentially, in parallel, rather than afterward, which is the norm. The MHRA has played a blinder; it is one of the reasons that the UK is at the forefront in vaccines and treatments. That means the vaccine will be available as soon as humanly possible as soon as the science is proven.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment and dedication. Can he give detail on the difference between reporting statistics that allowed coronavirus to be recorded as the cause of death on the death certificate of a constituent of mine who had end stage heart failure and a mild dose of coronavirus, with no symptoms, which led to a closed casket being required and potentially to misleading statistics? Does he agree that we need to be clear about whether someone simply had coronavirus or died directly because of complications of coronavirus?
Matt Hancock
Teasing out the answer to that question is a difficult statistical task, but the broad point the hon. Gentleman makes is the right one. We are seeking to tackle this disease, coronavirus, and we have to measure that; at the same time, of course, we need to continue to tackle all the other diseases and to make sure that the consequences of those diseases are measured properly. It is a significant challenge that faces many countries around the world, and that is why scientists are somewhat sceptical about over-analysis and international comparisons of deaths data, as proven by the need for the urgent review I put in place last week.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, if we are to suppress the virus, we need an agile and vigorous response. Six weeks ago, I asked him to ensure that tests were available to elderly residents not only of care homes but in sheltered accommodation and retirement villages. Three weeks ago, he told me that they
“will be rolled out over the coming three to four weeks”.—[Official Report, 29 June 2020; Vol. 678, c. 117.]
Can he confirm whether that is now complete, or will be by the end of the week?
Matt Hancock
I will bring the answer to that question to the Science and Technology Committee, which my right hon. Friend chairs, tomorrow. I commissioned an answer to precisely that question ahead of that appearance and was hoping that he would ask a different question today, but I have been found out.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
A test, trace and isolate system that holds public trust is vital, so can the Secretary of State explain why he considered the data protection impact assessment optional? How will he deal with mistakes that come to light, such as contact tracers sharing patient details on social media, as reported by The Sunday Times? In short, how will he increase trust in this essential system, given that bullish statements are no substitute for due diligence?
Matt Hancock
I will not be held back by bureaucracy. We made three data protection impact assessments, which cover all the necessary. I saw the report saying that we should have done one to cover all three, but we did the three and I think that will do the trick.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
At the start of the pandemic, I raised the issue of care homes potentially losing revenue due to covid and running the risk of closing down. My right hon. Friend advised me at the time that no care home in Ashfield would close. Will he please update the House on the extra support given to care homes and advise whether any have closed due to financial constraints caused by covid?
Matt Hancock
We have worked very hard to support the social care sector, and, exactly as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) asked, making sure that we get that financial support in is important. Of course, in the first instance, the local authority is responsible for ensuring that there are available care homes to put people in. I am very happy to look into the specific details of Ashfield and to write to my hon. Friend to make sure he gets a proper answer to his question.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Before asking the people of Newcastle or any city to undertake a local lockdown, the Government must provide clear national guidance, good local data and better local resources. Eighty per cent. of those traced are reached by local authority and public health teams; surely they deserve a greater proportion of the 18,000 tracers recruited nationally. Covid-19 was made a notifiable disease on 5 March, with a legal requirement to notify local authorities, yet the Secretary of State tells us he is only just sorting out the data protection issues of that now.
Matt Hancock
On the hon. Lady’s first point, of course it is a big team effort. She is quite right to raise the three areas that she raises, and that is exactly what we are delivering on: making sure that people have high-quality data; making sure that if we need to put in more resources, such as more testing, we do that; making sure that money goes to local directors of public health, which we have done; and making sure that we get high-quality links between the two. We are making progress exactly against how she sets it out.
If, in addition, the hon. Lady seeks a threshold—a figure—at which point a local lockdown is triggered, we are not going to do that. The reason we are not going to do that is that we have to take everything into account, including local circumstances. For instance, last week the number of cases in Herefordshire shot up—on some counts, it became one of the places with the most cases in the country—but we know that that was confined on one farm, so it was far better to tackle that one farm than to shut down the whole of Herefordshire. That is a clear example of why this simplistic call for a single threshold is not the right approach. The right approach is a scientific approach, using all the available data and people’s judgment.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that many people in Rother Valley do not own cars and that public transport is often woeful, so will he support putting mobile testing units in Maltby and Dinnington so that everyone who needs a test can get a test?
Matt Hancock
I will look precisely at putting mobile testing units in Maltby and Dinnington and look, again, at the local data, along with the local authority, to see what we can do.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
I, too, welcome the Health Secretary’s change of heart and his assurance that complete pillar 2 testing data will be sent to local public health departments each day and not each week. The delay has inhibited local public health departments’ ability to contact and trace covid-infected people, letting the virus spread in some areas. Given that many of us have been asking for these data for a number of weeks now, what is his assessment of the number of people who have been infected as a result of the delay, the impact on public confidence, and the hit that local economies will take because of these failures?
Matt Hancock
We have been building the test and trace system and improving the data that flows from it and underpins it all the way through this crisis, and I am glad that the hon. Lady is pleased by the continued progress that we are making. That is the way to look at this. We have been building this extraordinary service at extraordinary pace, and I am really glad we are able to get more.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I welcome the Health Secretary’s statement and share his concerns that we do not know how the virus will react when we enter our cold weather season. Wealden constituents are already concerned about winter flu. When he has the data on cold weather and the virus, will he ensure that it is shared with East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, East Sussex County Council and Wealden District Council so that we can prepare and be resourced to deal with both covid and winter flu?
Matt Hancock
I will do better than that: when we get scientific evidence on the impact of cold weather on this virus, we will publish it.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]
I hope the Secretary of State is aware of the tragic case of Kelly Smith, who sadly died when her cancer treatment was stopped during the covid lockdown. The Government’s aspiration to get cancer services back to normal by the end of the year is simply not acceptable. Too many cancers are incurable within a few weeks. Will he address this issue, and will he look at transforming radiotherapy services, which have emerged as being highly effective as a cancer treatment and can be delivered even if there is a second spike in the pandemic?
Matt Hancock
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of this. We are getting cancer services back up and running as fast as possible. The idea that we are waiting until the end of the year before doing anything is completely wrong. We are going as fast as we can. During the peak, some of the services did have to be stopped for clinical reasons. My heart goes out to those whose treatment was stopped because of covid and who died of cancer, The judgments were made on an individual clinical basis as to whether it was safer to go ahead with the treatment or to stop it, because, of course, many treatments for cancer are much more dangerous when there is a high volume of infectious disease. I understand that that explanation will be of no comfort to Kelly’s family and friends who mourn her, but I also understand why the NHS made that decision and I support them in the decision that it made. We must get this going again as fast as possible. This is something on which I am working very closely with the NHS. In fact, I had a meeting on it only last week. I also entirely agree on the point about radiology services, too.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I invite the Secretary of State to join me in congratulating two Staffordshire organisations: one in the private sector and one in the public sector. The private sector firm is Cobra Biologics in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. It was one of the first manufacturers of the Oxford vaccine, and had scaled up to increase production even before AstraZeneca came on board. The public sector firm is the Staffordshire Resilience Forum. Thanks to its hard work and the hard work of the people of Staffordshire, they have now been able to downgrade a major coronavirus incidence. Although, of course, we cannot drop our guard completely, the situation is now currently stable and under control, and that, I think, illustrates our response to coronavirus.
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to the public health services, the NHS and the councils across Staffordshire that have worked so hard to get this virus under control and have really got it right down in Staffordshire, including in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which my hon. Friend regards as the finest part of Staffordshire. The first point that he makes is also absolutely valid and something that I will consider going forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. Please take care when leaving the Chamber. The House is suspended for three minutes.
Points of Order
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, after a term like no other, primary schools in St Helens and across England finished for the summer. In recent years, my son, like over 2 million other reception and year 1 pupils, received a piece of fruit or a vegetable every day as part of a welcome public health initiative introduced in 2004, the school fruit and vegetable scheme. However, the Government suspended the scheme in March because of the covid-19 lockdown.
I submitted a written parliamentary question to the Department of Health and Social Care on 29 June about the status of this scheme. I received a reply on 6 July, saying I would receive a further answer shortly. I have heard nothing since. Given the imminent parliamentary recess, can you, Mr Deputy Speaker, advise me how I might get Ministers to provide some clarity for 16,000 schools, local authorities, growers, suppliers, and parents and pupils that this important initiative will be restored when schools return in September?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order and for giving the Chair notice of it. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point that he has just made. Indeed, the Speaker has stressed how important it is that all Departments answer questions that have been given to them as quickly as is possible. I hope they take this opportunity to do so, particularly over the next couple of days, but clearly, if he does not get a response, he still has, as does every other Member here, the opportunity to write to the Departments and the Secretaries of State, even during recess.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ofgem, the energy regulator, has this week confirmed that it will not introduce a short-haul tariff for gas transportation in October, when the pricing regime comes into play. That will have a huge impact on energy intensive industries on Teesside and across the country that are based near gas terminals. The extra costs could even threaten the very existence of some of those companies.
I know that Ministers have been in touch with Ofgem, but can you tell me, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether you have had any indication at all that a Minister from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is planning to come to the House to make a statement on the impact of this decision and how Government might be able to help?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in giving me notice of the point of order he has just made. He has made an important point, but I have had no indication that a Minister intends to make a statement. Should that alter, it will be communicated to him and the House in the usual way.
Trade Bill
Monday 20th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 20 July 2020 - (20 Jul 2020)
21:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 326 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 251 / Noes: 337 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 251 / Noes: 340 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 345 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 243 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 6—Offences related to disclosure under section (Disclosure of information by other authorities).
New clause 1—Report on proposed free trade agreement—
“(1) This section applies (subject to subsection (2)) where the United Kingdom has authenticated a free trade agreement (“the proposed agreement”), if —
(a) the other party (or each other party) and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement immediately before exit day, or
(b) where the proposed agreement was authenticated by the United Kingdom before exit day, the other party (or each other party) and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement on the day the proposed agreement was authenticated by the United Kingdom.
(2) This section applies only if the proposed agreement is not binding on the United Kingdom as a matter of international law unless it is ratified by the United Kingdom.
(3) Before the United Kingdom ratifies the proposed agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, any significant differences between—
(a) the trade-related provisions of the proposed agreement, and
(b) the trade-related provisions of the existing free trade agreement.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if a report in relation to the proposed agreement has been laid before Parliament under section [Report to be laid with regulations under section 2(1))2].
(5) The duty imposed by subsection (3) applies only at a time when regulations may be made under section 2(1)(see section 2(7)).
(6) In this section a reference to authenticating a free trade agreement is a reference to doing an act which establishes the text of the agreement as authentic and definitive as a matter of international law.
(7) In this section—
“the existing free trade agreement” means the free trade agreement referred to in subsection (1) (a) or (b);
the “trade-related provisions” of a free trade agreement are the provisions of the agreement that mainly relate to trade.”
This new clause reinserts a Government amendment made to the Trade Bill in 2018 and requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament before the UK ratifies a new free trade agreement with a country that (before exit day) had a free trade agreement with the EU. The report must explain any significant differences between the proposed new agreement and the existing agreement with the EU.
New clause 2—Reporting requirement not to apply in exceptional cases—
“(1) Section [Report on proposed free trade agreement] does not apply to a free trade agreement if a Minister of the Crown is of the opinion that, exceptionally, the agreement needs to be ratified without laying before Parliament a report which meets the requirements of subsection (3) of that section.
(2) If a Minister determines that a free trade agreement is it be ratified without laying before Parliament a report which meets the requirements of section [Report on proposed free trade agreement] (3), the Minister must, as soon as practicable after the agreement is ratified, lay before Parliament—
(a) a report which meets those requirements, and
(b) a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion mentioned in subsection (1) and explain why.”
This new clause provides that the reporting requirement under section [Report on proposed free trade agreement] would not apply if a Minister takes the view that, exceptionally, the agreement should be ratified without the reporting requirement being met.
New clause 3—Report to be laid with regulations under section 2(1)—
“(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under section 2(1) for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement to which the United Kingdom and another signatory (or other signatories) are signatories.
(2) A draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be laid before Parliament unless, at least 10 Commons sitting days before the draft is laid, a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, any significant differences between—
(a) the trade-related provisions of the free trade agreement to which the United Kingdom and the other signatory (or other signatories) are signatories, and
(b) the trade-related provisions of the existing free trade agreement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if, at least 10 Commons sitting days before a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations is laid, a report in relation to the agreement has been laid before Parliament under section [Report on proposed free trade agreement](3).
(4) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons begins to sit;
“the existing free trade agreement” means the free trade agreement to which the European Union and the other signatory (or other signatories) were signatories immediately before exit day;
the “trade-related provisions” of a free trade agreement are the provisions of the agreement that mainly relate to trade.”
This new clause reinserts a Government amendment made to the Trade Bill in 2018 and requires a Minister to lay a report before Parliament at least 10 Commons sitting days before regulations implementing a new free trade agreement are laid in draft under clause 2(1). The report is required to explain any significant differences between the new agreement and the existing agreement with the EU.
New clause 4—Parliamentary approval of trade agreements—
“(1) Negotiations towards a free trade agreement may not commence until the Secretary of State has laid draft negotiating objectives in respect of that agreement before both Houses of Parliament, and a motion endorsing draft negotiating objectives has been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Prior to the draft negotiating objectives being laid, the Secretary of State must have—
(a) consulted with each devolved authority on the content of the draft negotiating objectives, and
(b) produced a sustainability impact assessment including, but not limited to, an assessment of the impact on food safety, health, the environment and animal welfare.
(3) The United Kingdom may not become a signatory to a free trade agreement to which this section applies unless a draft of the agreement in the terms in which it was to be presented for signature by parties to the agreement has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(4) Before either House of Parliament may be asked to approve by resolution the text of a proposed free trade agreement, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult with each devolved authority on the text of the proposed agreement, and
(b) lay before both Houses a report assessing the compliance of the text of the proposed agreement with any standards laid down by primary or subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom including, but not limited to, legislation governing or prescribing standards on food safety, health, the environment and animal welfare.
(5) In this section—
“devolved authority” has the meaning given in section 4(1) of this Act, and
“free trade agreement” means any agreement which is—
(a) within the definition given in section 4(1) of this Act, and
(b) an agreement between the United Kingdom and one or more partners that includes components that facilitate the trade of goods, services or intellectual property.”
New clause 7—Import standards—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—
(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and
(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom.
(2) In subsection (1)—
“international trade agreement” has the meaning given in section 2(2) of this Act;
“relevant standards” means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal welfare applying in connection with the production of agricultural and food products;
“SPS Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time).”
This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.
New clause 8—International trade agreements: public health services—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 if any provision of the agreement—
(a) would have the effect of, or could reasonably be expected to have the effect of, altering the way in which a service is provided by a specified body,
(b) would have the effect of, or could reasonably be expected to have the effect of, opening any part of a specified body to foreign investment,
(c) would open part or all of a specified body to market access but without any accompanying provision for the UK Government to reduce the level of market access in future,
(d) does not specify sectors or subsectors of a specified body to which the agreement would enable market access,
(e) includes investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in relation to a specified body, or
(f) includes changes to mechanisms for the pricing of medical or pharmaceutical products for purchase by a specified body.
(2) The specified bodies, for the purpose of subsection (1), are—
(a) NHS England,
(b) NHS Wales,
(c) a health board in Scotland, a special health board in Scotland or the Common Services Agency established by section 10 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, and
(d) HSCNI.
(3) In subsection (1), ” international trade agreement” has the meaning given in section 2 of this Act.”
This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to restrict market access to healthcare services, including medicines and medical devices.
New clause 9—International trade agreements: climate and environmental goals—
“(1) An appropriate authority may not take action in relation to an international trade agreement unless nothing in the international trade agreement restricts the ability of that or any other appropriate authority to take action in pursuit of the UK’s climate and environmental goals.
(2) In subsection (1) “action in relation to an international trade agreement” means—
(a) laying the agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (treaties to be laid before Parliament before ratification),
(b) making regulations under section 2 for the purposes of implementing or facilitating the implementation of the agreement, or
(c) making subordinate legislation under any other enactment for those purposes.
(3) In subsection (2) “laid”—
(a) where the appropriate authority is a Minister of the Crown, means laid before Parliament;
(b) where the appropriate authority is the Scottish Ministers, means laid before the Scottish Parliament;
(c) where the appropriate authority is the Welsh Ministers, means laid before Senedd Cymru; and
(d) where the appropriate authority is a Northern Ireland department, means laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(4) In conducting trade negotiations and in other related activity a Minister of the Crown—
(a) must give priority to nations that are fully implementing relevant multilateral environmental agreements; and
(b) must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the achievement of the UK’s climate and environmental goals (including, in particular, by pursuing where appropriate the introduction, amendment or application of rules within the World Trade Organisation and other international trade forums).
(5) In subsection (4) “trade negotiations” means—
(a) negotiations with a view to entering into an international trade agreement; or
(b) negotiations in connection with the implementation or alteration of an international trade agreement, or otherwise connected with international trade.
(6) In subsection (4) “relevant multilateral environmental agreements” means, so far as geographically applicable, any of—
(a) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change done at New York on 9 May 1992 and Paris Agreement done at Paris on 12 December 2015,
(b) the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity done at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992 (including its protocols),
(c) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1973,
(d) United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea 1982,
(e) the Aarhus Convention 1998,
(f) the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution 1979,
(g) the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) Convention 1992, or
(h) the Basel Convention 1992.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament in each financial year a report about compliance with subsection (4).
(8) In this section “the UK’s climate and environmental goals” means—
(a) the target of achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050;
(b) any other target set under or for purposes connected with any enactment (including devolved legislation and retained EU law) relating to the environment or climate change;
(c) any target to which the UK is committed by virtue of being party to a relevant multilateral environmental agreement; and
(d) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”
This new clause aligns the UK’s trade policy with the UK’s climate and environmental agenda. It would ensure that the negotiation of trade agreements facilitates the achievement of the UK’s domestic climate and environmental goals and would help prevent trade agreements from restricting action in pursuit of these goals.
New clause 10—Availability of agreement texts—
“(1) The text of any proposed international trade agreement which is being negotiated shall, so far as it is agreed or consolidated, be made publicly available within ten days of the close of each round of negotiations.
(2) Every—
(a) document submitted formally by the United Kingdom government to the negotiations, and
(b) agenda for each new round of negotiations
shall be made publicly available by the Secretary of State.
(3) All other documents relating to the negotiations and not falling within the descriptions provided in subsections (1) and (2) shall be made publicly available by the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (4).
(4) The Secretary of State may withhold from publication any document of a kind falling within the description in subsection (3) but must publish a statement of the reasons for doing so.
(5) In the case of any document withheld under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall provide full and unfettered access to that document to—
(a) any select committee of either House of Parliament to which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the proposed agreement is relevant, and
(b) any other person or body which the Secretary of State may authorise.
(6) In the case of a document to which access is provided under subsection (5), the Secretary of State may specify conditions under which the text shall be made available.
(7) The Secretary of State shall maintain an online public register of all documents published under subsections (1), (2) and (3) or withheld under subsection (4).”
This new clause would give select committees access to more confidential negotiating documents and would provide a process for further transparency of negotiating texts beyond that.
New clause 11—Import of agricultural goods after IP completion day—
“(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal health and welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of standards under UK law relating to—
(a) animal health and welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health
which must be met in the course of production of any imported agricultural goods.
(3) A register under subsection (2) must be updated within seven days of any amendment to any standard listed in the register.
(4) “Agricultural goods”, for the purposes of this section, means anything produced by a producer operating in one or more agricultural sectors listed in Schedule 1.
(5) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
This new clause would set a requirement for imported agricultural goods to meet animal health and welfare, environmental, plant health, food safety and other standards which are at least as high as those which apply to UK produced agricultural goods.
New clause 12—Review of free trade agreements—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a review of the operation and impacts of each free trade agreement to which this Act applies.
(2) Each such review shall be laid before Parliament no later than five years from the day on which the agreement comes into force.
(3) A further review of the operation of each agreement shall be laid no later than five years after the day on which the previous such review was laid before Parliament.
(4) Each review shall be conducted by a credible body independent of government and shall include both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the impacts of the agreement, including as a minimum—
(a) the economic impacts on individual sectors of the economy, including, but not restricted to—
(i) the impacts on the quantity and quality of employment,
(ii) the various regional impacts across the different parts of the UK,
(iii) the impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises, and
(iv) the impacts on vulnerable economic groups;
(b) the social impacts, including but not restricted to—
(i) the impacts on public services, wages, labour standards, social dialogue, health and safety at work, public health, food safety, social protection, consumer protection and information, and
(ii) the government’s duties under the Equality Act 2010;
(c) the impacts on human rights, including but not restricted to—
(i) workers’ rights,
(ii) women’s rights,
(iii) cultural rights and
(iv) all UK obligations under international human rights law;
(d) the impacts on the environment, including but not restricted to—
(i) the need to protect and preserve the oceans,
(ii) biodiversity,
(iii) the rural environment and air quality, and
(iv) the need to meet the UK’s international obligations to combat climate change;
(e) the impact of any investor-state dispute settlement which forms part of the agreement;
(f) the impacts on animal welfare, including but not restricted to the impacts on animal welfare in food production, both as it relates to food produced in the UK and as it relates to food imported into the UK from other countries; and
(g) the economic, social, cultural, food security and environmental interests of those countries considered to be developing countries for the purposes of clause 10 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, as defined in Schedule 3 to that Act and as amended by regulations.
(5) The elements of the review to be undertaken under (4)(f) must be sufficiently disaggregated so as to capture the full range of impacts on different groups of developing countries, and must include both direct and indirect impacts, such as loss of market share through trade diversion or preference erosion.”
This new clause would introduce a review of the functioning of each FTA to which the UK is a signatory to be brought forward after five years and again after a further five.
New clause 13—Role of Joint Ministerial Committee—
“(1) The Joint Ministerial Committee is to be a forum—
(a) for discussing—
(i) the terms upon which the United Kingdom is to commence negotiations with respect to any international trade agreement;
(ii) proposals to amend retained EU law for the purposes of regulations made under section 1 or section 2;
(b) for seeking a consensus on the matters set out in subsection (1)(a) between Her Majesty’s Government and the other members of the Joint Ministerial Committee.
(2) Before Her Majesty’s Government concludes an international trade agreement, the Secretary of State must produce a document for consideration by the Joint Ministerial Committee setting out—
(a) Her Majesty’s Government’s objectives and strategy in negotiating and concluding an international trade agreement;
(b) the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to keep the Joint Ministerial Committee informed of progress in reaching an international trade agreement;
(c) the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to consult each member of the Joint Ministerial Committee before entering into an international trade agreement and for taking the views of each member into account.
(3) Before concluding an international trade agreement the Secretary of State must produce a document setting out the terms of the proposed agreement for consideration by the Joint Ministerial Committee.
(4) In this section, “the Joint Ministerial Committee” means the body set up in accordance with Supplementary Agreement A of the Memorandum of Understanding on Devolution, between Her Majesty’s Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee.”
This new clause would put on the face of the Bill a joint ministerial committee, and give it powers to discuss international trade issues with the devolved Administrations.
New clause 14—Animal welfare and sentience—
“Regulations may only be made under section 2(1) if the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are compatible with—
(a) any provision in UK law (including retained EU law) relating to animal welfare standards and the welfare of animals in the production of food; and
(b) any obligations relating to animal sentience by which the UK is bound, or any principles relating to animal sentience to which the UK adheres.”
This new clause would ensure that any animal welfare or sentience regulations arising from trade agreements are aligned with existing commitments in UK and retained EU law.
New clause 15—Statement on equalities legislation—
“(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under section 2(1).
(2) Before a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations is laid before either House of Parliament, the Minister must make a statement as to whether the statutory instrument would, if made, modify any provision of equalities legislation.
(3) If a Minister expresses a view in a statement under subsection (2) that the draft statutory instrument would, if made, modify any provision of equalities legislation, the Minister must explain in the statement what the effect of each such modification would be.
(4) If the Minister fails to make a statement as required by subsection (2), the Minister must make a statement explaining why.
(5) A statement under this section must be made in writing and published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
(6) In this section, “equalities legislation” means the Equality Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010 and any subordinate legislation made under either of those Acts.”
This new clause would oblige the government to publish a statement outlining whether any equalities legislation would be modified by the proposed regulations.
New clause 16—UK participation in EU and EEA organisations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must seek to negotiate an international trade agreement with the EU which will enable the United Kingdom to continue to co-operate closely with the bodies listed in subsection (2).
(2) The bodies are—
(a) the European Medicines Agency;
(b) the European Chemicals Agency;
(c) the European Aviation Safety Agency;
(d) the European Maritime Safety Agency.”
This new clause would oblige the Secretary of State to negotiate close cooperation with the four mentioned agencies.
New clause 17—International trade agreements: health or care services—
“(1) Regulations under section 2(1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are met in relation to the application of that agreement in any part of the United Kingdom.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that no provision of that international trade agreement in any way undermines or restricts the ability of an appropriate authority—
(a) to provide a comprehensive publicly funded health service free at the point of delivery,
(b) to protect the employment rights or terms and conditions of employment for public sector employees and those working in publicly funded health or care sectors,
(c) to regulate and maintain the quality and safety of health or care services,
(d) to regulate and control the pricing and reimbursement systems for the purchase of medicines or medical devices, or
(e) to regulate and maintain the level of protection afforded in relation to patient data, public health data and publicly provided social care data relating to UK citizens.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the agreement—
(a) explicitly excludes application of any provision within that agreement to publicly funded health or care services,
(b) explicitly excludes provision for any Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause that provides, or is related to, the delivery of public services, health care, care or public health,
(c) explicitly excludes the use of any negative listing, standstill or ratchet clause that provides, or is related to, the delivery of public services, health care, care or public health,
(d) contains explicit recognition that an appropriate authority (within the meaning of section 4) has the right to enact policies, legislation and regulation which protects and promotes health, public health, social care and public safety in health or care services, and
(e) prohibits the sale of patient data, public health data and publicly provided social care data.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“negative listing” means a listing only of exceptions, exclusions or limits to commitments made by parties to the agreement;
“ratchet” in relation to any provision in an agreement means any provision whereby a party, if (after the agreement has been ratified) it has unilaterally removed a barrier in an area where it had made a commitment before the agreement was ratified, may not reintroduce that barrier, and
“standstill” in relation to any provision in an agreement means any provision by which parties list barriers which are in force at the time that they sign the agreement and undertake not to introduce any new barriers.”
This amendment would aim to protect the NHS and publicly funded health and care services in other parts of the UK from any form of control from outside the UK.
New clause 18—Trade agreements: approval—
“A Minister of the Crown must not make regulations to implement an international trade agreement unless—
(a) a statement on the terms of the agreement has been approved by the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,
(b) a statement on the terms of the agreement has been approved by the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,
(c) a motion relating to that statement has been approved by a resolution of Senedd Cymru,
(d) a motion relating to that statement has been approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament, and
(e) a motion relating to that statement has been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This new clause would require the UK Government to secure the approval of both Houses of Parliament and the devolved Parliaments of Scotland and Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly before implementing any international trade agreement agreed after the passing of the Bill.
New clause 19—Involvement of judicial systems in trade disputes—
“(1) The United Kingdom may only become a signatory to an international trade agreement if the condition in subsection (3) is satisfied.
(2) The Secretary of State may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the condition in subsection (3) is satisfied.
(3) Legal proceedings brought against the United Kingdom under investment protection provisions included in an international trade agreement must be heard by the courts and tribunals system of the United Kingdom.”
This new clause would provide protection for UK firms, public bodies and the Government in the event of proceedings under investment protection provisions such as the Investor-State Dispute Scheme (ISDS).
New clause 20—Multilateral investment tribunal—
“(1) The United Kingdom may only become a signatory to an international trade agreement if the condition in subsection (3) is satisfied.
(2) The Secretary of State may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the condition in subsection (3) is satisfied.
(3) The condition under this subsection is that an international trade agreement must include a commitment by all parties to the agreement to pursue with other trading partners the establishment of a multilateral investment tribunal and appellate mechanism for the resolution of investment disputes.”
This new clause would ensure that a multilateral investment process would be used to adjudicate on investor disputes.
New clause 21—Human rights and economic impact assessments—
“(1) Before laying a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an impact assessment taking account of short and long-term human rights and economic impacts of that agreement on different sectors including, but not limited to—
(a) gender,
(b) age
(c) race and
(d) class.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament reviews of each international trade agreement which has come into effect from January 2021.
(3) A review under subsection (2) must include an assessment of short and long-term economic and human rights impacts on different sectors including, but not limited to—
(a) gender,
(b) age
(c) race and
(d) class.
(4) Reviews under subsection (2) must be laid within two years of the day on which the agreement to which they relate comes into effect, and at intervals of no more than two years thereafter.”
This new clause would ensure that the HMG has a duty to commit to undertaking human rights impact assessments of all trade deals before and after implementation, taking account of short and long-term economic impacts across different sectors, including but not limited to gender, age, race and class.
Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) No regulations under subsection (1) may be made until the Secretary of State has entered into negotiations with other parties to the GPA with the objective of enabling greater labour market interventions and compliance with ILO standards in any UK procurement contract to which the GPA applies, and
(a) the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House of Commons that the objective has been achieved either in full or in part, or
(b) the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House of Commons that the objective has not been achieved.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations to secure greater labour rights in procurement contracts that the GPA applies to, and to report back on the outcome of these negotiations.
Amendment 12, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) No regulations under subsection (1) may be made until the Secretary of State has entered into negotiations with other parties to the GPA with the objective of securing greater environmental exceptions and carbon considerations in any UK procurement contract to which the GPA applies, and
(a) the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House of Commons that the objective has been achieved either in full or in part, or
(b) the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House of Commons that the objective has not been achieved.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations to secure greater environmental protections in procurement contracts that the GPA applies to, and to report back on the outcome of these negotiations.
Amendment 13, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) No regulations under subsection (1) may be made until the Secretary of State has entered into negotiations with other parties to the GPA with the objective of securing greater scope for UK small and medium-sized enterprises in any UK procurement contract to which the GPA applies, and
(a) the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House of Commons that the objective has been achieved either in full or in part, or
(b) the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House of Commons that the objective has not been achieved.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations to secure greater access for SMEs in procurement contracts that the GPA applies to, and to report back on the outcome of these negotiations.
Amendment 14, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) No regulations under subsection (1) may be made until the Secretary of State has entered into negotiations with other parties to the GPA with the objective of securing improvements to public health as a consequence of any UK procurement contract to which the GPA applies, and
(a) the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House of Commons that the objective has been achieved either in full or in part, or
(b) the Secretary of State has made a statement to the House of Commons that the objective has not been achieved.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations to secure improvements to public health in procurement contracts that the GPA applies to, and to report back on the outcome of these negotiations.
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out “is a signatory” and insert
“was a signatory on 31 December 2019”.
The most recent EU FTA which was rolled over, was in December 2019. This amendment would provide that any further FTA entered into would not come under the EU FTA roll over provisions of Clause 2.
Amendment 29, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) to make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement may only be made if—
(a) the requirements under subsection (3) and under paragraph 4(1) to (1D) of Schedule 2 have been met;
(b) the requirements under subsection (4) and under paragraph 4(1) to (1D) of Schedule 2 have been met; or
(c) the provisions of section [Parliamentary approval of trade agreements] have been complied with and the requirements under subparagraphs 4A(1) to (1D) of Schedule 2 have been met.”
This amendment would put in place a structure for greater Parliamentary scrutiny of proposed international trade agreements.
Amendment 15, page 2, line 15, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
“(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 shall apply to any regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement if the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement immediately before exit day.
(4) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 shall apply to any regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement other than a free trade agreement if the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union were signatories to an international trade agreement immediately before exit day.
(4A) Paragraph 4A of Schedule 2 shall apply to any regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the purpose of implementing any international trade agreement not falling within subsection (3) or subsection (4) above.”
This amendment would apply the provisions of the Bill to trade agreements other than EU rollover trade agreements, allowing the Bill to act as a framework for a future trade policy.
Amendment 16, page 2, line 15, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
“(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement only if the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union had ratified a free trade agreement with each other immediately before exit day.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement other than a free trade agreement only if the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union had ratified an international trade agreement with each other immediately before exit day.”
This amendment would mean that a trade agreement would need to be ratified before regulations could be made to implement it.
Amendment 17, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with—
(a) the provisions of international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom;
(b) the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015;
(c) the primacy of human rights law;
(d) international human rights law and international humanitarian law;
(e) the United Kingdom’s obligations on workers’ rights and labour standards as established by but not limited to—
(i) the commitments under the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work and its Follow-up Conventions; and
(ii) the fundamental principles and rights at work inherent in membership of the International Labour Organisation;
(f) women’s rights and are in accordance with the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;
(g) children’s rights and are in accordance with the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and
(h) the sovereignty of Parliament, the legal authority of UK courts, the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under the Bill can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement does not contravene the UK’s international commitments with specific reference to human rights and related treaties, and must respect the sovereignty of parliament.
Amendment 18, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with the United Kingdom’s environmental obligations in international law and as established by but not limited to—
(a) the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(b) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); and
(c) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under the Bill can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement does not contravene the UK’s environmental obligations.
Amendment 19, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not in any way restrict the ability—
(a) to make public services at a national or local level subject to public monopoly;
(b) to make public services at a national or local level subject to exclusive rights granted to private operators; and
(c) to bring public services at a national or local level back into the public sector for delivery by public sector employees.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under the Bill can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement does not contravene the ability of a UK government to take public services back into public ownership.
Amendment 20, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations may only be made under subsection (1) if—
(a) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with standards for food safety and quality as set and administered by—
(i) the Department of Health;
(ii) the Food Standards Agency;
(iii) Food Standards Scotland; and
(iv) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that mechanisms and bodies charged with enforcement of standards for food safety and quality have the capacity to absorb any extra requirement which may arise from the implementation of the agreement;
(c) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with policy to achieve reduction in the risk of disease or contamination as set and administered by—
(i) the Department of Health;
(ii) the Food Standards Agency;
(iii) Food Standards Scotland; and
(iv) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(d) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with achieving improvements in public health through any food policy priorities set and administered by—
(i) the Department of Health;
(ii) the Food Standards Agency;
(iii) Food Standards Scotland; and
(iv) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(e) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are compliant with policy to achieve targets for farm antibiotic reduction set by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate;
(f) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are compliant with retained EU law relating to food standards and the impact of food production upon the environment; and
(g) any food or food products to which the provisions of the international trade agreement apply meet standards of labelling, indication of provenance, and packaging specified by the Food Standards Agency or Food Standards Scotland.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made under the Bill can only be made if the trade agreement which the regulations would implement enshrines UK standards in legislation and adheres to UK standards of food production and food safety.
Amendment 21, page 2, leave out lines 27 and 28.
This amendment would remove Henry VIII powers from the Bill.
Amendment 10, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(6A) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1), unless the Scottish Ministers consent.
(6B) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1), unless the Welsh Ministers consent.
(6C) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1), unless a Northern Ireland devolved authority (within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1) gives consent.”
This amendment would ensure that the consent of a devolved government is required for regulations under section 2(1) if those regulations contain matters which are within the remit of the devolved government.
Amendment 22, page 2, line 34, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) in relation to an agreement which meets the criteria in subsection (3) or (4) after the end of the period of five years beginning with IP completion day.”
This amendment would bar any extension to the five-year window for making regulations to implement EU rollover agreements.
Amendment 23, page 2, line 34, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) in relation to an agreement which meets the criteria in subsection (3) or (4) after the end of—
(a) the period of five years beginning with IP completion day (“the initial five year period”), or
(b) such other period as is specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (8).
(8) Regulations under subsection (7)(b) may not extend the initial five year period or any subsequent period beyond the day which falls ten years after IP completion day.”
This amendment would limit any extension of the window to a maximum of ten years.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 35, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
This amendment reinserts a Government amendment made to the Trade Bill in 2018. It proposes to reduce, from five years to three, the time period during which a) EU FTAs can be rolled over and b) previously rolled over FTAs can be reamended.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 36, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 39, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
This amendment reinserts a Government amendment made to the 2018 Trade Bill in 2018. If the Government decides to extend the period to make regulations under Clause 2, any such period should not be more than three years.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 41, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
Amendment 27, in clause 4, page 3, line 26, at end insert—
““international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than a free trade agreement” means a strategic partnership agreement or mutual recognition agreement that is ancillary to a free trade agreement, or an investment agreement”.
This amendment defines what is meant by international agreement that mainly relates to trade, reducing ambiguity.
Amendment 28, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, at end insert “and
(c) analysis of the impact of any exercise by the Secretary of State of the power under section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (as amended by section 94 of the Finance Act 2020) to vary an amount of import duty if he or she considers that it is appropriate to do so.”
This amendment would oblige the TRA to give advice on the impact of the Secretary of State’s actions in reducing import duty under the powers in the current Finance Bill.
Government amendments 6 to 9.
Amendment 24, in schedule 2, page 11, line 26, leave out from “section 1(1)” to the end of line 27 and insert
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would specify an affirmative resolution procedure for regulations under section 1 (1) (Regulations relating to the UK’s membership of the GPA).
Amendment 25, page 13, line 25, at end insert—
“4A (1) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting alone under section 2(1) in respect of an international trade agreement which does not meet the criteria under section 2(3) or section 2(4) may not be made except in accordance with the steps in subparagraphs (1A) to (1D).
(1A) The Minister shall lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the regulations, and
(b) a document which explains why the Secretary of State believes that regulations should be made in terms of the draft regulations.
(1B) The Minister may make an order in the terms of the draft regulations laid under subparagraph (1A) if—
(a) after the expiry of a period of 21 sitting days after the draft regulations are laid, no committee of either House of Parliament has recommended that the regulations should not be made, and
(b) after the expiry of a period of 60 sitting days after the draft regulations are laid, the draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(1C) If a committee of either House of Parliament recommends that the regulations should not be made, the Secretary of State may—
(a) lay before Parliament revised draft regulations, and
(b) after the expiry of a period of 40 sitting days after the revised draft regulations are laid, make a motion for a resolution in each House of Parliament for approval of the revised draft regulations.
(1D) If a motion under subparagraph (1C)(b) is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make the regulations.”
This amendment would establish a form of super-affirmative procedure for scrutiny of regulations implementing all trade agreements covered by the bill. The procedure would apply to agreements other than EU rollover trade agreements if amendments extending the application of the bill were agreed to.
Amendment 26, page 13, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert—
“(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority under section 2(1) in respect of an agreement which falls within the description in section 2(3) or section 2(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3A) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority under section 2(1) in respect of an agreement which falls within the description in section 2(4A) may not be made except in accordance with the steps in subparagraphs (1) to (1D) of paragraph 4A.”
This amendment would extend the super-affirmative procedure under Amendment 25 to regulations where the Minister was acting jointly with a devolved authority.
Amendment 31, page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) No person may be appointed as a non-executive member of the Authority under subparagraph (1)(b) unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has first consulted the Chair of the Authority on the proposed appointment, and
(b) the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons has consented to the appointment.”
This amendment would establish a procedure for appointing non-executive members of the Trade Remedies Authority other than the Chair.
Amendment 30, page 15, line 22, at end insert—
“(3A) In making any proposal under subparagraph (3), the Secretary of State must ensure that there is on the Authority a representative of—
(a) producers,
(b) trade unions,
(c) consumers, and
(d) each of the United Kingdom devolved administrations.”
This amendment would ensure that the Trade Remedies Authority includes, among its non-executive members, representatives of stakeholder bodies potentially affected by its recommendations.
Greg Hands
It is a pleasure to open consideration on Report of the Trade Bill and to speak to new clause 5. This is all legislation that contains key measures that will deliver for UK businesses and consumers across the country, providing continuity and certainty. Amendments have been tabled by the Government and from across the House, and with the permission of the House I will outline the Government’s position on these more than 50 different amendments, and on other amendments tabled, before we hear from hon. and right hon. Members.
On Government new clauses 5 and 6, together with amendments 6, 7 and 9, the Government have been consistently clear that the priority for the UK’s existing trade relationships as we leave the EU is continuity. Our partner countries are clear on that too, and this Bill is about continuity. But it is about more than simply transitioning agreements. It is about ensuring that businesses—UK and partner-country businesses—can continue to benefit from smooth-operating borders once we have become a wholly independent trading nation at the end of the transition period.
The Government have set out our ambition to have a world-leading border by 2050. This will support our aim to make the UK a globally attractive place to do business as we move forward. To achieve that ambition, the Government need to make better use of the data we currently hold, and new clauses 5 and 6 are aimed at doing just that. Unlocking the full potential of the data, without placing any additional burden on businesses, will not only allow us to achieve our vision for the future, but benefit those business and consumers who depend on a frictionless border to ensure continuity of our trading relationships today. The smooth flow of traffic, goods and trade after the end of the transition period and during the introduction of import controls will support the manufacturing sector, especially those using the just-in-time methodology and individuals who enjoy using the online sector.
New clause 5 creates a new legal gateway so that Government data can be used, first, to ensure continuity of trade by safeguarding existing trading relationships in countries both in the EU and in the rest of world so they are not frustrated by friction at the border for goods and services at the end of the transition period; secondly, to provide better services to UK businesses and consumers by supporting the effective management of the end-to-end border process; and, thirdly, to underpin the delivery of a world-leading border—protecting the UK, protecting revenue and growing international trade.
This is an amendment that external border industry stakeholders are very supportive of; indeed, they have been calling for exactly this type of action for a long time. I want to be clear to the House on a number of important issues in relation to the new clause. First, this all relates to existing data; there are no new powers for data collection in these Government amendments. Secondly, it is discretionary and specific: it does not create a data-sharing free-for-all between public authorities. The new clause is carefully drafted to limit the data that can be shared to only that related to trade functions. These are functions that, in the main, are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for International Trade or the Minister for the Cabinet Office. If the information is not required for trade functions, it cannot be requested under the gateway. Before any data can be disclosed, the public authority making the disclosure must also be satisfied that it has complied with its own existing data protection obligations—most notably under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulation.
The Government recognise that there may be concerns about what happens to the data once it has been passed to the Cabinet Office, the Department for International Trade or other Departments. I want to assure all Members of the House that no data will be made available or sold to third parties outside Government—a concern which I know a number of colleagues have raised in the past —nor will it be used to monitor citizens or businesses, or to target individuals to be stopped at the border. These measures are, as I have said, about making sure that border flow is maintained, and that traffic, goods and services are free to flow with as little friction as possible.
Furthermore, new clause 6 makes it an offence to disclose unlawfully any personal data shared under the amendment. The Government have also tabled amendments 6 to 9, which make minor changes to the existing clause 8. These amendments are to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data to be shared with all Ministers of the Crown, where HMRC is satisfied that the data may be shared for the Minister’s functions relating to trade. The current drafting enables HMRC to share data with the Secretary of State for the same purpose. The practical effect of the amendments is to enable HMRC to share data with the Cabinet Office, which is not headed by a Secretary of State.
New clauses 1 to 3 seek to replicate the effects of Government amendments brought forward to the 2017-19 Trade Bill. Over the course of this legislation, and its 2017-19 version, I have had constructive discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) regarding the purpose of the Government’s continuity programme. I would like to thank him for his work and the interactions he has had with me, particularly on the important issue of transparency. His efforts have directly changed the Bill through inserting the use of the affirmative procedure when exercising the power in clause 2, and ensuring that Parliament has transparency in relation to continuity agreements through the laying of parliamentary reports, alongside signed agreements setting out significant changes with the underlying EU agreement.
As Members across the House know, the purpose of our continuity programme is to provide certainty to businesses and consumers by retaining the preferential trading arrangements from which the UK benefits as a signatory to trade agreements that the EU had signed with third countries before exit day. That is why we have now concluded 20 continuity agreements with 48 countries, accounting for £110 billion of UK trade in 2018, which represents 74% of the trade with countries with which we were seeking continuity before the withdrawal agreement was signed. Each of those agreements has been accompanied by a parliamentary report, and I can confirm that we will continue to publish reports for all continuity agreements yet to be signed. As those parliamentary reports make clear, our continuity programme has remained true to its mandate: replicating our existing trade relationships. Let me repeat that standards have not been lowered in these 20 agreements. Unsafe food will not be entering our market, and our right to choose how we deliver public services has been protected.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his earlier comments. He talks about continuity agreements, but are they still continuity agreements? For instance, the agreement with Japan looks like it will be very different from the one that the EU had, and Canada is saying that it is not going to have the same agreement; it wants to see what we get with the EU first. Why does he still call them continuity agreements? Is this clause not looking at a position that we had two years ago? Should we not now move on?
Greg Hands
Let me be clear: we are talking about continuity. My hon. Friend can judge us not just by what I say but by our actions. Of the 20 reports that we have published, five have been called for debate in the other place, and not a single one of those debates has resulted in a motion of regret. He is right about one thing, and that is on Japan. I will come on to examine this shortly, but Japan is different. We have been clear that that will lead to an enhanced free trade agreement based on the original EU agreement, which is why we have put in place different and more considerable scrutiny arrangements for the Japan agreement than for the rest of the continuity programme.
We want continuity agreements to enter into force on day one to avoid a cliff edge for both businesses and consumers. I remind colleagues that all continuity agreements will be subject to the CRAG—Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—ratification procedure. That already provides for a period of 21 sitting days in which agreements, and the parliamentary reports and explanatory memoranda published alongside them, can be scrutinised by parliamentarians before they are formally ratified. I will now address amendments 1 to 5 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, as well as amendments 22 and 23.
Greg Hands
I will give way to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—it is great to see him back in trade.
Barry Gardiner
The Minister talks of CRAG as if it is a process under which this Parliament has any power. He knows that it is the Government who enable Parliament to have a debate whereby it could vote against what is tabled under the CRAG process. He must look again at the way in which real scrutiny and accountability can be brought to bear in the way that the hon. Member for Huntingdon suggests.
Greg Hands
It is good to see the hon. Gentleman back. I remember that he was originally a Blairite Minister in Tony Blair’s Government, and it has been really instructive to see the journey that he has been on over some time. I saw him take the seat in the extreme corner of the Chamber earlier and thought, “Not only has he taken on the views of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), but he has now even taken his previous seat.” The hon. Gentleman voted for CRAG in 2010, as did I. [Interruption.] We both voted for CRAG in 2010. CRAG allows Parliament to block a trade deal. It allows Parliament to block international treaties. That was the intention—his Government designed it in that way to give Parliament the ability to block an international agreement, and that remains the case today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Greg Hands
I will make a little bit more progress.
As I have said, the other place has held debates on six of the agreements, and not one carried a motion of regret. We have also retained the affirmative resolution procedure for regulations that are required to implement single agreements. The Government recognise that there may be concerns that the power in clause 2 could be used to implement completely new agreements with continuity countries, both now and in the future, with inadequate opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. In Committee we heard suggestions that some of the upcoming continuity agreements, such as those with Canada and Singapore, will go beyond continuity, and will therefore require a more comprehensive scrutiny process—my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon made that point.
Let me reassure hon. Members that we view the underlying EU agreements as sufficient, and we are not seeking to enhance those deals or go beyond continuity. These will be technical changes to make the agreements function in a UK-specific context. The Government acknowledge that the UK-Japan agreement, although based on the EU’s existing agreement with Japan, will be an enhanced agreement, and that is an exception.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
With ceramics being the fourth largest export to Japan and its industry, does the Minister see an enhanced trade deal with Japan as an opportunity, rather than listening to the doomsayers on the Opposition Benches?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All my interactions, and those of the Secretary of State, with the ceramics industry and with MPs who represent key ceramics constituencies, indicate that the Japan deal is extremely important for this country. I am disappointed that the Opposition parties seem to have no enthusiasm for the continuity of our trade with Japan, or its enhancement.
Greg Hands
I will not give way just now. We are committed to additional scrutiny arrangements for any deal with Japan. We believe that the current sunset provisions in the Bill strike the right balance between flexibility for negotiators and the ability to keep agreements operable, and that they provide sufficient constraints and scrutiny to Parliament.
The Government are aware that during the 2017-19 Trade Bill there was uncertainty and concern in Parliament about the nature of the Government’s continuity programme—indeed, I can testify to that, because I was the Minister at the time—and that is why we have tabled a number of amendments to the Bill. There is, however, a crucial change in circumstance since the previous Bill, because Parliament can now see that we have not strayed beyond our mandate to deliver continuity. The transition agreements have not resulted in new or enhanced trading obligations, standards have not been reduced in any way, and our right to choose how we deliver public services has been protected.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
In that context, I understand why there is limited scrutiny for small trade deals, and the Minister has spoken about enhanced scrutiny for the Japan deal. He will know, however, that for many constituents, the US trade deal and the China trade deal will raise the most concerns. Can he give us some assurance that the process of increased scrutiny in Parliament will be higher for those deals than for the ones mentioned earlier?
Greg Hands
I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I will come on to discuss those deals in a moment, although they are not within the scope of the current Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon has tabled new clause 4 on new trade agreements, and that gives me the opportunity to stress the importance that the Government place on parliamentary scrutiny, and the commitments we have made in that space. The House will know that the negotiation and entering into of international agreements is a prerogative power of the Executive. The new clause would give Parliament veto rights over our negotiating objectives.
The Constitution Committee in the other place reported on that issue in 2019, and stated:
“This would impinge inappropriately on the Government’s prerogative power and limit the Government’s flexibility in the negotiations.”
I agree, and as the House will know, there are already rigorous checks and balances on the Government’s power to negotiate and ratify new agreements through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is fond of heckling, but she voted for that Act.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I concur entirely with what the Minister is saying. Is it not the case that if we allow further parliamentary scrutiny, we will not get the best deal from these negotiations, and that at present this is the Westminster-style democracy with the greatest parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that our scrutiny offer compares very favourably with Australia’s and New Zealand’s and is at least equal to Canada’s. He is right in other regards as well. Some of these amendments would obligate the Government to publish the text after the end of each negotiating round. At the moment, we publish a written ministerial statement. The idea that we publish the interim text with the United States so that Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all our partners could see it when this Government—this country—are undergoing simultaneous negotiation with different partners is not a sensible way of proceeding.
Greg Hands
I am going to make more progress.
This Government understand the desire of Parliament to have effective scrutiny of our FTA programme. That is why we have gone above and beyond the baseline provided by CRAG in committing to publishing comprehensive information ahead of entering into negotiations with partner countries. We have already done this—
Several hon. Members rose—
Greg Hands
I am going to make progress.
We have already done this for the US, for Japan, for Australia and for New Zealand. This has included publishing negotiating objectives and initial economic assessments. We have also committed to laying final impact assessments once negotiations have concluded and we know the content of the proposed agreement in its entirety.
Several hon. Members rose—
Greg Hands
I am going to make some more progress.
In addition, the Government have committed to providing regular updates to Parliament on the progress of negotiations. We have already adopted a similar approach for Japan, because that is an enhanced agreement. There is an important distinction that new clause 4 does not make, requiring, as it does, the roll-over agreements not yet signed to be subject to the same scrutiny as new agreements, even though the original EU-third party agreement has been subject to both EU and UK scrutiny.
Greg Hands
I am going to make more progress.
For new trade agreements, the Government have already committed to working closely with the relevant scrutiny Committees in both Houses throughout negotiations. This includes providing confidential briefings, as appropriate, to keep them apprised. This approach is in line with the recommendations of the former Member for Blackburn, Jack Straw—who served in government with the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). He said in his evidence to the Lords Constitution Committee that
“it should be for the negotiators to decide how much privacy and confidentiality there should be”
during negotiations
“and certainly not others”.
Finally, when negotiations have concluded, we will work with the relevant Select Committee to ensure, where practical, that there is time for the Committee to produce a report on the final agreement before it is laid in Parliament under CRAG.
Greg Hands
I am not going to give way further during this section of my speech.
Similarly—this is an important point—if the Committee were to recommend a debate on an agreement prior to ratification, the Government would of course consider that request, subject to parliamentary timetabling. Taken together, this means that Parliament will have comprehensive information, including economic assessments, on our agreements prior to negotiations commencing, at key points during negotiations, and at the conclusion of talks.
Finally on this point—this is extremely important—international agreements cannot themselves alter domestic law, and any changes to UK legislation would need to be scrutinised by Parliament in the normal way. We are strongly committed to transparency, as demonstrated by the steps we have taken to provide comprehensive information to the public and Parliament at the start.
Tim Farron
I just want to make a point about the nature of the scrutiny. A few weeks ago, the Government rightly came forward with the Trade and Agriculture Commission to add weight to the scrutiny of trade deals with regard to animal welfare, environmental standards and labour standards. What can the Minister do to give more assurance to farmers, in particular, that these deals will not lead to an undermining of their business and their standards, and put that into the Bill to ensure that those cannot then be let down?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which allows me to say that the National Farmers Union has been incredibly welcoming of this proposal. Minette Batters said that it is
“a hugely important development in ensuring UK farming’s high standards of animal welfare and environmental protection are not undermined in future trade deals.”
There are three crucial things. First, we have a strong manifesto commitment to have no compromise on Britain’s standards of animal welfare, food safety and the environment. Secondly, we are transposing the EU rules into UK law to take effect on 1 January. The third thing is simply this: it would be for Parliament, if it so wanted, to block any such changes—if anybody thought they would introduce any of these controversial products, Parliament would be able to block that.
Greg Hands
No, I will make some progress. The Government are strongly committed to transparency, as demonstrated by the steps we have already taken.
New clause 12 proposes a review of free trade agreements every five years after entry into force. We have already established regular dialogue with the International Trade Committee, and that is perhaps the best forum to provide information and assessment of the UK’s wider trade environment and trade relationships to Parliament.
New clause 18 seeks to give Parliament and the devolved legislatures binding votes on, or vetoes over, international agreements, which would be to fundamentally undermine the royal prerogative and, worse, limit our flexibility to negotiate the deals that will best serve the interests of UK consumers and communities.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I accept the Minister’s point that for devolved Parliaments to be able to undermine a national trade deal would be wrong. However, will he give us some guidance on the position for Northern Ireland? We may find ourselves having not continuity deals, but new deals, and we could be excluded from some of the benefits of those deals. How will he make an assessment? How will he enable the devolved Administration to have an input into decisions made on those deals if we find that we are disadvantaged by being excluded from them?
Greg Hands
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The first thing to say is that I have regular dialogue with his colleague the Minister for the Economy. I am meeting her tomorrow—indeed, I am meeting her twice—to talk about these issues. I reiterate that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK customs area and will benefit from UK free trade agreements. We have been absolutely categoric on both those points. As I say, new clause 18 seeks to give Parliament a veto over those arrangements and to ensure that the Government seek approval from the devolved legislatures on the final agreement. I am in regular contact with the Ministers for the devolved Administrations on these issues.
I will now address new clauses 7 to 9, and others in relation to standards. In answer to the intervention from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), let me say that we have already given cast-iron commitments, during debate on this Bill and the Agriculture Bill, that we will not be diluting standards in any area, or in any way, following the UK’s departure from the EU.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I acknowledge the undertakings that the Government have given on agriculture and food production, but will the Minister also assure me that future UK trade policy will be fully aligned with our climate change and environmental policies? Will he also assure me that in striking new trade deals we will, at all times, promote low-carbon industries such as offshore wind and will not undermine UK businesses that are working hard to lower their own carbon footprint?
Greg Hands
I absolutely give my hon. Friend those assurances. The Government’s climate change agenda—indeed, the whole country’s agenda—is incredibly important for us at the Department for International Trade. We have put a lot of time and effort into promoting our capability and capacity in things such as offshore wind. I am regularly saying to international investors and trade partners that the UK now has the largest offshore wind capacity in the world. This is something we are seeking to export and it is something trade agreements can be helpful in. We are working with some of our key partners on these aspects of trade agreements, but they can also be something that the whole of government can work together on.
Greg Hands
I am going to make some progress. Let me address matters related to animal welfare, food standards and food safety. I recognise the strength of feeling that those issues generate among colleagues in all parts of the House, but as I have told the House on many occasions, as have the Secretary of State and my Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs colleagues, this Government will stand firm in trade negotiations. We will always do right by our farmers and aim to secure new opportunities for the industry, and we will not dilute our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
There is not just concern on both sides of the House; my right hon. Friend knows that there is a lot of concern out there among the public and our constituents. We have heard commitments from the Front Bench, and when I was food safety Minister I gave those commitments too, around domestic food standards. Many people want it set out in black and white in the Bill. I suspect that the Minister will go on to say why he will resist new clause 7, for instance, so what assurance can he give me, my constituents and many others who will be listening to the debate that that is not necessary because those standards are protected in law, not just in word?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which allows me to explain the difference. Some of the amendments seek to dynamically align other people’s methods of production with those that we use in the UK. Yes, we will have, and maintain, exceptionally high standards of domestic production, domestic products and import controls, and we can influence our trading partners.
However, I cannot put into legislation a dynamic regulatory alignment playing field for our trading partners. That would be impractical and it would render inoperable most of our existing trade agreements, and potentially render impossible doing a future trade agreement with the European Union. If all these trading partners had to sign up to dynamically aligning their standards with the UK, that would make it extremely challenging not just to keep our existing trade agreements but to do trade agreements with partners in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. May I assist by indicating that so many people want to take part on Report that those who have indicated that they wish to speak and are on the call list should be thinking about four minutes? I call the Minister.
Greg Hands
I have much more to say, in relation to 50 different amendments, but I appreciate that there are a large number of other speakers, so I will call it a day there in order to allow other people their say. I think I have covered the main areas, outlining why we have the requirements in new clauses 5 and 6 on data, why we are confident of our robust approach to parliamentary scrutiny, using the CRAG process and enhanced things that we have introduced to ensure that Parliament gets the information and has the say that it needs, and finally our absolute commitment to not compromising on standards for food safety, animal welfare and the environment.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
International trade has rarely been more important. It is critical as we forge a new place in the world outside the European Union. It is also critical to how we recover from the pandemic, as it has the power to deliver prosperity at home and abroad, especially in the developing world as we aim towards the sustainable development goals. We will support the Government where they are right and challenge where they are wrong.
There are three key areas to which our amendments to the Trade Bill refer: social, environmental and democratic. First, on social, the Bill has profound implications for workers’ rights, human rights, public services and the economy. Secondly, on environmental, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) reminded us on Second Reading, international trade agreements have a massive impact on our ability to tackle the climate and environment emergency. Meanwhile, food production and animal welfare standards are matters of enormous concern to farmers and consumers alike. Thirdly, on democratic, the complete absence of scrutiny runs like the Sant Andreas fault through the Bill. [Hon. Members: “San Andreas.”] Thank you—the San Andreas fault.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Bill Esterson
I will give way in a moment. Our amendments attempt to rectify the Bill’s serious shortcomings and the lack of accountability. We were promised a modern framework for international trade negotiations in the Queen’s Speech. The Bill was supposed to be the opportunity to deliver that framework. It does not. The Bill gives Ministers powers to make changes to retained EU law upstairs in a Committee of 17 MPs after a maximum debate of 90 minutes. These powers are retained for up to 10 years. That is quite some grab by the Executive—and it is far from the whole story, either.
The final text of an agreement depends on the Government granting debates to the Opposition during a 21-day period: something that did not always happen in the last Parliament. It relies on the Opposition using their limited opportunities to determine the agenda for such a debate. The Government should be holding the debate and a vote in both Houses as a matter of course. New clause 4 is an opportunity to address some of the democratic deficit in the Bill.
Only half of the 40 agreements covered by the Bill have been signed. We are told by the Minister that they have already been scrutinised by the European Union. But these are not the simple matters of continuity that the Minister would have us believe. Only three out of 20 existing mutual recognition agreements have been signed with Switzerland, our third largest non-EU trading partner. South Korea has only signed a temporary agreement and wants to start again, and a number of the remaining 20 are going to be completely new. Japan—new agreement; Turkey, our 10th largest non-EU trading partner is in a customs arrangement with the EU and is waiting for the UK to sign a free trade agreement with the EU. Canada is in no hurry to negotiate at all. As I said, these are far from being simple matters of continuity, which is why they need proper scrutiny.
Barry Gardiner
Does my hon. Friend share with me the sense that the Government have told us that they needed the Bill to be able to produce these roll-over agreements? Yet the Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box today and said that we have concluded 20 of these roll-over agreements. In fact, they have managed to do that without this Bill having passed into law. Is not what he is saying absolutely relevant? It is these future agreements that we need legislation for, and it should be proper legislation that sets out the framework under which this Parliament scrutinises what is going on.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to his time as the shadow Secretary of State and the work he did on scrutinising and opposing this Bill first time around. He is also absolutely right to say that what we have heard already from the Minister just bears out everything that we have been saying for the past three years.
As I say, these are not simple matters of continuity. That is why we need proper scrutiny. The problems do not end there. The Bill will put in place the framework for a new generation of new agreements, including those with the United States and Australia, and the controversial so-called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership: CPTPP.
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman has been very patient, so I give way to him.
Craig Williams
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way.
I am a member of the International Trade Committee, which of course has cross-party membership; I wonder why the hon. Gentleman cheapens that Committee by saying that there is no scrutiny. I welcome the involvement from the Government to date. I ask the hon. Gentleman directly: prior to the CRAG protocol Act, how many trade deals did this place vote on while the power rested in Brussels?
Bill Esterson
As the hon. Gentleman knows from being on the International Trade Committee, CRAG was part of the process that we had as EU members. I will come to that in more detail a bit later.
Caroline Lucas
I just note that, as a member of the European Parliament’s trade committee, I had far more powers of scrutiny over trade agreements as an MEP than I have ever had as an MP here. However, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Government’s refusal to bar imports from producers that produce to lower environmental or animal welfare standards spells real disaster for our farmers? If they are going to get undercut by cheaper produce that does not meet the same standards, how on earth can they make a living if they have to meet higher standards, and therefore probably higher costs as well?
Bill Esterson
The hon. Lady anticipates some things I am going to say a bit later. What she says is entirely consistent with what I said about the environmental aspects of the Bill.
There is widespread recognition across society that parliamentary scrutiny is essential in international trade agreements. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and his colleagues deserve credit for their sterling efforts to build consensus. Their new clause 4 has many elements of good scrutiny practice that a modern, confident, outward-looking country should want to adopt: scrutiny of, and a vote on, the negotiating mandate; assessment against domestic standards; consultation with the devolved Administrations; and a vote on the deal by both Houses. These are a good place to start. We can also learn from good practice elsewhere. For example, a very different approach is taken in the United States, where advisory committees have access to negotiating texts, trade unions are represented as well as employers and confidentiality agreements ensure that consultation is at an appropriate level. The result is that agreements can be amended, as with the recent United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, of which a strengthening of the labour chapter is intended to end union busting in Mexico.
How do we compare? Oh dear. So-called expert trade advisory groups—ETAGs—in this country are completely different. The Government do not tell us the criteria for membership or who the members are, and trade unions are excluded from a number of groups that were not set up to scrutinise trade deals. Talk now of a room-next-door approach has raised concerns because of the over-restrictive nature of the non-disclosure agreements, which, as drafted, would prevent sensible consultation and analysis of the text, even by the existing self-selecting and very limited memberships of the ETAGs.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that we can learn through failure as well? One reason that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership failed was the lack of involvement of trade unions, industry and a number of different partners until right at the last minute, when people were asked to vote on something that they had not been brought along with.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall come to TTIP as an example of how not to carry out scrutiny and of why it is so important to have that wider engagement.
Bill Esterson
I will give way a little later, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because a lot of Members are waiting to speak. This talk of a room-next-door approach has raised concerns because of the over-restrictive nature of the NDAs. The chaotic way in which the Government plan to create their room-next-door system sounds more like a sketch by Mr Michael Spicer than how a responsible Government might engage with scrutiny.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On the Michael Spicer point?
Bill Esterson
I do not know if Michael Spicer is talking to the hon. Gentleman or not; we will find out in a moment.
Jonathan Gullis
The shadow Minister talks about scrutiny and refers to trade unions. However, if we have trade unions at the table, who will scrutinise the trade unions to ensure that they are not pushing their own agenda from their own sector on a UK-wide deal? How will we ensure their impartiality if they are beholden to a militant number of members? As we know, not every trade union member is politically motivated or engaged.
Bill Esterson
It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman has taken up other hon. Members’ time in the debate with such rubbish. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is the only formal parliamentary process in place for agreements not covered by the Bill, including with the United States. That is not scrutiny, is it?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Just to backtrack a moment, I remind my hon. Friend of the claims made by the Minister in his opening remarks, when he claimed we would enjoy better scrutiny than countries such as Australia and New Zealand, which I think is disputable. There was an exceptional omission, which was the United States. Should that not concern everyone?
Bill Esterson
Absolutely. We compare very badly with the scrutiny in the United States, some of which I have already described. My hon. Friend is right to make the comparison. Is it not ironic that we are in the middle of trade talks with the United States, where they have full scrutiny and we do not? While we are stuck with CRAG, in the United States debates and votes will take place in Congress, alongside the engagement with business and the unions that I described earlier.
Let us remind ourselves that CRAG was introduced as part of our scrutiny process while we were EU members, because trade agreements were an EU competence. The process included full scrutiny in the European Parliament —scrutiny that has not been replaced by an equivalent system. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) reminded us of her experience performing exactly that role.
The Minister wrote to MPs last week. I think he read out quite a lot of his letter in his speech. He told us last week that legislation will be debated and scrutinised by Parliament in “the usual way”. The usual way? There is no “usual way”, because the usual process only worked alongside the scrutiny carried out for us in the European Parliament. Despite what the Minister says, CRAG on its own makes no sense unless the Government wish to avoid scrutiny.
Today’s amendments to the Bill are similar to those passed in March 2019. The Minister is fond of telling us how vital it is that the Bill passes, so why did the Government not accept the amended Bill last year? It could have saved a lot of trouble.
Bill Esterson
And time. What possible reason can the Government have for wanting to avoid scrutiny, and why on such important areas? Perhaps there are some clues in the topics covered by the various amendments. The threat to our NHS is right at the top of the list. Investor-state dispute settlement was a scandal that came to prominence during the TTIP negotiations. Let us look at some examples of the threat posed by ISDS. The Portuguese Government were sued using ISDS when the Lisbon metro was returned to public ownership. ISDS clauses in bilateral investment treaties are being used now to prepare a series of cases against the UK Government for pausing construction contracts during the pandemic.
ISDS is not the only issue. Standstill clauses prevent Governments from returning privatised public services to the public sector. Ratchet clauses require further services to be privatised. Then there are negative lists, which require Governments to specify exactly which services are to be exempt from privatisation, with everything else up for grabs. The Prime Minister told us he favours a social insurance system in his Daily Telegraph article, so when Ministers tell us not to worry about the NHS, it simply will not wash.
Statements alone are worthless. It is very simple: the detailed text of all agreements must include cast-iron commitments, because it is not just the Prime Minister who wants to hand over our NHS to the healthcare corporations; it is his friend the US President, and it is in the US negotiating objectives, which refer to
“full market access for US products”.
They want access to NHS medicines and more, and they are not shy about saying so.
Scrutiny matters, nowhere more so than in the protection of our NHS in international trade agreements. That is why our new clause 17 is so important. Ministers say that they want export opportunities for our farmers in the United States and Australia. Export opportunities? Really? Ministers are missing the point. Farmers have to survive first. If food imports are allowed with lower production, welfare standards and costs, farmers will struggle to stay in business. They will be undercut. As trade representative Lighthizer warned us, on issues such as agriculture
“this administration is not going to compromise.”
There is no ambiguity in Mr Lighthizer’s commitment not to compromise, is there? The idea that farmers will make up for domestic sales by exporting more is a fantasy. The magical thinking of Ministers will not stand up to scrutiny—that is, of course, if scrutiny is ever allowed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Northern Ireland producers in the agrifood sector export 75% of their products, so it is really important for us to have more markets and more markets will come across the world. Mash Direct, in the agrifood sector in my constituency, already exports its various vegetable and potato products to the United States. So there are markets that we can grab and take forward to get more jobs and employment. Northern Ireland will do better because of that.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point about Northern Ireland. When the Bill was published, the Government were sticking to the mantra that there would be no border. How the new arrangements will operate in Northern Ireland and the impact on the UK is exactly why there needs to be proper scrutiny of the agreements and their impacts.
The Trade and Agriculture Commission is advisory, not regulatory. It has no teeth. It is not representative. It does not report to Parliament. It cannot enforce import standards and it will be gone again in six months’ time anyway. It cannot stop changes to food standards if the Government agree them in a trade deal with the US because it does not have any teeth. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said that he had been led up the garden path by the Government on the Agriculture Bill. The Government should lead him and his colleagues back down again, accept his new clause 4 and our new clause 11, and guarantee them in primary legislation. Mega-farms in the United States and Australia stand to benefit from any lowering of animal welfare and production standards. When we banned sow stalls in the UK, we had to admit pork from countries that had not caught up with our standards. What happened? Half our pig farmers went bust. If we were to accept chemical-washed chicken, our poultry industry would go bust, too. It must not happen again.
Public health, animal welfare and food production are inextricably connected. Hormones in animal feed may cause cancer in people. Industrial farming techniques affect the environment and global warming. In the middle of a global pandemic, minds should be concentrated. The use of antibiotics in farming is linked to the ability of diseases to jump between species. A coalition of businesses, unions, consumers, environmentalists and civil society is warning of a democratic deficit. The coalition is headed by the International Chamber of Commerce, which states:
“We no longer live in a world where trade can be treated separately from our international commitments on issues such as climate action, digitisation or building a more resilient health system. The public need to feel confident that trade decisions and processes are working for them and the Bill is a good opportunity to embed a more transparent, consensus based, democratic approach that clearly demonstrates a net benefit to all. It’s an opportunity to set a new gold standard.”
Bill Esterson
I am not going to take any more interventions because I am about to finish.
I said at the start that the Bill is really about social responsibility, environmental protection and democracy. The lack of scrutiny threatens to leave the NHS wide open to pharmaceutical giants and to undermine farmers and consumers. Chemical washes of chicken, hormones in beef, ractopamine in pork and GM crops are banned in the UK. What is wrong with keeping it that way? If the Government are saying, “We are going to do it anyway”, what is the objection to putting it all in primary legislation? The trouble is that we all know what is really going on here: they do not want to put protections for our NHS farmers and consumers in law or take the action needed on the climate crisis, because they have no intention of keeping their promises.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. In case the House is not already aware, after the next speaker, we will have a time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches, which, of course, does not apply to Mr Stewart Hosie.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
There are four significant flaws with this piece of legislation: the absence of devolved consent, real protections for the NHS, the preservation of food standards and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that our amendment 10 and new clauses 7 and 8 deal with the first three, and that new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), deals with the final issue.
I wish to speak to amendment 10 and new clauses 7 and 8, which are in my name, and I will start, slightly in reverse order, with amendment 10. It relates to the powers of the devolved Administrations, or as I said in Committee,
“more accurately, the ability of the UK Government to make regulations under subsection (1), which makes provisions within devolved competencies, without the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers or a Northern Irish devolved authority”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 237.]—
granting consent. It strikes me as fundamental that if we are to genuinely respect the devolved settlement in the UK, Ministers must self-evidently gain the consent of the devolved Administrations before making changes to regulations that directly affect them, possibly in a negative way, or in a way that runs counter to those Governments’ policy objectives.
I am aware that in the previous Trade Bill, under consideration between 2017 and 2019, there was a problematic provision for regulation-making powers to be available to the UK Government, but the good news is that those provisions have been removed from this Trade Bill. It is the case, however, that there remains no statutory obligation for the UK Government to even consult, let alone seek the consent of, Scottish Ministers before exercising the powers in this Bill in devolved areas.
I know that the Minister has said that these powers would not normally be used without seeking consent, and his predecessor did offer a number of a non-legislative commitments to the Scottish Trade Minister Ivan McKee in March. I am genuinely pleased that the Minister, during the Bill Committee, committed to honouring those non-legislative commitments. He said:
“I restate the commitments made by my right hon. Friend, when he was a Minister, in his March letter to the Scottish Minister Ivan McKee”,
and that is genuinely very welcome. However, he went on to say, in opposing what was then amendment 8 and similar Labour new clauses that dealt with the same issues:
“In short, we are already delivering the engagement envisaged by proposed new clause, and we have achieved that while continuing to observe the important constitutional principles enshrined in the devolution settlements.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 240-241.]
I disagree. Giving the UK Government the ability to directly effect devolved powers without the statutory requirement to even seek consent is not observing the devolved settlement.
Jim Shannon
Our trading ability is something that concerns each and every one of us across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to support new clause 4, which would give the authority to the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, and further, would mean that proposals came to the Floor of the House for ratification? Surely supporting new clause 4 would be a step to making that happen.
Stewart Hosie
I am more than happy to support new clause 4, not least because I have signed it, but it is a slightly different thing. Ensuring parliamentary scrutiny, about which I shall say a little more later, is important, but it is different from the seeking of consent from those Administrations whose policy direction may be affected by a UK Government decision.
When we debated the identical new clause in Committee, the Minister went on to say that
“this proposed new clause would give the devolved Administrations a statutory role in the reserved area of international trade negotiations, which would be constitutionally inappropriate.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 241.]
He was partly right, in that it would give the devolved Administrations a statutory role, but only in so far as the provisions of a trade deal affected devolved competences. That is not constitutionally inappropriate; it is a matter of good administration and respect.
The Minister’s key argument against what was proposed was that it was not “practical”. He said:
“It would lock us and the”—
devolved Administrations—
“into prescribed ways of working under the existing intergovernmental memorandum of understanding, a document last updated in 2013.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 241.]
Well, that may be an argument for revisiting the MOU, and it might also be an argument to say that the Government should adhere to the terms of the MOU under any circumstances, but it is a strange argument for opposing this amendment. Surely it is better to base negotiations on an agreed framework, or better still an agreed statutory framework, rather than to leave them to chance, make up the rules on the hoof and give an impression of UK Government acting in an arbitrary way.
The Minister’s key argument was as follows:
“As parts of these agreements touch on devolved matters, this legislation will create concurrent powers. We have sought to put in place concurrent powers to provide greater flexibility in how transitional agreements are implemented”.
So far so good; however, he went on to say:
“This approach permits greater administrative efficiency, reducing the volume of legislation brought through the UK Parliament and through the devolved legislatures.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 241.]
It cannot be right that the UK Government intend to legislate, or can legislate, in areas of devolved competence for the sake of administrative efficiency. There are far bigger and wider principles at stake than that.
Let me turn to new clause 7, tabled in my name. We know that trade deals can put pressure on food standards and lead to the importation of low-standard food. For example, the US Administration has made it clear that they want the UK to lower its food and animal welfare standards. The new clause includes a ban on the importation of food that is produced to standards lower than that in the UK. We know that the US and other countries have far lower animal welfare standards and adopt practices—including chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-fed beef and the use of various pesticides and GM crops—that are illegal in the UK for health and environmental reasons. None of that is a great surprise to anyone in the House. We believe that the quality of Scotland’s food and drink produce and, indeed, of food and drink produced elsewhere in the UK, and the related standards, are essential to the maintenance of our established international reputation in those areas.
Steve Brine
I wonder whether the people in Scotland, like the people in England and in my constituency in Winchester, might not be way ahead of the politicians. Ultimately, will not the consumer decide? Just recently, we heard Waitrose make it clear that it would not be selling any imported product that was produced to a lower standard than we currently enjoy in this country, with its new boss citing chlorine-washed chicken. I just wonder whether the public might be ahead of us on this already.
Stewart Hosie
I want to be careful in how I answer that. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that perhaps those who can afford to shop in Waitrose—the Minister boasted in Committee that he was Waitrose fan—have a choice; perhaps somebody who is counting every penny and does not have access to anything other than the cheapest food is not in the position to make the same choice.
In effect, new clause 7 would do two things: it would affirm the UK’s rights and obligations under the SPS agreement—that is, the application of the sanitary and phytosanitary measures in annex 1A of the WTO agreement; and it would prohibit the import of food into the UK if standards in the exporting country were lower than those in force in the UK. I do not think there is anything contentious about that.
It is not just campaign groups like the Trade Justice Movement that back this. It is not just Scottish Land and Estates and the National Farmers Union that back measures like this one. The British Medical Association has weighed in, saying:
“The Bill presents an opportunity for the UK to present itself as a global leader on standards on food imports for the benefit of human, animal and plant health, and the environment. To fulfil this opportunity, it is vital that our current high standards are upheld and protected in any trade deals.”
It suggests that new clauses 7 and 11 should be backed in order to achieve that.
It is also necessary to have this on the face of the Bill because the Government’s approach to protecting food standards is slightly confused. In Committee, the Minister said:
“This Bill is about…continuity… Imports under continuity agreements must continue to comply with our existing import standards.”
I welcomed that. However, he added:
“Decisions on those standards are a matter for the UK and will be made separately from any trade agreements.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 305-6.]
There is the point of concern, right there. The UK could, if it wished, lower standards, opening the door to all sorts of imports. Let us make sure that that is not possible, at least in the roll-over arrangements, by including the UK’s obligations under the WTO phytosanitary agreement in the Bill. That is important because although the purported objectives of the Bill are about roll-overs, the definition of “trade agreement” is very wide and the long title does not restrict its use only to roll-overs.
New clause 8 would ensure that the UK Government have a duty to restrict market access to healthcare services, including medicines and medical devices. We tabled the new clause precisely because trade deals potentially have a negative impact on health services. While the UK Government have repeatedly pledged that the NHS is not on the table in trade negotiations, leaked documents detail conversations between UK and US negotiators and reveal that health services have been discussed, including the US probing the UK’s “health insurance system”, and the US has made clear its desire for the UK to change its drug pricing mechanism. The new clauses therefore include specific carve-outs for the NHS, all relevant services and regulation, meaning that it would be illegal for the Government to conclude a trade agreement that altered the way that NHS services are provided, or liberalised further, or opened up to particular sorts of foreign investment.
There could be no use of negative listing because such clauses require that all industries are liberalised in trade agreements unless there are specific carve-outs, and it is not always easy to define what services count as health services. For example, digital services may seem irrelevant to health, but NHS data management and GP appointment systems are increasingly digitised. There could be no standstill or ratchet clauses, because these provisions mean that after the trade deal has been signed, parties are not allowed to reduce the level of liberalisation beyond what it was at the point of signature.
There are many examples of real-world potential impacts; I will give just one. The Scottish Government had private cleaners in the NHS and quite a high degree of hospital acquired infection. The private cleaners were replaced by NHS cleaners, and the level of hospital acquired infection fell dramatically. Had a ratchet been in effect, let alone ISDS, it might not have been possible to do that, with detrimental mortality and morbidity consequences for real patients. The clause also states that there should be investor-state dispute settlement clauses in trade agreements. They only allow private investors to challenge Government policy when it affects their profits. The BMA piled in to this debate, as well, saying:
“The Bill must rule out Investor Protection and Dispute Resolution mechanisms which undermine the supremacy of UK courts and risk deterring, delaying or blocking public health improvement measures.”
We have seen examples around the world of where that has happened. It is fundamentally quite wrong for large corporations to be able to use ISDS-type arrangements to sue Governments simply for taking steps to protect the wellbeing of their citizens, or for enacting public health measures that they believe to be right and for which they may well have an electoral mandate.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman is making a fine speech. Does he agree that it seems a considerable irony that those Government Members who were so determined that this country should not be subject to any supranational court system should hereby, in an ISDS clause, enable our Government to be sued by foreign companies in specialist supranational courts in a way that is not even accessible to our own domestic companies?
Stewart Hosie
Yes, and I made that point. It is wrong for these provisions to be available only to investors in the way that has just been described. If we want a supranational body that adjudicates, arbitrates and works, let us have the UK Government put some pressure on their friends in the United States and get the WTO appellate body back up and running and functioning again. That would be the best thing for trade around the world.
New clause 8 would also instruct that there should be no changes to drug pricing mechanisms, which could also happen through intellectual property and non-patent exclusivities. That would be bad news for patients, taxpayers, health boards and trusts around the country, and our view is that trade deals should not be used to facilitate it.
In opposing a new clause like this one in Committee, the Minister said that
“the NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector”.
Fine. He said:
“We have always protected our right to choose how we would deliver public services in trade agreements, and we will continue to do so.”
Fundamentally, his argument was that “however laudable” the new clause was, it was “unnecessary”. He went on to explain that the UK already had
“rigorous checks and balances on the Government’s power to negotiate and ratify”
trade agreements
“via the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 315.]
There are two big issues that jump out, given what the Minister said—and I have it in full if he wants to re-read it. First, there is absolutely no practical reason why protections for the NHS demanded by the public should not be included in the Bill. Secondly and more importantly, because the so-called “rigorous checks and balances” in CRAG amount to little more than a take-it-or-leave-it choice at the end of the negotiations, the need to protect the NHS from the outset in legislation is paramount.
I commend amendment 10 and new clauses 7 and 8 to the House, and I hope—time permitting—that we can press new clause 7 and amendment 10 to a vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We now have a time limit of four minutes.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill because I believe that removing unnecessary barriers to trade can boost jobs and growth, but I hope that the Minister and the Government will consider seriously whether changes can be made to strengthen parliamentary oversight, whether via the amendments we are considering today or in the other place.
I was one of 18 Conservative MPs to back new clause 2 of the Agriculture Bill. I did so because I believe our trade policy should be consistent with our values. The Government were elected on a manifesto with stronger commitments on the environment and animal welfare than any of their predecessors, but maintaining our domestic rules on animal welfare and environmental stewardship of land will have less and less real-world impact if more and more of our food is imported from countries with lower standards and fewer qualms about these matters than we have.
I would therefore like to hear the Minister confirm this evening that the Government will keep in place the import ban on chicken washed in disinfectant and will not at any stage ask this Parliament to remove it from the statute book. I hope that he will say the same about the ban on beef from cattle whose growth has been artificially boosted by hormones. We know that in the United States, many of them are intensively reared on feedlots containing thousands of animals fed off soy production, contributing to deforestation in the Amazon basin.
The reality is that more or less every country in the world reflects sensitivities over food in its approach to trade policy for the good reason that food security is crucial to any society. I warmly thank the Minister and the International Trade Secretary for agreeing to establish a commission to consider how we can secure the economic advantages of free trade agreements without undermining our world-class food standards. Those standards would be undermined if we allowed an unrestricted tariff-free influx of food produced using methods that would be illegal in this country. A good deal with the United States, a mutually beneficial deal, could see tariffs coming down even in sensitive sectors such as beef so long as incoming food complies with animal welfare and environmental standards that are equivalent to our own. Many US producers are perfectly capable of doing that, and it should not be beyond the wit of man to develop a certification and compliance system.
Contrary to what some have claimed, this is not a rerun of the debates on the corn laws, and it is a caricature to suggest that those of us raising concerns have somehow been captured by producer interests as our Victorian forebears in this House were. All I am asking is that we do not sell ourselves short in this country. The UK is the third biggest market for groceries in the world. Even conditional access to that market is a valuable prize. Just because we would like a trade deal with the US does not mean that we should give it everything that it wants. There is so much that we can offer our trading partners in the US and in other countries, and is it so unreasonable to say that, when it comes to food, there are limits to liberalisation?
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
This Trade Bill is fatally flawed. It could have been a bold statement about our future trade deals in which we used our independence from the EU, whatever we feel about it, to build in high environmental and food standards, workers and consumer rights, and commitments to achieving sustainable development goals and human rights and to modernise our trade rules in conjunction with constructive, modern, democratic scrutiny. Instead, this Bill is stripped of any of those. I urge Members to vote for new clause 4, which will enable the people’s elected representatives here in this House and in the devolved Administrations to say what is important for the British people.
High standards should be written into trade agreements from the start to the finish of negotiations and ensure that, for example, secret deals do not end up with selling off the NHS to the highest bidder. Chlorinated chicken could be just the start. These are not the words of doomsayers or baseless concerns; more than 400 NHS and senior public health professionals have signed an open letter, demanding legal guarantees in post-Brexit trade legislation to provide specific protections for the health service in any future trade negotiations, such as those with the US. US trade deals are already under way in secret, but even in the US both Houses of Congress get a guaranteed vote on trade agreements, and America’s process for public consultation prior to negotiation is impressively far-reaching in contrast with this Bill. The British public are being sold out by this Bill. What are the Government afraid of? What are the Government planning to do? What desperate deals will be struck to get a deal done, but on worse terms?
In my own constituency, 39% of jobs are in sectors identified as being severely impacted by a no-deal Brexit, or a bad deal with the EU. I am extremely angry, as are my constituents that, as an MP, I will have very little say over preventing this. Food standards are also a very huge concern to my constituents who are deeply worried that decades of progress in animal welfare, hygiene, husbandry and environmental management are going to be stripped away. Farmers and consumers will be worse off.
I am very disappointed that the Bill went through several days of scrutiny in the Committee, which I was a member of, without any changes whatsoever, and today we have just a few minutes of parliamentary debate starting in the late afternoon on only one day before the Bill goes to the next stage. In Committee, we heard evidence about how much stronger our trade negotiators could be if they had the backing of parliamentary red lines written into our legislation, but we were told over and over again by the Minister that proposals for parliamentary scrutiny of food standards, environmental standards and workers’ rights were not necessary.
Fleur Anderson
I only have a few seconds left.
If the planned negotiations will include all those rights and standards, that should be guaranteed by being written into parliamentary legislation. If the Government are planning to agree a bargained down, watered down race to the bottom, I can see why they would reject these amendments. That is why we should all be very worried about our future and about this Trade Bill.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is a great honour to speak in this debate, having spoken briefly on Second Reading and sat on the Bill Committee and being a member of the International Trade Committee. We had a wide-ranging, well-informed and constructive debate in Committee, and it is good to see so many of its members speaking in the debate.
I would like to address a number of points, including the clauses relating to the NHS and to scrutiny, but because of the time limit, I will confine myself to just one, which is standards, and in particular new clause 11. Simply put, new clause 11 would allow the import of agricultural goods into the UK
“only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as”
the standards that apply under UK law. On the face of it, that sounds reasonable because it just seeks to ensure what we already have. Nobody has any difficulty with that—everybody here wants to maintain the high production standards, animal welfare standards and environmental standards that we have. That is why the Government have been absolutely clear that they will do precisely that. That is why the Minister stood on a manifesto commitment to do exactly that. That is why I stood on a manifesto commitment to do exactly that, as did all my hon. Friends.
There are a number of misunderstandings, which I will briefly address. We have already heard a number of times from Opposition Members about chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef, and I am sure we will hear about it again before the end of the debate. Those are already illegal in UK law. They are illegal because they are in European Union law, and European Union law is put into UK law by the terms of the withdrawal agreement. When Opposition Members plaintively say, “Why won’t the Government just put this in primary legislation?” the answer is because it is already there. If it were to be removed, the Government would have to bring something to the House and get us to vote on it—they would have to change the law, and we have all expressed our view about that. That prohibition is already there, so new clause 11 is simply unnecessary.
New clause 11 seeks to go further than maintaining our high import standards. It is crucial that we distinguish between import standards, which is the safety of food brought into this country, and safety standards, which is the way that they are produced domestically. The new clause seeks to have us say to all our trade partners, “We want to go further than ensuring that we import safe food. We want to reach into your domestic legislation and tell you exactly how you produce that food.” No self-respecting independent country will want to do that.
Barry Gardiner
That is patently false. All the new clause does is to say, “If you want to produce food to export into our market, it must be produced to these standards.” It does not in any way seek to impose legislation in the United States or anywhere else that would govern the way in which they can produce food.
Robert Courts
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on the wording of the new clause. It talks about
“standards which at the time of import applied under UK law”,
which means that the same standards have to apply in the foreign law, so it goes far further than what is intended by the Bill. No country is going to accept dynamic alignment imposed on it by us, any more than we would accept it. We cannot say to Mr Barnier, “We do not want to accept dynamic alignment from you, but by the way, we want you to accept dynamic alignment from us, because you’ve got to mirror the standards we have in our domestic legislation.”
Caroline Lucas
It is extremely interesting to follow the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who seems to be labouring under a completely false set of perceptions. First, the standards referred to in new clause 11, and indeed in many of these amendments, are the standards for products exported from country A to us here in country B. We are not making any comment about the products that are circulating within that country. We are simply saying that, if we want our farmers not to use sow stalls, for example, it makes no sense not to apply such conditions to the imports of food coming from countries that are using those standards. If our standards imply higher costs and we do not have some way of moderating the goods coming in from countries that are not imposing those standards, our farmers will be undercut. I really wish he would get his facts straight before standing up and saying that these amendments do not make sense, because they do.
I stand to speak to new clause 9, tabled in my name. New clause 9 stipulates that no international trade agreement may be ratified or implemented if it restricts the UK’s ability to pursue its climate and environmental goals. It requires the Government to make full implementation of multilateral environmental agreements by all participating nations the priority during trade negotiations, and to prioritise facilitating action to that end at the World Trade Organisation. It requires regular reporting on compliance with the above. Overall, it would ensure that the Government’s trade policy is in line with their international climate obligations and domestic environmental targets.
The Trade Bill should have been an opportunity to provide a clear direction of travel on the UK’s new trading status. It should have set out a democratic, environmentally and socially just framework for a new, pioneering and independent trade policy. The Conservative election manifesto promised that the Conservatives would not
“compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
Yet, as we have seen, the gap between reality and rhetoric is a yawning gulf. We do not want yet more warm words and nice rhetoric. What we want are some red lines in the negotiations, and the way to get them is to write them into this Bill. That is all that those on the Opposition side of the House are asking for.
Instead, what we have with this Trade Bill is the same rehashed, controversial proposal from before the general election. It is one that fails completely to take account of the long-standing climate and nature crises or, indeed, of the covid-19 pandemic that has happened since. The UK’s objectives for trade deals must change to keep up. They must prioritise action to tackle the climate crisis, sustainable food supply chains, decent work and, as has been so sharply highlighted, universal and affordable access to medical supplies.
As it stands, this Bill risks undermining the UK’s social, labour, environmental and agricultural standards. It fails to ensure that imported products adhere to at least equivalent standards. I therefore welcome all the amendments that have the same objectives as my new clause 9, which would provide us with a framework for protecting the standards that keep us safe. This is not an academic discussion, as we know. We know that the US Administration have made it very clear that they want the UK to lower its food standards to allow the export of products currently banned in the UK, and that is why we need to be on our guard.
Steve Brine
I am listening to the hon. Member carefully, as I always do, but we are dealing in facts. She said, following my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), that we should deal in facts; for the record, I thought he dealt in facts beautifully. Does she accept the point that the Food Standards Agency, for which I used to be responsible as a Minister, would have to propose any change in lowering regulatory standards—let us say, for instance, in how one washes chicken. It would have to propose such a regulatory change, which would have to be bought through these Houses of Parliament. Does she accept that as a fact?
Caroline Lucas
I am happy to accept that as a fact, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the unwillingness of this Government to put their objectives into the Bill is causing massive concern? Thousands of people are writing to the Minister to say that they are deeply, deeply concerned, so why not put them in the Bill? Unless they are there, we are not going to take them seriously. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I just do not think that people are going to believe warm words; they want such things in the Bill.
We need to be listening to those people who are contacting the Minister. That includes, as we have heard before, not just the National Farmers Union, but many other organisations and many people from civil society. We also need to be listening to the science.
I want to end by speaking to the issue of climate change and the fact that all our policy arrangements going forward need to be aligned to the essential fact of not exceeding the threshold of 1.5°. This year, 2020, is on course to be the warmest ever. Aligning trade policy with environmental and climate objectives is not just something that would be good to do; it would be reckless and perilous to do anything else. Despite the hype of a brave new post-Brexit world, this Trade Bill perpetuates the status quo. It is totally unfit for purpose from the point of view of standards; democratic scrutiny; secret courts that can also undermine values of the kind we want enshrined in trade Bills going forward.
Craig Williams
It gives me great pleasure to rise in this debate and I welcome the fact that the Minister sailed the Bill through Committee unamended. I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that the rhetoric, facts and a couple of other statements that she made simply all mix together and I am afraid that I agree fundamentally with my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). The fact that she wants something in the Bill that is already the law of the land gives excellent credence to what rhetoric is.
Caroline Lucas
One of the reasons that I want things in the Bill is that they might otherwise be changed through statutory instruments, which might not even see the sides of this Chamber. We want them in the Bill so we can have the debate here in this Chamber.
Craig Williams
The hon. Lady, I know, understands the process of this House probably better than me, and a statutory instrument sailing through this place without a vote on the Floor would mean a dereliction of duty by those on the Opposition Benches. I know as well as she does that it would be easy to facilitate such a vote. Not only that, but those on the Treasury Bench have been absolutely clear.
In the short time I have, I want to echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), with whose thoughtful contribution at the start of the debate I agreed very much. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I think he is the grandfather of the commission we now have for trade and agriculture, although I do not want to age him. My hon. Friend did more to engage me with my farmers than the National Farmers Union has done in a decade. I suspect that was done in 10 minutes amending the last Bill, rather than what the NFU tried to do in an ongoing dialogue.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour mentions the commission. We were lobbied by many of our farmers who urged us to set up that commission. The Government have listened. Does he agree that that is evidence of this Government listening to farmers and upholding our manifesto commitment?
Craig Williams
I dare not disagree with my parliamentary neighbour. I very much welcome the commission and I say to those on the Treasury Bench that it is welcomed by my farmers and my agricultural community. The membership of that commission gives a certain amount of comfort to the farmers I engage with daily in representing one of the largest agricultural communities in this country.
I want to focus for a second on what my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said around the subject of chlorinated chicken, which has become a lightning rod, a focus stone. I re-emphasise that there is an import ban in place; there is a law of the land in place that that cannot be imported into this country, and it would be an incredibly brave Government, Treasury Bench and Chief Whip who ever brought that issue to this House.
It seems to be Opposition Members, over and over again, who are trying to charge the whole debate emotionally with that product, despite the full knowledge that it is illegal to import it into this country. That brings shame on them for trying to whip the issue in such a fashion.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The horsemeat scandal revealed significant vulnerabilities in the traceability of our food supply chain. Given that pork and horsemeat found their way into what was meant to be beef, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that we risk a similar scandal in future if additional protections for consumers against chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef are not written into the Bill?
Craig Williams
I have won the argument on chlorinated chicken and we have moved on to another product. I say to the hon. Lady that working with the Government, as I am with the Secretaries of State for both DEFRA and International Trade, on traceability, accountability and labelling, is the right thing to be doing—not making cheap political points in what is one of the most essential debates and Bills for this country right now.
I was trying to get to a point about the scrutiny in this place. As a member of the International Trade Committee, I commend our illustrious SNP Chair, who has brought real teeth and scrutiny to the process. The willingness of the Secretary of State and our negotiators to brief the Committee in private session has been extremely welcome.
The fact is that we have the CRAG procedure, which has been talked about at length—I see some Members starting to smile on the Opposition Benches. It would be an Opposition who really could not use the process to full advantage who could not bring a vote against any kind of trade deal that came forward. For anything to be able to be snuck through, there would have to be a complete dereliction of the Opposition’s duties—never mind the Back Benchers on the Government side, who will hold our Government to account, as is our job.
Having spoken to the Minister on the Treasury Bench at length on these issues, I feel safe in the knowledge that the trade deals that we are doing will be welcomed in my farming and agricultural community. The deals will open up not just markets that that community wants, such as lamb to the United States of America—the second largest importer of that meat in the world. They are already opening up the beef market, which has been lying dormant for so many decades and they will enable the import of products of a reasonable standard. Consumers in my constituency and across the United Kingdom can take huge comfort from the import bans in place in the law, which will not be removed.
I know that there is a time limit and that other Members want to speak. I commend the Treasury Bench for their engagement with our farming community, with me and with the International Trade Committee. I commend the Bill unamended.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams). I begin on a point of consensus, for I fear that we might diverge a little as I proceed.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that trade is an important part of the Welsh economy. It was worth £17.5 billion in 2019 alone. While the Government pursue trade deals across the world to explore new opportunities, the hon. Gentleman will also agree with me, I think, that they should not squander the opportunities on our doorstep. Although Wales is a proud global partner, we cannot escape the fact that at present more than 60% of Welsh exports are destined for our friends—and, hopefully, our continued close trading partners—in the European Union. I hope that negotiations with the EU will conclude without there being new barriers to that trade or additional costs for our businesses.
I am certain, however, that the UK’s approach to trade with other members of the global community must champion the interests of each of the UK nations—an objective far more likely to be realised successfully if all four Governments of the UK play a role in formulating trade mandates and scrutinising negotiations as well as ratifying agreements.
I commend the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who eloquently detailed the Bill’s deficiencies in this regard; I add only that the Government should guarantee the democratic rights of the devolved Administrations in the Bill as well as offering legal protections to our public services and strengthening some of the safeguards when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny of standards.
Unfortunately, as it stands, the Bill in my opinion denies the role that the Welsh Parliament has in articulating Wales’s interests. That is why Plaid Cymru has tabled new clause 18, to ensure that all four nations must consent to any trade deal struck in their name. We will also be supporting new clause 4, in addition to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee East, which would ensure not only that that deficiency is addressed, but that UK parliamentary oversight is strengthened.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I say to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) that it is a pleasure to follow such a thoughtful contribution—indeed, let me say diolch yn fawr to all three Welsh MPs who have just spoken.
I rise to add my voice to calls for more trade and more opportunities for business in global Britain, especially those close to my heart in South Ribble and wider Lancashire. This Bill allows for more than 40 existing trade agreements with other countries to be kept in place, for us to access a £1.3 trillion global procurement market and for us to protect vital industries from product dumping by overseas actors. Finally, we clear up the rules on sharing data in customs environments, all of which are vital to the health of our domestic and export businesses. This useful and practical Bill tidies up the details on laws currently with the EU and adding them to the UK’s statute book.
I also rise to put to rest the concerns I have heard from many of the good people of South Ribble who have been worried by some of the noise and misunderstandings around the Bill.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members wish simply to sow doubt among the public about the NHS? We have had 10 years in which to privatise it, but we have not done so. The last time it was privatised was in 2006, with Tony Blair’s independent sector treatment centres. Does she agree that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy coming from those on the Opposition Benches?
Katherine Fletcher
My hon. Friend is entirely correct on that. Having been part of the Bill Committee in the past weeks, I have had the opportunity to hear at length the arguments made on this Bill and on today’s amendments. I have listened hard to the details and drawn my own judgments. The advocacy for new amendments is strong and their proponents on the Opposition Benches articulate them well. They express fears that, at first glance, seem reasonable, but they are fears and not realities. I worry that Opposition Members are seeking to conflate what is actually in the Bill with fears about what could be in the Bill and wider conversations about trade. I know I am relatively new to this House, but that does not make sense to me. So what are the actualités of this piece? There is much noise about Parliament voting on future trade deals—we can do that, more so than is the case in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand. The CRAG process allows us to vote on trade deals and if we change our own law on trade, we will vote on that in this place too.
In reference to new clause 4, I must draw on my business background. As anyone who has negotiated any type of deal before knows, if you are at a table and have to say, “I agree but I have to get 650 other people to agree”, it rather ties your hands in the negotiation. Let us trust our elected Government to act in the best interests of global Britain, and as hon. Friends have mentioned, trust those on these Back Benches to hold them to account. Should it be needed, there is still a backstop. If we, as a Parliament, need to block a trade deal after negotiation, we can. If it changes our laws, it will need a vote in this place, and FTAs cannot, by their nature, unilaterally change UK law. This is similar to Canada’s system, and it is forging on with trade deals and doing all right.
I have had much correspondence from the people of South Ribble raising concerns about our farmers and their wonderful, quality produce. People say, “You need to reassure constituents. There is concern that if a clear and explicit Government commitment to uphold food standards is not included in the Trade Bill, existing food law, including retained law, could easily be changed.” If I were in their shoes listening to that, I would be worried too. Let me put their fears to rest. We will not remove the UK’s current food standards. For example, hormones and chlorine in food are banned now and will remain banned—full stop. The current standards are in EU law and will be rolled over when we leave the transition period. We have promised to keep import standards in place, and we will. For those concerned about having a say, should they ever be changed, that will be voted on here in the UK Parliament.
If we put food standards rules into this Bill and ask those overseas to adhere to them, then we are asking those abroad to abide by our law. That is something we would not and do not accept from other countries, and our friends abroad will almost certainly say, “No thanks. That will put a restriction on trade that will hurt us—let’s not.” To put it another way, putting food standards regulation into a Bill rolling EU law into UK law is a bit like putting a frock on a frog: it will look more than a bit out of place down at the negotiating pond, and people will be disappointed when they kiss it and it does not turn out to be a protectionist princess. There is a right place to protect the UK’s food standards when products are imported, and we will, but it is not this Bill.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), as I recall I did when she made her maiden speech. I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who I know is scheduled to speak immediately after me and will doubtless give a detailed account of the reasons for it. In anticipation of that, I wish to set out why the Liberal Democrats support it.
From 1 January 2021, the UK will be setting out on its own for the first time in nearly 40 years in developing its own independent trade policy and negotiating its own trade agreements. The implications of this step on everyday life in the UK are huge, and possibly not yet fully appreciated. Trade negotiations are complex and delicate. Securing access to international markets for one sector may mean conceding international access to our domestic markets for another. Securing preferential treatment on tariffs for some of our goods may mean relaxing import controls on something else.
We have a complex economy currently disrupted by the need to beat the coronavirus, and on the verge of major change as we transition away from carbon-emitting activity. Technological change offers both threat and opportunity. We must also consider that our economy is imperfect in its distribution of wealth and opportunity, and look for ways to address this challenge. Increasingly, the UK is being called on to stand up for the defence of fundamental human rights and liberal democracy and use the powers at its disposal to effect change internationally. Our trade policy and agreements touch on all those urgent challenges. How can we best leverage our economic advantages to deliver current and future prosperity for UK citizens and influence peaceful progress abroad?
To determine that those decisions are best made behind closed doors without consultation or discussion is an assault on our very idea of what Parliament is for. We need to balance all the competing pressures from different economic sectors and geographical regions, fully considering the impact on different groups of workers, and determine whether we prioritise climate commitments over economic growth. How can that be done effectively without recourse to Parliament? The British people deserve to have their interests properly represented when these questions are being asked and for the answers given by Ministers to be put on the public record and judged accordingly.
I also speak in support of new clause 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and supported by the Liberal Democrats because we recognise the urgency of taking action against the very real threat of climate change. It is essential that we enshrine that urgency in our trade legislation, so that negotiating partners know, before the first papers are exchanged, that they must comply with our environmental goals. Our economy is transitioning away from carbon emissions, in accordance with the democratic mandate to achieve net zero carbon by 2050, and that progress must be underpinned in every trade agreement we negotiate. Our commitment to net zero cannot be traded away in pursuit of other goals.
The Liberal Democrats have also tabled amendments that relate to dispute resolution and human rights. Dispute resolution is fundamental to ensuring that democratic decision-making that relates to the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, or regulation of food standards, cannot be undermined by law suits from foreign corporations. At this stage, the UK Government should rule out any use of investor-state dispute settlement procedures from UK trade deals, to safeguard our ability to determine our own regulatory environment, without the threat of sanction from foreign investors. That is fundamental to ensuring that our NHS remains free at the point of use for all UK citizens, and that we set our own standards on animal welfare and food quality.
Earlier I referred to the UK’s powers to effect change internationally, and to how we can use our trade agreements as leverage. We have been forcefully reminded of our need to use those powers to influence foreign partners to respect human rights, thanks to recent events in Hong Kong and China. It would send a powerful message to the Chinese regime, and to others around the world who hope to trade with us, if we enshrined in law our commitment to upholding human rights as a non-negotiable element of our trade deals. That message will be compelling only if we lead by example, and that example starts with parliamentary oversight of negotiating mandates and trade deals. I implore colleagues to support new clause 4 this evening.
Mr Djanogly
I speak to the new clauses tabled in my name, and those of others, concerning the scrutiny of free trade agreements. Simply put, today the House must address the question of whether, post Brexit, the UK will have less scrutiny of free trade agreements than we had before Brexit. That is the current Government proposal, which I suggest flies in the face of the claim that we leave the EU to take back control. The Government have split FTAs into two categories. First, and in the Bill, are all trade agreements that the EU signed with third countries before Brexit, which the Government wish to roll over to become agreements with the UK. Secondly, and not in the Bill, there are FTAs with any other countries, such as the US.
New clause 4 suggests a new scrutiny process for all FTAs. It will still be the Executive that negotiate FTAs, but Parliament would get a yes/no vote on the negotiating objectives and, importantly, on the final draft agreement, as happens in the US and Japan. Not only has such a provision not ended up in the Bill, but the Government’s position has seemingly reverted to us having less scrutiny than we had as a member of the EU. For the past 40 years, the EU has negotiated our trade deals, and as part of the EU scrutiny process, a yes/no vote would be taken by the EU Parliament on the draft FTA, prior to signature.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend welcome the commitment from our Government on welfare and the environment, and all the conditions in the Bill? Does he find it somewhat confusing that the Government will not accept new clause 4? Surely scrutiny is fine, because they are going to do exactly what they said they will do.
Mr Djanogly
I absolutely agree. In January 2018, on Second Reading of the 2017-19 Bill, the then Secretary of State stood up and said that he would be looking for a new approval process and take soundings on that, but that has simply not happened. As things stand, there is no longer a parliamentary veto, and no formal scrutiny committee has yet been established, despite US negotiations having started.
The important point of a parliamentary veto is not that it is often used, but rather, as seen in other Parliaments, that it encourages the Executive to seek consensus on their negotiating mandate, and keeps legislators in touch during negotiations through regular discourse and discussion. A wise Executive will naturally wish to avoid an unnecessary bust-up just before signing an FTA. Of course, that is where it all went wrong with the TTIP negotiations between the US and the EU, because the US Congress and the EU Parliament were disclosing information to their respective elected representatives that was not provided to UK parliamentarians.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend is mentioning very large trade deals. Does he mean that the crux of this oversight is really required with those big trade deals, such as those with the US, China, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Mr Djanogly
New clause 4 does deal with all trade deals, but obviously the amount of scrutiny would be proportionate.
Catherine West
I rise to speak to new clauses 17 and 11, and on the principles of workers’ rights, national health service protection, and environmental and human rights. First, in relation to workers’ rights, we could not imagine a trade deal with such a country as Colombia when we know that the International Trade Union Confederation rates it as the most dangerous place to be a trade unionist. That means that the lives of many Members in the Chamber, who may be members of a trade union, could be at risk. To begin a trade deal with such a country without even mentioning workers’ rights seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous.
The problem with the Bill is how silent it is. It is silent on workers’ rights, as I have said. It is silent on the real protection of the NHS. We have had some reassurance on the NHS, but in particular I am worried about medicines and the cost of medicines, and about our data. We know that the national health service, unified as it is, provides the most fantastic data for research and for pharmaceutical companies. My fear is that, if we do not have more protection in the Bill, it will be open to those companies, through whichever country they are based in, to have a kind of values-free trade negotiation, which we as MPs will not be able to scrutinise effectively, and they could end up using our data, which, given the extent, longevity and detail of that data, is probably the best health data in the world. I therefore seek reassurances from the Minister on that specific point.
On environmental concerns, in leaving the European Union, we are leaving the gold standard of environmental protections, but it would be easy to write that protection in and lead on that in this Bill. Instead, the Bill is almost values free in terms of the importance of the environment. After covid, climate change and dealing with the climate emergency are probably the biggest concerns of our generation.
Many Members have mentioned the gold standard of food. I would also say that not everybody can afford to shop at Waitrose, which is the supermarket that has said that it will not buy low-quality goods. Many people will not be able to afford not to buy the cheapest food, particularly following the economic crash we are entering, the worst recession for 200 years, so we have to see the Bill in that context.
Barry Gardiner
Does my hon. Friend agree that many people who go to restaurants or to fast-food outlets will have no way of knowing the provenance of the food that they are consuming? It is not simply a matter of labelling in the supermarkets.
Catherine West
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. It is one that I will not repeat.
On the question of our role in this place, surely the past four years have taught us that people want us to be here to make these decisions. Tucking away a bit of legislation in the Library for 21 days is not what we are here for, and nor is running upstairs to an SI when we are in the middle of all-party group and all the rest. We need to have proper scrutiny in this place and the Select Committee needs to have an enhanced role. Having enjoyed my time on the International Trade Committee, I feel very strongly that it should have a key role in ratifying the role of the Trade Remedies Authority Commissioner. If that six-month commission continues, the Committee should also have a role in appointing its head. I will be lobbying very hard with colleagues who represent very rural seats—unlike Hornsey and Wood Green, which is one of the most urban seats—to have a proper commissioner continue in that role. Why have it for six months; let us have it forever. Let us have the International Trade Committee ratifying those two appointments. Let us also have a trade union voice and an industry voice on the TRA. If there is one thing that we have learned from covid, it is how well the TUC has worked and how well the CBI has worked together. They have led our Government and told them what to do on covid. Why cannot they do that with the Trade Bill?
We can get on. We can move forward together, but we must try to militate against this strong executive model that we have been saddled with by having these other checks and balances in place. We can do that through this Bill tonight and by supporting the sensible cross-party clauses, which share a lot of support. Let us try to enjoy that consensus building because we are in a new chapter. Let us not spoil it by having an inferior Trade Bill that is silent on the key issues of the day that concern us, be they human rights in China, environmental standards, which we have had a legacy of from our 40 years in the European Union, or the important question of what we are doing here as MPs.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). The Bill is an opportunity for us to take a nimble approach to doing business for the future for our country. I say an “opportunity”. In listening to some Members tonight, I see it as probably a hindrance, because they will seek every opportunity to frustrate the Bill and to make it more difficult to drive it through. There is talk of reporting back on every single deal that is being done. I am not an advocator of playing cards or anything like it, but definitely that is showing your full hand, which is not a wise thing to do. I am not saying that you should be playing poker, but I have been in business and I know what it is like: you do not let your enemies, or those with whom you are doing business, know what you are doing, and you can work out a deal every way.
However, we have concerns about many areas. We have had a very strong lobby in relation to our agrifood and agricultural industry, especially from those involved in the fishing industry.
Jim Shannon
Does my hon. Friend agree that our fishing industry similarly needs the Trade Bill, to show our strength of purpose and ability to stand outside EU rules and regulations and stand upon the quality of goods and services we are ready, willing and able to provide throughout the world? The fishing sector can grow if it is given the opportunity.
Paul Girvan
I agree with my hon. Friend about our fishing industry. We have a fantastic product. I have eaten in many countries around the world, and I understand why they would want to buy Northern Ireland produce—it is the best in the world. You will know that if you have had a soda farl from Northern Ireland; I know of some previous Secretaries of State who can bear that out.
We have had the agrifood sector lobbying us. Many in our farming sector lobbied us about changes that they wanted to be made to the Agriculture Bill, which went through the House recently. We see this as a second opportunity to give protection. I understand that some say we already have protection within legislation. I do not always say that it is important to gold-plate things, but sometimes we have to reinforce the stance that we are taking. That has to happen, and it is important that we support our farmers.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the devolved Administrations play a key role in any future trade policy, and that given Northern Ireland’s dependence on agriculture, it is vital that this Government listen to the devolved regions?
Paul Girvan
I am a great Unionist. I believe that we are part of the United Kingdom and we should be working together to ensure that we get the best bang for our buck, to use an American term, as a United Kingdom. That is vital.
We already have protection in some areas. I come from an engineering background. We lead the world in electrical standards. Many other countries manufacture a lot more, but we lead in electrical safety. We set those safety standards. We make sure that goods coming into our country are made to those standards. Sony makes the monitors that we have in the Chamber. It makes specific monitors that are only for the UK, because we have such stringent electrical standards. It has the flexibility to do that. There are farms in Europe and throughout the world that make food to sell into our market that is bespoke, just to suit our market. That can be done, and it is being done. I want to make sure that we give our farmers and our industry an opportunity to export on to the world stage, so that our product is sold. We can use this Bill to do that.
Sammy Wilson
Northern Ireland farmers export to 70 countries in the world, many of which have lower standards than the rest of the United Kingdom. The goods are valued because of the standard of the product. Apart from the fact that there will be a requirement to change primary legislation, is that not yet another indication that there is no incentive for us to lower standards, because we would lose those markets that we are exporting to?
Paul Girvan
I agree with my right hon. Friend. We do not want to lower our standards. We do not want a race to the bottom. We want to bring others up to the standard that we have set. We have set the bar fairly high, but by setting the bar so high, we have additional cost, which makes it more difficult for us to compete on the world stage. It is vital that we address that through whatever measures we have to put in place, with subsidy for our farming, to ensure that our product is still viable and economically possible for the housewife to buy—I used the wrong term; I apologise. We have to ensure that those who are buying their basket of fruit in a supermarket will be able to get the best value for it.
I support the Bill, but I also support new clauses 4 and 7, because they address some of the concerns that we as a nation have and Northern Ireland in particular has.
Neil Parish
It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan). Agriculture and fisheries are very important in this country, including in Northern Ireland, and as we go forward and do trade deals, family farms and family fishing are important.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The standards, protections and rights that we have all come to enjoy are put at risk by this Bill. The rules that govern trade must strike at the heart of the values that we expect of ourselves and each other. Trade policy must therefore be transparent and subject to thorough parliamentary scrutiny, and it must respect all the nations of the UK. On that, the Bill fails.
Now more than ever, as this country builds back better, we must ensure that the health of people and the planet are protected; that standards, workers’ rights and welfare rights are raised; and that our society becomes more resilient and sustainable. There can be no rolling back of rights, no undercutting of protections, no selling-out of our values and no compromise on standards.
At a time when we face so many crises—on three fronts: health, climate and the economy—all aspects of Government policy must be aimed at mitigating and eradicating those crises. However, despite the rhetoric, the Government yet again fail. Neither the environment nor climate are even mentioned in the Bill. The world’s poorest already bear the heaviest burden of climate breakdown. Trade policy must be rebalanced, putting justice and fairness at the heart of future agreements. There must be recognition from the Government that their lax approach on the environment in trade policy will lead to the promotion of cheaper but drastically higher-carbon and poorer-quality imported goods. That is bad for business, bad for people and bad for jobs, with UK producers, creators and innovators being undercut, and it will be a disaster for our environment.
First and foremost, the UK’s future trade agreements must be compatible with our commitment to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C by the end of this century. Trade policy must have embedded at its legal core the Paris climate agreement and the UN sustainable development goals. Only then can we guarantee a base commitment over trade policy that will be legally binding and will work progressively towards the kind of high recovery that we desperately need.
The Bill is also detrimental to food standards, the future prosperity of the UK’s agriculture sector and animal welfare rights. This is the week of the Royal Welsh show, when farmers and food experts come together in Llanelwedd to celebrate our great produce. Those farmers have really helped to put food on our tables during this crisis, but the Bill does nothing to help them—it will only weaken them. Despite UK Government promises to farmers and food producers that we would accept no watering down of standards, the Government continue to pursue the prospect of agricultural market access for the United States, where we know quality falls well below that of the UK. A selling-out of our farmers and appeasement over action—that is what we get with this Government.
This is window-dressing scrutiny while Government machinery continues to proceed down the same calamitous path. Far from handing power to Wales, the Bill will hollow out the right to regulate the standard of goods.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is always unsettling when I speak in the Chamber and my colleagues seem to leave and the Whips come in. I reassure them that I am on their side this time. I commend the Bill in its entirety.
I listened carefully to Members from across the House as they raised concerns over food standards and scrutinising the quality of our trade deals, but we must take the Bill alongside the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill, and the Fisheries Bill when it comes through this place. The Agriculture Bill took the steps that many in this House and in this debate have been calling for. On welfare standards, the Government have moved to a position where they are performing a consultation on labelling, which I assure hon. Members does not yet go far enough for me; I will be hot on their heels in making sure that we have an extensive labelling system for agricultural produce that is sold in the UK and that goes through restaurants and supermarkets.
However, the Government have also committed to a commission—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) that its six-month remit should be extended—which actually gives us the opportunity to scrutinise and to uphold the standards of our food and the welfare standards of our imports. That is important, and I do not think it can be expressed enough. It is what the NFU called for and it is what the NFU got, which we should be very clear about. That commitment is there in black and white in the Agriculture Bill, and it is exactly what the Opposition want, so to keep going on and on that we are lowering our standards is a fallacy.
Ladies and gentleman—sorry; Members, if I may—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I think the hon. Gentleman means “Madam Deputy Speaker”.
Anthony Mangnall
I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Reading the Bill and looking at the amendments, I see that one of the benefits is recognising the export potential. We are trying in my constituency to take the benefits of Brixham fish or oceanographic technology manufactured in Totnes and export it across the world and open up new markets for it. The Bill allows that.
I am afraid that my colleagues from Northern Ireland pipped me to the post by mentioning the fishing sector, but there is a huge opportunity in the Bill. We can now open up new markets in the far east. The Bill allows us to do that, and we must support it in its entirety. I should also add that in doing so, we can start allowing ourselves to strengthen the Union.
I have listened to Members from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland talk about their produce and exporting it around the world, and it is time to revamp and strengthen the Board of Trade, listening to what is the best of each of those areas and then helping export it to the international community. That will not only strengthen the Union, which I am sure all Members of the House will agree about, but allow us to be able to reach those markets.
Anna McMorrin
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that weakening devolution and taking back powers from the devolved Administrations means strengthening the Union, because I do not?
Anthony Mangnall
That is exactly why the Board of Trade was reintroduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). When he reintroduced the Board of Trade, it was about enhancing and developing a conversation with the devolved Administrations to make sure we were listening to what was in their areas and taking them forward to the international markets. It is no good turning around and saying we are not listening and not working together, because that is exactly what we are doing.
The Bill covers a number of significant areas where we will be able to reopen and reinvigorate our export markets. Through that, we will be able to reinvigorate those sectors that we hold dear in this country and uphold the standards that are so important. I commend the Bill.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
This Trade Bill is deeply flawed. I have been contacted by countless constituents and campaigns, each highlighting a different failing of the Bill. It seems that everyone is opposed to it, except for the Government.
While the Government may argue that the Bill simply allows for continuity, the reality is that it sets a precedent for future trade legislation. Its main failing is the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals. That the Bill is essentially designed to allow for a new trade framework after we leave the European Union makes that failing deeply ironic. When people voted to take back control, I suspect they meant for the people and Parliament, not Ministers and unelected advisers. To be honest, the idea that we should trust the power to approve trade deals to Ministers is laughable.
Last month, we debated the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government having overruled his own inspector in favour of his friend and party donor, despite admitting an apparent bias. On top of that, we have Government contracts seemingly being handed out to businesses with links to Ministers and advisers. Parliament has a right to scrutinise and debate every aspect of government, especially in matters as important as trade deals. The fact that Government Members do not appear to agree with that is deeply worrying, although not surprising.
However, it is not just the lack of scrutiny that is the problem, but the lack of protections. It is no secret that the US Government want a trade deal where the NHS is on the table along with our higher food standards. It is also no secret that there are those in government who would sell off our NHS as soon as they thought they could get away with it. These past few months, the NHS and its staff, along with other key workers, have been all that have stood between Britain and complete devastation. They have given their energy, their health and, in some cases, even their lives. Rather than thanking them with applause and praise, let us start by having a Trade Bill that ensures the NHS is off the table by enshrining that measure in law.
Then there is the issue of food standards. My inbox is full of constituents worried that this Government are so desperate for a US trade deal that they will water down food standards, allowing for chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef to be sold on the shelves of British shops. No doubt the Government will say that is scaremongering, but I ask them to explain to the farmers and voters in my constituency why they will not place food standards guarantees into the Bill. Finally, the Bill lacks any guarantee of workers’ rights, human rights or environmental protections. They are vital to protecting our planet, and to improving living and working conditions across the world. They must be a condition of any trade deal and must be included in the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. After the next speaker, the time limit on Back-Bench speeches will be three minutes. That does not apply to Kate Osborne, who has four minutes.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ahead of today’s debate, and like my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), I received hundreds of emails from constituents asking me to ensure that the NHS is kept off the table in any trade negotiations. I share their concerns. We know that the United States and Donald Trump expect a trade deal very much on their own terms. We also know that for the President of the United States the interests of corporate America come first and that he will demand that the NHS pays higher prices for US drugs in a trade deal with the UK.
Over 60% of my constituency of Jarrow voted in favour of leaving the European Union in 2016, but they did not expect it to lead to our NHS being controlled from outside the UK. Over the past few months, the NHS has coped tremendously throughout the peak of the coronavirus pandemic, even though it has not been properly funded for years—over 10 years—owing to the Government’s unnecessary and unwelcome programme of austerity. The coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated the importance of healthcare being accessible to all. However, as the Bill currently stands, it gives no protection to our NHS. We know that our NHS has already been turned into a market, making services vulnerable to being included in the deal unless they are clearly and comprehensively excluded. I can see no evidence so far that the Government want to ring-fence the NHS and keep it out of trade discussions.
The Bill also gives no role for Parliament to review or oversee trade agreements, weakening parliamentary democracy. Those on the Government Benches argue that the UK has taken back control of its trade policy, but do they not find it ironic that, compared with what is being proposed now, there was more parliamentary scrutiny and democratic oversight of trade policy when we were part of the European Union?
We also need to ensure that both public health and social care data relating to UK citizens are protected. Research by Global Justice Now concluded that the United States wants its companies to have unrestricted access to UK data, including NHS health records. The value of that health data is estimated to be about £10 billion a year. The Bill in its current form gives free rein to UK data being moved to servers in America. That could mean that the NHS would be unable to analyse its own health data without paying royalties and could find itself buying back, at considerable expense, diagnostic tools, medical technologies and expertise, even when they have been created from freely exported NHS data.
It is not just the NHS that is at risk. The Bill, as it currently stands, says nothing about climate change, human rights or workers’ rights. We need to ensure that any Bill passed protects the employment rights or terms and conditions of employment for public sector employees and those working in publicly funded health or care sectors. Failure to protect our NHS will be yet another broken promise from Boris Johnson that insults us all, but particularly the sacrifices made by our wonderful NHS and care staff. Failing to protect our NHS will mean that instead of a pay rise and a stronger NHS, we will get more US companies profiteering from our ill health. However, it is not too late to put in place strong protections for our NHS, and I call on the Government to commit to protecting our health service so that it cannot be subjected to yet more privatisation through trade deals.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Members might wonder why I am persistently calling those on the Opposition side of the House and no one on the Government side of the House. I will pre-empt a point of order by explaining that because of the rigid system that we are currently operating, when someone pulls out of speaking, I have no flexibility to go on to the next person on the other side of the House. Therefore, we will have another speaker from the Opposition—I call Navendu Mishra.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With Britain heading out of the EU on 31 December, it appears that the Government are determined that everything must go in their post-Christmas sale, from food standards to our environmental commitments. This should be an opportunity to improve and strengthen existing trade deals and use them to provide an even better return for this country. Instead, we are faced with the prospect of everything being on the table and sold to the highest bidder, as President Trump stated on his visit to the UK last year. As we know from the leaked documents that the Labour party was able to obtain last year, the US is seeking full market access to even the jewel in Britain’s crown: the national health service—and that is just what we know from the papers that were not heavily redacted.
Food standards should be sacred. We do not want chlorine-washed chicken in a can or, for that matter, meat treated with growth hormones, or pork from animals that have been injected with drugs to make them leaner. We should also reject the long list of foods being produced in the United States by dangerous and cruel methods, regardless of whether higher taxes are applied to them, because even those tariffs will be scrapped within just 10 years, as the International Trade Secretary has stated, further enabling the US to secure comprehensive access to our food markets while at the same time achieving the ultimate goal of “reducing or eliminating tariffs”.
More than a million members of the public have signed a petition to protect food standards, but to date it appears that the Government have taken little notice. It is little wonder, therefore, that they are now facing the rebellion by their Back Benchers. There must be proper scrutiny of this process and Parliament should have a veto on any trade deal. Both this place and the other place should have a say over whether to approve any new deal that is agreed with any other country. Why should we leave ourselves at the mercy of the word of this Government, who cannot be trusted to deliver anything, without legislative guarantees and beholden to US food trade associations, which have enormous lobbying power and one goal in mind—profit? It should not be left to big business to challenge laws and regulations simply because they inhibit foreign investment.
Like human rights, the issue of climate change should be central to our future considerations of trade policy, but worryingly there is no mention of it in the Trade Bill, and the record for different countries, when it comes to environmental protections, is not suggested as a consideration in negotiating future trade agreements with them. New trade agreements must be compatible with our commitment to stop global warming passing the point of no return. We cannot simply trade away our commitments on climate change in pursuit of trade deals. Indeed, it should be quite the opposite: trade agreements should be used to improve environmental standards abroad and ensure that climate justice and fairness are at the heart of future trade deals. The Government must think again before selling their standards for a quick buck.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As three Government Back Benchers in a row have failed to appear in the Chamber, we will go straight to Carla Lockhart.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is vital that as we shape our future trade policy, we do it in a way that maximises the benefits of our new-found independence but does not sacrifice key industries in the UK. In the context of an economy facing the greatest challenges in my lifetime due to covid-19, we are certainly not in a place where we can sacrifice any industry, let alone the backbone of our economy: our agriculture industry.
It is not too long ago that the Agriculture Bill was debated in this House. In my contribution to that debate, I made clear the importance of protecting British farming and the high standards that it upholds in any future trade agreement. The opportunity to enshrine all that is good about our agriculture industry in that Bill was not taken at that time. That was deeply regrettable and caused much concern among my constituents.
In this Bill we have another opportunity—an opportunity to make it clear to the farmers and agri-food businesses that have been an essential component of the national effort against coronavirus that they will not be sacrificed in any future trade agreements. Indeed, we ought to be exploring how we can help the industry to thrive in coming years and to share in the benefits of life outside the EU. To do that, the fundamental building block is standards. In the context of our agriculture industry, future trade policy must respect the high production standards in terms of animal welfare and environmental protection to which our farmers adhere. We know that comes at considerable cost to local farmers and that overseas farmers have significant cost-of-production advantages due to lower regulatory requirements. In simple terms, if the UK market is flooded with substandard products, it will result in the demise of the industry.
To that end, the establishment of a trade and agriculture commission is very welcome, and I thank the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for ensuring that the voice of Northern Ireland is heard on the commission by appointing Mr Victor Chestnutt, the incoming president of the Ulster Farmers Union. In addition to that forum, however, we need to ensure that Parliament has a strong voice and a meaningful say in the shape of future trade agreements in relation to mandating, negotiating principles and approval of any such deals. Our role should be proactive, not passive. That is why we support new clause 4. Parliament’s role must be enhanced ahead of negotiations; it should be for Parliament to scope out the critical negotiating objectives; to ensure that the interests of all parts of the UK are actively considered and prioritised, the devolved Administrations should also have a meaningful role.
We recognise the important provision the new clause makes for sustainability impact assessments, such as of environmental effect, the impact on animal welfare and health concerns. That ensures compliance with current—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her time by quite a long way. I call Antony Higginbotham.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). Having spoken on Second Reading and been a member of the Public Bill Committee on the Bill, it is a pleasure to speak today. I intend to speak mainly about new clause 4, but first I want to say that it is worth the House remembering that this is a continuity Bill, designed to give confidence and continuity to the hundreds of thousands of businesses in this country that export to many, many countries, from Switzerland to South Korea to Chile, that they can continue to do so. I also want to voice my agreement with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) said about how many of the amendments tabled, particularly those to do with standards, are actually anti-trade measures that will do nothing to support our exporters and everything to kill off trade.
In relation to new clause 4, it is important that we remember and that our constituents are aware that Members of Parliament already have and will continue to have the ability to scrutinise international treaties that the Government negotiate. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act gives all Members of Parliament those powers, so under the law as it already stands, if we are not happy with the contents of an international treaty, it will not be ratified. Also, I cannot subscribe to the view that Parliament needs to be more involved in negotiations, because I, like all of my constituents in Burnley and Padiham, watched the scenes in this place not that long ago when Parliament tried to be involved in negotiations, and instead of helping, it hindered them. This place was paralysed and the country was paralysed. Votes held on options were not helpful at all. I do not want to see that happen again, and in December my constituents voted to end the paralysis and embrace the new opportunities that are available to us.
When we were a member of the European Union, no MP in this place was involved in trade agreements, but since January the Secretary of State for International Trade and all her ministerial team have made sure that we are involved, with consultations on the parameters of free trade agreements and objectives published in advanced. Members of this House have engaged not just through parliamentary questions but directly. I have been able to speak to Ministers about the objectives we have, the benefits they will bring to my constituents and where my concerns are, and I have every intention of continuing to do so.
I will support this Bill and vote against the amendments. We need to embrace the opportunities and move with speed if we are going to embrace the new world.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I rise to speak in particular to SNP amendment 10 and new clause 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). I cannot quite work out whether the Government have not noticed the potential problems with the quality of imported foods or whether they just do not care. Frankly, having listened to this debate, I think it is the latter.
We hear so many platitudes, but when the chance to do something concrete came up during the Agriculture Bill, Ministers turned it down. Yes, pressures from farmers after that led to a commission to advise on a food imports framework of sorts. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who is no longer in his place, said its membership provided comfort to his farmers. That commission, though, has among its members Shanker Singham, a former lobbyist and favourite of various Ministers who is on record arguing that we should accept chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-injected beef and genetically modified crops from the US.
Mr Singham is not the only representative of the Institute of Economic Affairs on the commission; Lockwood Smith is also part of the IEA. That is important because the IEA is in favour of a hard Brexit and of lowering food and environmental standards to satisfy countries such as the US, China and India in trade deals. We know that because it published a paper on it in 2018 and got censured by the Charity Commission for its trouble.
Then there is the chair of the commission, Tim Smith, a former Tesco employee who said shortly after he was appointed that concerns about food standards were alarmist. I was alerted to that by the Department for International Trade; astonishingly, its Twitter account was used to publicise a link to the article. There are some who do not think the commission is there to provide safeguards for our food standards. They worry it is there to draw a veil of decency over the indecency of the Government’s position.
We were told during the Agriculture Bill that the proper place for provisions on the quality of imported food would be the Trade Bill, yet here we are debating the Trade Bill and the Government are intent on throwing those safeguards out of the window rather than enshrining them in legislation. Those are actions in bad faith and they should not be allowed to stand.
In Committee, the Minister said that Food Standards Scotland and the English Food Standards Agency will ensure that food imports comply with our standards. How? How will they do that? Will they have teams inspecting the production chains in other countries, as the EU does? How will the animal husbandry and production standards of other nations be monitored to prevent unsuitable food from ending up on our plates?
The White Paper on an internal UK market shows that the Government have no intention of letting Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland do anything to protect their people. Under those plans, lower standards introduced by England’s Government will have to be swallowed by the rest of us. Frankly, I do not fancy swallowing anything they offer.
Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change makes it clear in his response to the White Paper that he considers it a power grab from the devolved Administrations for the purpose of negotiating low-standard international trade deals. The Minister underlined that when he said that involving the devolved Administrations in trade deals would be “constitutionally inappropriate”. I disagree.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I start by declaring an interest: my wife’s family are farmers. I have listened carefully to the debate and studied all the amendments, and I feel that there has been significant mission creep among the amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) said a few moments ago, people seem to have forgotten what the Bill is actually about. The Bill is about those all-important continuity trade agreements that are vital for British farmers, British exporting businesses and the United Kingdom as a whole. The Bill categorically is not about new free trade deals, important as those are—and I am delighted to see colleagues from the Department for International Trade busy negotiating them.
When it comes to scrutiny, I very much welcome everything that my right hon. Friend the Minister said in opening the debate about the lengths to which the Government have gone to ensure that differences in any continuity agreements are laid before Parliament and how, likewise, where trade deals are likely to be different—where the Government have an ambition to get a better deal, such as with Japan—greater lengths are taken.
On farming, agriculture and our food standards, I cannot put it better than my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). He pointed out to this House that, as we leave the European Union, those all-important food standards will be transferred from EU law into British law, and the only way that that law could be changed is by this House. So it is a false argument to suggest that there needs to be an amendment to this Bill to change fundamentally what this Bill is about to secure the standards that the Prime Minister has committed to and that were in the manifesto that I and all Members on the Government side of the House stood on. My right hon. Friend the Minister has repeated that on many occasions, as indeed did my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who did so much to get this Bill back before the House of Commons.
When I heard the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who is not now in his place, talk about this earlier, I felt he had a very one-sided view of the argument, in that it was all about protectionism and the domestic market. Of course, the domestic market is important to all our farmers, but there are opportunities for international trade out there, such as the lifting of the ban on British beef into America, which is worth £66 million. Through trade, our farming can be assured and prosperous for the future.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I have a sense of déjà vu, because it is just under 18 months ago that we had a debate in this Chamber on future trade agreements—there were a lot fewer of us in here then. We discussed the very issues that we are talking about today, and it seems that the Government have not listened substantially to the concerns that were raised then. In the time I have available, I want to talk briefly about a number of those concerns, because hundreds of my constituents have written to me about them over the last few days, and they have written to me about them time and again.
The first is the NHS and the need to ensure that it is protected from international competition. I will be supporting new clause 17, because it is essential that our NHS remains our NHS and we are able to protect it from competition. We already have some competition, and we need to make sure that the NHS is not open to the highest bidder. People actually want that written into the Trade Bill to ensure that that cannot happen.
The same goes for environmental and food safety standards. We have talked about chlorine chicken and we have heard something about the environment, but there are a whole range of issues. Animal welfare issues are at the heart of these concerns. It is not just about chlorine-washed chicken or more detail; people are concerned also about the impact of trade deals on the environment. This Bill is a lost opportunity. We could be using this Bill to be creative, and to ensure that we safeguard our environment. For example—an issue I have raised in other places sometimes—there is the issue of deforestation and ensuring that we can protect the forests through our trade deals. The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who is not in his place, said earlier, “Aren’t the public ahead of us on this?” Indeed, the public are ahead of us on consumer protection, and they are saying to us that these safeguards need to be written into the Bill.
Finally, we have talked a bit during the debate about labour standards, and I am particularly concerned that in this Bill the Government should be protecting the trade and agreements we have with less developed countries and ensuring that fair trade and other trading agreements with them are safeguarded as an important part of their development.
On scrutiny, a great deal has been said. I certainly will be supporting new clause 4. There is huge concern—and people should not underestimate this—that deals will be signed off behind closed doors. Frankly, statutory instruments—and we have all been in loads of those Committees in recent days—are not the answer. We need proper debate and scrutiny. These are the concerns that Members have raised, and this is a missed opportunity.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I am excited by the possibilities for our future as an independent trading nation, and I support the Bill and our listening Government in taking us forward. The Bill is about necessary data gathering for future improvements, cheerleading, safeguarding and the effective communication of helpful information. It is not about protectionism or feather-bedding. The balance is to enable British exports that can compete against the world marketplace for goods and services to do so on a level playing field.
I believe that the Bill helps to get the balance right. For example, it is quite right that the Government intend to join the Agreement on Government Procurement as an independent party on substantially the same terms as we had under EU membership. The GPA provides UK businesses with access to public procurement opportunities worth some £1.3 trillion per year—opportunities for which they are willing and able to compete fairly. Of course, GPA partner access to UK public contracts will ensure taxpayers and consumers get the best value for money on major contracts, which in turn maintains the imperative for UK firms to stay innovative and competitive.
An important part of the balance is to ensure opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises, not just the mega companies. The UK rightly pursues an active SME participation procurement policy, and as an independent party in the GPA we will have the opportunity to engage others on sustainable procurement, social value and workforce considerations.
When exporters do everything right, and when they produce great goods and services at the right price and in accordance with all the relevant rules, the last thing they want to face is competition that has circumvented the rules and is artificially supported, so another part of getting the balance right is to ensure that remedies are available when needed. I welcome the Trade Remedies Authority, which will have important work to do in ensuring continuity of remedial action, not least for Stoke-on-Trent’s ceramics.
I applaud the Department’s determination to secure an ever-increasing number of continuity agreements. It is important for business confidence that we make as seamless a transition into becoming an independent trading nation as possible, while signposting that the door is open to better trade agreements with various partners in the years to come. The Bill provides both continuity for agreements and remedies inherited from our membership of the EU and for the future independent free-trading policy that we wish to strike. The Bill protects our national standards for our workforce, animal welfare, the environment, our NHS and our SMEs. It is a solid first step into the world for global Britain. I will be pleased to support it tonight.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
When I spoke in an earlier debate on global Britain, I was accused of
“supping from the cup of pessimism”—[Official Report, 30 January 2020; Vol. 670, c. 1035.]
when I spoke about Britain’s future outside the European Union. Yet what Members from both sides of the House want is what is best for our country, our economy, our environment, and the safety and wellbeing of everyone living and working here. Many of my constituents have written to me about those concerns, but they also expect me, as their elected representative, to be in the Parliament that has a say, with full accountability—not merely to receive a report once a deal is done. As the Lords EU Committee has warned,
“mere accountability after the fact”
does not make for meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. There is parliamentary scrutiny in the US, Germany, Australia and New Zealand, and we will have less control than we had as members of the EU.
Oversight is not merely a lofty concept; it has real-world implications. Others have mentioned threats to the NHS, food safety, environmental standards and so on, and I share those concerns, but I will give another example: car safety standards. A major reason that the US has triple the number of road deaths per million compared with the UK is because as EU members our cars are safer than those sold in the US. Our cars have front and side impact T-bone protection, which gives protection for car occupants. We also have requirements for much safer car fronts. Remember bull bars? We are not allowed to have them anymore. They are still prevalent in the US, killing and maiming children, pedestrians, cyclists and so on. New cars sold in the EU will have collision avoidance systems, to further protect pedestrians and cyclists. This Trade Bill risks cars imported from outside the EU presenting serious risks to the safety of UK road users. Can the Minister guarantee that no vehicles will be imported into the UK after these trade deals are done unless it meets recently agreed EU vehicle safety standards?
Investor-state dispute settlements have been used by corporations to get rid of plain packaging on cigarettes, scrap bans on fracking, overturn bans on certain medications and stop compensation payments after oil spills. Without transparency, those with the deepest pockets win, we lose our consumer, environmental and social rights and our planet is further threatened. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no ISDS clauses in any trade deal signed by the UK?
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
This Trade Bill represents a unique opportunity for us in the challenging circumstances that we face as a country due to the global pandemic and its economic impact. The only way to put it in context is to say that these are the most challenging circumstances we have faced in the last three quarters of a century, but we will come out of this, and we will come out it stronger. We cannot deny that we are entering a period of unprecedented economic disruption, not just here but around the world. We came together to protect our NHS and save lives, but now we must expand our reach to protect jobs, livelihoods and our economy. We must look beyond our borders.
I back British businesses. In the UK, we have a reputation for high-skilled, high-tech jobs. We can put ourselves in the global fast lane. We can be the most productive and the most innovative nation on earth. The deals enabled by this Bill will be great for Great Britain. There are fantastic opportunities ahead of us, not only in markets that we have explored but in new and fast-growing markets around the world. For example, through the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, we can look at markets that are growing more quickly and more explosively, doing fantastic things with data, robotics and technology—things that we cannot do now and through which we can leverage our exit from the European Union to propel the UK on to the global stage.
This is our call to arms. This is our opportunity to seize the chances of being an independent, sovereign nation. We can go global with this Bill. We can stand by and back our local businesses to really make an impact on the global scale.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Today will be a historic day that we can hopefully look back on and say, “As a Parliament, we did the right thing.” Today we have the opportunity to vote to protect our food standards and farming industry, to prioritise the environment and animal welfare, to stand up for workers’ rights and to safeguard our NHS from future trade agreements. Perhaps the Government think that the public are not interested in trade negotiations or are willing to just take the Government’s word that the NHS will be protected and that workers’ rights will not be undermined in future. I can confirm that the public are indeed interested and are not willing to accept any lowering of standards in future trade agreements.
A huge number of my constituents have contacted me in the last few days to voice their concerns over the Trade Bill. The main concern raised by constituents is the lack of oversight that Parliament will have of future trade agreements if the Bill is to pass in its current form. One constituent asked me, “Why should our nation be faced with this democratic deficit?”
I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) for tabling new clause 4, which will ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals. I am pleased that he has recognised the flaws in his party’s Bill, as well as the importance of parliamentary scrutiny as we leave the EU and forge new deals with different countries. However, other areas of the current Bill are not fit for purpose, and it must be amended to offer security for workers in my constituency, to address the concerns of businesses that will be impacted, and to give the wider public confidence that the Government are serious about tackling climate change.
With the Government currently in talks with the US regarding future trade negotiations, my constituents are rightly concerned that UK food and animal welfare standards are at risk. The Government have said that our current standards will not be undermined by future negotiations, and if that is the case, I urge Members to protect standards by voting for new clause 11. That new clause will ensure that agricultural goods imported to the UK under a free trade agreement must meet the standards applicable under UK law. That will include meeting UK standards on animal health and welfare, the protection of the environment, food safety, hygiene, traceability and plant health. The new clause will give the public confidence that agricultural products must meet hygiene and welfare standards, and ensure that the British agricultural industry is not undermined by lower quality international imports.
The Government have said that the NHS is not for sale, and that the public should not be worried about the security of our NHS in future trade deals. Unfortunately, however, the Government’s word is not enough for my constituents. I ask Members to think about today, and be able to say that they did all they could to protect high standards and the public health service that we treasure.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I had the privilege of sitting on the Committee of this historic Bill, and I have scrutinised it line by line. I believe that new clauses 5 and 6 strengthen the Bill, as they create the right balance by allowing trade to be conducted efficiently, as well as providing my constituents in Stafford with the protections they deserve. Trade is not an abstract concept; it affects our daily lives. International supply chains are important for so many of the products that we use every day, which is why it is crucial to get the Bill right.
From the Perkins engines made in Staffordshire to the generators produced by General Electric at its sites in Stafford, such factories are a vital link in international supply chains, and they provide jobs in my constituency that are reliant on trade. We must not forget JCB, whose site at Hixon helps to produce the instantly recognisable yellow tractors that are found on so many sites all over the world, not only contributing to the British economy, but helping to promote British businesses and our expert engineering overseas.
The Bill, including new clauses 5 and 6, provides a framework for more prosperous long-term trading opportunities, and it also gives us short-term certainty—something we are all looking for in these unprecedented times. The Secretary of State for International Trade recognises how important trade is for the farming sector, and I am grateful that she was kind enough to visit me in Stafford early this year, and take part in a roundtable with my local farmers. Now that Britain has the opportunity to create its own trade policy, it is vital that we strike the balance between encouraging imports of goods that we need, while also incentivising manufacturing and production on home soil, to sell in Britain and export across the globe.
Britain has some of the highest food standards in the world, which we should be proud of from both a farming and animal welfare perspective. Many of my constituents contacted me to say that they are extremely concerned that the Bill potentially allows for food standards to be lowered, and I recognise why some Members of the House will support new clause 4. Having sat on the Bill Committee, however, I was able to raise that matter directly with the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), and I was grateful for his personal assurances that there will be no compromising of our standards on food safety, animal welfare, and the environment. Combined with the new trade and agriculture mission that the Secretary of State and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have set up to support the NFU, I am reassured that the Government are upholding their manifesto commitment on food standards.
Sammy Wilson
I know that I have a very short time so I just want to make one point very quickly. I am disappointed that the Government could not find any place in this Bill to give a written assurance that Northern Ireland will be able to participate fully in the international trade deals that we will strike across the world when we leave the EU. That is because they cannot give the assurance that the Northern Ireland protocol will not stop us benefiting from goods that will come into the United Kingdom as a result of trade deals or, indeed, will not make the process of selling abroad so expensive that it puts us at a disadvantage when it comes to selling in other parts of the world. We believe that we have an economy that is competitive, but it is not competitive, because we are tied through the Northern Ireland protocol to the single market and to the European customs territory, and therefore treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. The assurances that the Minister gives verbally cannot, unfortunately, override the compelling legal commitments in the withdrawal agreement.
Greg Hands
With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to what has been a wide-ranging and often well-informed debate.
This Bill is mainly about continuity, but also about sending a clear message that we welcome traders—that we are network Britain, not fortress Britain. On standards, I remind the House that none of the 20 continuity agreements that Parliament has ratified has eroded standards in any way. Not one domestic standard in relation to animal welfare, the environment, human rights or labour has been eroded by any of those agreements.
Let me try to deal quickly with four of the myths propagated by the Opposition. First, on ISDS and protection for investment, this is in the UK’s interests. The UK has never lost a case in any of these tribunals, but for 40 years UK companies, with jobs at stake, have brought these cases. Eighty of the cases—about 1,000 overall—were brought by UK companies and UK investors directly, with UK jobs at stake. That is why this can be very important for UK business and for the jobs of our constituents in making sure that businesses operating abroad are protected.
The second myth relates to devolution. We have been clear that we would not usually legislate in devolved areas without the consent of devolved authorities and never without consulting them. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) referred to convenience. If it is more convenient for the UK to legislate for all four nations, then that is a sensible thing.
In terms of standards, we have seen new clause 11, and new clause 7 is even more extreme. New clause 11 wants to make sure that no goods can enter the UK unless they have been produced at standards
“as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law”.
That could have massive unforeseen consequences. The Opposition think they are talking about chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef, but are they actually able to look people in the eye and say that cocoa from the Ivory Coast has been produced to at least as high environmental standards as in the UK? Are they able to say that beans from Egypt are being produced to at least as high labour standards? Are they able to say that tea from Sri Lanka comes with the same high labour standards? I think they are putting a lot of this country’s existing trade at risk.
The fourth key myth is about the NHS. The NHS remains protected and will never be on the table at any trade deal, and that includes the prices we pay for drugs.
We have had excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and for Stafford (Theo Clarke), from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Robert Courts), for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). I thank them for their contributions and the Opposition for theirs.
The Bill is very important in securing the continuity of up to 40 EU trade agreements, the establishment of a Trade Remedies Authority to protect UK businesses and jobs from unfair trade practice, and access to the £1.3 billion global market in Government procurement.
We should accept new clause 5 and related amendments to allow better sharing of data. We should reject the other amendments, which are either unnecessary, such as new clause 4, or, in cases such as new clauses 7 and 11, potentially deeply damaging for this country’s economy.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 to 6 together.
Ordered,
BACKBENCH BUSINESS CoMMITTEE
That Nickie Aiken be discharged from the Backbench Business Committee and Mr Gareth Bacon be added.
HoUSING, CoMMUNITIES AND LoCAL GoVERNMENT CoMMITTEE
That Daniel Kawczynski be discharged from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Ian Levy be added.
PRoCEDURE CoMMITTEE
That Anthony Mangnall and Gary Sambrook be discharged from the Procedure Committee and James Gray and Douglas Ross be added.
WoMEN AND EQUALITIES CoMMITTEE
That Nickie Aiken be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Elliot Colburn be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Endangered Species: Developing Countries
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to bring forward this debate. You will know that there has been a lot of talk about the positive environmental impact of lockdowns around the world and how wildlife in some areas has flourished. It is true that some species have benefited from the absence of humans in many places, but the opposite is also true; many of our most engendered species and precious habitats now face real crisis because of the economic impact of the virus. As tourists disappear, the financial position of local communities deteriorates in areas that are vital for our biodiversity, so the door is opened for poachers and land grabbers, giving them the opportunity to act illegally with little resistance.
Areas of special scientific and environmental interest in poorer countries such as Madagascar rely on tourism to fund conservation. To take one example, the Ranomafana national park, home to 12 rare species of lemur, currently generates no income at all for those who work there to keep its work going. The consequence has been an upsurge in deforestation and poaching. Security and patrols of parks have had to be scaled back due to the lockdown and the costs. There are fewer tourists and guides around on routine tours around national parks, which provide a deterrent to poachers. None of that is happening right now, so of course the opportunity is there for people who want to break the law and to commit acts that we would all regard as barbaric. Local people who benefited from the income that tourism brought them now have to turn to other sources of income as well. There is a strong correlation between the rise in poaching rates and local poverty.
The international wildlife trade was already the fifth most lucrative transnational trade before this, worth around £17 billion internationally every year. Of course, the support services, the international tourism, the travellers who arrive and the money that flows into those local economies have been decimated by the pandemic, leaving so many important areas with no income, with no warning at all. For example, the annual income of the not-for-profit African Parks, which manages 17 parks, has been reduced by $7.5 million, with an expectation that it will take several years to get back to pre-pandemic levels.
The consequence is heartbreaking. Botswana has seen at least six endangered rhinos killed during the pandemic, with at least nine killed in South Africa and dozens deliberately de-horned to try to prevent further poaching. However, it is not only the highest-profile species in Africa. In Cambodia, three of the roughly 300 giant ibis left in the wild were poached in April. In Colombia, between March and April, five jaguars, one puma and one ocelot were killed in its north-western region alone.
Along with increased poaching has come an upsurge in illegal forest clearance. Nepal has seen logging more than double in five of its most important national parks, which is really important terrain for the Bengal tiger. Compared with April 2019, April 2020 saw 64% more land cleared in Brazil, and 2019 was already the highest year for deforestation. The World Wide Fund for Nature reports a 150% increase in deforestation in March in 18 at-risk countries, equating to an area of around 6,500 sq km, seven times the size of Berlin. Indonesia has been the worst affected, followed by the Congo and Brazil. Between January and March alone, Amazon deforestation was up 51% compared with last year— roughly the size of New York City—and in April, it was up 71%.
It is not just the places that we hear most about. To give just one example, in May in Thailand, eight men were arrested for removing a rosewood tree from a wildlife sanctuary. That tree alone was worth $70,000. As with poaching, a pause on patrols of nature reserves in indigenous territories, combined with mass job losses, are seen as driving the increase in illegal logging.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The press and the media are full of these stories. I noticed over the weekend one story that said that non-governmental organisations do not have the finances anymore to pay for rangers to protect the wild animals. Does he intend to ask the Minister perhaps to look at helping and financing the NGOs, so that they can pay the rangers to police the parks and thereby preserve and protect the animals?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I will come on to, but that is indeed one of the things that I would like this country to do.
We have a significant aid budget in this country. Although we have financial pressures at home and although there are particular challenges, even with the level of our aid budget, which is linked to our national income, the fact is that we need to act on these threats both for the short term and the long term. In the short term, improving the support that we provide for conservation projects, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, can help communities affected by job losses from coronavirus. It can help to prevent local people from turning to poaching and illegal trafficking to make up for lost income. We need to prevent those crimes from being, frankly, the only way that someone can keep their family on the straight and narrow and keep them alive and fed. Of course, this matters for the long term as well, because biodiversity gains and sustainable development projects will contribute to global efforts to reduce carbon emissions to keep global temperatures down, so we also have to make sure that we look after conservation for all our futures.
That is why my message to the Minister tonight is this: I want the Government to ensure that the support that we provide for conservation projects and—in particular, right now, when ecotourism is non-existent—for habitat restoration is sustained and increased in the coming years. Habitat restoration is one of the things we can do now that has those short and long-term impacts. I want us to step up the support that we provide to projects that restore the rainforest and other forest areas. I know that it can be done—I have seen it done. Helping poorer countries to restore not just forest areas, but, for example, mangrove swamps, can have direct economic benefits for the surrounding communities through poverty alleviation, improving food security and, of course, providing opportunities for recreation and tourism, and in some places the moderation of extreme events.
Equally importantly, however, spending money restoring natural habitats provides a refuge for endangered species and reduces the risk to biodiversity. Again, take the example of Madagascar: around 80% to 90% of Madagascar’s animal and plant species are exclusive to the island. It is a real garden of Eden still, but it has lost over a fifth of its tree cover since 2001, driven primarily by agricultural expansion. That process of habitat loss needs to be reversed. If we invest in land restoration and helping the local population to diversify what they do, everyone benefits. That is where our aid budgets can play a dual role in helping to alleviate poverty and creating economic opportunity, but also—crucially—looking after biodiversity and natural terrain.
As the Minister knows, we have a good track record as a country. It is not as though we are doing nothing in this area; we are actually doing plenty. The UK has contributed to the creation of nature protection zones across the world equivalent to the size of Brazil. Partnership work in Indonesia to protect the Sumatran tigers has helped to create 16,000 jobs. To counter deforestation and boost forest and biodiversity conservation, the Department for International Development’s Partnerships for Forests is supporting the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and local conservation partners in Liberia to develop a market for forest-friendly Gola cocoa.
However, I think that now is still the time for us to step up to the plate even more. I know that this year, the drop in GDP will affect our aid budgets, but they have also been rising steadily in recent years, so we have the scope to focus more effort on conservation projects. It is in our national interest to do so.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for securing this debate, which is extremely relevant and vital at this time. Does he agree that the aid budget should be used around the world but particularly in some of our British overseas territories, which have a huge amount of biodiversity and many endangered species that need our support? Perhaps that should be one of our Government’s first priorities.
Chris Grayling
Absolutely, because we have a political and national duty to help our overseas territories. Of course, there are important ties between the overseas territories and some of the conservation organisations in this country, with which my hon. Friend does so much important work and which face significant challenges right now.
We need to do two things. First, we need to step up our support for projects that specifically support endangered species and provide support against poaching. The reality in many of the national parks is that the disappearance of tourists means there are fewer people around to deter poaching and more people who are under severe economic pressures. Whether it is in respect of the projects that support orangutans in Borneo or those that look after the rhino and other endangered species in Africa, now is our moment to demonstrate our real commitment to protecting the world’s most endangered animals.
Secondly, we need to put extra support into protecting and restoring forest areas and other natural habitats. I have personally seen in Borneo how an area that 20 years ago was a palm oil plantation can be turned into a forest teeming with wildlife. It can be done and we can play a big part in that. We are doing great work in places such as the Congo basin, but now is the time to build on and expand that work.
Let me address the Minister with his Foreign Office hat on as well as his DFID one. We know from the current crisis, and from previous outbreaks of SARS and MERS in the past few years, just how vulnerable we are to zoonotic diseases making the jump to humans. We already know the risks of disease from endangered species such as pangolins—the most trafficked animals in the world—and far too many other animals that are taken into the illegal wildlife trade and that pose a real risk to all of us on this planet. We have to use all our diplomatic skills and resources to encourage change around the world after this pandemic.
Humanity cannot go on treating wildlife in the way in which it does today. People in this country—all of us in this Chamber—have a part to play. For example, we should seek always to buy products from sustainable sources. Right now, though, the most important thing is for the Minister and his Department to make sure that they put all the support they can into projects that will help endangered species today and, in doing so, contribute to helping not just to secure short-term benefit and to tackle a short-term crisis, but to ensure, over the longer term, that we secure a better future for our planet.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I am very conscious of the time, so I will be extremely brief and say that I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said.
First, I took part in the efforts to push through the domestic Ivory Bill, which the House passed in 2018, so I agree entirely on the need to protect flora and fauna around the world and the example that the United Kingdom can set. I ask the Minister politely when we might be able to implement the Ivory Act 2018. I know that it has recently been caught up in some legal wranglings, but it would be very effective and send a clear message on the UK’s determination to tackle this issue.
Secondly, it is also relevant to expand on what we did with that Act to take on the walrus, narwhal and hippo trades, which are blighting black markets around the world.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend talked about poaching. We have the opportunity, with our official development assistance budget and our troops who serve overseas, to help those communities and those tourist economies and to help to protect the wildlife that we hold so dear.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing this debate, particularly at this crucial time. I will work closely with the noble Lord Hague of Richmond of the other place, who was until recently known to this neighbourhood. I am grateful for the other contributions, in particular that of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), whom I shall look to update on the situation in relation to the Ivory Act 2018.
On the effect of the international pandemic on the tourism sector more generally and on development issues, it is still early on, but I share my right hon. Friend’s analysis that covid has had a detrimental impact on those areas, both directly and indirectly. Tourism is a major source of employment, Government revenue and foreign exchange earnings. Clearly, this will be a loss to local community, local non-governmental organisations, anti-poaching schemes. It will also be a loss to individuals within that community, who may turn to more short-term revenue-generating activities, particularly around deforestation. We should be very alert to those issues.
I have been asked to look at how NGOs can assist in tackling poaching. I am certainly more than willing to do that, but I would also highlight the role the Ministry of Defence has played in anti-poaching matters. I am meeting the MOD this week on broader African issues and I will be more than happy to raise that broader concept. However, the underlying economics are the key to making sure that local communities understand the role of biodiversity, but still have a sustainable economic route to tackling their poverty.
Covid is still evolving. We do not know what the full situation and implications will be, but we do know there is an opportunity to build back a more resilient, healthy and greener world as we emerge from this terrible situation. The pandemic has been a stark reminder of what we have known for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell refers to it as the relationship between humanity and nature. Where it breaks down it has a profound effect. We have been very much reminded of that during this crisis. Coming out of the crisis, we need to be very careful to bear that in mind.
Biodiversity is clearly essential for all life on earth, including our own. It is also vital for our economies. It underpins global efforts for broader and sustainable development. Protecting endangered species and restoring habitats, which my right hon. Friend talked about in particular, matters not only to us but to developing countries. Over 1 billion people depend on forests for their daily living, both for fuel in a sustainable way and food. Over 1 billion people depend on fish as their main source of protein, so these issues are directly important to them.
The science and evidence are clear that global biodiversity is in catastrophic decline. My right hon. Friend mentioned a number of very clear examples of that. Unfortunately, the figures paint a very concerning picture. Three-quarters of land-based environments and two-thirds of marine environments have been significantly altered by human activity, such as the exploitation of nature directly through pollution and through changes in land and sea use. One million animals and plant species are now at risk of extinction. My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned the orangutan. There is the maritime example of the Antarctic blue whale and he also mentioned lemur. A third of lemur species are at threat of extinction.
My own bailiwick at the Foreign Office and Department for International Development is Africa, but my right hon. Friend rightly points out that this is not just an African issue, but a global issue, mentioning countries such as Cambodia and Colombia. Really, there is either a problem in the country or the country should be stepping up to the issue, so it is a global issue. The Government feel that the UK should be a force for good. It is in the national interest to sort out these issues, as well as it being altruistic and the right thing to do.
Andrew Rosindell
The Minister mentions being a force for good. Britain is always a force for good, but we are particularly a force for good when it comes to conservation in the work of British zoos and aquariums. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government continue to support their work, as part of the global conservation effort.
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. His campaigning activity, I think, led directly to changes in Government policy. I have not yet been back to Colchester zoo—I think that is our nearest shared zoo, if we go towards my end of the patch—but I look forward to doing so again. They are also an important part of educating our children on the importance of biodiversity. Not all of us can go to Madagascar and see the beauty of that country. In fact, if we all did go it would be somewhat counterproductive in terms of air miles.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I have listened to all the contributions to the debate with great interest. Earlier, the situation in the overseas territories was adverted to. For the UK, 95% of our biodiversity is in the overseas territories, yet 95% of the funding we give for biodiversity goes domestically, within this country. The Foreign Office has always maintained a good relationship with the authorities in the overseas territories, but they have said that although it is their responsibility to act, they do not have the funding. Will the Minister look at that relationship of responsibility and funding? Ultimately, the responsibility under the convention on biological diversity is the UK’s, even though we try to work closely with the governing authorities in the overseas territories.
James Duddridge
The two hon. Members make two important interlocking points, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on the absolute importance of the area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on our absolute responsibility to assist the overseas territories. Having previously had ministerial responsibility for the overseas territories, I am apprised of that and of the issue of marine diversity in particular, although not exclusively. We have done a lot on that, but I am happy to pass on the hon. Members’ observations to Baroness Sugg, who is examining the relationship with the overseas territories in that regard. We would be open to doing more within our extended family, which is an obvious place to start, rather than in other areas outside that close family.
We have doubled our international climate finance to £11.6 billion over the next five years. We are helping more generally with reform in broader areas such as land use, agriculture and forest governance to help farmers in developing countries, so that they can develop sustainably without damaging the environment. One of the figures I was briefed on, which I had to check several times because it seemed too enormous to be true, is that we lose the equivalent of 30 football pitches of forested area every single minute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell talked about Berlin and other geographical areas; I am not desperately familiar with the size of Berlin, but I know the size of a football pitch, so that figure really brought home to me the importance of this subject. It is easy to talk about the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Congo basin, but they are a long way away and the DRC is a damn big country, bigger than many of us can conceive, but we can understand the more discrete area of a football field.
We are not just stopping bad things happening, but trying to reverse the changes. We are working to conserve and restore mangrove forests, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. That work, covering 180,000 hectares of biodiverse forest, will improve the livelihoods of 80,000 people in coastal areas and avoid the production of nearly 8 million tonnes of carbon emissions. It is not about merely stopping a trajectory, but about undoing some of the harm.
It is important that we do not operate independently. This is a global issue. We are supporting the global environment facility, which was specifically set up on the eve of the 1992 Rio Earth summit to tackle some of the most pressing problems. We led the last replenishment, contributing £250 million, making us the third largest donor. We should be proud that we do that. We can always do more and we press to do more, but when we do some good, we should celebrate it. Since its inception, the facility has supported the management of over 3,300 protected areas covering 860 million hectares, and in totality the projects have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 27 billion tonnes.[Official Report, 22 July 2020, Vol. 678, c. 14MC]
We are committed to doing even more, investing more of our aid programme in protecting biodiversity and using our own expertise to help in this crucial work. My right hon. Friend rightly presses me on the financial side. We are reviewing the whole Government portfolio in the light of covid and working closely with Her Majesty’s Treasury and other ODA Departments to make sure that all we do is done in a coherent and strategic way. Although I cannot make commitments tonight on the Floor of the House, I can point to the UK’s commitment to double international climate finance to at least £11.6 billion for the period 2021-26. That should reassure him as to our direction of travel.
Mention was made of endangered species and what we are doing to protect them. We are fully committed to the convention on international trade in endangered species and the convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals—the only global convention specialising in the conservation of migratory species, their habitats and their migration routes. We are funding conservation activities in the Kavango–Zambezi transfrontier conservation area in southern Africa, which I know slightly better than the other parts of the world mentioned by my right hon. Friend. That is helping to unlock green corridors and benefiting wildlife and communities, and we will do more.
In the coming months we will use every opportunity to advocate and leverage our impact and influence at a global level on the issue of biodiversity. As co-hosts of COP, we want to amplify the linkages between biodiversity and tackling climate change. We are establishing a joint dialogue between consumers and producer countries, to enable a transition regarding deforestation-free commodity production, driving UK action and green supply chains. We are advocating to secure the protection of our planet’s ocean and land resources by 2030, to help curb climate change, support livelihoods, and safeguard a planet for all. In 2021 we have the convention on biological diversity—COP15—alongside COP26. Having had to delay COP26, in the next 18 months we have an opportunity to deal with some of these issues.
The Ivory Act received Royal Assent in 2018, and there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal which, quite rightly, upheld the Government’s position. There is now a challenge to the Supreme Court—my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes rightly raised that issue, and although we very much want to move ahead, we will be delayed slightly by that challenge. I would be more than happy to discuss the issue with him.
Jim Shannon
One story in the media over the weekend that I was aware of is that across the whole of Africa some criminal gangs have been involved in wildlife crime. Those gangs are mostly constituted of those of Chinese origin. Can the Minister offer any help to assist countries legally to make those involved in wildlife crime be held accountable?
James Duddridge
The hon. Gentleman is right, and the problems of organised crime are deep. These are not disorganised or opportunistic cases, and as well as anti-poaching measures, this is about fundamental policing and community-based activities. This is not necessarily just through NGOs and the MOD; it is about good old-fashioned policing and community engagement.
It is important that all communities benefit from biodiversity, and that benefit is most obvious through preservation and caring for the community. That is where the loss of tourism that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell referred to is so important, because a direct contribution was made by people going to those areas to enjoy the beauty of biodiversity. Those communities then received money, both directly through employment for people and their families, and funding for anti-poaching work, but also through a broader contribution from greater sustainability, and ensuring local buying in the communities. As with a lot of development and diplomacy, this is not something that the UK does unto others; this is something that we do with global partners, in partnership with those countries.
We have a stark choice for our shared future. This is not just about nature; this is about humanity. Covid has demonstrated that link, and my right hon. Friend has directly pointed to that shared interest between biodiversity and humanity. We must seize the opportunity to reshape our economies, build back better, and reset our relationship with nature. Let us not waste it.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) | Jim McMahon |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) | Stuart Andrew |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Mark Tami |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Mark Tami |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) | Mark Tami |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Mark Tami |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) | Patrick Grady |
Sir William Cash (Stone) | Leo Docherty |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Mark Tami |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Mark Tami |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) | Mark Tami |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Mark Tami |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Mark Tami |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) | Caroline Nokes |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dave Doogan (Angus) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Mark Tami |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) | Conor McGinn |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Mark Tami |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Mark Tami |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Theo Clarke |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) | Patrick Grady |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Mark Tami |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Mark Tami |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) | Aaron Bell |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Mark Tami |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) | Lucy Allan |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Mark Tami |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Mark Tami |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Mark Tami |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) | Mark Tami |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) | Wes Streeting |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Mark Tami |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Mark Tami |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Judith Cummins |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Mark Tami |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Mark Tami |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Mark Tami |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Mark Tami |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Mary Kelly Foy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Rosie Duffield |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Mark Tami |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) | Cat Smith |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Mark Tami |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) | Mark Tami |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Cat Smith |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) | Patrick Grady |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Mark Tami |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) | Mark Tami |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Mark Tami |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) | Patrick Grady |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) | Patrick Grady |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) | Alex Norris |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) | Mark Tami |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) | Mark Tami |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Mark Tami |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Mark Tami |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Mark Tami |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) | Mark Tami |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Mark Tami |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Mark Tami |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) | Robert Courts |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central) | Mark Tami |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) | Patrick Grady |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) | Mark Tami |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) | Patrick Grady |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Mark Tami |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Ben Lake |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) | Mark Tami |
Draft Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Extension of Time Limits for Legal Proceedings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
It is my first time as Chair, so be nice to me! Before we begin, I would like to remind hon. Members about social distancing. I think everyone is sitting in the right place, where there is a tick. Spaces are clearly marked. If you are going to make a speech, please send it to hansardnotes@parliament.uk to speed things up with them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Alternative Dispute Resolution for Customer Disputes (Extension of Time Limits for Legal Proceedings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your first of many chairmanships, Dr Huq.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 29 June, and form part of the programme of work to update our legislative framework in readiness for the end of the transition period. We want a relationship with the European Union that is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and centred on free trade. We will have a relationship with our European friends inspired by our shared history and values, and it is important to ensure that retained EU legislation continues to work effectively in the UK immediately after the transition period.
We have a strong framework of consumer rights in this country, which gives most consumers the confidence to settle any disputes directly with businesses—and they do; around six in 10 disputes are resolved directly with the business. However, we know that when resolution is not achievable directly, many consumers would prefer a way other than court action to settle their differences with businesses.
Alternative dispute resolution, known as ADR, helps consumers to resolve complaints with traders by providing a confidential and objective method for tackling disputes without going to court. More than 2.5 million disputes have been resolved through ADR in the past six years. Research by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy found that 80% of consumers who used ADR thought that their problem would not have been resolved without it. The draft regulations we are considering today have no impact on the provision or quality of ADR, nor do they alter substantive consumer rights and protections available to UK residents more generally.
This statutory instrument will ensure that ADR continues to work as intended after the end of the transition period, in a context in which the EU’s ADR directive no longer applies to the UK. It amends four pieces of legislation that implement the EU ADR directive. Those four pieces of legislation extend the time limit for bringing court proceedings when a consumer is engaged in non-binding ADR. Those extensions of the time limit allow the ADR procedure to conclude and, if it has not been successful, give the parties an eight-week grace period to commence court proceedings thereafter. That ensures that the parties are not prevented from initiating judicial proceedings where the court time limit expires during or just after the ADR procedure.
The extensions will continue to apply, but, as a result of the draft regulations we are debating today, they will apply only where the consumer is resident in the UK and the ADR provider is approved under the UK’s ADR regulations. Provided those conditions are met, time limits will continue to be extended for consumers resident in the UK whether the trader is based in the UK or the EU, as is the case now.
The changes reflect those that have already been made to section 140AA of the Equality Act 2010, which also implements the ADR directive, via a separate instrument, the Equality (Amendment and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which has already been approved by this House. The draft regulations before this Committee are designed to ensure that a consistent approach is taken across the statute book to all rules on extensions of time limits deriving from the ADR directive.
Most disputes involving UK consumers will not be affected by the draft regulations, which do not otherwise affect the ability of any consumer, whether resident in the UK or EU, to apply to the UK courts or to use ADR. Furthermore, the transitional provisions ensure that, where consumers have begun ADR proceedings before these draft regulations come into force, any extensions entailed will be unaffected.
As part of that process, officials from the Department have undertaken the appropriate assessment of the impacts of this instrument. That shows that there is likely to be a negligible impact on business, because the amendments do not bring about a wider policy change or impose any new liabilities or obligations on any relevant businesses, organisations or persons.
In conclusion, this instrument is a sensible and necessary use of the powers of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which will ensure that the law in this area continues to function effectively after the transition period. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I start by offering my unequivocal support to the Minister in welcoming the opportunity to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq; it is a real pleasure. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I hope the debate will be conducted with the same level of mutual support, although I am not sure about that.
Over 40 years of membership of the European Union, the UK has shared responsibility to protect the UK’s consumer rights with EU member states. An extensive body of law has grown up, with more than 90 European directives applying across the single market. The reciprocal rights enshrined in those directives enable UK consumers to seek redress for any poor service they receive anywhere in the EU. Indeed, the UK played a central role in negotiating many of those directives alongside the European Commission, including the alternative dispute resolution directive to which today’s regulations refer.
The ADR directive has made a valuable contribution to consumer confidence across the EU single market by reducing impediments to, and improving cross- border engagement with ADR organisations. The directive has helped UK consumers to avoid some of the more challenging issues about jurisdiction and applicable laws related to ADR that often arose before the directive came into play. That has saved UK citizens and businesses many hours of complex and costly court proceedings. In particular, the time extension provisions—the subject of today’s statutory instrument—have ensured that UK and EU consumers can enter into ADR processes in good faith, without fear of strict time limits to bring a case to court elapsing in the meantime.
We can therefore see that much of the EU’s consumer protection laws and UK national laws are interwoven in a complex and interconnected way. That harmonisation between our domestic and European law has provided us with the comprehensive protection UK consumers need to purchase goods and services with confidence, which has in turn bolstered trade across the single market, including here in the UK. While the Government’s withdrawal Act attempts to mirror in UK law the individual consumer rights that operate within the EU, it cannot guarantee the protection of UK consumers’ rights when they visit the EU27 after the transition period, nor can the UK Government assure UK consumers of continued access to the shared network of agencies, mechanisms and infrastructure that polices, secures, develops and underpins consumer confidence across the EU single market.
In short, the harmonised reciprocity of consumer protections we have enjoyed as members of the EU will come to an abrupt end once we leave the transition period, yet the Government are not clear about what comes next. We know that talks with the EU have been stalling, and as we move closer to the end of the transition period, it looks increasingly unlikely that the Government will be able to negotiate a post-Brexit relationship that continues to protect consumers’ rights for UK residents in the same way. That added uncertainty comes on top of the business interruption and drop in consumer confidence that we have seen as a result of covid-19.
Labour is concerned that without reciprocal obligations to investigate breaches of consumer law and progress with necessary enforcement actions between the UK and the EU, the Government will leave UK consumers unable to seek redress from EU-based traders in UK courts when things go wrong. There is every chance that divergence between UK and EU consumer law will become even more pronounced over time without proper oversight from the Government, which would have a significant impact on consumers and businesses and burden cross-border transactions and recourse processes with unnecessary red tape.
With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit and an economy hit by covid-19, Labour calls on the Government to take a more proactive approach to protecting UK consumers by agreeing mutual recognition rules, underpinned by a standard equivalence principle, as a matter of urgency. The Government may say that they want high regulatory standards and robust domestic market surveillance after the transition period, but they have slashed funding to frontline trading standards services by more than 50% in just over seven years. That has led to potentially dangerous counterfeit cigarettes and unsafe toys and electrical products entering our homes. The UK’s largest market surveillance authority and regulatory service, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, recently said:
“Much has been made of maintaining the UK’s post-Brexit standards of regulation, but rules without resources for application, advice and enforcement are rendered ineffective and detrimental to the UK economy.”
The regulations remove all reference to the ADR directive from four pieces of EU-derived legislation. Of course, Labour accepts that it is a broadly technical instrument designed to ensure that EU law does not apply after the transition period has come to an end, but it excludes two key groups of people from the ADR-related time-limited extension: first, EU-based consumers buying goods and services in the UK and, secondly, UK-based consumers buying goods and services in the EU. It will ultimately mean that UK consumers are protected by the time-limited extensions only when working through ADR organisations. Will the Government seek to address that and ensure that all consumers are protected in the UK?
The Government estimate that the changes will affect about 131 ADR cases per year that are five years old or older, but it is not clear how those figures have been arrived at or what the total value of those cases might be. Can the Minister take this opportunity to show how the figures have been calculated? Can he outline clearly the Government’s plans to protect UK consumers when making purchases of goods and services in the EU, and vice versa, if the statutory instrument comes into force?
Labour has noted, and is grateful for, the European Statutory Instruments Committee’s intervention on the grounds that the diminution of rights to the time limit that the Government are proposing is significant, alongside the fact that the legislation being amended is mostly primary legislation. That Committee deemed it appropriate to upgrade the instrument to an affirmative resolution, and a debate will take place in Parliament after the recess.
Labour has always strongly supported giving consumers and businesses every opportunity they need to reach mutually beneficial dispute settlements. Mediation and conciliatory processes supported by third-party ADR organisations are informal, flexible, low-cost and user-friendly compared with court proceedings. The Government must make sure that UK consumers and businesses have an equally straightforward route to ADR and that any such access comes with similar provisions to ensure that parties are not caught out by time limits when entering into them in good faith.
Paul Scully
I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft regulations, and I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central—I did promise to celebrate Newcastle, in the spirit of collaboration—for her valuable contribution to the debate. To be clear, nothing in the regulations changes which sectors are covered by ADR or the obligations on businesses to engage with consumers. They are limited in their scope to short-term extensions of the time limits for court proceedings where necessary, to give the parties the opportunity to resolve their differences through non-binding ADR.
The hon. Lady asked about the few cases that the regulations affect. That is when cases are getting up to the time limitation—typically six years—so that involves the lengthiest cases, if something has not been resolved by that point. Although it is estimated that 2.5 million cases have been resolved by ADR over the past six years, there are very few at the end period. Most disputes will not be affected by the regulations, and the transitional provisions have ensured that any extensions that have already taken place will also be unaffected by this SI. It avoids inconsistency in the statute books.
Essentially, the hon. Lady asked a few questions about what would happen with EU citizens, UK businesses working abroad and EU companies. UK law still applies to services targeted at UK consumers and UK businesses, so they would have the UK statute book to help protect them within that remit. Without the introduction of the SI, UK legislation would continue to provide EU consumers with flexibility in relation to the extension of court time limits, but it is not clear at this stage whether UK consumers would retain that benefit in member states.
Yes, we want to ensure that we can work through reasonable co-operation with the EU—as sovereign equals, as I said—because we have no intention of lowering standards. The political declaration sets out the parties’ ambitions to work together to safeguard high standards of consumer protection, but our high standards are not dependent on EU membership. The UK has often led or gone beyond the minimum requirements set out by EU consumer law. For example, in 2015, the UK brought digital content within the scope of consumer rights for the first time. We are seeking an agreement with the EU that is like those the EU has struck with other friendly countries, such as Canada. Effective co-operation on consumer protection will be an important part of the UK’s future relationship, and it is in the interests of all parties in that regard. We are examining ways to continue and enhance global co-operation on consumer protection, and the Competition and Markets Authority will continue to take an active role in international forums.
The hon. Lady asked about enforcing consumer rights. I have talked about the fact that UK consumer rights are stronger than those in many other EU countries, and compliance with the law is considered high. Some 84% of consumers think traders respect their rights—the joint-highest rate in the EU—and 79% of traders think their competitors comply with consumer law, which is the highest rate in the EU. We have excellent consumer advice organisations, such as Citizens Advice and Resolver, which can guide consumers in pursuing a complaint and provide data that reveal patterns of behaviour that might require a public enforcement response. That suggests that, for the majority of consumers, the current framework works well most of the time. I must say it is important that we continue to strengthen our consumer rights, and we do not take that lightly at all.
I come back to the fact that current domestic consumer protections relating to ADR will remain the same. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act maintains provisions on ADR that derive from the EU directive. The draft regulations ensure that the consumer rights framework continues to function effectively once the EU ADR directive ceases to apply to the UK. I hope the Committee will approve the SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I re-emphasise that we must stick to the social distancing markers on the desks, so that we are all safe. I am happy for Members to take off their jackets on this warm afternoon. If Members speak, they may email their notes to handsardnotes@parliament.uk, rather than handing them over physically.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No.719).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
The regulations were made by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 9 July and came into force on 11 and 13 July. I thank the House for being so flexible in scheduling this debate to allow for timely parliamentary scrutiny. I note that, because of that flexibility, we are debating this statutory instrument before it has been formally cleared by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Thanks to an immense national effort to slow the spread of the virus, we have been able to restore some of the freedoms that are cherished by us all. The regulations made on 3 July allow us to do that. They were debated on 16 July, and they committed several sectors to reopen, including hospitality and leisure. They also require some businesses to remain closed, owing to increased transmission risk from covid. However, we continue to ease remaining restrictions as the Government work with the relevant sectors to develop covid-safe practices.
As set out in the Health Secretary’s statement to the House on 16 July, we are moving from blanket national measures to targeted local measures, supported by our NHS test and trace system. Those measures may be implemented on a small scale, such as relating to an individual farm or a factory, but when needed, we may also act on a broader basis, as we did in Leicester. To allow that shift from national to local action, we have provided local authorities with new powers to enable those authorities to put in place local restrictions on individual premises, organised events and access to defined outdoor public spaces under the regulations that came into effect on Saturday. That includes the ability to require premises, events or public spaces to close.
The amendments we are debating allow outdoor facilities at water parks and outdoor swimming pools to reopen from 11 July, and allow the following close-contact services to open from 13 July: nail bars, tanning booths and salons, massage parlours, tattoo parlours, body and skin piercing services, and spas and beauty salons. Guidance has been published for those sectors, outlining how they may open safely. For example, they set out that face treatments should not be offered, although those will be allowed from 1 August, and that indoor pools and gyms within a spa should not open.
Along with the changes to regulations, guidance has been issued on how organised outdoor grassroots team sports and participation events may begin again, and how outdoor performances with an audience may take place. This is an important milestone for our performing artists, who have been waiting patiently in the wings since March.
As the Committee is aware, we have announced plans for future changes. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport announced that we plan for fitness and dance studios, indoor gyms and sports venue facilities, and indoor swimming pools and water parks to be able to open from 25 July. People will be able to get back to their gyms, indoor swimming pools and leisure centres, and to jump on a spin bike or treadmill for the first time in months.
In addition, the Prime Minister set out that from 1 August, subject to prevalence remaining around or below current levels, we will reopen most remaining leisure settings, namely bowling, skating rinks and casinos, provided they follow covid-secure guidance; enable all close-contact services to resume, including treatments on the face, such as eyebrow threading and make-up applications; restart indoor performances to a live audience, subject to the success of pilots; pilot larger gatherings in venues with a range of sizes of crowds, including in sports stadiums and business events, with a view to a wider reopening later in the autumn; allow exhibition halls and conference centres to reopen; allow small wedding receptions of no more than 30 people; give employers more discretion on how they ensure that employees may work safely; and confirm that the clinically extremely vulnerable will no longer need to follow the advice on shielding. Those are all positive developments.
We continue to follow the science when making those changes so that we ensure that any remaining measures are both proportionate and necessary. That is why some businesses will still need to remain closed from 1 August. They are nightclubs, dancehalls, discotheques and other similar venues; sexual entertainment venues and hostess bars; and indoor play areas, including soft play areas. Those venues are unable to open at this time as they pose an increased risk of transmission, but we continue to work with those sectors to develop and agree safe ways for them to reopen.
As a nation we have made huge strides in getting the virus, which has brought grief to so many, under control. These regulations will help us to keep the virus cornered and to enjoy the summer safely. I am grateful to all parliamentarians for their valuable scrutiny and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott, and I wish you success in your first outing chairing a Committee. I thank the Minister for her introductory remarks.
I would like to start by noting a few facts and figures. This statutory instrument amends the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 2) for the first time. This is the second time the Minister and I have debated lockdown restrictions, although this is the fifth such debate taking place. I must apologise to the Minister in advance, because the concerns I raised on the last occasion will be repeated today, although I will be a little briefer.
It is just four days since we were here to debate the previous set of regulations following their coming into force on 4 July. We are here today to debate amendments to those regulations, which were laid on 10 July and came into force on 11 and 13 July. This will be the fifth occasion on which I am forced to highlight the unsatisfactory approach to parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations, which was at least acknowledged by the Minister last week and again today. It is still the case, however, that we continue to debate regulations after they come into effect.
I would not be so churlish as not to acknowledge that some progress has been made, as today’s debate comes only one week after the regulations came into effect, which is the shortest gap we have managed so far, but once again they have been superseded by events on Friday, when the Prime Minister announced sweeping changes to the regulations, with indoor gyms, pools and other sports facilities to reopen. In addition, the Government advice on going to work is changing from 1 August, along with the reopening of most remaining leisure settings and live indoor theatre settings.
To return to the regulations before us and the fact that we are debating them after the event, I have made it clear on numerous occasions that we accept that the initial regulations had to be hurriedly introduced in response to the rising number of infections. However, the House has now been 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 future changes are debated before they are made. For me, it is evident that the Government are running out of excuses as to why they have failed to ensure that that happens.
As I said last Thursday, parliamentary scrutiny is not something that can be ditched because the timing is inconvenient, especially for regulations such as these, which have huge ramifications. These issues are too important not to be debated and given timely and full parliamentary scrutiny. Last Thursday, I made a plea to the Minister, and I will do so again: we need to find a better way of ensuring that these regulations are debated in a timely manner.
For example, take the set of regulations that were announced last Friday. The Government must have known that the instrument was going to be laid the next day, so surely some time could have been pencilled in this week to debate the regulations before the recess. The regulations contain a new raft of powers for local authorities to tackle local outbreaks, which is to be welcomed, but those important changes will now not be debated until September at the earliest. Without debate, we are unable to ascertain what support will be available to local authorities to utilise those powers. It is important that they have the powers, but they are being asked to exercise them without any guarantee that they will be financially recompensed for that work. What about the impact on people and businesses affected by a new local lockdown? It would have been helpful to have that debate before the recess so that the Minister could have put on record the answer to those questions so that people knew exactly where they stand.
The Committee will be relieved to hear that that is the last I am going to say about the timing of the debates, but our concern is on the record. We have also made it clear, in previous debates, that it is not acceptable for us to debate the regulations without the full extent of the information on which the Government have based their decisions. I reiterate that position again today.
I have previously asked the Minister why the legally required reviews of 16 April, 7 and 28 May and 25 June have not been published. I have not as yet had a satisfactory answer, so I ask that question again today. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has also called on the Government to ensure that that information is provided. Without those reviews, we are not in a position to judge the impact of previous regulations; and when it comes to the current regulations, all that has been published alongside them is an explanatory note telling us that no consultation has been carried out and no regulatory impact assessment has been undertaken.
The key question that we have to ask is whether these regulations will increase the spread of the virus. The answer appears to be that they may do, but the Opposition are in no position to judge the extent of that risk. The explanatory memorandum does tell us—at paragraph 7.4 —as it did with the previous regulations, that there is
“recognition that these changes may lead to an increase in transmission rates”
and that that
“will continue to be kept under review.”
Of course, we would expect all the regulations to be kept under review, but we do need some more meat on that bone.
Last week, on the previous set of regulations, I pressed the Minister on whether she was able to provide us with clarity about which measures, individually or collectively, were considered likely to lead to an increase in transmission rates, and she was not able to answer that. This is important not just for hon. Members when considering the legislation before us, but for public confidence in the Government’s handling of the pandemic, particularly when we hear conflicting views on what the advice is.
For example, last Thursday, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, told Members that there was “absolutely no reason” to change the Government’s current guidance on working from home, but on Friday, the very next day, the Prime Minister announced that the guidance on working from home would be changed. Conflicting advice and statements from the Government only hinder our fight against the virus. Clear communication is vital in combating the spread of covid-19.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making valuable points, as always. To be fair to the Government and to give them credit, when this crisis, the pandemic, started, the Government gave very clear messaging, and they are to be applauded for that. But over recent weeks—perhaps the last couple of months—it has become less clear and potentially more confused, and that is having a big impact on public confidence. Also, the businesses that the changes are designed to help cannot keep up with those changes. One seems to replace another, but it is not clear to those businesses where they are in the cycle.
Justin Madders
As my hon. Friend knows, I will always be fair to the Government. The point that he makes is correct: when we first entered lockdown, the messaging was clear. It was probably easier to make things clear at that point, because a clear and consistent message was being applied across the board. But when we first discussed version one of the regulations, I made the point that as we moved forward it would be really important to have a much more nuanced and clear message for the variations that we are having as a result of the changes. My hon. Friend has explained very well why we are not doing quite as well there as we would like.
In terms of clarity, it is really important that we hear from the Minister about the detail behind the statement on transmission. Is that based on advice from scientific advisers? How is the risk quantified? Which elements of the relaxation are considered more risky than others? What mitigating measures are recommended?
There are some clues in the explanatory memorandum about some of the scientific advice on the measures. For example, it tells us:
“The decision to enable the re-opening of”
outdoor settings where multiple households gather, such as
“outdoor swimming pools and waterparks…has been taken based on SPI-M’s”—
SPI-M is the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling—
“previous statement that permitting outdoor contact…while continuing to maintain a 2m distance, would have no more than a very small impact on overall transmission rates.”
That has been considered alongside
“evidence…that UV exposure can reduce the half-life of the virus and ventilation can reduce the risk of aerosol transmission.”
The explanatory memorandum also tells us:
“The decision taken to enable the reopening of close contact services on 13 July is based on an assessment that Covid-19 Secure mitigations mean that existing restrictions are no longer necessary.”
Therefore, we have a little more information than we have seen with previous regulations, but it does seem a little at odds with the statement that these regulations may lead to an increase in transmission rates and it does not replace the need for the reviews of the regulations to be published in full, alongside the full scientific evidence and a full impact assessment.
I mentioned last Thursday that the frequently asked questions on the Government website about what people can and cannot do had not been updated since 9 July, and I am pleased to note that they now have been updated, so at least someone on the Government Benches listens to our speeches.
I also think it is helpful for us to remain clear and consistent about the Government rules as they move forward, as has already been mentioned in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, particularly as changes are coming thick and fast in the next few weeks. I am sure that many hon. Members will recognise that our inboxes are still full of questions from constituents trying to navigate the constantly changing advice and guidance to keep them and their colleagues, employers, co-workers, friends and families safe. That is the barometer by which we measure the effectiveness of the Government’s communication strategy, and I think there is still some way to go.
Just this morning it has been reported that senior doctors are concerned about the Government’s mixed messages about face masks and returning to work. They warn that a second peak, if combined with a seasonal flu outbreak, could be devastating for the NHS. That highlights the challenge for us all in getting things right, and the importance of communicating changes clearly and consistently.
Matt Western
To amplify that point, the Government are spending a lot of money. Even in my local paper, the Leamington Courier, there is a double-page spread placed by the Government, entitled “All in, all together.” It would be interesting to know how much money is being spent on public health messaging and why the opportunity is not being used to place adverts saying clearly what should happen about wearing a face mask, and where.
Justin Madders
That is a fair point. I have been looking with interest at the advertising in my local newspaper. Some of it goes over the line of what would be considered public information and what would be considered the expounding of Government policies, but it is a fair point that if the contract with local newspapers still has, as I think it does, some way to run, clear messaging on the use of face masks would be beneficial as things move forward.
The Opposition will not oppose the regulations, but we remain concerned that we are entering another critical moment without having available the full information on which decisions are being made, without a clear understanding of the risks, and with the test and trace system not working at full efficiency. The gradual easing of lockdowns has to be done in a safe and cautious way. It should be carefully planned and clearly communicated, so that the public can have confidence in the measures that the Government have put in place, and the advice that has been given.
We need full transparency so that we can have confidence that the Government’s scientific advisers support the measures we are debating. That means that we need to end the promises of world-beating systems and record numbers of tests, because we know that the current system for testing and tracing is not reaching all those with suspected covid-19. Of course the app is nowhere to be seen.
It should be of concern when the director of public health in an area such as Blackburn with Darwen, where officials are currently battling a rise in cases, tells us that only 44% of the 799 close contacts of someone with coronavirus have been successfully contacted by the test and trace call handlers. That figure is roughly in line with the contact rate for non-complex cases nationally and it is clearly well below the level that is needed if we are to be confident that the system is working effectively.
We want the Government to succeed, but where things need to improve—and we have touched on only a few of those areas today—we shall continue to challenge them. It is right to challenge the Government on their decisions, because it is our constitutional duty, but also because we cannot simply risk losing control of the situation again. Any challenge that we make today is hampered, because we debate the regulations after the event, having had little sight of the scientific advice on which they are based.
Helen Whately
It is a pleasure to debate the regulations with colleagues, including the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I appreciate the tone that he brings to these conversations. I shall respond to some of his points, before bringing my remarks to a conclusion.
I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the process, and particularly its sequencing. However, I will say that I know he also appreciates the importance of our moving cautiously but also quickly to reduce the restrictions on people’s lives—restrictions that limit economic activity and people’s freedoms..
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman talked about the impact of local lockdowns through the demands they may place on local authorities and the impact on local businesses. The Government are mindful of both those things and are working closely with local authorities in places such as Leicester, where a local lockdown has been imposed. Both the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury are also mindful of, and keep under review, what support may be required for local authorities and businesses in those areas that may be affected.
Thirdly, coming to the hon. Gentleman’s point about clarity of messaging and the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington that things might be moving too fast for businesses, I will say that certainly businesses in my constituency that have lobbied me as a constituency MP have wanted things to move forward. For instance, I had conversations with the pub sector, which very much wanted to be able to reopen and welcomed when things moved as swiftly as possible on that.
Clearly, there is some balance to be struck between not wanting to issue too much guidance too quickly or change things too quickly and, when it is safe for businesses and activities to restart, moving quickly to enable that to happen, which is in the interests of those businesses and the general public.
Matt Western
It was not so much the speed, but the sequencing of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, and the consistency of some of the policies announced. That is why he has been trying to make those points over recent weeks. It is through a more open, collaborative approach, with scrutiny from all sides, that things such as the inconsistencies of barbers versus beauty salons would be addressed, and that would be in the best interests of businesses.
Helen Whately
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. To address the specific example he gave of barbers versus beauty salons, there were indeed some conversations with colleagues about that, including female colleagues who said, “Hold on, what’s going on here?” The fact is that we know there are additional risks in activities that involve close face-to-face contact for an extended period of time. That was the reason there was sequencing of the easing of restrictions from one to the other. There was a rationale behind those things.
Moving on, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston brought up questions about wanting to have more access to the scientific guidance and the connection between that and transmission risks. It is absolutely clear that there is indeed some increased risk of transmission as people are able to do more things and are more likely to come into contact with each other. That is the reason why the reduction and easing of restrictions is a step-by-step and cautious process.
Therefore, all these decisions draw on the scientific advice about the risks involved. Overall, there is a cautious approach, because we know we must keep the transmission rates down. That goes hand in hand with careful monitoring across the country of what is happening in each local area so that, should we need to take local action, we are able to do so.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the concern about whether there might be a second peak. I am acutely mindful of the challenges we will face come winter when, in addition to potentially having coronavirus around, we will also have the usual coughs and sneezes and flu, and it will be much harder to tell who might have what, along with people being less likely to be in well-ventilated areas. That is why there is extensive winter planning going on across health and social care to be ready for what comes our way, and also why it is essential that we have effective tracking and monitoring and the ongoing NHS test and trace system running, so that we can limit any onward transmission of the virus and keep it under control. That is essential.
In conclusion, I restate the Government’s commitment to working with Parliament on this. We appreciate that the restrictions have placed a significant strain on individuals. The Government will only continue to impose restrictions that are necessary to protect the public from the spread of coronavirus. We will only make changes when we are confident it is safe to do so, and we remain prepared to reimpose stricter measures should that become necessary. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, and I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Insolvency Act 1986 Part A1 Moratorium (Eligibility of Private Registered Providers) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, Members may remove their jackets, if they want to. Please stay as socially distanced as you are, if you can. That will be perfect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Insolvency Act 1986 Part A1 Moratorium (Eligibility of Private Registered Providers) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 652).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Welcome to your first Committee as Chair. I look forward to serving under you today and in the future.
The regulations were laid before this House on 29 June 2020. The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduced a range of measures, both permanent and temporary, to assist businesses. The Act gives companies the flexibility and breathing space that they need to continue trading during this difficult time.
The regulations relate to the moratorium provisions contained in the 2020 Act. The measure gives struggling businesses a breathing space in which to explore their rescue and restructuring options free from creditor action. During the moratorium, no legal action may be taken against a business without leave of the courts. The measure ensures that businesses that are struggling are given the opportunity to survive.
Private registered providers of social housing already have special arrangements for dealing with financial difficulties. Those arrangements are set out in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The regime includes a 28-day moratorium to allow a provider in difficulty, working with the regulator of social housing, to resolve its problems.
This statutory instrument disapplies the moratorium powers applied under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act for private registered providers, given that the separate housing moratorium already exists to support them should they get into financial difficulty. The arrangements we have in place, combined with the economic regulation of the sector by the regulator of social housing, make this new moratorium unnecessary, because specific moratorium proceedings are already operational for this sector.
A private registered provider in financial difficulty would have two potential routes to follow and, in turn, that could lead to two moratoriums operating alongside each other and possibly conflicting with one another. That might undermine the ability of the regulator of social housing to support a private registered provider facing financial difficulty, thereby limiting its ability to protect tenants. We seek to avoid that situation.
The housing association sector benefits from a no loss on default record, meaning that no lender has lost money because of a private registered provider failure. That is important because it allows private registered providers to borrow cheaply to build the homes that we need. Ultimately, that strong financial performance protects tenants, because their homes are not put at risk.
Financial problems are rare, but the housing association sector has changed significantly in recent years. The level of private finance has grown from £48 billion in 2012 to more than £100 billion in 2020. That is why it is vital for us to maintain a clear and robust regime to support private registered providers facing financial difficulties.
The insolvency arrangements that we have in place today reflect extensive engagement with the regulator of social housing, lenders, private registered providers and their representative bodies. The regulations will ensure that those arrangements remain unaffected by the new moratorium provisions.
The regulations extend to Great Britain, but their practical effect is on arrangements for private registered providers registered with the regulator of social housing in England. However, because we also want the exemption to cover stock held in England by private registered providers registered as legal entities in Scotland and Wales, the territorial application is wider. It is worth noting that no such organisation currently exists.
In conclusion, the regulations are important and necessary to maintain arrangements that allow the regulator of social housing effectively to support a private registered provider in financial difficulty. They ensure a clear regulatory framework that applies to a private registered provider in financial difficulty. That will continue to safeguard investment in social housing and to protect tenants. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This is a first for us both; this is the first time I have been sat here rather than where my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore is sat. Although I have whipped many a statutory instrument, I am sure that the Minister will be terribly disappointed to hear that I do not intend to disagree with him at all this afternoon. The Opposition have examined the statutory instrument carefully and have consulted colleagues in the social housing sector and in other teams, and we accept that the minor amendments are largely technical in nature and have been implemented to reduce conflict between potentially competing legislation.
As we understand it, the amendments will remove private registered providers of social housing from the Insolvency Act 1986, which would allow them to be covered by existing housing legislation instead. Private registered providers are subject to special rules about insolvency, including provision for a moratorium—I wondered what the plural of moratorium was, and I am still not completely sure—in sections 143A to 159 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. Those provisions were substantially amended by the Housing Planning Act 2016, so this area has received recent legislative attention for private registered providers. From our understanding—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the statutory instrument seeks to ensure that, owing to the recent amendments to the 2016 Act, there is no conflicting legislation. There are lots of double negatives in this argument, aren’t there?
The 2008 Act provides a 28-day moratorium for private registered providers, while the amended Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 provides for 20 days. The instrument makes it clear that private registered providers have 28 days, not 20 days. The Opposition therefore have no immediate concerns or points that we would like to raise with the Minister.
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She asked only one question, about the plural of moratorium, which I will categorically fail to answer. I welcome her constructive comments in her first SI Committee as shadow Minister rather than as a Whip.
The occasions on which this legislation will be necessary are rare. The disapplication of the moratorium that was introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 means that there is only one moratorium available to private registered providers, avoiding the potential for two moratoriums being in play together. The moratorium from housing legislation ensures that the regulator has the tools it needs to maintain lender confidence as far as possible and to protect tenants should insolvency occur.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, although it is not such a pleasure to see the Government Whip sitting with the Opposition. I trust that social distancing does not extend as far as political distancing.
The regulations were laid in draft before the House on Monday 6 July. If approved and made, they will introduce a fee for a new permitted development right that allows detached purpose-built blocks of flats of three storeys or more to be extended upwards by two stories to provide new homes without making an application for planning permission. They will be subject instead to obtaining prior approval from the local planning authority. The regulations will come into force on 1 August.
As hon. Members are aware, the Government’s moral mission is to build the homes we need, and that is more critical than ever. It is fundamental to our economic recovery following the pandemic to get Britain building back better, faster and greener, and uniting and levelling up our entire country. To achieve that, we must make the most of land that has already been developed. That is what this new permitted development right does, creating new homes for sale and rent that would not otherwise exist. That will benefit families, young people and many others at the heart of established communities.
I turn to the draft regulations. The prior approval process means that, instead of going through a full planning application process, a developer must secure the prior approval of a local planning authority for specific planning elements of the development before work can proceed. That allows for a more streamlined planning process while maintaining local oversight of key planning matters. In relation to the new permitted development right, the number of additional considerations as well as consultation and scrutiny by local authorities is greater than for existing permitted developments’ prior approval applications but less than otherwise required on a full planning application.
That has resource implications for local authorities. It is therefore right that a higher fee should be paid compared with other prior approval applications but less than that for a full planning application. That is reflected in the regulations in the new part 20 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, which introduces a fee for applications for prior approval for such upward extensions of existing blocks of flats of £334 per dwelling house for development proposals of 50 or fewer new dwelling houses. For development proposals of more than 50 new dwelling houses, the fee is £16,525 plus an additional £100 for each dwelling house in excess of 50, subject to a maximum fee of £300,000.
The £334 fee represents a modest midway point between the £206 fee for an application for prior approval for the change of use of a building to residential and the fee for a full planning application of £462 per new dwelling house. As such, it strikes an important balance between accelerating the delivery of much-needed homes and ensuring that local authorities, which will be required to assess applications for prior approval for this new permitted development right, are paid for the service they provide. If there was no application fee, this cost would have to be funded by the taxpayer.
The approach that I have set out was welcomed in our consultation, “Planning Reform: Supporting the high street and increasing the delivery of new homes”, which was published in October 2018. The responses to it recognised that the proposed changes would require significant local planning authority resources and should therefore be subject to an appropriate fee. Planning fees are an important source of income for councils, as the basis of a well-resourced, effective and efficient planning system, underpinning housing delivery and economic growth.
In January 2018 the Government raised planning application fees by 20%, which was the first uplift since 2012. The increased income that generated for the planning system has driven up the performance of local planning authorities, which I believe we will all agree with.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I do not disagree with what the Minister is saying; it may be a good idea. I presume there is guidance on how that will be dealt with. If a developer has a three-storey block of flats and wants to build over the top, would the practice be to move the residents out or to build over them, and what consultation would there be of the residents affected by the additional floors going above their property? That might be one of the key factors that the local authority and other people will be concerned about.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his question. The individual leaseholder agreements with the freeholder will determine some of the issues that he has raised. Certainly, as part of prior approval it will be necessary for the local authority to consider such matters as the effect on leaseholders’ or residents’ amenity, so the prior approvals process will apply in that sense.
We are keen to keep up the momentum to help us, in the words of the Prime Minister, “Build, build, build” towards a brighter future, following an extraordinarily challenging period for our country. That is why we are considering wider reform of the planning system, with these draft regulations underlining our commitment to a system that is fit for the 21st century. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. Ultimately, we will not oppose the regulations, which introduce, as the Minister said, much needed fees for applications prior to approval on extending blocks of flats of three storeys or more upwards, to create new residential homes. However, I want to take a few minutes to outline why this does not mean that we support the Government’s extension to permitted development, to give it context.
The Minister will already have seen that I have put my name to a prayer, alongside the shadow Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), against the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020. Our concern centres around the impact on those already living in the blocks of flats that will be extended upwards, those who will be moving into those new homes and those on the housing register, who need developers to contribute to schemes to provide vital social and affordable housing.
I am sure that the Minister will say that the issue of the quality of these new homes has been addressed now that councils will consider the adequate provision of light in the extensions, but the fact remains that permitted development has previously allowed what has been classed as “slum housing” to be built without any windows at all. That is disgraceful. A rabbit hutch with large windows is still a rabbit hutch; it is not fit for human habitation. The permitted development system has led to the delivery of homes as small as 13 square metres—smaller than the average living room. For reference, the national guidance for most housing developments states that the minimum internal floor space area should be 37 square metres—just under three times the size of the smallest permitted development homes.
The fact that the Government are continuing the permitted development system without addressing the fact that it bypasses space standards shows that they are not interested in ensuring that housing is fit for habitation; they are seeking only to avoid more headlines about the lack of windows in permitted development homes. Given that we have just come out of a pandemic in which we have rightly asked the public to stay at home, we cannot continue to allow housing to be built that risks the physical and mental health, and the dignity, of the people living in those homes in normal times, let alone when they are asked to be in them for 24 hours a day.
I also have concerns about the impact on existing leaseholders in those blocks. Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) have raised concerns that this legislation will give a windfall to freeholders while compromising the value of flats owned by leaseholders. It offers no compensation for disruption while the work takes place, and potentially increases the cost to residents who want to buy their freeholds in the future. Given that we also have a broken system of leaseholds—a feudal system of leaseholds—with no legislation or reform in sight, why are the Government introducing an instrument that will exacerbate the problems for leaseholders?
The expansion of permitted development will also increase the number of developments that can bypass schemes that fund affordable housing and the things that we want in our constituencies—GP surgeries, schools, transport and green spaces, through section 106 and the community infrastructure levy. As the Local Government Association noted earlier this year, 13,500 affordable homes have potentially been lost in the past four years as a result of the permitted development rules. Instead of good-quality affordable and social homes that could have been funded by development through the planning system, low-quality slum housing has been propped up in all our constituencies.
Instead of finding ways to get around the current rules, the Government need to build—build, build, build—an alternative that delivers the communities that our constituents want and need. The Government should stop slashing planning departments’ funding and seeing section 106s and the community infrastructure levy as nuisances to be avoided. They can hardly state that that is not their attitude, given the recent Westferry saga.
Given that the draft Building Safety Bill was published today, I find it rather odd that buildings that are clad in flammable materials and have been built without the necessary firebreaks and additional safety measures are being given the green light through this statutory instrument and the Government’s direction to be extended upwards. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the Committee for its time, and to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale for his questions and his support in principle for this measure.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned three key points, the first of which was building quality. He is right to suppose that the Secretary of State’s decision was made as a result of conversations that he had with several colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and Opposition Members, about requiring that there be appropriate windows and lighting in all habitable rooms with this PDR. That is an important piece of progress that we have made.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the regulations surrounding the PDRs will still require building regulations to be met. There will still be the prior approval test to be applied in any prior approvals that any local authority might apply. I also remind him that the report that we commissioned on PDRs for conversion, and the quality standards in those conversions, has been under- taken. We look forward to considering the report’s recommendations in due course.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the rights of lease- holders. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, leaseholders will certainly have the right to consultation and will be part of the prior approval process. Beyond that, of course, on the question of leasehold reform, the White Paper and the legislation that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), will introduce in due course will encompass many of these matters. I am sure that we will debate them again, so I will not dwell on them further now.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned affordable homes. We reckon that building more homes in this way will be worth about 8,000 extra homes a year that would not otherwise be built. We are providing properties that people want. Housing associations, which own some of these blocks, can build upwards more effectively and provide affordable homes if they wish for their potential tenants. I also point out that if it is appropriate, the extra floor space created might generate CIL payments, which can be contributed towards the local community. The wider planning reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering will include further consideration of how developer contributions work and what that might mean for our affordable housing programme.
I hope that my remarks have answered the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I look forward to further such collaborations with him in future, and perhaps also the occasional joust. On that note, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Wragg
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, 16 July 2020, Vol. 678, c. 1712.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) on 16 July 2020.
The correct response should have been:
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The review conducted by Lord Dunlop was, I understand, received by the Prime Minister in the autumn. The Government will be responding in due course.
Impact of COVID-19 on Luton Borough Council
Written Statements
Vaccine Taskforce
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
I am today updating Parliament on the work of the Vaccine Taskforce in securing a vaccine against covid-19.
Tackling this virus is the biggest challenge that this country has faced in peacetime history. Today I am announcing the recent steps that the Vaccines Taskforce has taken towards making a successful covid-19 vaccine available as soon as possible to the UK population and the wider world.
I can inform the House that we have signed agreements with the BioNTech/Pfizer alliance and Valneva to purchase their vaccines. This is part of our strategy to procure a portfolio of promising vaccine candidates, giving us the best chance of securing a successful one at the earliest opportunity. Demand for a successful vaccine will be high and placing these orders early will give us access to the doses we need if and when any of these candidates prove to be safe and effective in clinical trials and receive regulatory approval.
I am also announcing that the Government have issued a letter of intent in advance of entering an agreement to secure an antibody that may be used as a therapeutic treatment in support of the wider vaccination programme. The antibody, manufactured by AstraZeneca, is currently in clinical trials and could be available for use by the second quarter of 2021, if those trials are successful.
Clinical trials play a vital part in the vaccine development process. Today, the Government are also launching the NHS covid-19 vaccine research registry. This new website will enable people in the UK to volunteer for future vaccine studies planned in the UK, playing their part in our national effort to ensure a covid-19 vaccine is available as soon as possible.
[HCWS387]
Contingencies Fund Advance
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
I hereby give notice of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s intention to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund of £5,070,000,000 to provide funding for the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF).
The funding will be used to increase the NLF’s public sector assets, by making £5.07 billion available to the NLF in the form of a deposit in the national loans fund. This offers an alternative investment opportunity to the NLF, which otherwise would re-allocate moneys within the next month into investments in its privately held asset portfolio. Such re-allocation would increase public sector net debt, and so this alternative funding arrangement avoids this immediate negative fiscal impact. The payment to the NLF is fiscally neutral.
The trustee directors of the NLF have a fiduciary duty to ensure the NLF remains on track to be sufficient to meet certain future decommissioning liabilities. Parliamentary approval for additional capital of £5,070,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £5,070,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The cash advance will be repaid upon receiving Royal Assent on the Supply and Appropriation Bill.
[HCWS388]
Unified Patent Court
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members to bring to their attention the UK’s withdrawal from the Unified Patent Court system.
Today, by means of a note verbale, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has withdrawn its ratification of the agreement on a Unified Patent Court and the protocol on privileges and immunities of the Unified Patent Court, dated 23 April 2018, in respect of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, and its consent to be bound by the protocol to the agreement on a Unified Patent Court on provisional application, dated on 6 July 2017, (collectively “the agreements”).
In view of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom no longer wishes to be a party to the Unified Patent Court system. Participating in a court that applies EU law and is bound by the CJEU would be inconsistent with the Government’s aims of becoming an independent self-governing nation.
The agreements have not yet entered into force. However, in order to ensure clarity regarding the United Kingdom’s status in respect of the agreements and to facilitate their orderly entry into force for other states without the participation of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom has chosen to withdraw its ratification of the agreements at this time. The United Kingdom considers that its withdrawals shall take effect immediately and that it will be for the remaining participating states to decide the future of the Unified Patent Court system.
[HCWS395]
Public Service Pensions: Survivor Benefits
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The Government are committed to providing public service pensions that are fair for public sector workers and for taxpayers. The Government’s position remains that benefit entitlements should normally be determined based on the rules applicable at the time the member served, to maintain fairness for active scheme members and the taxpayer.
Following the Walker v Innospec Supreme Court ruling, the Government decided that in public service schemes, surviving male same-sex and female same-sex spouses and civil partners of public service pension scheme members will, in certain cases, receive benefits equivalent to those received by widows of opposite sex marriages. The exception to this is in specific schemes where, in the past, improvements in female members’ survivor benefits have involved female members making employee contributions or increasing them.
A case brought in the Employment Tribunal against the Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson) earlier this year highlighted that these changes may lead to direct sexual orientation discrimination within the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, where male survivors of female scheme members remain entitled to a lower survivor benefit than a comparable same-sex survivor.
The Government have concluded that changes are required to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme to address the discrimination. The Government believe that this difference in treatment will also need to be remedied in those other public service pension schemes, where the husband or male civil partner of a female scheme member is in similar circumstances.
Departments responsible for the Administration of affected schemes will consult on and take forward changes as soon as possible. Schemes will notify their members of changes and any actions they need to take.
[HCWS397]
Service Complaints Ombudsman: Annual Report 2019
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s formal response to the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s (SCO) annual report for 2019 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Service complaints system has today been placed in the Library of the House.
The ombudsman’s report assessed the fourth year of operation of the reformed service complaints system, which was implemented on 1 January 2016, and the work of her office in 2019. The response sets out MOD’s comments and approach to each of the ombudsman’s new recommendations, the observations that she has made and includes a summary of our position on recommendations made in previous annual reports.
The MOD values the strong independent oversight that the ombudsman brings to the service complaints process, and remains committed to having a system in which our personnel can have confidence. This will include progressing outstanding recommendations and observations, together with improvements identified in Air Marshal Wigston’s report in April 2019 on inappropriate behaviours.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-07-20/HCWS392/.
[HCWS392]
Community Match Challenge
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
On 8 April, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £750 million funding package for the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector. I wish to set out to the House the details of how £90 million from this package will be allocated.
We are all aware of the vital role that the VCSE sector plays in our society, and this has especially been the case in the past few months. Charities and community organisations have been at the frontline of the coronavirus outbreak, providing trusted support to people and communities.
Through the coronavirus community support fund, £200 million is already being allocated largely to small and medium sized charities in England by the National Lottery Community Fund.
We are now inviting the philanthropists, foundations and grant makers to put forward new funding, which the Government will match on a pound for pound basis.
The Government will match up to £85 million of funding from strategic funders such as philanthropists and charitable foundations. This funding is intended for beneficiary groups that are the most vulnerable and the hardest hit by covid-19. We expect awards to be made principally to charitable grant makers providing aid to small and medium-sized charities. We anticipate funding applications in the £5 million to £20 million range. This innovative approach will build on the expertise of philanthropists and foundations by supporting the charities that they believe will have the highest impact in the areas that we want to focus on, while giving charities longer-term recovery support by allowing the non-Government portion of the match funding to be spent beyond March 2021.
We believe that this approach will stimulate further donations and ensure that a further £85 million of philanthropic funding from those who wish to support their communities during these challenging times will go to charities, further increasing support to the sector.
An additional £4.8 million is also being allocated to the Voluntary and Community Sector Emergencies Partnership to strengthen its support to the voluntary and community sector, and its co-ordinating role with Government and statutory agencies, as they continue to respond to covid-19.
Applications close at midnight on 2 August 2020 and details can be found at the fund website here: https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/community-match-challenge-and-voluntary-and-community-sector-emergencies-partnership.
[HCWS396]
School Funding
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Today I am confirming provisional funding allocations for 2021-22 through the schools, high needs and central school services national funding formulae (NFF). The allocations distribute the second year of the multi-billion school funding settlement that the Secretary of State for Education announced to Parliament on 3 September 2019. Core school funding is increasing by £2.6 billion in 2020-21, and will increase by £4.8 billion and £7.1 billion in 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively, compared with 2019-20. In addition, we continue to fund the recent increase in pension costs for teachers, worth £1.5 billion a year.
These allocations, which are part of the annual funding cycle, will provide schools and local authorities with certainty of future funding. In addition to this core funding, schools can apply for exceptional funding to cover specific unavoidable costs incurred by schools due to coronavirus—covid-19—between March and July that cannot be met from existing resources. Schools will also benefit from the £1 billion catch-up package for the 2020-21 academic year to directly tackle the impact of the disruption that covid-19 has caused. This includes a catch-up premium worth £650 million to support schools to make up for lost teaching time for all pupils, and a new £350 million tutoring fund for disadvantaged pupils. Guidance on the allocation and use of that funding will be published today.
The funding factors used in the 2021-22 NFF remain the same, but we have made two technical changes, which are detailed in the NFF policy document also published today:
Funding from the teachers’ pay grant and the teachers’ pension employer contribution grant, including the supplementary fund, has been added to the formulae from 2021-22. This will simplify the allocation of this funding—worth almost £2 billion a year—recognising that these grants are part of schools’ core budgets and providing reassurance to schools and local authorities that the funding will continue to be provided.
The 2019 update to the income deprivation affecting children index has been incorporated so that deprivation funding allocated through the formulae is based on the latest data. School funding through the NFF is increasing by 4% overall in 2021-22. The NFF will distribute this funding based on schools’ and pupils’ needs and characteristics.
The main features in 2021-22 are:
The funding floor will ensure that every school is allocated at least 2% more pupil-led funding per pupil compared to its 2020-21 NFF allocation.
The key factors in the NFF will increase by 3%, providing a significant increase to those schools already attracting their NFF allocations.
The minimum per pupil funding levels will ensure that every primary school receives at least £4,000 per pupil, and every secondary school at least £5,150 per pupil, delivering on the Government’s pledge to level up the lowest funded schools.
Funding to cover additional teachers’ pay and pensions costs, previously funded through separate grants, has additionally been reflected in all schools’ allocations. This means that a further £180 and £265 respectively will be added to the minimum per pupil amounts above.
Additional funding for small and remote schools will increase in 2021-22, with primary schools attracting up to £45,000, compared to £26,000 previously, as a first step towards expanding the support the NFF provides for such schools from 2022-23.
High needs funding will increase by a further £730 million, or 10%, in 2021-22—that follows the substantial increase this year and brings the total high needs budget to over £8 billion. The high needs NFF will ensure that every local authority receives a further increase of at least 8% per head of population, compared to this year, with some authorities receiving up to 12%. This vital extra resource will help local authorities to manage their cost pressures in this area. The Government are continuing to pursue a cross-departmental review of the special educational needs and disability (SEND) system to see what further improvements are necessary to ensure that it supports children and young people with SEND as effectively as possible.
In addition, the Department will start negotiations with some of those local authorities with the highest dedicated schools grant (DSG) deficits about supporting them to reduce their deficits over time.
Central schools services funding in 2021-22 will increase by 4% for the ongoing responsibilities that local authorities continue to have for all schools. In line with the process introduced for 2020-21 to withdraw funding over time based on the commitments local authorities entered into before 2013-14, funding for historic commitments will decrease by 20% for those local authorities in receipt of this funding.
The provisional NFF allocations published today will be updated, based on the latest pupil data, to produce final allocations in December that local authorities will receive through the DSG.
Local authorities will continue to use that funding to determine final allocations for all local mainstream schools. In the light of the need to focus efforts on meeting the challenges of covid-19, we are not changing local authorities’ role in the distribution of school funding in 2021-22. The Government will, later this year, put forward their proposals to move to a hard NFF in future, which will determine schools’ budgets directly rather than through local formulae set independently by each local authority. This will level up the school funding system so that all schools across the country are funded on a comparable basis. We will consult widely with local authorities, schools and others to make this transition carefully.
[HCWS393]
Sanctions and anti-Money Laundering Act 2018: Report on Regulations
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) has made the following written ministerial statement:
Today the “Report on Regulations Made under Section 32 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018” will be laid in Parliament.
The report details the two regulations laid under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 during the reporting period from 23 May 2019 to 22 May 2020, and states the relevant human rights purposes of those regulations.
In addition to the actions set out in the report, the Government established the global human rights sanctions regime on 6 July by laying regulations in Parliament. These regulations enable the Government to impose sanctions in response to serious human rights violations or abuses around the world. The Government made immediate use of the powers provided by the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020, implementing 49 designations on a range of people and entities.
[HCWS394]
EFTA States and Switzerland: Future Relationship
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The Government are pleased to announce that we have moved into formal negotiations on our future relationships with both the EEA EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) and Switzerland from the beginning of July.
The Government have already been working closely with all four non-EU states on a range of issues related to our future relationship. We have successfully delivered a number of agreements, including the EEA EFTA separation agreement signed in January this year, which broadly mirrors provisions in the EU withdrawal agreement on citizens’ rights and a small number of other relevant separation issues. With the Swiss, we have concluded and signed agreements in five key areas; trade; air services; road transport; insurance; and citizen’s rights.
The EEA EFTA states and Switzerland are important European economic partners, with bilateral trade totalling approximately £27 billion with the EEA EFTA states and around £39 billion with Switzerland in 2019. We also enjoy close co-operation with these countries across a range of areas outside of trade, which is why the Government are seeking to agree measures that span across the entire breadth of our relationship.
EEA EFTA states
Negotiations with the EEA EFTA states will continue to take place alongside those we are conducting with the EU. In some areas, our future relationship with these states will be closely tied to the UK’s future relationship with the EU by virtue of their participation in the EU single market, via the EEA agreement, and other EU-led initiatives. In others, these countries have the flexibility to agree bespoke bilateral arrangements. The ongoing negotiations will need to take account of this, but we are clear in our aim of protecting the close levels of existing co-operation we have we these key European partners, and building ambitious future facing agreements befitting our close relationship with them.
A successful UK-EEA EFTA future relations dialogue took place on 16 July. We will be publishing further details of these negotiations on the Government’s website soon, providing further details on the scope of the arrangements we are seeking to agree.
Switzerland
Over the last three years, a dedicated high-level UK-Swiss continuity dialogue has proven highly successful in advancing vital work to uphold our excellent relations with the Swiss in the context of our EU exit. The continuity arrangements we have reached with Switzerland have given vital certainty to citizens and businesses alike. The Government are seeking to build on these strong foundations in the future: we are now convening a new UK-Swiss future relations dialogue to open the next chapter in our relations.
Our first UK-Swiss future relations dialogue took place on 1 July. The Government are taking a sequenced approach to our joint endeavours with Switzerland before the review clause in our trade continuity agreement activates in 2021. First, we will aim to resolve residual separation issues as far as is possible. Secondly, we will also aim to address issues that are dependent on our negotiations with the EU or indeed related negotiations. Thirdly, we will begin exploring new bilateral opportunities where we can make progress together in 2020.
Sequencing
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is working with other Government Departments to secure the delivery of these negotiations. The Department for International Trade continues to be responsible for all trade and economic arrangements. In non-trade areas, Departments responsible will seek arrangements which deliver on UK interests and provide maximum coverage across the full scope of our relationship with these countries.
The Government are aiming to bring some of the agreements negotiated with these states into effect by the end of the transition period in line with our approach to EU negotiations. Further details on the progress of these negotiations will be made available to Parliament as they develop. Indeed, our future relationship with these key partners is a Government priority.
[HCWS390]
Building and Fire Safety
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I would like to update Parliament on the Government’s progress in overhauling the building and fire safety system, as part of our unwavering commitment to ensuring that people, and the buildings they live in, are safe.
Building safety
We must never forget the 72 people who lost their lives as a result of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. Countless lives were torn apart by that tragedy, and we owe it to the deceased, the bereaved, the survivors, and the residents of all high-rise buildings to ensure that we do all we can to prevent a repeat of events like that fateful night occurring again.
We promised to overhaul the system and to establish a national building safety regulator at its heart. Today I am pleased to be making a significant step towards that fundamental reform by publishing the draft Building Safety Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, before the final Bill is brought forward to Parliament.
The Bill will establish the regulator in the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and give it significant powers to improve safety and performance across the built environment, especially in higher-risk buildings.
These reforms will improve safety and performance standards across all buildings. However, certain buildings warrant even closer oversight because the potential for significant consequences should a fire spread or the structure fail. It is right that we have a more stringent regime where the risk is deemed greatest, to protect the greatest number of people. Initially the scope of the more stringent regime will apply to multi-occupied residential buildings of 18 metres or more in height or more than six storeys, whichever is reached first. We have designed the new regime so its scope can be changed if the evidence base or operational experience suggest it should.
The Bill will provide a stronger framework to make sure those responsible for managing building safety risks in higher-risk buildings are held to account, with stronger enforcement powers and sanctions where those rules are not followed. It will also ensure that the residents of high-rise buildings have a stronger voice, alongside giving them better access to safety information about their building, clarifying their rights and providing recourse to raise safety concerns directly to the regulator.
The draft Bill applies to England only with the exception of the policies to require developers to belong to a New Homes Ombudsman scheme, strengthen the oversight of the construction products regulatory regime, and allow the Architects Registration Board (ARB) to monitor the competence of architects. Further detailed analysis of the territorial extent is provided in the explanatory notes.
Building safety financing
The Government are clear that it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about the cost of fixing historic safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause.
The draft Bill proposes a new building safety charge, which will give leaseholders greater transparency around costs incurred in maintaining a safe building. We want these to be fair and proportionate, which is why I have deliberately included numerous powers in the Bill that will enable us to limit the building safety costs that can be re-charged to leaseholders.
This is a topic that we are particularly committed to developing further throughout the process of scrutiny and as the Bill is finalised for introduction. I have asked Michael Wade, senior adviser to the Cabinet Office, to accelerate this work with leaseholders and the financial sector. We must remove barriers to fixing historic defects and identify financing solutions that protect leaseholders from unaffordable costs; but we must also ensure that the bill does not fall on tax payers. We will update on any further measures required before the final Bill is introduced to Parliament.
Establishing the building safety regulator
As I announced in January, the HSE is establishing the regulator in shadow form, and I am today announcing that I have set aside £16.4 million in this financial year for HSE to recruit the people and develop the capabilities that will enable the regulator to hit the ground running once its powers come into effect.
HSE has a strong track record of improving safety and fostering a safety-first culture within the construction and major hazards industries, and will draw on years of experience to deliver results quickly and effectively. As shadow regulator, HSE is playing an increasingly important role in the Government’s building safety programme: it is supporting work on how to identify higher-risk buildings; supporting work by the National Fire Chiefs Council to assess the fire risk in every high-rise residential building by end 2021; and supporting work with early adopters in the construction industry, social landlords and local government to trial the new regime, and to promote culture change across the industry. I am today announcing that HSE will also take over as chair of the Joint Regulators’ Group, which advises the Government on ways to strengthen the regulatory regime; and will take over the Independent Expert Advisory Panel, which advises the Government on fire safety in high-rise residential buildings.
Over coming months, the shadow regulator will engage with and advise residents, building owners, the construction industry and other regulators on how the new system will operate, what it will mean for them, and what they should do now to make their buildings safe and prepare for the new regime. In the autumn, we will kick off work to appoint the first national chief inspector of buildings, who will lead the new regulator.
We, and the public, expect industry to manage building safety risks now and prepare to fulfil their duties when this new regime comes into effect. The public expects and demands industry to implement these reforms with conviction and speed. The new Building Safety Regulator stands ready to work hand in hand with industry to bring about a culture change that prioritises residents and their safety.
Fire safety reforms
The Home Office is also today publishing a fire safety consultation, which sets out proposals to strengthen the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005—the fire safety order—and improve compliance for all regulated buildings; implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 1 report recommendations for multi-occupied residential buildings which require a change in law; and, seeks views on the effectiveness of the arrangements for consultation and information sharing between building control bodies and fire and rescue authorities in relation to building work. This is alongside a commitment to overhaul the fire safety order’s supporting guidance.
Proposals for multi-occupied residential buildings, mostly high-rise buildings, include prescribing in law the frequency of checks of fire doors; that responsible persons (RPs) carry out inspections of other key fire-fighting equipment, not just lifts designed to be used by firefighters; and that RPs provide information to residents including in relation to fire safety—including evacuation and other specific information—in an accessible format.
Our proposals go beyond the Grenfell Tower Inquiry’s recommendations in several areas. In others, our proposals prioritise residents’ safety in a way that is practical, proportionate and effective to the risks the inquiry has identified. The Government want to listen to the views of those who have experience of these matters, including those who have been personally affected by the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The proposals set out in the Home Office consultation will further deliver the Government’s objective to improve building and fire safety in all regulated premises where people live, stay or work.
Construction products
The Bill also enables us to progress our commitment to radically strengthen oversight of the regulatory regime for construction products. The Bill will make sure a wider range of construction products are subject to strengthened safety regulations. It will also strengthen the powers available to the Government, paving the way to create a new national regulatory function that will have oversight of the construction products regulation. The Government are developing options for how this new national regulatory function could be implemented.
Other housing measures
The draft Bill also contains measures to protect the rights of all new build home buyers by requiring developers to belong to the New Homes Ombudsman. It also includes new measures that will make access to redress swifter and more effective for all social housing residents.
Pre-legislative scrutiny
These are extensive reforms that it is incumbent on us all to get right. The Building Safety Bill is a large and complex piece of legislation, reflecting the scale of the reforms needed. In this spirit, I am publishing the Bill in draft form to ensure it receives the due and proper consideration it deserves through pre-legislative scrutiny from Parliament, from industry, from regulatory bodies, and from residents. I want to thank those that have helped shape the legislation so far, including those who contributed to the “Building a Safer Future” consultation and who have engaged in various forums with my Department. I now encourage colleagues from across both Houses to engage wholeheartedly in strengthening these proposals so that together we can further improve the legislation and deliver greater safety for residents.
I will deposit copies of the draft Building Safety Bill, delegated powers memorandum and impact assessment in the Libraries of both Houses. A copy of the full fire safety consultation and its impact assessment will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS391]
Crossrail: Annual Update
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Over the past year, several milestones have been reached on the Crossrail project and work continues despite the new challenges presented by covid-19. Total funding amounts provided to Crossrail Limited by the Department for Transport and TfL in relation to the construction of Crossrail to the end of the 354 period 22 July 2008 to 29 May 2020—excluding recoverable VAT on land and property purchases. £14,164,813,354 Expenditure incurred—including committed land and property spend not yet paid out—by Crossrail Limited in relation to the construction of Crossrail in the period 30 May 2019 to 29 May 2020—excluding recoverable VAT on land and property purchases. £1,014,218,000 Total expenditure incurred—including committed land and property spend not yet paid out—by Crossrail Limited in relation to the construction of Crossrail to the end of the period 22 July 2008 to 29 May 2020—excluding recoverable VAT on land and property purchases. £14,972,678,000 The amounts realised by the disposal of any land or property for the purposes of the construction of Crossrail by the Secretary of State, TfL or Crossrail Limited in the period covered by the statement. £16,000,000
When complete, the Elizabeth line will be transformative, reducing overcrowding, delivering spacious new trains, adding significant additional rail capacity to London and the south-east, and delivering a huge boost to the recovering UK economy. Its benefits will be vast and long lasting.
Important progress is being made on taking the Crossrail project towards completion and for its transition to Transport for London (TfL), the future Elizabeth line operator.
In December last year, TfL Rail commenced operating services between Paddington and Reading using the new UK built class 345 trains, marking another important stage in the delivery of the Elizabeth line. This year, the higher capacity nine carriage trains are being introduced along this part of the route.
The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has approved the new trains to run in passenger service between Paddington and Heathrow airport, paving the way for a future increase in services to four trains per hour, adding important extra service capacity to the local rail network. Final testing and driver training is taking place with Bombardier and MTR Elizabeth Line ahead of the services being introduced.
Over the past year, Crossrail Limited (CRL) has made further progress on the final completion of the new central section. Signalling and train software testing has progressed and a number of assets including completed shafts and portals together with the new custom house station have now been handed over to TfL. All the stations in the central section are now ready for the trial running of services, with the exception of Bond Street, which requires further work.
Network Rail (NR) works on the eastern and western sections of the route have continued to progress over the past year with the delivery of the enhanced ticket halls and access improvements on the surface section progressing at Ilford and Romford; Acton main line, Ealing Broadway, West Ealing, Southall, Hayes and Harlington and West Drayton, with step-free access being prioritised where possible.
In March this year, future Elizabeth line stations Hanwell, Iver, Langley, and Taplow were also provided with step-free access from street to platform.
Together, these milestones represent key steps forward in the operational development of the railway.
But there have been challenges as well.
In January, CRL announced that it planned to open the central section of the railway in summer 2021 and the full Elizabeth line by mid-2022, citing challenges with completing the software development and the safety assurance processes preventing it from meeting its previously planned opening window. Progress was further affected by the safe stop announced on March 24, when CRL ceased all physical work at its construction sites, including Network Rail’s station upgrade works, as a result of the covid-19 crisis and in line with TfL’s decision to pause work on project sites, though essential, business critical and remote assurance work continued.
In November last year and before the impact of covid-19, CRL announced that it would not be able to deliver the railway within the funding package originally announced by the Department and the Mayor of London in December 2018, and that it would require between £400 to £650 million in additional funding.
The further schedule delays and cost increases to this project since the last annual update are very disappointing. A revised funding package will now need to be developed for Crossrail that is fair to UK taxpayers, with London as the primary beneficiary bearing the cost.
Works have now restarted as part of Crossrail’s recovery plan with sites operating within the framework of Public Health England’s safety guidelines, with CRL intensely focused on achieving the next key programme milestone—commencement of the intensive testing of the railway, known as trial running.
CRL is currently in the process of updating its cost and schedule forecasts in the light of its recovery plan, including assessing the impact on its opening schedule, and will make a further update on this shortly.
A further update to the overall costings for Network Rail’s programme show that the Crossrail on network works require an extra £140 million of funding with the cost of the surface works package now standing at just under £3 billion. The additional costs, which were assessed before the covid-19 crisis, are the result of some station and power upgrade work taking longer than planned.
The Department will continue to work with its joint sponsor, TfL, to closely scrutinise the project, supporting its delivery as soon as is safely possible and to deliver the vital assurance and safety certification that is required before passenger services can commence.
The Department will also work with TfL to oversee the effective review and evolution of Crossrail’s future governance arrangements to make sure the right decisions are taken as the project moves towards completion, and that it successfully transitions to TfL operations as soon as possible. CRL together with both sponsors remain committed to ongoing transparency with regard to the project.
During the passage of the Crossrail Bill through Parliament, a commitment was given that an annual statement would be published until the completion of the construction of Crossrail, setting out information about the project’s funding and finances. Further details on CRL’s funding and finances in the period to 29 May 2020 are set out in the table below. The relevant information is as follows:
The numbers above are drawn from CRL’s books of account and have been prepared on a consistent basis with the update provided last year. The figure for expenditure incurred includes moneys already paid out in the relevant period, including committed land and property expenditure where this has not yet been paid. It does not include future expenditure on contracts that have been awarded.
[HCWS389]
Transport for London: Extraordinary Funding and Financing
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I wrote to the House on 18 May 2020, to share details of the extraordinary funding and financing agreement reached with Transport for London (TfL). That package of support, which was agreed between the Government, the Mayor and TfL, included a number of conditions, and I am today writing to update Parliament on two of those.
To help avoid such drastic action in the future, work has been under way on the Government-led review of TfL’s future financial position and structure, and we have now published the terms of reference for that review.
I am pleased to also announce the appointment of the two Government special representatives to attend the TfL board: Andrew Gilligan and Clare Moriarty. They will also be able to attend TfL’s finance and programme investment committees. These positions required a specific skillset and have therefore been made through direct ministerial appointment.
Clare Moriarty is a former civil servant and has been permanent secretary for the Department for Exiting the European Union and for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and she was previously director general, Rail Executive and director general for corporate services in the Department for Transport.
Andrew Gilligan advises the Prime Minister on transport matters and worked closely with TfL for three years, acquiring detailed knowledge of its operations, as former cycling commissioner for London.
[HCWS398]
A303 Sparkford to Ilchester 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 for Transport (Grant Shapps), 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 continuous dual carriageway on the A303 linking the Podimore Roundabout and the Sparkford Bypass.
Under 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 section 107(3) to extend the deadline and make a statement to the House of Parliament announcing the new deadline. The Secretary of State received the Examining Authority’s report on the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Development Consent Order application on 12 September 2019 and the deadline for a decision was previously extended from 12 December 2019 until 17 July 2020 to allow for further work to be carried out.
The deadline for the decision is to be further extended to 20 November 2020, an extension of four months, to enable further information to be provided by the applicant and interested parties on outstanding concerns raised by the Examining Authority and consideration of that provided information 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.
[HCWS399]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
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. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points and I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Pharmacies
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grade of Yarmouth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that independent pharmacies are able to continue to support the communities in which they are based.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to the immense contribution being made by community pharmacies in the epidemic. We are hugely grateful for the unequivocal commitment that the sector has shown and we want to make sure that the sector is treated correctly. We have made available £370 million in advance payments to aid cash flow, providing funding for the medicine delivery service for shielded patients and increased drug reimbursement prices. We are talking to the sector about additional funding for Covid-19 costs.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that response but, as I am sure the whole House will agree, independent pharmacies in so many small towns such as Yarmouth and places such as the Isle of Wight are now the heroic first line of defence for GPs and the NHS. The most vulnerable in these communities depend on them for medical advice and deliveries of vital prescriptions, which they offer for free. In my view, it is totally unrealistic for the department to point to some recent funding help as if that has solved the problem. It is nowhere near enough to keep the pharmacies in business, let alone to allow the pharmacists to have a day off or even earn a living. It just demonstrates that the department fails to understand why independent pharmacists are still in such grave peril. May I please urge my noble friend to meet a delegation of these front-line heroes, to hear directly why their businesses continue to hang by a thread? When they fold, they will not be replaced.
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, I agree with every word of the tribute of the noble Lord, Lord Grade, to the role of community pharmacies, particularly during the epidemic. They have played an absolutely pivotal role in communities, with advice, medicines and support, and I pay tribute to their hard work and commitment. I would be very pleased to meet a delegation to discuss the challenges that they face.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, says, throughout recent months during the coronavirus crisis many independent pharmacists have served an important role in supporting their local communities. Does my noble friend agree that their role would be enhanced—indeed, it would be vital—if they offered flu vaccines as the autumn and winter months approach? What can the Government do to ensure that they are able to offer this potentially life-saving facility?
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, the role of pharmacies in the administration of vaccines is critical. Not only will the standard flu vaccine be coming up shortly, but, if today’s news is to be taken on the level, the possibility of a Covid vaccine is at some point on the horizon. That is why we are talking to the sector about the role that community pharmacies can play in the greater administration of vaccines, both of flu and of Covid.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister indicate what further discussions will take place with the National Pharmacy Association to ensure that community pharmacies become the front line for giving out services that would normally have been dealt with by GPs and emergency departments, to ensure that they take the flak and slack off the National Health Service and continue to provide an essential service to the wider community?
Lord Bethell [V]
As the noble Baroness is probably aware, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care spoke at the annual conference of the National Pharmacy Association, at which he reiterated his commitment to the sector. The noble Baroness puts it well: pharmacies have something very special and valuable because of their trusted role. We very much want to see an enhanced role for pharmacies in the delivery of healthcare.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree that independent pharmacies are of particular importance in rural areas, where they are often the only source of advice and information, as well as prescriptions and equipment, for people with disabilities and their families? Will the Minister confirm both his support for these rural pharmacies in particular and the Government’s commitment to ensuring that they can continue to provide all these vital services?
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Baroness is entirely right. Although the vast majority of people live within a 20-minute walk of a pharmacy, many people face issues with location. That is why we will continue to maintain the good level of access that we have through the pharmacy access scheme, which provides additional financial support to pharmacies in areas where there are fewer pharmacies. Our commitment remains fully in place.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, clinical commissioning groups can commission local pharmacies to carry out tests on their patients, such as for blood pressure or atrial fibrillation. This would relieve local GP practices. How widespread is the adoption of this way of using pharmacies and what is being done to increase its uptake by clinical commissioning groups?
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Baroness is right that pharmacies can play an enhanced role, particularly in providing the kinds of services that mean that people do not have to visit their GP. If we have learned one thing from Covid-19, it is that GP surgeries can be a source of infection and that GPs can sometimes be much more impactful working away from home. That is why we support exactly the kind of initiative that the noble Baroness outlines.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we know that the health service faces the herculean challenge of dealing with pent-up demands caused by the coronavirus pandemic, including for postponed elective surgery and delayed preventive interventions. Community pharmacists have proved themselves a key element of assistance during the crisis and should have an important role to play in future in helping to clear the backlog by bringing more care into the community. What plan do the Government have to expand the clinical role of pharmacies and what steps are they taking to ensure that pharmacies are far better integrated into the primary care system?
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Baroness is entirely right. We have introduced a new framework—the community pharmacy contractual framework—which has down- played some services that were not offering value for money but has enhanced some services that have made a huge impact, many of which are of a clinical nature. The settlement also includes a transitional payment, which will help to secure the financial resilience of the pharmacy sector. We could not be more committed to the community pharmacy sector. I believe that the future of healthcare in this country will depend much more on the role of pharmacies delivering the kinds of services that the noble Baroness outlines.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, the essential difference between community pharmacies and dentists and doctors and so on is availability, which is much greater in community pharmacies. Availability, continuity and reliability are things that all patients benefit from. I am therefore very supportive of this. I remember so often as a dentist hearing from patients that they had had dental pain at some incredible time and the pharmacy was the only place where they could get any immediate help. I would like the Minister’s assurance that this will continue.
Lord Bethell [V]
As the father of four small children, I completely endorse the noble Baroness’s point. Many a night have I been outside a hard-working pharmacist’s shop looking for advice, support and essential medicines. I pay tribute to the hard-working community pharmacy sector, whose pharmacists are often up until midnight helping their local communities and hard-hit fathers like me.
Baroness Barker (LD) [V]
What advice has the department had from local directors of public health about the resources that are necessary to ensure continuity for community pharmacies during local lockdowns?
Lord Bethell [V]
We are fully engaged with the sector. The National Pharmacy Association and the other stakeholder groups are in close communication with the department to ensure that they have the PPE, medicines and finances to keep going during the epidemic. The voice of the DPHs is involved in that stakeholder engagement.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Biodiversity: Aichi Targets
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK assessment shows five targets on track and 14 targets progressing. The Government need, and are determined, to do more. We are playing a leading role in developing an ambitious new global biodiversity framework and putting nature at the heart of our COP 26 presidency, paving the way for transformative action to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change holistically. In England, we have announced significant funding and new legislation to transform how we manage and protect nature.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome the progress that has been made, but does he recognise that we are still not making as much progress as we would hope on a number of targets, including targets 5, 10 and 15 on the degradation of natural habitats, the pressure on coral reefs and the contribution of biodiversity to climate change mitigation? Does he agree that local authorities up and down the country—such as South Lakeland District Council, which is working hard to increase biodiversity—have a key role to play? Can he tell the House whether his department intends to strengthen local authorities’ powers in this area?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
We have expanded our protected areas at sea, provided new funding for woodland expansion, peatland restoration and nature recovery and increased significantly our funding for international biodiversity conservation. However, we acknowledge that there are ongoing declines in biodiversity in many areas, which is why we are driving an ambitious legislative agenda and backing it up with investment, not least the £640 million nature for climate fund. It is also why we are ramping up our global leadership in tackling climate change and biodiversity loss as two sides of the same coin.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in March 2019 the JNCC, which advises on progress towards targets, reported both a short-term fall in government funding for biodiversity in the UK and that, increasingly, it is difficult to assess data due to the tendency for Ministers to address multiple priorities with integrated funding on wide-reaching projects. What assessment is being made of the success or otherwise of this approach and how is it reported to Parliament?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
One of the problems with the Aichi targets is that they are so open to misinterpretation or different interpretations. One thing that we are pushing hard for in the next round of discussions is meaningful targets where individuals, countries and businesses are aware of what they are expected to deliver. At the moment, it is possible for a country to sign up to the Aichi targets and to claim success even while very little changes. We are taking as prominent and as active a role as we can in the next round. One thing that the Prime Minister launched and that we are pushing for is the 30x30 campaign, getting as many countries as possible to sign up to a commitment to protect 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030, among other targets.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, turning to the target on air pollution, will the Government reconsider their approach to fine particulate matter, whereby fuels used in wood-burning stoves are to be phased out in February 2021? Given the impact of Covid, does the Minister agree that the target needs to be brought forward in advance of this coming winter so that people at high risk are less susceptible to fine particulate matter pollution?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
Defra is analysing all the available data on air quality, in particular the impact on air quality of the measures taken to protect people against Covid. I am not in a position unilaterally to declare that targets will be strengthened or brought forward, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are looking at the data and will act accordingly.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con) [V]
My noble friend will be aware that the Convention on Biological Diversity, due to take place in China this year, has of course been postponed. Can he comment on the implications of this postponement and commit to briefing the House at an appropriate moment this year about where we are going to go next?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
As far as we can see, the postponement has not damaged the agenda, in the same way that our being given a few extra months to deliver the climate clock at the end of next year has given us more time to build up more coalitions to drive greater ambition and to push a much more radical agenda than I think we would have been able to had we been required to deliver to the old agenda. I very much hope that the same dynamic holds true for China’s hosting of the biodiversity COP half way through next year. The UK is working closely with China to ensure that the strongest possible framework is agreed. We are also keen that a bridge should be built between the biodiversity and climate COPs, as we regard a success for one as having a direct impact on the other and vice versa.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, target 13 is on the genetic diversity of farmed and domesticated animals. Strategies should be implemented for safeguarding their genetic diversity. However, published figures show a decline of some native animal breeds—pig breeds decreased from 170 in 2000 to 152 in 2018 and horse breeds from 178 in 2000 to 117 in 2018. What are the Government doing to ensure that a proper strategy is developed to meet target 13?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
There is no doubt that monoculture is the greatest friend of pandemics and disease and that biological diversity is the greatest buffer and hedge against instability and the kind of dangers that we have seen materialise in recent months. Although the details remain to be worked out at the finest level, we are shifting from the common agricultural policy, where payment is based pretty much on the amount of land turned into farmable land, to a new system of environmental land management that rewards farmers on the basis of their delivery of a public good. That includes environmental stewardship, management of land to slow the flow of water and diversity of species. I very much hope that this move to ELM, which is a world first, will deliver the kind of results for which the noble Baroness asks.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted that my noble friend has put nature at the heart of the Government’s biodiversity targets. Will he go one step further? Can we learn the lessons from Covid and accept that food security should be recognised as a public good in the Agriculture Bill?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
The Agriculture Bill is winding its way through Parliament as we speak, being expertly delivered by my noble friend Lord Gardiner. The concern about putting food security as a public good is that we are trying to move away from a subsidy system based on rewarding landowners for converting land into land that can produce food. While on the surface, and when it was developed, the old system may have made perfect sense, it has proven to be disastrous. It is clear that the new system has to be designed to ensure that no public money is handed to landowners without a return of some form of public good. We have to be slightly careful about how we define public good and that work is under way. We certainly recognise the value of food production but, on the whole, that is recognised by the market, unlike the environmental benefits that we know landowners, more than anyone else, provide.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, with just 14% of UK species having had their conservation status assessed, but 21% listed as threatened, what are we doing to increase the collection of data and to accelerate remedial measures, not least for restoration, of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems, including peatland and woodland, as we are urged to do in Aichi target 15?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
Measurement is crucial to understanding and delivering good policy, but it is not as important as the policies themselves. If you look at what the Government are doing as a whole, we have probably the most ambitious environmental agenda of any Government to date. We have the first Environment Bill in over 20 years. We have ambitious measures, including restoring and enhancing nature. We have just announced a £40 million green recovery challenge fund to help charities and environmental organisations to start work on delivering much of that environmental gain across England, restoring nature and tackling climate change. We are going to use the new nature for climate fund to deliver woodland expansion, peatland restoration and more. We have announced a tripling of Darwin Plus to protect our precious Overseas Territories. We are replacing the disastrous CAP system, as I just explained, with the new environmental land management scheme, which will be revolutionary for our countryside, and we now have 25% of the UK’s water in marine protected areas. We are making progress.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, when on 8 July I asked the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, about progress in establishing the office for environmental protection to help deliver our environmental goals, he replied that
“we have always said that we will ensure that there are alternative arrangements if, given the position we are in, the OEP is not up and running by 1 January.”—[Official Report, 8/7/20; col. 1113.]
Can I ask the Minister what these alternative arrangements are?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
The department on whose behalf I am speaking today is making progress in the construction, development and delivery of the OEP. As the noble Baroness knows, we need legislation and that requires the safe passage of the Environment Bill, which we hope to deliver in the coming months.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We come to the third Oral Question.
Smoking
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to achieve their objective of making England smoke-free by 2030.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
The Government are moving fast on several fronts to address the issue of smoking. That is why we have brought forward the prevention Green Paper and the tobacco control plan. Covid has offered an opportunity for more people to give up smoking, which is why we have instituted the Quit for Covid plan.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
When will the Government publish their response to the prevention Green Paper consultation? Will today’s proposed guidance for smoke-free areas outside pubs and restaurants be agreed with his department, the DHSC? Will it be published before the House rises and will it be subject to parliamentary scrutiny?
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, the government Green Paper published on 19 July is an extremely complex proposal. That is why we are considering it in great detail. It addresses the urgent need to tackle the disproportionate amount of smoking in deprived areas and among marginal communities. We are engaged with those communities to figure out what will work best. When we have those answers, we will publish our reply.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree that reducing smoking in pregnancy is essential to achieving a smoke-free generation, yet rates of smoking in pregnancy have not declined significantly since 2015? Financial incentive schemes are being effectively used to support pregnant women in Greater Manchester to give up smoking, including younger and more disadvantaged women. What further steps do the Government intend to take to reduce rates of smoking in pregnancy and will this include the national rollout of an incentive scheme?
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Baroness points to the knottiest and most difficult of the challenges of giving up smoking. It is extremely sad that anyone should contemplate smoking during pregnancy, but this is one of the most durable and knottiest problems. I commend the use of creative and innovative schemes such as the one in Manchester to which the noble Baroness alludes, but more needs to be done, because prevention is better than cure.
Lord Rennard (LD) [V]
My Lords, 1 million people have given up smoking to protect their health during lockdown and now 86% of people in the UK do not smoke. Will the Minister therefore support the amendment this afternoon, which would mean that if additional tables and chairs are put outside pubs and restaurants through pavement licences, all the new seating areas created will be smoke free and more attractive to potential customers?
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Lord is right to commend those who have given up smoking during Covid. I pay tribute to anyone who has given up smoking. I struggled and found it immensely difficult, but I am glad that I did it. There is a government amendment to the Bill, which the Department for Health and Social Care supports, and we wish it every success.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
Is my noble friend aware that I quit smoking many years ago and the credit for that is entirely down to the NHS and my GP? Can he tell me what is the estimate of the current annual cost to the NHS of treating smoking-related medical issues?
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, I believe that the annual cost is £2.3 billion. It is far too much and we must do more to get it down. Huge progress has been made but we are still committed to a smoke-free 2030.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
Do the Government recognise the particularly high addictive potential of tobacco among the young and that two-thirds of 100,000 youngsters who took up smoking last year went on to become long-term smokers? Without banning passive smoking in open areas, all the public health gains to date will be lost. There is strong evidence that smoking bans have been most effective in improving health.
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, I completely recognise the power of the smoking bans, as well as the threat of young people taking up smoking and sticking with the habit for a long time. We are on track to meet our national ambition of reducing under-15 smoking from 5.3% in 2018 to 3% or less by 2022. However, even that seems too high and we will continue to work on our efforts.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it would be nice if, on his birthday, we could get to my noble friend Lord Simon, so my question is very short—fewer than 75 words. Inequalities in smoking remain the largest cause of life expectancy gap between the rich and the poor and are the main reason for the lives of people with serious mental illness being shortened by up to 20 years. Does the Minister agree that the smoke-free ambition may be achieved only by the most advantaged and will the Government’s further proposals address this inequality?
Lord Bethell [V]
Health inequalities are one of the most pernicious and difficult aspects of modern life and the Government are focused on them. Smoking is a graphic example of the worst of our inequalities. That is why the prevention Green Paper focuses on these kinds of inequalities and why our response will be muscular and determined.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Government propose that pubs should aim at two metres between smokers and non-smokers when outside. However, the Minister should know that social distancing is already being flouted when alcohol is involved. Is he concerned that this so-called compromise is supported by FOREST, which is funded by the tobacco industry, and will he answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and ensure that the guidance will be issued by the Department of Health and Social Care rather than by MHCLG?
Lord Bethell [V]
I take a different view from the noble Baroness on the success of pubs’ efforts to introduce social distancing. I spent the weekend in a number of pubs and I was extremely impressed by the measures that publicans have put in place. That is why we support the role of local authorities in judging the right measures for the right pubs and why we will support the government amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that the rate of smoking among adults in Blackpool is almost double that of Westminster. Given the Government’s levelling-up agenda, plus the fact that we know that smoking is related to illnesses that amplify the impact of Covid-19, and indeed threaten greater rates of death, why have we not seen emergency legislation to bring in a smoke-free 2030 fund, which has already been well explored and set out?
Lord Bethell [V]
I completely agree with the noble Baroness that there is a massive health dimension to the levelling-up agenda. Health inequalities affect families the hardest and the Government are highly focused on them. However, it is not our style to introduce emergency legislation, because we believe that prevention is better than cure and that people have rights and choices to make for themselves.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the publication of the draft guidance on pavement licences in time for the debate this afternoon. However, I note that, while local authorities are to consider public health when setting local conditions, Section 5.2 fails to reference the smoking reduction targets set out in the tobacco control plan or the ambition for a smoke-free England by 2030. These would be a helpful addition, so will the Minister consider including them as the guidance is finalised?
Lord Bethell [V]
It is not my role to comment on the drafting of legislation in the manner that my noble friend describes. However, I resolutely repeat the Government’s commitment to a smoke-free 2030 and the tobacco control plan, both of which are absolutely essential to our tobacco policies.
Viscount Simon (Lab)
My Lords, no licences are required to sell deadly tobacco products and, while retailers can be prosecuted for underage sales or selling illicit tobacco, penalties are low. Over 70% of small tobacco retailers strongly support introducing a licence that could be removed if retailers break the law. Will the Government commit to consulting on the introduction of such a licence to help progress towards a smoke-free 2030?
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, I completely hear the views of retailers. No one wants to put a retailer in an awkward position and I completely understand why they would support the introduction of licensing. However, that is not currently our plan and we believe that we can get to a smoke-free 2030 without introducing onerous and expensive new regulations of the kind that the noble Viscount describes.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Question.
Employment: Young People
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Aberdare
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the young people due to leave school in the current academic year are prepared for work in a post-COVID-19 environment; and what changes they have made to careers support and guidance provision to achieve this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, we are investing around £100 million this year in careers guidance for young people and adults. We are supporting schools during the Covid-19 pandemic to develop virtual careers activities for students, including the successful My Week of Work event. The National Careers Service offers impartial careers guidance and advice through a website, web chat and helpline, and it will operate an exam results helpline this summer. We will keep this support under review and assess its impact.
Lord Aberdare (CB) [V]
My Lords, 800,000 young people are currently leaving education and hoping to join an already overcrowded jobs market. Good careers advice, including personal guidance from qualified professionals, will be essential to ensure all that talent does not go to waste. How will the current careers strategy be renewed and expanded to meet this need, and will the Government introduce a careers guidance guarantee, complementary to the opportunity guarantee, to ensure that all young people can access professional, personal careers guidance to help them identify and pursue suitable careers pathways?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, during the pandemic, the Careers & Enterprise Company, alongside teachers, has had to review its delivery strategy. Much of its training and support has therefore been delivered virtually, so we have seen virtual mock interviews and virtual CV preparation sessions. Of course, the expectation on schools is that they deliver a personal interview to students at 16 and 18, and we have advised that that should take place virtually rather than by telephone. More than 70% of schools are delivering that interview at age 16 to the majority of their students.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, the Social Mobility Commission recently published an apprenticeships report, which highlighted a 36% reduction in the number of apprenticeship starters who were from disadvantaged backgrounds. As we prioritise developing the skills of young people, can the Minister confirm how the new £1.6 billion funding for scaling up training and apprenticeships will be distributed across the country to ensure that areas such as the north-east with a high proportion of disadvantaged students have access to quality training?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, in relation to traineeships and apprenticeships, this is the first time that the Government will be funding employers who provide trainees with work experience, at the rate of £1,000 per new trainee, up to 10 per employer. Additional funds are available for apprenticeships of £2,000 for every apprentice under the age of 25, in addition to the original £1,000 for 16 to 18 year-olds’ apprenticeships. We are encouraging all employers, including employers in the north-east, to take advantage of those schemes and provide the work opportunities that young people need.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, when I come across organisations which believe that they can help with the Government’s efforts to provide careers support and guidance to those affected by Covid, whether they be young people or older people who have lost their jobs, what email address or other contact information should I provide them with so that they get a one-stop-shop access to all that the Government are doing?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, it is wonderful when employers and other people want to offer their support to the Government. In relation to careers advice, the National Careers Service is the Government’s overarching source of careers information and support, so that would be the first stop. Unfortunately, it is not a one-stop shop. The second stop would be the Careers & Enterprise Company. As my noble friend is probably aware, one of the three prongs of its approach is an enterprise adviser network, and more than 2,000 businesses and other employers are involved in providing that support in schools, so I would also direct those volunteers to that institution so they can assist schools at this time.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, we know that having foreign language skills makes school leavers more employable. Post Covid and post Brexit, this will be more so, and there is high demand in finance, telecoms, transport and tourism. Will the Minister include languages as a skills shortage in the national retraining scheme for technical education? Will she also promote effective liaison between the careers hubs and MFL hubs, to show exactly how language skills expand career opportunities and life choices?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct about the importance of language skills, and that is why modern foreign languages have been included in the Ebacc. Yes, we encourage all our hubs in this area to work together: the careers hubs, modern foreign languages hubs and English hubs that we have across the country. The national retraining scheme is currently focused on those over the age of 24 who need to increase their skills to increase their income. That is led by a number of LEPs, and I am sure that they would welcome the introduction of modern foreign languages to that work.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, all the initiatives introduced that the Minister has referred to have to be accessed digitally, but over these last few weeks we have learned that we have digital poverty. Many young people do not have access to a computer, and they fall in the group that most needs support and guidance. What will the Government do to help them? Please do not tell me that it has been solved by the Government’s computer initiative, because we know that is not the case.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, obviously, digital has become important, but the guidance issued to schools for September talks about their having remote learning from the end of September, so that includes the traditional way of delivering by way of printed packs, which I know many schools have been doing. Although we have been encouraging the use of virtual one-on-one interviews at age 16 over the telephone, of course schools have been encouraged to have some form of one-on-one physical contact with students before the summer holidays.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, all schools will be returning to full operation in September. How will access to impartial personal careers guidance be funded and promoted in schools, including primary schools, making the best use of careers guidance providers with the skills and resources to help young people make informed choices?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the noble Lord makes the important point that it is good to get involved early, so £2 million is being spent on primary school careers guidance and education. There is a specific pilot project involving 70 primary schools up in the north-east, working with Ernst & Young to see how the Gatsby benchmarking can be adapted for primary schools. As I have outlined, the expectation is that all schools will provide a personal interview with 16 and 18 year-olds before they enter the job market, and there is the local government guarantee for 16 and 17 year-olds of a place in education or suitable training, which will be particularly important this September.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con) [V]
I declare my interest as chairman of the Baker Dearing trust, which promotes university technical colleges. Is the Minister aware that on Friday of next week, about 300,000 18 year-olds will leave their colleges and schools for the last time and will be joined by tens of thousands of 16 year-olds? Our job as a Government and as a Parliament is to ensure that as few as possible of those join the ranks of the unemployed. The Government have a very good and potentially successful scheme to allow those students to apply for an extra year’s training to get a technical qualification, which will give them a chance of a better job next year. However, it is a great secret. It is not talked about generally or being promoted actively, except in the educational press, but 16 and 18 year-olds do not read the educational press. Can the Minister therefore ensure that by Friday of next week, every 16 and 18 year-old in the country will get clear information about the scheme, what it consists of and how they can apply?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the Government are using digital and traditional ways to promote the opportunities out there for young people. Many of the opportunities outlined in the skills recovery package are being promoted through jobcentres, and there is a £100 million fund for 18 and 19 year-old school and college leavers to study a high-value level 2 or level 3 if an employment apprenticeship or training opportunity is not available to them.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Resolution Foundation recently pointed out that the corona class of 2020, as it referred to it, could face years of reduced pay and limited job prospects, long after the current economic storm has passed, unless additional support is provided—and fast. Since March, entire year groups have missed out on university visits, work experience opportunities and, despite what the Minister said, much advice from careers leaders in schools. In preparation for a full return of pupils in September, school staff must have the funding and resources that they need to deliver that one-to-one support that enables young people to take advantage of the opportunities available to them after GCSEs. What additional support will the Government provide to schools to enable that to happen?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the Government recently announced a £1 billion catch-up package, £650 million of which will go directly to schools. The formula for that funding was announced today. The noble Lord will also be aware of the £350 million for the national tutoring programme. It is of course essential that there are skilled professionals in schools. One of the three prongs of the Careers & Enterprise Company strategy is to train up career leaders—1,300 training bursaries have been given, with a further 650 bursaries, as we recognise that this is a particular area of expertise. We expect that some of the £32 million that was announced for the National Careers Service will also go on training and upskilling careers advisers.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, while 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. I ask that questions and answers are brief.
British Overseas Troops: Civil Liability Claims
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Armed Forces covenant states that our forces community
“should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens”,
yet this Bill does precisely that. It disadvantages veterans, service men and women and their families. It does so by putting a six-year time limit on them bringing claims against the MoD for personal injury or death. Why do this?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Government are committed to introducing these protections to provide greater certainty for our service personnel and veterans. The other side of the coin to which the noble Lord refers is that, for too long, many of our service personnel and veterans have lived under the shadow of endless investigations and vexatious claims for increasingly historical events that occurred in the uniquely complex environment of armed conflict. We regard that as unfair and we regard the Bill as a proportionate response to that challenge.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, building on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, I want to press the Minister a little further. This is not about vexatious claims; it is about claims that service personnel, veterans and their families may be able to bring. What assessment have the Government made of the changes to cap it at a six-year long-stop?
Baroness Goldie [V]
I reassure the noble Baroness that this Bill will not abolish the right of people to make claims. It puts into context that a time limit will now surround when those claims can be brought. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that is fair and proportionate. It is fair to our service men and women, to victims and to potential claimants.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, when does the Minister believe that Her Majesty’s Government will extend legislation in the overseas operations Bill to cover operations in Northern Ireland? I seem to recall that my first deployment in Northern Ireland in 1971 was by sea from Liverpool, so I regard this as a legitimate question. On a pertinent point, can the Minister confirm that should Major Bob Campbell, having been questioned and investigated eight times about the drowning of Said Shabram in Iraq in 2003, be exonerated by the Iraq Fatality Investigations inquiry, he will be within his rights to sue the Ministry of Defence should he be so inclined? Seventeen years of investigation have broken this decorated soldier, ruined his career and wrecked his mental health.
Baroness Goldie [V]
I will answer the latter part of the noble Lord’s question first. I cannot comment on a specific case but, clearly, every individual is entitled to seek legal advice and consider what is appropriate action for them. On his first point, I assure him that, yes, a Northern Ireland Bill is coming forth to deal with similar issues; the Northern Ireland Office is currently in the process of preparing it. We expect more information in early course.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
My Lords, if the factors set out in Clause 3 of the Bill that support a decision not to prosecute five years after an offence are so powerful, why do they not apply before five years have elapsed?
Baroness Goldie [V]
Clause 3, to which my noble and learned friend refers, requires that a prosecutor must take into account the “exceptional demands and stresses” of overseas operations and the adverse impact that they can have on service personnel. While this requirement applies only after five years have elapsed, prosecutors may already take account of these circumstances in their decision-making at any stage. It is precisely to provide some form of protection for our service personnel and veterans and give them greater certainty that we believe it is important that the Bill makes consideration of these matters a statutory requirement once five years or more have elapsed.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there are pressing reasons for this Bill, as military personnel have felt let down by successive Governments and the nation they serve. Historically, there was an understanding when one went into action that if any sense of doubt about actions arose, as long as one had acted with good intent, any balance of doubt would be in the service man or woman’s interest. That seems to have ceased to be the case. Even if that is not so, the perception was that our people are vulnerable to repeated litigation; perceptions are important. However, I am concerned about some of the wording in the Bill. Does it open up service men and women to greater risk of investigation and prosecution by international courts?
Baroness Goldie [V]
First, I thank the noble Lord for his helpful comments; he speaks from singular experience in the field. The risk that he alludes to is not likely to materialise. As I said earlier, the whole point is that the Bill is framed not as abolishing rights but as placing these rights for exercise within the context of time limits. It is not a statute of limitations; it is not a pardon; and it is not an amnesty. I hope that, with a strong framework in our domestic legislation, such a manifestation will be unlikely.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, following on from that, I suggest that current policy is an affront to the sacrifice, service and spirit of the military covenant, which should be enshrined in law. Will this Government do that? If so, when?
Baroness Goldie [V]
I thank the noble Viscount for his pertinent question. We have committed to enshrining the military covenant in law. That issue is currently being investigated and we hope to be able to confirm further details in due course.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, I note noble Lords’ criticism but generally I support the Bill. While no one is above the law, there have clearly been attempts at vexatious prosecutions and false claims against members of our Armed Forces many years after the alleged incident. In the case of innocent members of our Armed Forces and their families, this has been deeply distressing and unjust. It is time that our Armed Forces are protected from the greed of some opportunistic lawyers and their clients. I therefore think that, on the whole, this Bill achieves the right balance.
Baroness Goldie [V]
I thank the noble Lord for his observations. I am afraid that the sound quality was very distorted so I did not detect a question, but I will look at Hansard and if I need to return to the noble Lord on another matter, I will do so.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, we should all celebrate the fact that, in Johnny Mercer, there is a Minister who supports and champions our veterans. He led from the front in acknowledging last week in the other place that he would be
“absolutely happy to amend the legislation … to get it right”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/20; col. 1674.]
The Bill will ensure that veterans who have served our country so bravely are freed from the reprehensible actions of certain human rights lawyers who have abused the system and made the lives of some of our veterans and their families an utter misery. Does my noble friend agree that the thrust of the Bill should not, and must not, be changed?
Baroness Goldie [V]
I thank my noble friend for his helpful comments and his tribute to my honourable friend, Mr Johnny Mercer, who is a noted proponent of the interests of veterans and a passionate supporter of this Bill. My noble friend gets to the kernel of the issue. I fully anticipate debate about a number of aspects of the Bill—that is healthy and the Government will of course look carefully at what your Lordships have to say when the Bill comes to your Lordships’ House—but I can confirm for my noble friend that, for the sake of our veterans and armed services personnel, it is important that the underlying principle and under- pinning thrust of the Bill be preserved.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
Can the Minister reassure the House that the Bill will not deny essential rights to victims and potential claimants?
Baroness Goldie [V]
I am happy to give that reassurance to my noble friend. As I explained earlier, the Bill is neither a statute of limitations nor an amnesty but an attempt to strike a fair balance that recognises the legitimate rights of victims and potential claimants. However, it weighs those against the undoubted obligations and pressures which confront service personnel when, in the name of this country, we deploy them overseas to carry out operations and they find themselves in an unusual and very challenging environment. That is why the Bill has tried to strike that balance appropriately.
Business and Planning Bill
Monday 20th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 View all Business and Planning Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-R-I(Corrected-II) Marshalled list for Report - (15 Jul 2020)
18:36 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 40 - Ayes: 135 / Noes: 267 - Amendment 40 disagreed.
21:04 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 53 - Ayes: 128 / Noes: 244 - Amendment 53 disagreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
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 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 should 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 amendments in, 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.
Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup 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.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will say a few words before we start. It is imperative that we complete this important emergency Bill today so that it can achieve Royal Assent on Wednesday. A large number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak, so I ask noble Lords to be conscious of that and, when participating, to keep their contributions brief and to the point. Of course, if a point has already been made, there is no need to make it again. I really do hope that all Members will listen to this and try to be co-operative so that we can get this important Bill passed tonight. Thank you.
Clause 1: Pavement licences
Amendment 1
Lord Holmes of Richmond
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. In doing so, I thank the Minister and officials from the department for their positive and extensive engagement before and after Committee on these amendments and others. In deference to and out of respect for the Chief Whip, I will try to set the pace for the length of speeches going forward. I thank the Minister and officials for listening to and hearing many of the arguments that I and other noble Lords made, which are reflected in the government amendments on national conditions and the significant changes to the draft guidance that have been made.
This is in no sense a work of perfection but it is a huge step forward from where we were before Committee stage. I do not intend to speak to any of my amendments in this group. Safe to say, while there is still work to do on the guidance, which I am happy to participate in, the amendments that the Government have brought forward and the spirit in which they have done so have been more than helpful. Without in any sense wishing to curtail debate or seeking to guide the Government, I wonder whether, at some stage in the debate on this first group, it would be worth the Minister speaking in broad terms about the changes that have been made. This may also help there to be swifter debate on a number of the amendments that I and other noble Lords have brought forward. I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I will speak to Amendment 4, which is in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Monks. It is an extremely modest amendment. It simply ensures that employees, trade unions and businesses are consulted and involved before a local authority determines a pavement licence application under Clause 3.
The coronavirus crisis has obliged the Government to set aside years of doubt about the value of consulting either the CBI, which they are sure is a hotbed of remoaners, or the TUC, which they viewed as the awkward squad. Since March, Ministers have consulted both sides of industry about how to keep firms afloat, how to keep workers and customers safe and how to stop supply chains seizing up.
Consultation has now moved on to lifting the lockdown safely and encouraging a confident and safe return to work. Those consultations have proved productive and surprisingly valuable. They have brought to the fore our shared interest in promoting the common good. Robust discussions have generated mutual respect. The Prime Minister’s “New Deal for Britain” speech even borrowed the phrase “build back better” from a TUC policy paper. We all seek inspiration wherever we can find it.
Business leaders accept that the trade union response has shattered the myth that the TUC spells trouble and some of my trade union colleagues have conceded that not all bosses are Neanderthals. Consultation and co-operation have necessarily become the name of the game in this crisis. Last month, the CBI elected a new president, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and appointed a new director-general, Tony Danker, to take office in November. Britain’s three biggest unions—Unite, UNISON and the GMB—are currently electing new general secretaries. A change of guard is a good time for a fresh approach.
Amendment 4 urges the Government to grasp the opportunity to establish a new framework for co-operation at work—one that makes consultation between business and unions the norm and gives workers a voice inside their workplaces and a say in their own futures. Unions have already demonstrated in practical ways their value in helping employers to get through this crisis. I mentioned some of these in Committee, as did my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Unions have helped and have come out the other side better placed to thrive, as have employers.
The Communication Workers Union, for which I used to work, has agreed with the Royal Mail Group a four-step process to help employees who have been categorised as extremely clinically vulnerable or as a carer of someone in that category to return to duty. In May, the Food and Drink Federation, the GMB, Unite, USDAW and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union highlighted how partnership between food and drink manufacturers, trade unions and employers has enhanced both the safety of workers and the effective running of workplaces. Ian Wright, chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation, said:
“Partnership between employers and unions has been crucial to continuing production over the last eight weeks.”
Britain’s biggest union, UNISON, has given fresh guidance to its workplace health and safety representatives on how to carry out inspections and investigate potential new hazards, such as Covid-19. It is also talking to employers to ensure that employees with underlying health conditions can work from home or, if that is not possible, are redeployed to roles where they are less at risk. Unite persuaded Rowan Foods to backdate sick pay to 1 June 2020 after a Covid-19 outbreak among the company’s workforce for any employees who tested positive and were isolating. It also negotiated an agreement with the 2 Sisters Food Group that all of the staff employed at its Llangefni site would be paid in full for the two-week isolation period imposed following the Covid-19 outbreak.
The GMB, Royal College of Nursing, UNISON and Four Seasons Health Care have agreed full sick pay for 15,000 care workers for any coronavirus-related absence. The long-standing partnership agreement between Tesco and USDAW is the biggest such deal in the private sector, covering some 160,000 staff. Tesco has agreed with USDAW that employees will receive contractual pay if they are following government guidelines to stay off work.
In a previous debate, the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that a ministerially led strategy on consultation was unnecessary, yet the Prime Minister wants us to draw inspiration from President Roosevelt’s New Deal, a federal government-led strategy that promised what Roosevelt called relief, recovery and reform. Roosevelt delivered a much more ambitious programme of employee consultation and investment in jobs than the Prime Minister has in mind; sadly, this Bill reflects a lack of ambition in that respect.
I wish to press the noble Earl to explain what exactly is wrong with this amendment and what is wrong with all the trade union agreements I have cited, which make everyone—workers, managers and the public—safer in the coronavirus crisis. Why do the Government not accept that employee consultation on navigating our way through this complex and dangerous pandemic should be the norm, to be officially and statutorily promoted?
This is an extremely modest, reasonable, common-sense amendment. It does not prescribe or constrict employers in any precise method of consultation. It simply states that they should implement it in a way that they feel is appropriate. I cannot for the life of me understand why the noble Earl, who is usually very responsive to constructive points, has not contacted me or my noble friends to indicate in advance his acceptance or, alternatively, to explain that he has tabled a government amendment to achieve exactly the same result in a different way.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. Forgive me if I do not wax as lyrical as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, about the behaviour of the trade unions—especially the teachers’ unions, which have behaved atrociously. My remarks will also be considerably shorter.
First, wearing my hat as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I give a warm welcome to Amendments 16 and 87, giving effect to our recommendations that the guidance be converted into SIs. I mention them now so I will not speak on them when they are reached.
While I support what my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond said and while I think that my Amendment 10, setting out a simple minimum requirement of 1,500 millimetres on the face of the Bill, is better than what the government amendment says, nevertheless, the Government have moved considerably on this measure and I am content to accept that, one way or another, there will be sufficient consideration given to the needs of disabled people when setting out tables and chairs on the pavement. My noble friend the Deputy Leader has written to us, saying that
“guidance will make clear that in most circumstances, 1,500 millimetres clear space should be regarded as the minimum acceptable distance between the obstacle and the edge of the footway.”
The word of my noble friend the Deputy Leader is good enough for me. I have looked at the wording that he circulated in paragraph 4.1 of the guidance, which says the same thing. Accordingly, I will not move my amendment.
I also suggest that if the usual channels have an urgent discussion on this, the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Holmes for the Minister to speak early and set out the changes the Government propose would be helpful. Often, when a Minister speaks early, it antagonises the House, but this may be one of those occasions when it helps the House.
Finally, let me say that if, when I am out and about, I find that the gap is not wide enough between the tables, I shall simply bulldoze through them in my armour- plated wheelchair.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Blencathra would indeed go through in the way he suggests. I will be very brief. I am concerned entirely with the issue of pavement licences, and I raised these matters in Committee a week ago. When new constraints are imposed or new freedoms given—even if for only a very brief period, relatively speaking—it is important that we should know precisely where we stand. That is why I have said, in my Amendment 17, that the Secretary of State should have no discretion on whether he prescribes conditions: he must prescribe conditions. I have gone on to say, in my Amendment 18, that he must have regard for those who will be inconvenienced by these new freedoms and conditions, specifically people who are disabled physically or who are blind or partially sighted.
I am afraid I have not received the letter to which my noble friend Lord Blencathra alluded in his speech, and I therefore look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say. I agree with both my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that this is one occasion—there are few, but this is one—where it might be helpful to have an earlier ministerial intervention than normal.
I want to feel assured at the end of this debate that people who are physically disabled, blind or partially sighted are not going to be inconvenienced by the new freedom that has been granted to people to spill over on to the pavement. In earlier debates, we heard how very dangerous that can sometimes be. We must always have uppermost in our minds the proper protection of those who are not always able to protect themselves and who, perhaps unlike my noble friend Lord Blencathra, do not drive mini tanks fearlessly along the road or on pavements.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
I will speak to Amendment 4 and endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Hain said in his powerful speech in support of it. As he pointed out, the striking thing about this amendment is its modesty. All it requires is consultation of relevant trade unions and businesses over the granting of pavement licences. As was pointed out in Committee, for 70 years and three weeks since it ratified ILO Convention 98 on 30 June 1950, the United Kingdom has voluntarily assumed the obligation to encourage and promote collective bargaining. The United Kingdom fortified its commitment to collective bargaining when it ratified a similar obligation in Article 6 of the European Social Charter in 1972.
The need for collective bargaining, particularly at sectoral level, was brought home when we learned of the appalling conditions and pitiful rates of pay—often less than half the national minimum wage—in the sweatshops of the Leicester garment industry. We saw that need again in the agricultural sector, when an outbreak of Covid-19 among workers at a vegetable farm revealed the appalling living and working conditions among the workers there. We know that, in agriculture, conditions and pay are so bad that it was found necessary to fly pickers in from Romania earlier this season, since British workers, even faced with unemployment and the terrors of universal credit, were not prepared to put up with them.
The answer in these and other sectors was explained long ago in the other place by Sir Winston Churchill, who in 1909 introduced legislation to make sectoral collective bargaining mandatory. I will read three sentences from his speech that day:
“It is a serious national evil that any class of His Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions.”
He continued:
“where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst”.
He concluded by saying:
“where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/1909; col. 388.]
Hence, the Trade Boards Act 1909 was introduced and passed.
My noble friend Lord Hain referred to Roosevelt and the New Deal. Part of that was the National Industrial Recovery Act 1933, which introduced sectoral collective bargaining widely in the United States. It is in these circumstances that I stress the modesty of the amendment my noble friend proposes today. There can be no sensible reason not to adopt it, and I commend it to the Minister.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in supporting the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. This is not only a very sensible and modest amendment; it will provide a new framework for co-operation between businesses and employees, as the noble Lord said. Why not allow employees to have a say over the implementation of pavement licences, as they will be directly impacted upon and charged with the responsibility of ensuring that—shall we say—the letter and spirit of the law is adhered to?
Employees have discharged many responsibilities during the whole Covid pandemic. However, there is absolutely no doubt—and there is evidence-based research to prove—that when employees, employers and businesses co-operate, it boosts performance, production and profitability, lifts living standards and enhances job prospects. We can look to Germany and the role of work councils, which we talked about last week when considering a similar amendment in Committee.
I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Hendy and Lord Monks. I commend it to your Lordships’ House and ask the Minister to give dutiful consideration to accepting it.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, now that we have reached Report stage, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I shall be brief. My name is attached to Amendment 20, which is part of a group concerned with safety and accessibility for all who use the pavement. At previous stages of the Bill, I have emphasised the need to set clear and enforceable rules on the use of pavements—and I prefer conditions to guidance.
The Government’s changes may well be a step forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, has explained, but improvements could still be made. Amendment 20 would help to achieve these, and I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government’s approach will deliver the degree of certainty we are looking for to enable our pavements to be accessible for all.
Lord Monks (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 4. As my noble friend Lord Hain said, the Bill misses an opportunity to engage trade unions fully in the measures it proposes, specifically on the issue of pavement licences. In his excellent new biography of Ernest Bevin, which I commend to the House, my noble friend Lord Adonis quotes from a letter from Bevin to the boss of ICI during the Second World War. In it, he proposes a round table for every workplace and says:
“Present methods tend to emphasise the apparent conflicting interests, whereas, if we could get round the table and get that idea suggested, we should get more emphasis on community of interest engaged together on a common task.”
Ironically, this message was better received in west Germany than it was by employers in the UK and other places. Germany’s impressive results are well known to Members of this House.
This amendment covers one small area, but it also looks to pave the way to a round-table approach from now on in the much-changed environment in many workplaces. Working from home, social distancing, protective clothing, and new hygiene standards are now features of work for many. For them to be successful, they need consent, support and active encouragement from all concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to the teachers’ unions. Our message about round tables and partnership is aimed at everybody, including employers, trade unions and other organisations, including local authorities. What has been happening in Leicester? The workshops there show a serious failure in that city—although not just there—to engage workers properly on health and safety and, no doubt, other matters too.
The Chancellor said recently that the Government would look after employers who looked after their workers, but we need more than paternalism. We need a sense that we are all in this together and breeding an idea of partnership. As my noble friends have said, that sense of common endeavour was a key feature of Roosevelt’s New Deal, which the Prime Minister has been extolling. Roosevelt promoted trade union collective bargaining as part of his job creation programmes and the PM’s admiration for the New Deal should not blind him to the fact that it is not an a la carte menu from which you can pick different bits. It is a package, of which trade unions are an essential ingredient. What was good enough for the USA, and is good enough for Germany today, is surely good for the UK. I hope that the Government will recognise the strength of this case, do the right thing, and support Amendment 4.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, concerning the minimum width left on pavements for pedestrians to pass safely. I welcome the Government’s announcement in Committee that they would be bringing forward amendments to place the conditions of pavement licensing on a statutory footing. I also welcome the acknowledgment in the Bill of the needs of people with disabilities to be able to access streets safely. However, I remain deeply concerned at the speed with which these measures are being rushed through. As the Government were not prepared to extend the consultation period for applications, it is essential that there is a clear requirement regarding the minimum space that businesses need to leave on the pavement for pedestrians to pass safely.
At Second Reading, I outlined the difficulties that people who are blind or partially sighted face as a result of social distancing, as well as many of the new challenges due to altered road layouts and one-way systems, not to mention the rapid rollout of e-scooters on to our streets. As it stands, the Bill risks a significant and barely controlled expansion in the level of obstruction on our pavements, which is especially hazardous for people with a sight impairment or limited mobility.
While putting conditions for licensing into statute is welcome, this will be useful only if the guidance that these conditions refer to is relevant and up to date. It is also vital that the requirement to meet these conditions is clearly communicated to licensing authorities. At present, the Bill’s draft guidance refers to the Department for Transport’s document Inclusive Mobility, which is one of the main sources of information on accessible design for planning authorities in England. In Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Adonis, noted the inconsistencies in the minimum distances set out in that document and the confusion that this will cause. Inclusive Mobility only has limited references to street café furniture. As the last version is from 2005, the references to equality legislation are largely out of date. Most obviously, this guidance was drawn up well before social distancing was a consideration. As well as needing to take into account the minimum physical distance that is required for a wheelchair, mobility scooter or guide dog to pass, further space is surely now required in order that pedestrians can pass in congested areas at an appropriate distance.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. It is important that we make sure that the additional street furniture—the tables and chairs—do not restrict access or movement for individuals, especially disabled people. We must guard against creating potentially dangerous situations where people need to walk in roads, navigate around tables and chairs, or break social distancing rules to get past people on the street because of pavement licences. We need to get this balance right. Applications should not be granted if pedestrians are forced to cross a pavement in a dangerous manner, or if there is insufficient space between tables and chairs to enable disabled people to use the new space comfortably and safely or to pass through it without risk of incident. If properly managed and located, so that the needs of all pedestrians and customers are considered, pavement licences can make outdoor places vibrant and socially distanced safe places to be in the summer.
If the Minister does not accept these proposals and relies instead on the amendment in the name of his noble friend Lord Howe, it is important that he sets out, for the record, a clear framework to give clarity to those who need to enact this legislation on the direction they need to go in, and the guidance they need to follow to get this balance right. Finally, will the Minister assure the House that the relevant stakeholders have been consulted on the Government’s amendment on this issue?
The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]
My Lords, at this stage, I would like to suggest something which the Government might include in the guidance. I do not fully support Amendment 1, as is not about access but about erecting barriers, which is often unnecessary and counterproductive. It should be perfectly possible, as in other European cities, to do something as simple as mark the corners of the café’s territory with an object, such as a wooden tub of flowers, so that that territory is fixed in what I termed in Committee an open but rigid structure. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, correctly used the term “segregation” if barriers were installed, although I disagree with his inference. The problem with barriers is that those who have them imposed on them push back against them. They start to move, whereas fixed markers do not.
I appreciate that the reason for extending the café on to the street is to increase business at this time, but it should be done in a way that enhances the community. It is wrong that we insist, even before the local geography is assessed, that the café be cut off and isolated physically from everything else. The Government’s draft guidance only says that the use of barriers should be “considered” by local authorities. However, I notice that markers of the kind that I referred to are not listed in that guidance as a possible strategy. Will the Government consider this? I am not talking about permanent fixtures, just something solid enough to help determine the territory designated but able to be carried off the pavement at night and replaced in precisely the same position the following day.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl. I declare an interest in having had the honour, I think in 2016, of chairing the ad hoc Select Committee on the review of the Licensing Act 2003. When my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh sums up this little debate, could he put our minds at rest that the measures in the government amendments in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe, will negate the need for the other amendments tabled? I think that will carry the House with him. Does he share my concern that the wide-ranging consultation proposed in Amendment 4, while well-meaning—normally I would be in favour of as wide a consultation as possible on any long-lasting modifications —would in this case negate the whole point of speedy measures, which are, of necessity, of a temporary nature?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal)
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, has withdrawn from this group. I call the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady McIntosh. Appropriate regulation to ensure proper provision for the blind, the partially sighted and the disabled in the allocation of pavement licences is absolutely right. In a civilised society, such measures should be a given. I therefore welcome the moves proposed by the Government in the amendments which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is bringing forward.
It is important that we encourage economic activity. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, that must be done speedily if it is to make sense in this context. We should bear that in mind. The provisions brought forward by the Government in this group on access and protecting individuals are appropriate and to be welcomed. We should embrace the wider Bill, which seeks to promote the necessary economic activity I referred to. I will not delay the House further, as there is a long list of Peers who wish to speak. I give this part of the Bill my total support.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I stand here as a rather inadequate substitute for my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester to support the thrust of the amendments spoken to very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and a triumvirate of government Back-Benchers. This took me back a few years to when we had to cover access on virtually everything, as every single Bill required it. One wonders why when we have the Equality Act, but apparently we need to put something into this piece of legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has said that he is satisfied with the Government’s amendments, so I feel that we probably should be too. However, there is one other issue—enforcement. Who will undertake enforcement? Access officers have been cut. Who will make sure that the arrangements embodied here are enforced? Clearness of guidance is vital, and, as we hear from the Government all the time, this is emergency legislation. If we have to wait to book someone to come in and have a look, that will take time. Will the police have some enaction? Will someone else do something? How clear will that guidance be?
It is not just those who are disabled or in wheelchairs who will benefit from this, but the entire flow of pedestrian traffic. Anyone pushing a buggy with a child in it or luggage on wheels will be positively affected by these changes. How will we make sure that they are enforced? The Government must answer this question; if they do not, this will become an empty series of words with no action to back it up.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 9 and 10, although many in this group which make a lot of sense. I welcome the Government’s Amendment 16 and will possibly welcome what follows on from it even more. I hope so. I cannot better what those who tabled them have said about needing more space on pavements, other than to add that I can think of many more reasons to have one and a half metres of space as well as disability needs.
I welcome Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which probes how much scope local authorities will be able to have in what they put on under the conditions. Could the Minister make it clear whether local authorities can stipulate a set of standard requirements in advance that will always apply to every licence? Examples could include space, no smoking or types of barriers, but I am sure that there would be other things for particular circumstances. To have a list in advance that you knew would apply to your licence would be helpful both to those seeking licences and to those who may have concerns. Such sets of requirements are far more easily consulted on. Is it reasonable to expect the public to respond to a continuous flow of licence applications? Will fatigue not set in? Ultimately, responses that should perhaps have been made will not go in.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I always take great pleasure in following the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I note that we debated many of these issues very well in Committee. Things have come on a great deal, and my noble friend the Deputy Leader has tabled a number of well-judged amendments and concessions in this and later groups.
I wish to reiterate the importance of balance. This legislation is intended to help businesses, particularly in the hard-pressed hospitality sector, so that they can get back to work, lure back customers and support broader economic recovery. We are concerned with temporary measures and must not confuse matters by adopting regulatory amendments, some of which we might feel would be well justified if we were talking about permanent laws. To my mind, we have already gone quite far enough and the detailed draft guidance—I think its extent will make many small businesses blanch—makes it quite clear that where a pavement licence is granted, clear access routes on the highway will need to be maintained, taking into account the needs of all users, including disabled people, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra made clear earlier. The guidance also requires applicants to fix a notice to the premises when they make their application.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a good point about enforcement. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister on that.
We have to get the economy, our construction industry and our high streets going again if we are not to live through a number of frigid economic winters. In particular, our hospitality sector has been decimated and needs all the help it can get. We must stop debating this Bill with its temporary provisions and get it on to the statute book.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. I am quite torn on these amendments, as I appreciate that the Government have moved and accommodated some of the problems, but I also see their compromise as insufficient to address the issues raised so well by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.
The Government’s amendments tend to kick the issues into the long grass, leaving your Lordships to hope that Ministers will made the right decisions at the right time. That might mean bringing in the necessary provisions later through secondary legislation, which none of us likes very much. Instead of the Bill providing certainty that blind people and those with disabilities will be protected from unnecessary obstacles, the government amendments actually create uncertainty.
That uncertainty also exists for the many businesses that will be applying for pavement licences, which will have questions about all sorts of random conditions that might later be applied by central Government to their licence. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Earl the Minister can explain their plans and set out a clear timetable for bringing in secondary legislation for these amendments. Most importantly, I would ask him to give a clear assurance that blind and disabled people will be safe and will not be put into harm’s way by the Bill. I hope that he will do everything in his power to ensure that this remains the case.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. No comment has yet been made in this discussion about Amendment 21, but I welcome the clarification that licensing is not part of the executive function of a local authority. It should be done by an independent panel within the authority.
I want also to support Amendment 4, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain, and again pose the question again: why is this not acceptable? What this amendment and a number of others in this group are all about is effective consultation, in the instance of Amendment 4 with trade unions and the employees who are affected. It is always better when such consultation happens. It can happen at a reasonably fast pace, but at the least the exercise should be undertaken.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has argued forcefully on a number of occasions for a 1.5 metre margin around pavement activities. He is quite right to do so and I trust that that will be made explicit in the government guidance. As I have wandered around my local area over the past few weeks, I have seen able the burgeoning of pavement tables and pavement activity. I welcome that because I like the idea of a much more café culture society. However, as people drink during the course of the evening, there tends to be pavement creep, and the space gets narrower. That is why the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and echoed just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about the importance of enforcement are so critical. Can we be assured that local authorities will have the enforcement and regulatory officers to ensure that there is no pavement creep of the kind I have just talked about, and that the police will be there in sufficient numbers to provide back-up if required?
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister and his fellow Ministers for the careful way in which they have looked at the points that have been made and for the concessions that they have given. Indeed, if you asked the question, “What is the role of the House of Lords?” this Bill provides a good example of it, because while it went through the Commons in a matter of an hour or so, we have given it detailed consideration and, importantly, the Ministers responsible have looked industry detail and with sympathy at the points that have been made. So I make those points first.
I want to make a couple of points, in particular about Amendment 4. Some noble Lords will remember that I was David Cameron’s envoy to the trade union movement. I know a bit about it because I have been a member since the age of 16. Now the first thing about Amendment 4 is that, of course, there are very few trade unionists in the catering industry. The second point I should like to make about it is that this is Labour virtue signalling. There are plenty of trade unionists who support the Conservative Party. Indeed, in the union of which I am president, BALPA, the majority voted Conservative at the last election. Many trade unionists vote for the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and, in particular, for the Green Party—so what we have here is very much a bit of Labour special pleading.
On that, I am always pleased to hear Churchill being quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Monks, that I believe he was working for the TUC when it turned down the proposals of the Bullock committee to consult unions and have them on the board. So let us have a bit of remembrance. And let us also remember that Labour has decided not to support any Divisions on this Bill. So it is worth remembering when it starts asking, “Can this be done or can it not be done?” that it will not be supporting anything to the point of a Division.
I make all of those points because I would ask the Minister to acknowledge in his summing-up that co-operation is needed from all groups in society, including responsible trade unionists. I am sure that they will be happy to co-operate, whether they are trade unionists or just workers in the catering industry. I look on this amendment as a partisan one that does not add to the Bill; it is so that a group of people can go and wave at the TUC.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is set to follow me. I will just tell him that on one occasion when David Cameron met a leading member of the TUC General Council, he asked, “Apart from the national minimum wage, which we are not going to abolish, which piece of pro-union legislation that the Blair Government passed are you worried that we might repeal?” The answer was total silence. So let us not have too many lectures about what Labour is going to do for trade unions until some future date when it may even have done something.
The Deputy Speaker
I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, because he has withdrawn from this group. So I now call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have taken part in every stage of this Bill and I believe that we must never forget that its basic principle is to get the economy going and in particular to help the hospitality industry. I do not know how it was for anyone else, but over this last weekend less than half the pubs in Bedfordshire were open to cater for people who wanted to go out on Friday or Saturday evening. Why were they not open? Either they did not have the space or they had not managed to get organised, et cetera. Against that, I pay tribute to what my noble friend Lord Blencathra, and the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Low, have done to ensure that the Government of the day have taken note of the challenges for disabled people. They have worked tirelessly on this and I say a great personal thank you to them. It is good that my noble friend on the Front Bench has listened and that we now have Amendment 16 before us.
The only other point I want to make is about guidance notes. I have been the chairman and the leader of a local authority and there is nothing worse than guidance notes that are out of date. They do not need to be 300 pages long; they need to be probably 20 clear and short statements of what is necessary in an emergency situation.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others for continuing to raise the issue of access for disabled people, and I too will not rehearse my arguments again. I welcome the Government’s amendment and I have two questions for the noble Earl the Minister. How will this provision be monitored to ensure that reasonable access is not something that is provided from day one, which is what usually happens when the intention is good, but swiftly erodes as we move further out of lockdown, potentially leaving disabled people with a much poorer level of access than they currently have? My second question is: how will disabled people be able to make a complaint and be listened to if their access has been diminished?
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, at the outset I reiterate what I said at Second Reading and in Committee. I welcome the Bill, which will trigger a revitalisation of our businesses and help people’s well-being. We would like the economy to pick up and create employment for people who have been idle for the last few months. We need to take steps to enable restaurants, pubs and cafés to expand their businesses and provide additional facilities to attract customers. Our hospitality sector has taken a massive hit and we need to assist the sector to get back on its feet. We should therefore give consideration to how we can do this. One way is to allow customers to be served outside the premises and on the pavement.
I support these arrangements but we need to look at certain issues that may cause problems to pedestrians. I am concerned about accessibility and the passage of blind, partially sighted and disabled pedestrians. They must be able to get through the customers outside a premises without being obstructed in any way. Blind and partially sighted people already feel less independent during the lockdown. If we do not have proper controls and make appropriate provisions, they will encounter difficulties. If adequate arrangements are not made, these persons may go on the road, take someone else to go with them or not go out at all.
Some disabled persons are in wheelchairs that need to be carefully manoeuvred. If people are congregating on the pavement without adequate controls, manoeuvring will be difficult and cause distress to the disabled persons. Furthermore, there is the possibility of an accident arising because of a lack of proper spacing for wheelchairs to get through, which may cause injury to a customer or the disabled person.
As far as pedestrians are concerned, in Committee I expressed concern about Muslim ladies who may be harassed or picked on if they are walking through a crowded area. Since my speech in Committee, I have been approached by other Muslims expressing support for what I said. It is therefore important to bear in mind issues concerning Muslim ladies. I have been told that since the lockdown has been eased, there has been a spike in Muslim women being insulted and abused.
In addition, there needs to accessibility for all persons, with a distance of at least one metre for everyone’s benefit and as a safeguard against the spreading of the virus. I therefore support Amendments 1, 2, 5 and 6. I also render support to Amendment 7, which will
“establish a right to appeal the approval of an application”
within the time stated in the amendment.
Furthermore, I support Amendment 12 regarding the need for a local authority to investigate a complaint where there are issues of accessibility relating to people with disabilities or other pedestrians. I feel that Amendments 7 and 12 are necessary to ensure that relevant persons with genuine issues are listened to where there are difficulties regarding passage or accessibility.
Finally, I support Amendment 16 as I feel the Secretary of State must
“specify conditions for pavement licences”.
I am sure that in doing so, the Secretary of State will be minded to ensure adequate access and passage of all pedestrians without hindrance.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I associate myself with so much that been said in this discussion about the rights and accessibility of disabled people in particular; the importance of employer-employee co-operation in the fight against the virus; the need to return to economic activity; and enforcement. That is perhaps why the swipes at the trade unions were particularly gratuitous and jarring.
The deadly pandemic we are still in the grip of seems to discriminate quite brutally and savagely, so it is particularly important that we do not discriminate in our response to it. If anything, we should work harder—perhaps even more radically—to redress the balance in the discrimination provided by the virus.
The economy exists for the benefit of people, not the other way around, so there ought not to be any real tension between the aspiration of protecting people—all people, the vulnerable in particular—and wanting to bring the economy back and to restore some normalcy in our lives.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as set out in the register as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
We on these Benches support the Bill’s intentions to provide some additional business opportunities for construction companies and pubs, bars and cafés, which are often smaller, independent businesses on our high streets and have had their trade curtailed by the coronavirus restrictions.
This group of amendments in general provide for cafés and pubs to apply to extend their sales on to the pavement in front of their premises for a temporary period. In Committee we had an extensive debate about the consequences for people with disabilities, in particular those with a sight impairment. I thank the Ministers—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh—for the meetings following Committee to discuss these issues of concern.
My noble friend Lord Shipley has succinctly described the purpose of our Amendment 20, to which I also have my name. Our intention is simply to ensure that in the granting of licences, pavements do not become a hazard for pedestrians. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has raised similar concerns and tabled a number of amendments to seek clarification and prevent pavements becoming inaccessible. In particular, we have been concerned about tables and chairs on the pavement gradually spilling over into the area set aside for pedestrians. This is the reason for the suggestions we have made about the requirement for a simple barrier to mark off the area of the pavement licence. I hope that most businesses will make this simple provision.
On another issue, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has made an important point in his Amendments 23 and 24: the principle of inclusive design should be the starting point when changes to the built environment are made. I hope the Government take note.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to aid a partnership approach between employers and employees and their trade union representatives states a principle we can easily support. It is good that the Government have listened to these concerns and have tabled several amendments seeking to ensure that pavements are kept clear for pedestrians. Although these amendments do not go as far as we and others have argued, they go a long way to satisfy those of us worried about the potential consequences.
If the Government’s Amendment 16 passes, there will be provision for the Secretary of State to make conditions on pavement licences by regulation. I thank the Government for sending an update of the guidance, which shows their willingness to safeguard the interests of pedestrians. We accept that the Government have moved a considerable distance in resolving these issues and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. It is right that the House is again afforded the opportunity to consider the implication of pavement licences. The various amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, highlight the need for inclusive design. I agree with him and am pleased that the Government have also tabled amendments on this theme. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raise similar concerns, and I am glad that the House has debated them today.
I hope that, in addition to the Government’s amendments, the Minister offers further non-statutory assurances to make certain that accessibility issues are resolved. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley noted, applications should not be granted if people are forced to cross a road; they should be able to pass by without incident. Pavement licences, when granted, can result in vibrant social spaces, but relevant stakeholder consultation is essential, as is the role of local authorities in ensuring compliance—as raised by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I agree with him that resources will need to be made available to local authorities for the extra work that this will entail.
My noble friend Lord Hain returned to the issue of trade union engagement, and he has the support of these Benches in so doing. As he said, consultation and co-operation have become the name of the game. I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti in that respect. It should be the norm and statutorily implemented.
The House is aware from previous stages of the Bill that amendments in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, have been raised about the concerns of trade union members. This amendment would ensure that local authorities consult employees and their unions when determining pavement seating applications. In recent weeks, I have spoken to members of Wetherspoon staff represented by the BFAWU, and it is clear that they are often left in the dark on decisions that have enormous ramifications for their working conditions. I hope the Minister will assure the House that he has at least engaged with trade unions in drafting the legislation and that he continues to during its implementation.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, the pavement licensing clauses in the Bill will provide vital temporary flexibility to aid the recovery of the 158,000 hospitality businesses that employ almost 2 million people over the summer months. That is the importance of this legislation, as raised by my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Sheikh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Noble Lords have voiced concerns over accessibility, which the Government agree is paramount. While the Government have sought to address accessibility from the outset, through robust conditions such as the no-obstruction condition, guidance and enforcement procedures, we have reflected on the strong feeling in this House and recognise that more needs to be done.
In response—and what has been described by “a huge step forward” by my noble friend Lord Holmes—the Government have tabled Amendments 6, 16, 21 and 87, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe. First, the Government have tabled Amendment 6 to Clause 3, which would insert a new subsection after subsection (6). New subsection (6A) provides that, when local authorities are determining whether furniture put on the highway would be, or already is, an unacceptable obstruction, they must have specific regard to the needs of disabled people and to any recommended distances required for access by disabled people, as set out in guidance issued by the Secretary of State. This puts in the Bill a requirement that a local authority, when deciding whether to grant an application and to exercise its enforcement powers, must have in mind the needs of disabled people and for clear access, as set out in the Government’s guidance.
Secondly, as well as the amendment to the Bill, I appreciate that there has been some confusion over the application of inclusive mobility guidance, so we are going to sharpen the focus. Inclusive mobility draws on a wide range of stakeholder inputs and remains the key piece of design guidance for the pedestrian environment. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Low, work led by DfT is under way that will update inclusive mobility next year. However, we recognise that businesses applying for licences may need clearer direction.
That is why our guidance will make clear that, in most circumstances, 1,500 millimetres or 1.5 metres of clear space should be regarded as the minimum acceptable distance between the obstacle and the edge of the footway. We will also address other concerns raised—specifically, provision of clear barriers to demarcate seating, explicit reference to duties on local authorities under the Equality Act and style of furniture. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that is the framework within which we are asking local authorities to operate.
We have also set out, in the House, the circumstances when local authorities can use their power to revoke, including where there is a breach of condition or there are risks to health and public safety, as well as highways obstruction. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, there are robust enforcement procedures and local authorities can revoke licences when they give rise to these risks. They will need to have regard to the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act, when devising and implementing the new licensing regime, to eliminate discrimination and harassment. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, disabled people can complain to the local authority, so authorities can act and revoke the licence for breach of a condition, which would be taken immediately. The idea of using markers, as raised by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, will also be considered in the guidance. That was a good point.
In drafting the guidance, we have consulted key stakeholders, including the RNIB and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, as well as the Local Government Association. These are the relevant stakeholders requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. Since these measures will come into effect immediately on Royal Assent, it is important that we publish final guidance now, so that local authorities and businesses have regard to these vital considerations of accessibility without delay, as soon as these measures are implemented. However, we have made clear that any new national conditions will be subject to the negative procedure, as I will turn to shortly.
Finally, as a third step, we will be communicating the publication of the guidance to local authorities to make sure that they have sight of it as soon as possible. In so doing, we will point to existing examples of best practice on accessibility, as suggested by the RNIB.
With these steps, the Bill now makes clear that authorities must take the needs of disabled people and recommended distances into account, while guidance will set out further detail on what this entails. This provides very clear direction to local authorities and leaves scope for them to respond to their own local circumstances, while complying with their existing duties under equalities legislation. That delivers the certainty referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, with a degree of local discretion. I have to say, I note that my noble friend Lord Blencathra reserves the right to bulldoze through any obstruction in his armoured wheelchair.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friends Lord Blencathra, Lord Holmes and Lord Cormack, the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will accept government Amendment 6, and not press their amendments on this matter.
As I set out at Second Reading, the Government have accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and tabled an amendment to replace the Secretary of State’s power to publish national conditions on pavement licences with a power to specify any national conditions for pavement licences in regulations, subject to the negative resolution procedure. This should provide a robust level of scrutiny of any national conditions. I hope that noble Lords will accept government Amendments 16 and 87.
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. It has been a very clear and effective debate that goes to the heart of the changes that my noble friend the Minister has spoken to this afternoon. As many noble Lords have said, although the Government certainly could have gone further, they have indeed gone a considerable distance from their position when the Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House.
I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his traditional clarity and effectiveness in getting across his point of view. It is reflected in the guidance of 1.5 metres, although as my noble friend and I agree, it would have been more helpful across the piece had this been in the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for her comments, and thank other noble Lords who have spoken on this group.
I am content with the amendments that the Government have laid on the points that I have already spoken to, and with Amendment 21, the technical amendment. I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider whether further amendments can be made to the guidance. There are issues that could be made clearer, particularly around the application process and the appeals process. Wording could be inserted to make it absolutely clear to disabled people and others that they would be able to make appeals, not least under the Equality Act. It would be helpful to have that spelled out in the guidance.
There are also issues around the whole concept of consultation, not least relating to paragraphs 7.5 and 7.6 in the guidance. This debate has demonstrated that there is a bit of a misconception around consultation in a number of ways. I do not believe that consultation needs to be lengthy, but it needs to be effective and authentic. Although it sounds tautological, it needs to be truly consultative. In so many instances across society, it is not, but rather is something masquerading as consultation, and the reality for those involved is very different. I believe that for individuals and local authorities, it would be helpful if, in the guidance, an affirmative function was clearly set out for local authorities to engage swiftly in consultation and to speak to organisations of and for disabled people and others. That could be done incredibly effectively—it may be a matter of a few phone calls. It does not need to be a massive consultation; it needs to be an effective consultation.
My noble friend Lord Naseby was quite correct when he talked about guidance being seen as a leaden weight around the neck of local authorities. Guidance needs to be conceived to be helpful and seen as helpful. To that extent, will my noble friend the Minister also consider putting in some kind of checklist or flowchart, both at the front of the guidance, setting out what it does in a few bullet points, and as an appendix, to take applicants through the procedure and what they need to consider at each stage. That should be done in a clear, effective and understandable manner.
To that extent, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and his officials for the positive way in which they have engaged. This will be an ongoing issue. We will obviously have time to see and assess what happens as the Bill lands. In conclusion, I am absolutely, wholeheartedly behind economic growth and getting the economy up and running effectively again. I do not believe in any sense that anything around accessibility, or inclusion and inclusive design, runs counter to that. In reality, inclusion, inclusive design, accessibility, enablement and empowerment are the bedrock of a fully functioning economy and civil society. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Greenhalgh
“(6A) Where a local authority is considering for any purpose of this group of sections whether furniture put on a relevant highway by a licence-holder pursuant to a pavement licence has or would have the effect referred to in subsection (6)(a), the authority must have regard in particular to—(a) the needs of disabled people, and (b) the recommended distances required for access by disabled people as set out in guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the needs of disabled persons in particular to be taken into account when determining whether furniture put on the highway is an obstruction.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, that brings us to the group beginning with Amendment 11. Members should ensure that they have the correct text of Amendment 11, with the word “not” in proposed new subsection (2C). I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of the amendment and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or any other amendment in the group, to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 11
“(2A) Conditions under subsection (2) may include that smoking is prohibited in either the entire area or part of the area covered by a pavement licence.(2B) A condition to prohibit smoking under subsection (2) may only apply if the local authority has first consulted local businesses and residents prior to the publication of such a condition.(2C) Conditions under subsection (2) may not prohibit the use of electronic cigarettes in the area covered by a pavement licence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow local authorities to prohibit smoking in areas covered by pavement licenses, provided they have first consulted local businesses and residents. This would not prohibit e-cigarettes.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
My Lords, tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. Although fewer than one in five adults in the UK now smoke, the Government must do all in their power to aid this remaining population to quit. We are in a fortunate position, in that in recent months, a million people in Britain have stopped smoking. The Government would do well to consider the recommendations of Action on Smoking and Health for how this can be built on.
The health risks of smoking are, of course, not restricted to smokers. The House will clearly be aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke, including in outdoor areas of pubs, bars and other premises to which the Bill relates. The Bill, as introduced by the Government, was a missed opportunity. In creating new outdoor areas, there should have been provision from the outset for smoke-free areas. On this basis we tabled Amendment 11, which would create a power for local authorities to prohibit smoking in certain areas covered by pavement licences after due consultation.
I am pleased that the Government sought to rectify their omission by tabling Amendment 13 to allow for smoke-free areas. It has the support of these Benches, but the amendment alone is not enough. The Government must take a firmer line on public health and consider how they can reduce the dangers of second-hand smoke more widely. In future legislation, I hope they will focus on doing so from the outset, for if they do not, we will again.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would create a condition that pavement licences can be granted only if smoking is prohibited. While I fully sympathise with her reason for tabling this effort, I am afraid that we cannot support the present draft. As it stands, it might have enormous unintended consequences. It does not clarify that the prohibition of smoking should apply to the area covered by pavement licences, and without the definition of smoking it might unintentionally ban e-cigarettes. I understand that there are also concerns that other errors might lead to judicial review. If not for these errors we could consider the amendment, but in its present iteration I am afraid we cannot.
The noble Baroness is right to press for the Government to consider the implications of second-hand smoke, but when the hospitality industry is already suffering as it is, this attempt at some form of blanket ban, attached in haste to emergency legislation, would have consequences that I am sure are unintended. I hope the noble Baroness will reflect on this, support the efforts to create smoke-free zones and join us in holding the Government to account on their widespread failures to reduce smoking.
Finally, I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government’s amendment will not be their only effort to eliminate the dangers of second-hand smoke during this crisis. The initial drafting of the legislation served as a missed opportunity to tackle smoking. I am afraid that that is somewhat characteristic of their attitude over the past decade. I will press the Government on three specific issues. Will they halt the planned cuts to smoking cessation services across England? Will they properly fund the devolved Governments, including the Labour-led Welsh Government, to support their efforts in stopping people smoking? Will they engage and equip local authorities to play their significant part in what remains an enormous challenge to public health? I beg to move.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 15 in my name and that of my colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. There has been an anti-smoking cross-party coalition in the Lords for almost two decades. That cross-party approach reflects the House at its best. Since Sir Richard Doll’s report all those years ago, we have known that smoking kills, and in an appalling fashion. Nevertheless, as we know, it has been an uphill battle to set in place anti-smoking measures. The noble Earl, Lord Howe—I am glad to see that he is in his place, even if he is not on the Front Bench—has long been part of that coalition. This issue does and should arch over mere party concerns, though that is not always the case. It is extremely disappointing when that manifests, because our opponents are funded and united.
However, I was very glad that when we raised this as the sole amendment on this issue in Committee the Government responded. I was in the Chamber, and I admit that I directed much of what I said to the noble Earl, given his track record on this issue. I hugely commend those of other parties who have had the determination to stand against the pressure on them for the sake of public health.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin with a brief word about Labour’s Amendment 11, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. I am disappointed that the party which—with a bit of prodding when in government—introduced the ban on smoking in pubs has in opposition retreated from that bold approach to public health issues, and cannot support Amendment 15. This disappointment is shared by many of Labour’s noble Members. Its own amendment has been trumped by the Government’s amendment, which goes further, and which I will turn to in a moment, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that more action is needed to combat smoking.
The Government have adopted the “hard cop, soft cop” approach on this issue. Last week, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh was cast as the hard cop and was obliged to read out an uncompromising speech asserting that our amendment would lead to pub closures and job losses. Why pubs that have survived all the problems that have confronted industries so far should decide to close when given the opportunity to extend their non-smoking premises to include the pavements outside was never explained. He also said that imposing a condition to prohibit outdoor smoking would not be proportionate. Yet outdoor smoking is already banned in open-air stadiums and at open-air railway stations, because they are places where people congregate and therefore there is the health risk and the annoyance of passive smoking. It would be the same with pavement smoking.
However, it would be churlish to complain too much, because in the meantime the hard cop was replaced by the soft cop, my noble friend Lord Howe, emollient and with an impeccable public health record. He has tabled an amendment which goes a long way towards what we were arguing for, and wrote a helpful letter to noble Lords today. I pay tribute to his role in listening to last week’s debate and moving government policy forward on this issue. I know that my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who made a personal commitment to the anti-smoking campaign in the debate last week, has also played a role.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, the government amendment does not go as far as I would like, but before turning to that, I will make one point about the guidance referred to in the noble Earl’s amendment. Given that many pubs have already made provision for smokers on their own premises—usually canopies with patio heaters—I hope the guidance will say that where this is the case, any extension to the pavement should be smoke-free, since there is already somewhere for the smokers to go.
The Government’s amendment does not go as far as I would like, and I will not repeat the arguments in favour of Amendment 15 so ably put by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and other noble Lords, last week. While none of the arguments against it have convinced me that they would be the right way forward, I recognise that given the position of the Labour Party, the cross-party alliance so skilfully constructed by the noble Baroness has gone as far as it can, and therefore I am prepared to settle for and support the government amendment. I hope that others who share my view will feel able to do the same.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, yesterday’s press release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government stated:
“People using pubs, restaurants and cafés will soon have greater freedom to choose non-smoking outdoor areas”,
a laudable objective that is consistent with the cross-party Amendment 15, which I have signed, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and which is identical to the one we debated in Committee last week. Some of your Lordships may take the view that had we not raised the issue of smoking in areas covered by pavement licences, the other amendments in this group might never have seen the light of day today. Indeed, if it had not been for the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, raising the subject at Second Reading, that would probably be the case.
As I indicated in Committee last week, our amendment enjoys strong cross-party support from the Local Government Association, which represents local councils in England and has asked the Government to make pavements smoke-free. Birmingham Labour councillor Paulette Hamilton, vice-chair of the LGA’s community well-being board, is urging your Lordships to give councils the power to extend smoke-free areas to include pavements, so that
“this alfresco summer can be enjoyed by everyone.”
She added:
“Councils have worked hard to help hospitality businesses reopen, including relaxing requirements and making changes to roads and pavements to enable pubs, cafés and bars to operate outside safely with more outdoor seating. Pavement licensing should not be a catalyst to increase smoking in public places, putting people at greater risk of ingesting second-hand smoke when they are enjoying a drink or a meal.”
This view is shared by the Conservative leader of Oxfordshire County Council, Ian Hudspeth, whom I quoted in the debate last Monday, and who has set the laudable target of a smoke-free Oxfordshire by 2025.
On 15 July, the Welsh Government committed to bringing in new laws to ban smoking in hospital grounds and schools under the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, to
“protect the public from second-hand smoke and de-normalise smoking in the eyes of young people.”
They are on course to bring in a smoking ban for the outdoor seating areas of restaurants and cafés, which is supported by nearly two-thirds of adults in Wales, according to a survey by ASH Wales.
My final point arises from my supplementary question to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, earlier this afternoon. Noble Lords may recall that I asked him whether today’s proposed guidance for smoke-free areas outside pubs and restaurants would be agreed with the DHSC, published before the House rises and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Rather to my surprise, he did not answer any of these rather important questions, and later in the session, when the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked them again in the same form, she did not get a reply either. What is going on? Have the Government not yet made up their mind, or does the MHCLG refuse to acknowledge that this is a public health issue, let alone that it has anything to do with the Government’s aim to make England smoke-free by 2030? I still think that our amendment is the best of the three on offer, and I will be disappointed if the House does not agree to it this afternoon.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 15, to which I have added my name, seems to be the best way to avoid the Government throwing away the hard-won gains in public health that smoking reduction strategies have achieved to date. There is now clear evidence of the benefits from our legislation, which has banned smoking in public places. The benefits of ending passive smoking are to the heart, the vascular system and the lungs. The strongest evidence of the health benefits of making places smoke-free is in those working in pubs. The Smoke-free Premises and Vehicles (Wales) Regulations 2020 will extend the smoking ban to outdoor areas of hospital grounds, school grounds and local authority playgrounds.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and her three co-signatories to Amendment 15. As she rightly said, it is only by virtue of their bringing forward the amendment in Committee that we had the benefit of a very good and persuasive debate last Monday. They won the argument, as evidenced by the Government’s Amendments 13 and 14 and what they said about the guidance that will be issued alongside the no- smoking condition. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for that.
I might say to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, that the Labour Party did not put down such an amendment. I welcome what she said about maintaining positive forward pressure on this vital public health issue, but I remind her that as a result of the coalition Government’s activities—in which we were all participants, including my noble friend Lord Howe—this country was regarded as having the toughest tobacco control regime in the world, perhaps bar Australia, although I think there was a debate about that. The point is to maintain that pressure. The Government’s commitment, which I wholeheartedly support, is to secure a smoke-free England by 2030. The point of this temporary legislation is to support the hospitality and leisure industries, and our debate was about ensuring no retrograde steps away from our objective of banning smoking in public places. We do not want families who expect to go to a public house and have a smoke-free meal to find that they are exposed to second-hand smoke.
Like my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I would have liked the Government to have gone a bit further and the guidance to have been more specific—particularly on the points he mentioned, which for brevity’s sake I shall not repeat—but I share his view that the Government’s Amendments 13 and 14 are significant victory. He and his cosignatories to Amendment 15 can take credit for that. I welcome what the Government have done, I hope the House will support Amendments 13 and 14 and that, in consequence, the noble Baroness will not see the need to press Amendment 15.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment 15, which was so cogently moved by my noble friend and spoken to so persuasively by her co-signatories. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, said:
“The Government recognise the vital importance of health and safety concerns but we do not believe that imposing a condition to prohibit outdoor smoking would be proportionate.”
He also said:
“The case is now incontrovertible that there are dangers from second-hand and passive smoking.”—[Official Report, 13/7/20; col. 1482.]
I acknowledge that the Government have come part way to meet the amendment, but I hope that, even now, they will change their mind.
I want to address the Minister’s proportionality point, especially in the light of his second statement and this Government’s plans for a smoke-free England by 2030. A new survey conducted between 15 April and 20 June 2020 for ASH and UCL has found that more than 1 million people in the UK have stopped smoking since the Covid-19 pandemic hit the country. A further 440,000 smokers tried to quit during that period. Younger smokers have quit at a much greater rate than older ones: around 400,000 people aged 16 to 29 have quit, compared to 240,000 aged over 50. The rate of quitting for 16 to 29 year-olds is more than twice the rate for those over 50. This is quite unprecedented and hugely encouraging for the health of our nation. Given what the Minister has said about the dangers of passive smoking—and given that smoking-related illnesses linked to worse outcomes from Covid-19 include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, stroke and other heart conditions—is it not proportionate to want to build on the success during lockdown by restricting smoking in public areas in this way, especially as it applies only to these newly permitted outdoor spaces, as my noble friend pointed out?
As fewer people are smoking after lockdown, is it not right to do everything to attract non-smokers back to the outdoor spaces of our hard-pressed pubs, bars and restaurants by providing a smoke-free environment? We are not yet seeing customers return in great numbers—that much is clear from restaurant owners quoted over the weekend. Would this assurance not be of huge benefit in luring them back?
The Government’s amendments are welcome so far as they go, but they are very much half a loaf. I remember only too well that Forest was the principal opponent obstructing my tobacco advertising and sponsorship Bill, and I am sorry that it has been given any credence by this Government.
Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is also disappointing. It is very disappointing that Labour is not supporting this cross-party amendment, especially when the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, quotes the research from UCL and ASH, and the latter is supporting Amendment 15.
I am not going to rub salt in the wound by reminding her why I had to introduce the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill in the first place in 2001. I hope, therefore, that the Government will go the whole way and ensure that the adoption of Amendment 15 will be an important staging post towards a smoke-free Britain.
Lord Blencathra [V]
My Lords, despite his eloquence, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, since I am opposed to Amendment 15.
The Government have repeatedly underlined the point that this is emergency and temporary legislation. It should not be used as a Trojan horse to ban smoking outdoors for the anti-smoking fanatics. Even the Labour Party’s amendment is not as extreme as that and does permit for some consultation. Initially, I did not understand the ambivalence but, as my noble friend Lord Balfe reminded us in the first group of amendments, it is just indulging in rhetoric. Labour says it cannot support the government amendment, but it seems it will not vote against it. It says that they are holding the Government to account and pressing them hard, but it is not voting against it. This is the sort of irresolute, sitting-on-the-fence opposition I would have loved as a former Whip.
At the moment, smokers use outside tables—perfectly correctly, since they are banned from being inside. There is no danger whatever from passive smoking outside. Those who confess to being worried about the public health impacts of smoke inhalation should ban toxic diesel buses, which are far more dangerous than someone having a fag at a pavement table. There are legitimate arguments for and against smoking outside but, if extremists and ASH want to bring forward a ban on smoking outdoors, there must be proper consultation, proper debate and subsequent legislation—not this sneaky back-door attempt.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, I mean what I say when I say that it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He always speaks in primary colours, so we know exactly what he means. But on this occasion, I am afraid that he and I are, not for the first time, going to disagree with convivial cordiality.
I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has made a considerable effort to come towards those of us who support Amendment 15. I am afraid that I am always suspicious of clauses in statutes—especially for temporary legislation—which are peppered with the word “reasonable”. There are so many “reasonable”s in these amendments that it gives a clue to what is in reality a key to confusion. I believe that Amendment 15, moved so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and supported by those who signed the amendment with her, does not commit any terrible act which would put any economic interest—including that of the tobacco industry—at any real disadvantage. We need to bear in mind that it applies not to existing open-air spaces outside pubs and restaurants, because they are not newly licensed premises under the Bill, but to licensed sites.
Why is it so important? We are dealing with a double problem: not merely health damage caused by the exhalation of tobacco smoke but the real danger of the exhalation of coronavirus with that tobacco smoke, if the people smoking are suffering from coronavirus or have the necessary symptoms. The draft guidance makes it clear that many of the licensed venues will effectively be largely enclosed and partly covered—[Inaudible].
Baroness Grey-Thompson [V]
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 15 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and other noble Lords. I listened intently to the debate in Committee, and it is important for this amendment to be considered, because of the impact it could have on some disabled people.
Other noble Lords have talked about the impact of smoking, and this is more of a personal plea than I would normally allow myself in your Lordships’ Chamber. I have never smoked, but secondary smoking has a significant impact on me and some other disabled people. People who hold tobacco products, whether they are walking or sitting, often hold them at my head height, so, in normal times, I spend a considerable amount of time identifying who is smoking and working out how to avoid them. Though it has not been deliberately done, I have had cigarettes waved in my face, I have been burned by lit cigarettes and I have had ash flicked in my face. The amount of smoke I inhale may be considered negligible but, in my view, if I can smell the smoke, I am inhaling it. And, although it might be considered a better option, I am not a fan of the secondary inhalation of e-cigarettes, either.
The reality is that often, non-disabled people do not look for or see disabled people, and this is where the problem arises. As I have tried to explain with other amendments, it is not always easy for disabled people to move out of the way, and that is in normal times; we are not in normal times. With different street furniture, and smokers in different places, it might be really difficult for disabled people to avoid those smokers. There may be people with a visual impairment who are not aware of the new arrangements and may come far closer to those smokers than they would wish, and not be able to move out of the way terribly quickly.
As this Bill is opening up establishments in a new way—people have not been sitting outside in this way before—it makes it really difficult for disabled people. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, very articulately explained the need to think about those who might be using these new places. This is not about stopping smoking—arrangements are already in place for smokers, which they should carry on using—but about ensuring that places are smoke-free.
I like the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, that we must continue to look for ways to encourage people to stop smoking in the future, but the reality is that that will take a long time to implement further. We need to be thinking about now. I am delighted that so many people have chosen to give up smoking, but we have to make sure that we do not in any way encourage them to go back—which can be very easy when alcohol is involved. We should be thinking of non-smokers, who are in the majority.
In conclusion, it is very important that we consider how to protect people and that we think about smoke-free zones in these new spaces. I will support the amendment if the House divides on it.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I understand the need to follow the exhortation of the Chief Whip to be as brief as possible in today’s debate, and I will try to do my bit in that regard by speaking very briefly.
I can see the need for a speedy passage of the Bill in order that businesses, and, most importantly, the hospitality and retail sector can attempt to salvage whatever they can from this health and economic catastrophe. I also see the importance and understand the aims of Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. It is entirely sensible, particularly in the light of what I have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and others in this debate. I have absolutely no issue with their aims.
However, although I agree with all their motives, in my view the noble Baroness’s measures should be complemented by a more considerate and deliberative conversation about public health messages on addictive behaviour, given that the single biggest long-term public health crisis in this country is obesity and people who are overweight. This conversation needs to be part of a wider strategy on healthy living and education. Having now seen the Government’s amendment, which seems to be a sensible compromise, I will support that today.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 15, so well moved by my noble friend Lady Northover and well spoken to by others. If in recent years you have visited one of the ever-decreasing number of countries where smoking in public places is not banned, I think you will have appreciated how awful it is. The difference from the experience in our country is dramatic, particularly if you are a non-smoker. To have second-hand tobacco smoke wafting about your food and drink is both unpleasant and nauseous, and inhaling second-hand smoke injures your health.
The distaste about stepping back more than a decade is not just because we have made the change in this country; it is because it is very much an experience to which we do not want to return. With so many of us now being non-smokers and having had the smoke-free experience for so long, we take it for granted that tobacco smoke will not be around our food and families as we eat.
I am pleased that the Government have gone some way to recognise that in their amendments, but I do not think that they have gone far enough. The arrangements for this Bill are partial and temporary, and for England only. Noble Lords will be aware that the ban on smoking in public places began earlier in Wales than in England. I am pleased that Wales was a pathfinder then, and it now looks like it will be so again. The Labour Health Minister in Wales has just announced that he will bring forward legislation to prohibit smoking in the spaces outside pubs and restaurants and that the ban will be permanent. I hope that his party colleagues in your Lordships’ House are listening to that.
Of course, that legislation is moving with the non-smoking times. As more and more people give up tobacco smoking and public health improves, so the introduction of smoke-free areas around places such as those proposed by the Labour Minister, along with children’s play areas and the precincts of schools and hospitals, is a logical step. As the smoking minority of our population has got smaller, smokers have become more and more used to moving away from others in public places, and this amendment proposes a logical next step. There is no evidence that it will diminish the number of people who go to pubs and restaurants. In fact, the opposite might occur and people might be encouraged to attend because they know that smoke will not be wafting around them.
I have one question for the Government on their proposal. Your Lordships are of course familiar with our own arrangements for separating smokers and non-smokers on the Lords Terrace: a physical barrier is in place between the two areas. Can the Minister explain whether the legislation proposed by the Government requires a physical barrier to be put in place between the two sectors? Will it be a solid barrier through which smoke cannot pass and, if so, at what height? Smoke drifts and floats about, and without clear barriers it would pass between the tables of smokers and non-smokers alike. Without making it clear that that issue will be dealt with, this problem will not be eradicated. So it is obvious to me that Amendment 15 is the way to go in order to get clarity on this issue.
Lord Balfe [V]
My Lords, I am surprised that we are even having this debate. Pubs are closing every week. No one seems to realise that one reason for that is that they are in many ways not very pleasant places to be in. I can say without any doubt whatever that my wife and I would not go near a pub that permitted smoking. It is as simple as that. If you want to get rid of your middle-class clientele and close your restaurants, start allowing smoking. It is not just acceptable in a place where you go to dine.
The government amendments include a “smoke-free seating condition” so that any premises that provide outdoor seating for smoking will also
“make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted.”
We have been down this route before. I have flown around the world for 50 years. We used to have smoking and non-smoking sections on aeroplanes and it did not work. That is why planes are all non-smoking today. We used to have ashtrays in hotel rooms and there was an overhang of smoke if a smoker had been in there. Then hotels started to introduce smoke-free floors and found that they were so popular that they started to ban smoking, before it was banned anyway because it had started a lot of fires. Hospitals used to have seating areas where patients could go outside for a smoke. That was stopped because it was recognised that the ambient smoky atmosphere was bad for the people who did not smoke.
I hear time and again that this is a temporary provision, just like income tax, that will be brought in and disappear after a year. I do not believe that. I think that some of these provisions will be permanent. The noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned Wales. There will be a tendency to say, “This system works. We’ll carry on with it for another year and maybe another year after that”. So I really do not see it as working. I welcome where the Government have got to, but I do not think that they have gone far enough. I am pretty neutral on the thing because I will not in any case go near a pub or restaurant that has smoking, but I urge the Government to go some way further, to grasp this particular bull by the horns and say, “We’re not having smoking in places that serve drink or food”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I stress its cross-party nature and the support that it has from all around the House. Even this late stage, I ask the Minister to take this back and consider it further between Report and Third Reading. I was very proud of the actions of the Labour Government which led to the banning of smoking in public places. I worked with my noble friend Lord Faulkner and other noble Lords across the House in getting through the Lords the amendment that banned smoking in cars when children are present; we have a great history of working together in relation to measures against smoking. I do not see why, even at this late stage, we cannot do this again. With Covid-19, we know that many of the worst-affected have been those with cardiovascular or lung disease. Equally, Covid-19 has had a powerful impact on people taking up exercise programmes, fighting obesity and giving up smoking as a result; some 1 million people have done this during lockdown and there could be more.
This amendment, in whatever guise, could be helpful to many people. Far from having an adverse impact on business, smoke-free areas would be welcomed by most customers and would therefore bring in more trade; the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, surely had his finger right on the pulse in that. The measure is proportionate; the regime will apply only to licences on highways so not to pub, café or restaurant garden areas or pavement seating, where smoking is allowed. It also has support from local government. In addition, we need to think about the workers. The noble Lord, Lord Young, reminded us in Committee of the health risks to employees of passive smoking. Given the risks that those staff already carry, a duty of care is surely owed to them in respect of the risk from passive smoking.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox made a powerful speech, arguing that the decision should be left to the discretion of local authorities. I welcome the progress that my Front Bench has made on this. She also pointed to some technical deficiencies with the Bill. We have a way of clearing up technical deficiencies: either through a government amendment at Third Reading or, if the Government agree, by holding this over until a discussion can take place between all of us before we reach Third Reading. I hope that, even at this late stage, we can attempt to reach some form of consensus; I urge everybody concerned to do all they can to do so.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, possibly the most surprising thing about Amendment 15 as drafted is that the signatories are predominantly Liberal Democrats; it is not a particularly libertarian policy that they have come up with. Also, it seeks to unravel the compromise reached when the smoking ban was introduced. What I regret most about Amendment 15 is that it does not recognise the heavy investment that pubs, bars and restaurants have made in the outdoor facilities that they hope to open more of. For that reason, I regret that I shall be unable to support Amendment 15.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Howe, who, through my chairmanship of PASS, I know has spent a great deal of time with the hospitality industry; obviously, I have had dealings with the hospitality industry as well. It is keen to recognise—and I welcome—the compromise offered by the government Amendment 13: there will be a smoke-free seating element. Had Amendment 15 not been tabled, perhaps we would not have got to the position we are now in. I note that a number of noble Lords have expressed the wish that the Government should go further, but the beauty of Amendment 13 is that it has regard to the heavy challenges currently facing the hospitality and leisure sectors during the ongoing Covid crisis and the way they are seeking to reopen. I very much welcome the work that has gone into Amendment 13; I will be delighted to support it if we have to later this evening.
Lord Rennard (LD) [V]
My Lords, earlier today, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, congratulated the million people who have given up smoking during the lockdown, permanently we hope, to protect their health. Sadly, the government amendments today fail to do enough to protect them and others, including staff and families with children, from the dangers of second-hand smoke, which does not respect social distancing rules. We do not want non-smokers to be encouraged to return to habits they have struggled to give up. The connection between the consumption of alcohol and the smell of tobacco smoke is well known as a significant problem for people trying to give up smoking. The cross-party Amendment 15 is about minimising that problem by making newly created pavement areas smoke-free.
As is to be expected, tobacco company representations on this issue are disingenuous and, sadly, their views are too close to what is set out in the government amendments this afternoon. Today’s letter from the noble Lord, Earl Howe, to Members of the House repeats a fallacy about the cross-party amendment. It wrongly suggests that, in the event of making new areas non-smoking, there would be confusion with existing outside areas which would not be subject to the new rules. There need be no such confusion. Existing outdoor areas will maintain their current designation and provision for smokers, while newly created areas should be clearly signposted as being smoke-free, with something placed on the tables instead of ashtrays. The distinction should be very clear.
The cross-party Amendment 15 is not about banning smoking outdoors. As the Minister’s letter says, existing outside areas would not be subject to the new rules and nor would other open spaces. The proposal for new areas outside pubs and restaurants to be smoke-free is in line with the present provisions banning smoking in areas such as railway station concourses, which often have many different cafés and restaurants within them. Making new outdoor seating areas smoke-free will make them more attractive to the 86% of adults who do not smoke, especially families who do not want their children exposed to greater risk of second-hand smoke. The avoidance of smoking will make these places more attractive to potential customers, which is why local authorities support Amendment 15.
Finally, this amendment does not go nearly as far as the Welsh Government are going. With Labour support today, this amendment will be carried. Perhaps the Government will agree to think again before Third Reading.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and to hear of the progress that has been made with so many people giving up smoking during lockdown. I rise, however, simply to lend my voice to those who applaud the care being taken in this difficult area by my noble friend the Deputy Leader. I could not support Amendment 15—or the introduction, in emergency legislation, of what amounts to a new smoking ban. This would be a real slap in the face to the hospitality sector, which is already on its knees. The measure could also displace customers into other trading areas, blocking access and achieving the near opposite of what is desired. The government amendment, which I support, requires proper provision for non-smoking seating. This will allow customers to sit outside whether they want to smoke or not and aid the observance of social distancing. We should not delay the Bill by trying to work the issue further. The government compromise should be agreed to forthwith.
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, leaving aside what colleagues have said about their support or non-support for particular amendments, the right policy here is very clear. In fact, it has been supported by 15 of the 17 noble Lords who have spoken before me in the debate.
That policy is this: licensed outdoor premises, where they replace indoor premises where smoking is currently not allowed, should not be licensed for smoking. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—a former Health Secretary—said, anything less than this is a retrograde step. This is emphatically not a new smoking ban, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just suggested. It is the replacement of indoor premises by outdoor premises, and those indoor premises do not currently allow smoking.
I applaud everyone who has helped get us to the halfway stage: my noble friends on the Front Bench who have done an excellent job in negotiations with the Government; the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who first raised this matter at Second Reading; and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whom we hold in very high regard, and whom I know has worked hard to get to a compromise position.
The compromise is a compromise. The House needs to address this question: on an issue as fundamental as this, to the public health of England and to people’s ability to enjoy and access licensed premises, should we settle for a compromise or should we move to the right policy which—as I have said—almost everyone who has spoken in this debate supports? This policy would simply replace the existing prohibition on smoking indoors in licensed premises with a prohibition on smoking outdoors, in respect of those licenses. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, this would not affect existing outdoor smoking facilities.
I have listened carefully to this debate, and to representations which have been made to some of us outside of it. I cannot see a single good argument for not agreeing with this amendment. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on bringing it forward and pushing it so strongly. Without people like her, we never make progress on these fundamental issues of public health and civil liberties. I will simply end with the great injunction of David Lloyd George: “When traversing a chasm, it is advisable to do so in one leap”.
Lord Sheikh [V]
My Lords, we need the hospitality sector to be active and to start doing business, both for its benefit and for the good of the country and members of the public. People have been frustrated over the last few months due to the lockdown. Some of them suffer from anxiety problems, and it is important for them to go out and mingle with their friends and relatives. Therefore, we must cater for people who smoke, as well as those who do not, when they go out.
We must bear in mind that over 85% of the British population are non-smokers, and they are concerned about being subjected to passive smoking when they go to a pub, restaurant or café. We all appreciate that if any person smokes it causes harm, not only to himself but to others around him who inhale second-hand smoke.
Persons who have been confined indoors over the last few months are now able to go out, and they feel happier when they are sitting in the open, rather than inside the premises. I was recently at a private club, where nearly all the customers were sitting outside on the terrace. In fact, the group next to me were smoking, but there was adequate distance between the two tables and I was happy with the situation.
In Committee, I supported an amendment disallowing smoking outside the relevant premises. In fact, the Government are unwilling to ban smoking altogether, and I support Amendments 13 and 14 as I feel it is an adequate compromise. These amendments will allow both smokers and non-smokers to go out with some degree of safety, as there will be areas for both groups.
I follow the logic of the Government, as they do not wish to ban smoking outside generally. By banning smoking outside a restaurant, pub or café, it could be deemed that we are banning smoking altogether. I feel that the Government have listened and introduced Amendments 13 and 14. Having said this, I hope that we will achieve a smoke-free England by 2030.
With regard to the situation at present, there needs to be appropriate distance between smokers and non-smokers, which will prevent the danger of passive smoking affecting non-smokers. In addition to supporting Amendments 13 and 14, I am happy to support Amendment 25, as we ought to clearly define what smoking is all about and avoid ambiguity.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 15 very strongly. I do not understand why on earth the Government are being so weak on this. They should accept that this is the way in which society is moving. Furthermore, why is Labour letting them? I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, and I could not understand the rationale for Labour accepting the government amendments. The smell from e-cigarettes does not go very well with food either, so why on earth should we not ban those when we are trying to enjoy our food?
As we heard, thousands die from the complications of smoking. My mother, a lifelong smoker, did exactly that. It was decades ago, but I still miss her; she had an early death because of smoking. The damage from smoking was not clearly understood then—we understand it now, and we really should be doing something about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke extremely well. I thought that she expressed her concerns and it was a brilliant speech; I was delighted that I agreed with her. I often agree, surprisingly, with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I often support her amendments. She says that this is not very libertarian, so I ask: what about my liberty to breathe clean air? Road traffic and road safety campaigners that I meet come up against this all the time. We want the liberty to breathe clean air, and smoking does not allow that. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 15 and I very much hope that it will go to a vote.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
My Lords, we have heard, as we did in Committee, powerful arguments about taking this opportunity to exclude smoking from new pavement licensed areas. The case for ensuring that those of us who do not wish to inhale second-hand smoke are not excluded from that enjoyment is well made.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Northover is a vital step in making our country smoke-free. It had strong and detailed arguments in support of it from the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Balfe, and many other noble Lords.
However, Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, lacks clarity for businesses and shies away from the paramount public health concern. It is a cop-out. When an argument relies on pointing to the drafting issues of a stronger amendment, as hers did, you know that it is very weak.
We have heard that the overwhelming majority of people do not smoke: a mere 14% do. Protecting the interests of a minority does not extend to a situation where, by doing so, harm is created for the majority, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has just explained. Smoking kills and second-hand smoking kills. Surely the Government should take every opportunity to restrict it.
The choice is clear: do we use this opportunity to keep the health needs of customers paramount or not? The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is supported by the Local Government Association. I hope the Minister will provide a full response to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to have further consideration on Amendment 15 prior to Third Reading, so that progress on this issue can be made.
Other amendments on this matter fudge these vital health concerns, and we on these Benches wholeheartedly support the cross-party amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Northover.
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, we would do well to remember that the pavement licensing clauses in the Bill provide vital temporary flexibility to aid the recovery of hospitality businesses over the summer months, and that we need to proceed quickly to achieve that. Noble Lords have voiced some concerns and requested clarity in relation to the position on outdoor smoking under these temporary fast-track licences. I am not going to go into the respective roles of the hard cop and the soft cop in achieving the Government’s amendments, as my noble friend Lord Young put it. However, in recognition of the mood across the House the Government have tabled Amendments 13, 14 and 25 to provide the clarity that local authorities, businesses and customers need.
It is important to recognise that we are winning the battle against smoking: Great Britain has one of the lowest rates of smoking in Europe, at 13.9% of adults. Fewer than one in six adults smoke today and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, over 1 million people have given up during the lockdown, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bethell earlier today.
This Government have taken great strides in reducing the harms caused by smoking. We committed to doing so in the prevention Green Paper. We will publish the prevention guidance response in due course and set out our plans to achieve a smoke-free England by 2030 at a later date. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, supports that mission. I emphasise to her that there has been no stop in providing smoking cessation support. The Government continue to provide those programmes of work, which address smoking harms nationally and are delivered locally through the tobacco control plan for England and the NHS long-term plan’s commitment to provide smoking cessation support in hospital settings.
In the debate noble Lords expressed their support for the temporary, urgent and necessary reforms brought forward in the Bill to support the businesses hardest hit by this pandemic—our pubs, cafés and restaurants—and to protect jobs in those sectors. We recognise that the Covid restrictions mean that customers are encouraged or required to eat and drink outside, and that clarity is critical as we support businesses to recover. That is why the Government have tabled an amendment requiring proper provision for non-smoking seating via a smoke-free seating condition. This amendment does not prevent the portion of businesses which wish to cater for smokers from doing so. It requires proper provision for non-smoking seating. This means that customers who want to choose to sit in smoking or non-smoking al fresco dining areas will be able to do so.
The Government’s position means that all businesses eligible for pavement licences can share the benefits of this new fast-track licence, while ensuring provision for non-smoking seating. Of course, businesses can already make their own non-smoking policies for outside spaces to reflect customer wishes without the need for regulations, and the Government support that. I say to my noble friend Lord Balfe that a blanket ban can be imposed by businesses themselves. Our guidance will further reinforce this point, making it clear that the licence holder has to make reasonable provision for seating free of smoking.
The guidance is available on the GOV.UK website and was circulated to noble Lords and noble Baronesses before this debate. It includes clear no-smoking signage, displayed in accordance with the Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2012. No ashtrays or similar receptacles are to be provided or left on furniture where smoke-free seating is identified. Licence holders should aim for a minimum two-metre distance between non-smoking and smoking areas, wherever possible. That is the framework, so I do not see the confusion raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
It is also worth reiterating that businesses must continue to have regard to smoke-free legislation under the Health Act 2006, and the subsequent Smoke-free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006. This is restated in our guidance, as it is absolutely right to stress it, and the Government are committed to working towards a smoke-free society by 2030, as I have said.
Now is not the time to prevent businesses catering to their customers, or to use a temporary provision on pavement licences to ban smoking outdoors. Now is the time to support our hospitality industry and ensure that all businesses eligible for pavement licences can share the benefits of this new fast-track licence. This point was made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is to withdraw her Amendment 11 and I thank her for her support for our amendment, which seeks to achieve what she set out in her amendment.
However, I fear that Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is not the way to proceed and would be unfair to businesses. While undoubtedly not its intention, it would create confusion. The effect is to create an unfair playing field between businesses applying for these new licences, which need to abide by the condition, and those with existing licences, which do not. This point was made by several of my colleagues. Her amendment also cuts across the ability of business owners to make their own non-smoking policies for outside space, without the need for regulations. Of course, there are cases where the regulations are already clear. The existing power, set out in the Health Act 2006 and subsequent Smoke-free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006, made it illegal to smoke in public in enclosed, or substantially enclosed, areas and workplaces. The Bill changes none of this.
On the other hand, the Government’s amendment has the proportionate approach advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He said that we needed proportionality and this is what we deliver with this amendment. It rightly requires proper, fair provision for non-smoking seating, while not undermining business owners whose customers include smokers. It supports our hospitality sector in continuing to operate, while following the Covid restrictions necessary to protect public health. I thank my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Sheikh, Lady McIntosh, Lord Lansley and Lord Young for supporting the government amendment, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. I therefore urge noble Lords to support government Amendments 13, 14 and 25, which will ensure that consumer choice remains. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has already indicated that she will withdraw her Amendment 11, but I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, does not move her Amendment 15 when called.
On a couple of points of clarification, the guidance being issued is joint guidance from the MHCLG and DHSC. It will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. In response to the noble Lord, Lord German, there will be no physical barrier between non-smokers and smoking areas but a two-metre gap. I hope that answers the questions raised in the debate.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Unfortunately, Lady Wilcox, we cannot hear you. Can we try again?
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
Deputy Speaker, can you hear me now, please?
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
Thank you. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for the many important and apposite points raised. The Government could have gone further in the development of their amendment, as I noted, and thus we tabled our own amendment. I may be one of the most recent Members of your Lordships’ House but I believe it is one of the prerequisites of our work to make those changes. For the record, the Welsh Health Minister, Vaughan Gething, made a manifesto commitment before the introduction of legislation that will follow, under normal process, regarding Wales’s public spaces and smoking in the next Senedd term. We will keep these matters under review and, no doubt, return to the issue within longer-term legislation in the future. I therefore now beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for a “smoke-free seating” condition.
“(5A) A “smoke-free seating condition” is a condition that, where the furniture to be put on the relevant highway consists of seating for use by persons for the purpose of consuming food or drink, the licence-holder must make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted. (5B) In considering for any purposes of this group of sections whether a licence-holder has made reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted, a local authority must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment relates to the first amendment to Clause 5 and defines the “smoke-free seating condition”.
Baroness Northover
“( ) Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited.”
Baroness Northover
I thank the Minister for his response to the amendment. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that the noble Lord, Lord Young, sits on her Benches, that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, sits on the Labour Benches, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, sits on the Cross Benches—this was a cross-party amendment. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and their overwhelming support. I am glad that the Government have taken on board the issue of smoking, which we raised at Second Reading and in Committee. I realise that it was late in the day to put something effective in place at this stage, despite the Government’s apparent commitment to England being smoke-free by 2030. I note that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has chosen not to move his amendments in person, even though he is here in the Chamber.
This amendment was about public health, and about encouraging people back to pubs and restaurants. I said that this issue was in Labour’s hands, and it is an open goal. It is utterly specious to say that this amendment is flawed. If it were to go through, the Government’s lawyers would help to iron out any deficiencies if they existed, as is absolutely usual. I am disappointed that Labour chose to put down their own, much weaker, amendment. I thank the numerous supporters on the Labour Benches, who have told me of their own disappointment about their party’s position today, which means that we cannot secure the cross-party amendment which would have been clear, simple and the right thing to do. Once a further 30 Peers are introduced, it may become even more difficult.
I am more than ready to work with others across the House, and with the Government, on making sure that their regulations are clear, simple, and encourage people back, making a clear situation for both proprietors and local authorities. But as we cannot win without Labour support, and as the Labour Front Bench has made its position clear, I will not put my co-signatories in a difficult position. This is, after all, a cross-party amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker
I inform the House that if Amendment 16 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 17 and 18 by virtue of pre-emption.
Amendment 16
“(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) specify conditions for pavement licences, and(b) make provision as to whether, or the extent to which, those conditions have effect in addition to, or instead of, any other conditions to which pavement licences are subject.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the power to publish national conditions with a power to make provision about national conditions by regulations.
The Deputy Speaker
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 19. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 19
“(6A) Any conditions published under subsection (6) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 19, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group. Since there is much agreement, and also duplication, I will try to be brief.
These amendments are drafted pursuant to the 17th DPRRC report. I thank the committee for its hard work on this Bill, and on the emergency Bills on which it has had to work in recent weeks. The timescales are very difficult, and the pressure to deliver is also very high, but it has been able to do that with considerable skill, and we are very grateful.
The DPRRC recommendations set up, in essence, a dialogue between the Government and the committee. However, in a spirit of co-operation and because of the short timescales of the emergency legislation, we often put down the recommendations of the committee as amendments as a way of encouraging the Government to act. In Committee, we had a series of notifications that the Government were preparing to accept the DPRRC recommendations. However, on this occasion, it also produced an interesting outcome. For your Lordships’ information, the wording of our amendments has been strongly influenced by the helpful advice we received from the Public Bill Office, although they are our responsibility and tabled in my name. But it is interesting that on several occasions, recommendations made by the DPRRC in the report have resulted in different wordings in the amendments that have been tabled by the Government and by ourselves. When the noble Earl comes to reply, he may be able to shed light on the Government's thinking and explain some of the differences in approach, and I think that would be helpful. Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Earl says:
“If the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so to mitigate an effect of coronavirus.”
But our version in Amendment 79, which we hope will achieve the same result, says
“but regulations may only be made under this subsection where the Secretary of State considers it necessary or appropriate for a purpose linked to the coronavirus pandemic.”
I am not saying that we have a monopoly on the correct drafting, but I think it interesting that we have come to different conclusions about what might be considered the same issue.
I am left with a slight concern that we may have exposed a gap in our procedures that is exacerbated by the nature of these pieces of legislation. I hope that in calmer times, the DPRRC and the House might find an opportunity to reflect on this, and that our other committees, such as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Constitution Committee, might do likewise.
When he comes to respond, it would be for the benefit of the House if the noble Earl highlighted any areas where the Government have decided not to follow the advice of the DPRRC, in whole or in part. I beg to move.
Lord Balfe [V]
I only really need to say one thing. I am concerned that some of these clauses might turn into permanent legislation—I am aware that there is a tendency for what is temporary to become permanent. Can I have the Minister’s assurance that it is not intended to extend any of these clauses beyond what is absolutely necessary to deal with this emergency?
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I share the fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and by many others during the brief passage of this urgent legislation. We must be mindful that it is on the whole about temporary and not permanent measures, and that we have clearly identified where the temporary should apply. I will not overegg the difference between Amendments 78 and 79, which has been rightly highlighted by my noble friend Lord Stevenson, especially as the Government Chief Whip has reminded us to confine ourselves to getting this Bill through to Royal Assent without keeping people up until midnight. Enough has been said.
Lord Naseby [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who I think has done a service to the House and indeed the country. It was interesting to hear what he said about advice from the Public Bill Office. However, Amendment 27, which is the one that took my eye, is precautionary and by definition refers to the coronavirus pandemic and, therefore, one hopes it is time-limited. I thank him for raising this absolutely crucial issue and yet giving the Government the facility to act as they feel appropriate.
Lord Beith (LD)
I would not normally intervene on a Bill when I had not taken part in its earlier stages, but noble Lords will know that my earlier absence was because of the illness and death of my wife, who contributed so much to this House and had friends in all parts of it.
I speak as a member of the Constitution Committee to underline its concerns about fast-track legislation and, to some extent, the way they have been dealt with as the Government have brought forward the amendments in this group. Fast-tracking tends to limit parliamentary scrutiny and discourage necessary amendment of Bills. It also tends to increase confusion about what is the law, what is guidance, what is advice and what is merely a proposal. During the whole of the coronavirus epidemic, this has been a besetting failure, leaving those who have to enforce the law uncertain as to what it is and is not. Fast-track legislation should not be drafted widely, loosely and without clarity.
These government amendments appropriately limit the worrying power to extend the time limits on what is supposed to be temporary legislation dealing with an emergency—admittedly one whose duration none of us can be certain about. Had we passed the Bill in its original form, we would be enacting sunset clauses in a land where the sun never sets—as people used to say about the British Empire—because they can be extended for no purpose connected to the coronavirus. This might have been challenged in the courts, but it would have been a long and complicated case.
The new drafting makes Parliament’s intention in allowing these powers of extension clear: it is to allow them only to the extent necessary to deal with the effects of the coronavirus. I note that the wording deals with the effects and not merely the virus itself; we are clearly talking about the economic consequences as well. I welcome the fact that the Government have brought these amendments forward, and they significantly improve the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am most grateful. It is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Beith, back in his place, and we mourn his loss. I recognise the contribution that his late wife, the noble Baroness, made to this House; she will be greatly missed.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friends have done a great service to the House with this group of amendments, which can only improve our understanding of the temporary nature of the legislation before us today. I do not wish to add anything further at this stage.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
My Lords, I associate myself with what my noble friend Lady McIntosh said about the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and his late wife. I have nothing to say on this amendment and am delighted with the amendments the Government have brought forward. I also associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Beith.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, I take this opportunity to say something positive about the Government because it is positive that the Minister has tabled amendments that tighten up the secondary legislation powers in the Bill. The Government routinely ask Parliament to grant excessively broad powers so that they can go off and make up their own laws. It would save a lot of time if they were to exercise self-restraint in writing Bills because, if they thought something like, “Let’s draft it as narrowly as possible without undermining the purpose of the Bill”, I think we would have fewer fights in your Lordships’ Chamber.
The amendments brought by the Government today will head off many of the potential problems raised in Committee and show how parliamentary scrutiny can bring the Government to the right place in the end.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer to government Amendments 58, 65, 78 and 81, as well as to other amendments related to them. This takes me back to law school and the two greatest challenges I encountered there. The first was in the field of equity. We had a phrase in the legal profession: “Equity varies with the length of the Chancellor’s foot.” Yet it was—and still is—a vital and valuable area in which fairness can be administered in the application of the law in England and Wales.
The second element was the word “reasonable”. I spent much time then, as I have again now, rereading some of the judgments, particularly those of a lawyer I greatly respect—the late Lord Denning—who talked about reasonableness and the interpretation of “reasonable”. It is a minefield, particularly in an area of legislation such as this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was so right in what he said a little while ago in this debate: dealing with the word “reasonable” in terms of the Minister’s powers to extend the provisions opens up a challenge—which I hope will not happen because in general this legislation is not only necessary but, in the main, well drawn.
I recognise the activities of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in what it said. It supported—as shown by the letter we received from my noble friend Lord Howe earlier today—the wording of the various government amendments here, with the word “reasonable” used in terms of ministerial activity. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, the Constitution Committee came out quite clearly with wording not dissimilar to that used by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The advantage of that wording is simply this: talking of necessity, and introducing necessity and appropriateness into a decision taken by a Minister who wishes to extend, makes the legislation less vulnerable to challenge.
I hope that, even at this late stage, my noble friend the Minister will consider looking at those words, which again came from the Public Bill Office as well as from our Constitution Committee, and making those changes to give the Bill a real prospect of being unchallenged—either in its temporary form or in any extended form that might be regarded as necessary and desirable.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
My Lords, thanks to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, a number of very important amendments have been tabled by the Government that limit the extent of the powers in the Bill, with exceptions for a need consequent on a further outbreak of the coronavirus. Although there are disputes over the wording—the exact precise wording, as we have heard from a number of speakers—in general the amendments are supported on these Benches.
Of course, we all greatly miss our friend Baroness Maddock and record our commiserations to my noble friend Lord Beith.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by speaking to the government amendments in my name—Amendments 26, 28, 47, 49, 58, 60, 65, 67, 73, 75, 78, 80, 81 and 83—which are grouped with Amendment 19 and the others in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for tabling his Amendments 19, 22, 57, 63 and 71, which would require any statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to pavement licences, extended planning permissions, construction hours or electronic inspection of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy to be subject to negative parliamentary procedures. As he indicated, these amendments reflect recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House in its report on the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to discuss them.
The committee’s views are always important, and we have responded positively elsewhere in the Bill to its recommendations, as I shall explain in a moment. However, in relation to this matter, I am afraid we cannot accept its recommendations or, by extension, these amendments. This reflects partly a general principle but also the practical realities. First, the statutory guidance under Clauses 5, 8, 16, 17, 18 and 21 is planning guidance. Guidance by the Secretary of State to local planning authorities has been a key feature of the planning system ever since its creation over 70 years ago—whether that guidance has been through circulars, planning policy guidance or, more recently, the National Planning Policy Framework and its associated practical guidance.
The issuing of this guidance, as a general principle, has never required statutory instruments. For instance, there is no parliamentary procedure requirement in relation to guidance to local planning authorities about the preparation and content of local plans, a key planning function under Section 34 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Similarly, and to give an example directly relevant to this Bill, our construction working hours provisions and the extension of planning permission provisions modify the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The various powers of the Secretary of State to issue guidance under that Act are not subject to parliamentary procedure. These documents will form part of the full suite of planning practice guidance and, in practice, it would be peculiar to have different parallel procedures for publication.
Our pavement licence clauses are linked to Part 7A of the Highways Act 1980. That Act contains four powers for the Secretary of State to issue guidance, none of which are subject to parliamentary procedure. Two of these powers were inserted by amending Acts in 2000 and 2015. The situation is similar for other statutory guidance required by this Bill. So, prescribing a parliamentary procedure for guidance in relation to the temporary planning measures in the Bill would be out of kilter with our well-established approach.
Furthermore, requiring guidance to be subject to parliamentary procedure does not reflect the practical realities of planning guidance. The draft guidance we have published is, like our other planning guidance, technical and practical and expressed in the form of questions and answers to help local planning authorities, and applicants, and has been formulated taking account of the view of sector specialists. For instance, the guidance on additional environmental approval for extending planning permissions has had input from the Environment Agency and Natural England. I hope that many noble Lords will have had the opportunity to review this guidance during the course of the Bill’s passage.
This guidance is designed to evolve over time in response to local planning authorities’ practical experience of these temporary measures. While we have obviously sought to ensure that guidance is as comprehensive as possible from the outset, we know that, in time, additional questions or clarifications may be required. We want to be able to make these updates in a flexible and timely way. We should not forget that local planning authorities are best placed to understand the specific needs, requirements and arrangements of their local areas. Providing helpful and up-to-date guidance is essential in allowing them to exercise their judgment on the ground. Requiring each change of guidance to be subject to the negative parliamentary procedure makes it more difficult in practice to make incremental changes to help them. I therefore regret that we cannot support these amendments, and I humbly beg the noble Lord, after reflecting on our arguments, to withdraw or not move them.
Turning to the other amendments in this group, I am pleased to say that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I find ourselves in broad agreement. The Government’s Amendments 26, 28, 47, 49, 58, 60, 65, 67, 73, 75, 78, 80, 81 and 83 implement another of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the Government are pleased to accept. As noble Lords will be aware—I emphasise this to my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—the vast majority of the measures in the Bill are temporary. In several cases, clauses provide for expiry dates to be extended by regulations, subject to the affirmative or “made affirmative” procedure.
We thank the committee for its careful consideration of the Bill. Our amendments in this group would implement its recommendation to clarify that the provisions will only be extended for a purpose linked to the coronavirus pandemic. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for his supportive comments on this issue. I join other noble Lords in extending my sympathy to him on the loss of his wife, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
The Government’s intention has always been for the powers to extend the temporary provisions to be used, if necessary, in response to emerging information about the duration of the pandemic, the nature of social distancing requirements and the impact of coronavirus on relevant sectors. We want to provide absolute clarity that the powers to extend will be exercised only where this is necessary and appropriate, and only to mitigate an effect of coronavirus. Therefore, these amendments make this clear on the face of the Bill. The wording we have used is consistent with other legislation. I also remind noble Lords that the requirement for any extensions to be by regulations, subject to the affirmative or “made affirmative” procedure, will provide opportunity for further parliamentary scrutiny.
I am sure that noble Lords will welcome this clarity, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will agree to withdraw Amendment 19 and to not move Amendments 27, 48, 59, 66, 74, 79 and 82, which are intended to achieve the same purpose.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]
I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, not just for their widespread support but for their brevity. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his kind words. I join other noble Lords in very much appreciating that the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has come in today to speak on this issue, and sympathise with him at this time of loss.
It was good to hear the noble Earl give a full response. He always couches his words to your Lordships’ House in such reasonable terms, packaged in a velvet of deepest hue, that it is sometimes easy to think that he is agreeing with you, when in fact he is not. In particular, I picked up his heavy points regarding the Government’s intention not to take up the recommendations from the DPRRC on statutory guidance to which regard must be had. The noble Earl gave very good examples, which had not occurred to me, but I have no reason to doubt that they are genuine. However, the DPRRC’s report is very firm on this issue:
“We have frequently taken the view that statutory guidance to which regard must be had … should be subject to a parliamentary procedure.”
It goes on to say that:
“This is not to say that the guidance should have to be drafted like a statutory instrument … The point is that guidance which has legal significance, and which may have—and may be expressly designed to have—a transformative effect on behaviour in important areas, requires a parliamentary procedure.”
There is clearly no chance that the House will resolve this important issue in this Bill, but I point out to the DPRRC that it has now been raised. It, and other committees, may wish to return to it in order that we resolve it going forward.
The House has given this issue a good kick about. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, for picking up exactly point I was trying to make about the importance of the choice of terminology. He focused on a different set of amendments, but this issue runs like a golden thread through all the Government’s proposals when compared to ours. These are important differences, but they are not necessarily going to hold the House back tonight. I hope, again, that the DPRRC will look at them in due course. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.
“(2) Schedule 1 to the Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/2853) (functions which are not to be the responsibility of an authority’s executive) has effect as if, in paragraph B, after item 72 there were inserted—
“73 Functions relating to pavement licences | Sections 1 to 7 of the Business and Planning Act 2020.”” |
This amendment secures that, where a local authority has executive arrangements, functions relating to pavement licences are not the responsibility of the executive.
““smoking” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Health Act 2006;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “smoking”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s power to extend the date on which Clauses 1 to 9 expire, and certain other dates in those clauses, can only be exercised if the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so to mitigate an effect of coronavirus.
“(3) In subsection (2) “coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 8, line 13.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 29. I remind noble Lords that Members, other than the mover and the Minister, may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Any noble Lord wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 11: Modification of premises licences to authorise off-sales for limited period
Amendment 29
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the Minister’s other amendments the explanatory statements for which refer to this amendment, provide for certain new permissions regarding off-sales to end at 11pm.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 29, I will also speak to the other government amendments grouped with it and to which it relates. I thank noble Lords who have scrutinised the alcohol licensing measures in this Bill and, in particular, those who have made points regarding late opening hours. The Government have listened to and understood the concerns around the possibility of associated noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour occurring when a late licence is in existence.
Taken together, Amendments 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38 and 44 introduce a standard cessation time of 11 pm to operators trading under the new off-sales permissions. They also limit the ability of those premises which are licensed after midnight to resume off-sales at that time, restricting their ability to do so until they open for business the following day. With these amendments, new permissions will apply only until 11 pm or until the current licensing hours for that premises end, whichever is earlier.
We have also tabled Amendment 45, which addresses those premises that may have restrictions on their licences that do not permit the use of a beer garden or other outdoor space beyond a certain hour. Amendment 45 will limit the ability of a premises to carry out off-sales under the new permissions where they are already limited from selling alcohol for consumption in an outdoor area of the premises. That is, if a premises cannot use its outdoor area beyond a particular time, it will not be permitted to carry out off-sales beyond that time under the new permission either. This amendment is a further safeguard to help to ensure that this measure works for local communities and not against them.
I thank again the noble Lords with whom I have engaged inside and outside of this Chamber, who have helped to bring forward these constructive amendments that the Government have tabled today. I look forward to further debate. I beg to move Amendment 29 and look forward to responding to the other amendments in this group.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 40, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, and to the other amendments in this group. For the benefit of those who may have just joined us, let me summarise. The Government have got themselves into a right two and eight. Amendments 29 to 41 deal with bars, pubs and restaurants that have licences to sell alcohol on their premises and which will temporarily be allowed to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises as result of this Bill.
The Bill does not redefine the area covered by pavement licences as being part of the licensed premises. As a consequence, drinks served within the area covered by pavement licences will be off-sales. To enable alcohol, such as glasses of wine and beer, to be served at tables within pavement-licensed areas, the Government have had to lift the current restriction on alcohol off-sales being only in sealed containers. The unintended consequence of lifting this restriction is to allow the unrestricted sale of alcohol from these premises in wine and beer glasses, for example, to people who can then walk down the street, drinking where and when they want.
Local residents do not want people drinking outside their homes, away from licensed premises, with the potential for disorder, violence and urinating in the street, particularly late at night. In addition, broken straight beer glasses can cause horrifying injuries, whether when deliberately broken and used as a weapon or when people fall on to broken glass.
This brings me to the amendments. The Liberal Democrats’ Committee amendment, which sought to restrict off-sales to no later than 11 pm, has been given effect by government Amendments 29, 31 to 34 and 36 in this group, which obviously we support. I thank the Minister for securing this—albeit limited—concession. However, these amendments do not prevent street drinking away from pavement-licensed areas and neither does Labour’s Amendment 39 in this group, albeit that it restricts it to street drinking from plastic cups.
Our Amendment 40 restricts off-sales in open containers to pavement-licensed areas, beer gardens and the like, but also supports businesses by allowing alcohol to be taken away from restaurants, pubs and bars in sealed containers. If the restaurant or pub is too full when you get there—because of social distancing, for example—it allows you to take alcohol home from those premises in an unopened bottle, can or other sealed container, as currently applies to existing off- licences, supporting hard-pressed businesses as a result. Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, does not allow alcohol to be taken away from the premises under any circumstances, which would hinder trade.
In a meeting with Ministers last week, the Government agreed to discuss Amendment 40 with us before Report but they have failed to do so. I explained in Committee why existing provisions and the provisions in the Bill are inadequate to deal with street drinking and disorder. As a consequence, I give notice that I intend to divide the House on Amendment 40.
The Deputy Speaker
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Government for the way in which they have listened on the amendments that have been tabled, particularly in relation to late licensing and the problem that occurs in many communities of police forces being overstretched by over-late licensing for tiny numbers. That seems to be a bit of a tradition going back three or four Governments. It was not just the disruption to local residents that was a problem, it was the huge distortion—in areas such as the one I live in—in how the police budget was used.
I recall an example where a late licence was given to one premises until 5 am. Tiny numbers would be drinking there but the danger of some form of anti-social behaviour between, say, the hours of 1 and 5 am was disproportionately high. Therefore, police rosters for an entire area had to be altered. It took a good two years of argument and pressing to begin to work that backwards. The consequential impact on other policing, when police numbers were very low, was great. I commend the Government on their approach and commend noble Lords who have proposed amendments that would have a similar impact on timing. The foreseeable consequence in relation to police resources, particularly in smaller communities, is huge. That displacement at the moment would be critical.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I propose to the Minister that the question of miners’ welfares always needs to be borne in mind. Whenever there is licensing, I always think miners’ welfares are a good litmus test of whether the law is any good. The miners’ welfares that I know very well are in a range of locations. Some have licences that fall comfortably within the concept of gardens and that kind of space. Some have at great expense designed spaces to capitalise on that. Others do not have that opportunity but have a similar kind of clientele—a highly responsible clientele who have been better in the responsibleness of their behaviour over the last three or four months and are able to drink sensibly and rationally.
What the Government propose seems far more sensible than the amendment. If there were to be an amendment, the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seems the more rational option. It seems to me that, for some businesses that are on the cusp at the moment, simply restricting in would have unforeseen consequences for their business planning. I encourage those miners’ welfares to survive by providing an additional service. Despite the fact that I had great fears about potential late-night drinking, I have no fears about that in communities such as the one I live in. I think the Government have listened and commend their approach on this. I would be interested to hear the debate on what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has to say. He seems to have struck a middle ground but does not appear to be pushing his amendment to a vote.
Lord Balfe [V]
I have one question for the Minister and one point to make. In the city I live in, there are a number of licensed premises near the centre of town for which the local authority has made the licence to sell alcohol cease at 10 pm. Will that still be permissible under the provisions here? I confess that I cannot work it out. It did it to stop people coming out of local pubs and doing what is known as preloading—in other words, getting alcohol from nearby off-licence premises and either trying to take it back into the pub or drinking outside the pub. Will licences earlier than 11 pm still be able to be imposed?
The second point is that the banning of glasses is really quite important. Anyone who has been to the accident and emergency department of Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge will know that scarcely a Saturday night goes by without some sort of incident that has involved alcohol and broken glass—a bottle, a mug or a glass. I am concerned about this and would like the Government to rehearse why they feel they cannot agree to what seems to be a quite reasonable amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for accommodating the concerns expressed, both at Second Reading and especially in Committee, with regard to the noise and nuisance associated with late-night drinking. I welcome the fact that the cut-off will be fixed at 11 pm. This allows bars and restaurants to adapt to these new temporary measures, given the challenge they face and the loss of trade they have suffered, but also recognises the rights of residents, who obviously want to have a good night’s rest and peace and quiet after 11 pm.
I have one question for my noble friend about Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I have some sympathy with what he is proposing, but currently if you walk home on a sunny evening you see the general spillover on to the pavement of regular bars. I assume these are glasses carried out from the bar on to the pavement, so I am not quite sure why we will have two rules—one that will apply to this temporary piece of legislation, while the permanent situation will carry on as normal. Perhaps we should look at what other countries do and learn from them. I have great difficulty in seeing how this would apply in practice.
Lord Shipley [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 40 and support the case for it made so clearly by my noble friend Lord Paddick. I have had two concerns about off-sales during the passage of this Bill: first, off-sales being permitted after 11 pm and, secondly, the use in off-sales at any time of open glass or other containers that could easily be used to cause injury to another person.
The Government have agreed to restrict off-sales to before 11 pm and that is right, but the issue of the containers allowed for off-sales has not been agreed. My noble friend Lord Paddick has made a very persuasive case about the unintended consequences of the Government’s position. The Government so far seem to have failed to put forward a logical case that would prevent an unnecessary extension to street drinking. My noble friend Lord Paddick’s amendment has the advantage of allowing the use of appropriate containers for off-sales but reducing the risk of injury through the use of open glass or other potentially dangerous containers. I think all parts of the House could agree on that compromise. The Government have got themselves into a very difficult position and my noble friend Lord Paddick has proposed a way out of it.
Lord Sheikh [V]
My Lords, I was due to speak on Amendment 27, which restricted the times of alcohol sales off the premises, and after the timely intervention of my noble friend Lady Williams the matter was dropped. I therefore support Amendment 44 and agree with restricting off-sales to 11 pm.
Although we are allowing off-sales, they must be controlled to avoid crime, disorder and disruption. I realise that under Section 76 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, the police can issue an immediate closure notice to any premises if there are “reasonable grounds” to believe
“that the use of particular premises has resulted, or … is likely … to result”
in problems of crime, disorder or disruption.
Having said this, we must take into account areas with clusters of licensed premises in certain parts of London and elsewhere. Four local authorities have over 37% of all licensed premises in London, and there are similar situations in other cities and towns. The point to emphasise is that crime, disorder and nuisance cannot be associated with any particular premises, and therefore the powers to issue closure notices would be difficult to exercise in view of the cluster of licensed premises. I am therefore sure that the police and local authorities will welcome the restrictions set out in Amendment 44.
If we do not restrict the hours of alcohol sales, as proposed by Amendment 44, it will allow people who have already had a lot to drink to take alcohol away with them, drink in the streets and cause problems in the neighbourhood at night. It will also enable people to have late parties in their home or garden, causing nuisance and disturbances to their neighbours.
In regard to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, although I supported his similar amendment in Committee, I am unable to support Amendment 40 because I do not see that it will do anything. I cannot see there being a problem.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It will be dangerous to allow the sale of alcohol in beer glasses, as they could be used as a weapon. The police regularly have to intervene when fights break out once a consumer has drunk a few glasses of beer or spirits. A glass container is a dangerous weapon, often used by those under the influence of alcohol. Innocent people walking near these premises can get hurt and could be hospitalised, thereby putting pressure on the NHS during this difficult time. The amendment would prevent the premises selling to customers in beer glasses. I hope that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will be carried.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
There are two related but separate amendments in this group concerning off-sales. The first, to limit the time for off-sales, was the subject of extensive debate in Committee and a commitment from the Minister to bring forward a government amendment on Report. The government amendments achieve that by limiting to 11 pm the latest time by which off-sales can be made. As this exactly replicates the proposal from these Benches in Committee, obviously we support these amendments and thank the Minister for responding so positively to the arguments made.
The second element is that of off-sales in open containers. My noble friend Lord Paddick has made another powerful case for limiting off-sales to closed containers, be it in cans or bottles. The reason is to prevent unruly scenes that may follow drinking from beer glasses in the street. Broken glass in the hands of those worse for wear is a nasty weapon. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to limit such off-sales to non-glass containers, but that misses one of the critical arguments entirely, which is that off-sales in open containers, whether glass or plastic, can lead to anti-social behaviour. There have been plenty of such incidents before sporting events that resulted in drinking limits being made. My noble friend Lord Paddick’s amendment seeks the same protections for local communities and, indeed, other sensible drinkers. We do not wish to see a Bill designed to help businesses becoming one which, as a side-effect, encourages irresponsible and unsafe drinking. My noble friend’s amendment is important for individuals, communities and policing, and it clearly has the full support of these Benches.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the government amendments. As other noble Lords said, a convincing case was made for the ending off-sales at 11 pm under these new licences. This was first raised in the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, Meg Hillier. She raised the problem she is having in her constituency even before these powers will come into play. There were huge problems in London Fields, and she raised the concern that if the Bill as it was then had been passed, it would have exacerbated the problem. I thank the Government for listening to that. I also thank the Covent Garden Community Association and the Soho Society. Weymouth Town Council was also concerned about this, as was everybody else who got in touch with me. It was also pleasing to see that we had the leaders of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the City of Westminster, Camden and Southwark, two Conservative and two Labour boroughs, coming together because they had a number of premises that would be affected by these proposals. It is good that the Government listened and I thank them very much for that.
On the question of containers, I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is making, but there is also the issue of buying beer to drink outside, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, touched on. I sometimes go to the Shipwrights Arms in Tooley Street, and if you go in there and ask for two pints of bitter, they will ask, “Inside or outside?” If you say “Outside”, you will get it in two plastic containers—you do not get glasses outside. You will meet a big, burly security guard, and you will not get past him if you are carrying glasses. I take the point that glasses are dangerous and can be used as weapons, and we need to be mindful of that. However, in many cases we have those plastic containers, which you often see at sporting venues. However, I see the point the noble Lord is making.
My noble friend Lord Mann made a point about policing resources. I remember being a young councillor in Southwark in the 1980s. At that point, the council gave the music and dance licence, and the magistrates gave the alcohol licence—of course, that has all changed now. I remember that the police came along to us, exasperated, and said, “You’ve granted all these music and dance licences, then of course the pubs are getting all these licences. On the Old Kent Road on a Friday and Saturday night, we have to put in a huge amount of resources when we do the weekly rosters. Then at the same time you’re moaning at us that you want more officers on the beat. We can’t physically manage it all.” I remember how that was important at the time.
However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the government amendments that she has spoken to, I am delighted that the Government have listened, and I look forward to her response to the debate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken on this group of amendments and to those who have welcomed the government amendments. I take the opportunity to reiterate to the House that the government amendments in this group will introduce a standard cessation time of 11 pm for operators to trade under the new off-sales permissions or—I reiterate to my noble friend Lord Balfe —until the current licensing hours for that premises end, whichever is earlier. If that is 10 pm in Cambridge, that is the time it will be. As has always been the case with this measure, the new provisions will not affect premises’ underlying licences. They provide for new permissions that will apply to the holders of on-sales-only licences, and more restrictive dual licences that allow for off-sales under more restrictive conditions than are provided for under the new permission.
Amendment 45 will further help to ensure that the new permissions work for and not against local communities, as I said. It will do this by limiting the ability of premises to carry out off-sales under the new permissions where they are already limited from selling alcohol for consumption in an outdoor area of the premises. That is, if a premises cannot use its outdoor area beyond a particular time, it will not be permitted to carry out off-sales beyond that time under the new permission either. Where such restrictions apply, it is likely that a licensing authority has imposed the conditions to reduce the risk of noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour to local residents. These conditions should therefore remain in place. I hope that noble Lords will welcome these amendments, and again I thank those who led to their tabling today.
Amendments 30, 35 and 37 from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seek similarly to restrict the hours when the new off-sales permissions apply. I thank the noble Lord for his constructive engagement as the Bill has moved through the House and hope that, given my explanation of our amendments, he will feel that he does not need to move his amendments when they are called.
Briefly, I know that my noble friend Lady Stowell did not move her amendment, but I will relay some of the points that we have discussed. For the sale of alcohol for consumption in outside areas already part of the licensed premises, such as a beer garden, those sales are defined as on-sales and premises will therefore not require a new permission to carry out this function. However, if premises wish to sell alcohol for consumption in bordering outside areas that are not on the premises plan as part of the existing licensed premises, they will still require an off-sales permission in order to do so. That might include an area they seek to occupy following the successful application of a pavement licence.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s amendment at page 8, line 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s amendment at page 8, line 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s amendment at page 8, line 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s amendment at page 8, line 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s amendment at page 8, line 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s amendment at page 8, line 33.
Lord Paddick
“(5A) Where subsections (4) and (5) apply, off-sales must be made in—(a) an aluminium or tin-plated steel can;(b) a sealed glass container; or(c) a plastic container.(5B) Subsection (5A) does not apply where the sale of alcohol is for consumption—(a) in accordance with a pavement licence as defined by Part 1 of this Act; or(b) in an outdoor space directly attached to the premises and under the control of the licensee.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent the sale of alcohol off-premises in a beer glass or other container that could easily be broken and used as a weapon.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Bhatia, and my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Pinnock for supporting the amendment. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, provided drinking takes place outside a pub within the curtilage of the premises—that is, on the licensed plan—it is legal. Once it goes beyond that, drinking in open containers is illegal. This is to prevent people walking down the street and consuming alcohol in pint glasses or wine glasses without restriction, which this allows.
The Minister said the appropriate place for this to be addressed is in guidance, not legislation. With the greatest respect, that is complete and utter nonsense. The rules around current off-licences are set down in legislation. The legislation says that off-licences are not allowed, in law, to sell alcohol in open containers. She talks about an effective and long-standing regime. The effective and long-standing regime to prevent the sort of disorder the amendment seeks to prevent is exactly the same as it is for off-licences.
I do not know whether the Minister has seen the irresponsible participants in street parties and block parties that the police have had to deal with during lockdown. Without this amendment, we will see even more of that sort of thing. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 42. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 42
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“( ) The Secretary of State may grant authorisation of off-sales for a period ending no later than 30 September 2021 to qualifying businesses.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce this group of amendments. When we think about what is required for the economic rebuild, the small independent breweries have demonstrated exactly those necessary qualities, particularly over the past decade. They now find that in many ways they are being shut out of the emergency powers being put in place to get the economy motoring again. For this reason I have tabled Amendments 42, 43, 50 and 51.
Amendment 42 is a minor amendment that will enable the small independent breweries to make off-sales to their customers. These businesses are known to HMRC because they will have passed the fit and proper person test and they have shown innovation during this crisis. They want this link on the temporary basis that is set out in the Bill to allow them to be economically self-sufficient and not need to come to the Government for support.
The breweries have had no sales to speak of during the Covid crisis, given that the pub sector has rightly been shut down for public health reasons. I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider these minor amendments to the licensing laws for the temporary period covered by the Bill. This will allow small breweries in particular to be rewarded for the innovation they have shown in the past that has enabled them to grow great businesses. Like all small businesses, they want to be part of the backbone of the British economy. Will the Government support these amendments, which seek merely to provide economic independence for this sector so that it does not have to draw on public money? If not, can my noble friend set out the support that the Government are looking to provide for this sector of the licensed trade?
I look forward to listening to the speeches of those Members who have signed up to these amendments and others in the group. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for moving his amendment. He has raised an interesting subject, but I will speak to my own Amendment 46. When one debates amendments in Committee one probes the Government, but on Report one tries to clarify a few points.
Amendment 46 seeks to give sports clubs the same rights with regard to the sale of alcohol from their bars as other venues. Why is that important? Virtually all of these institutions are dependent upon their bar receipts to function. I am speaking on behalf of rugby, which may be the last sport to come back. In any small rugby club and even some quite big ones, a huge percentage of the money they generate comes not from match fees or membership dues, it is from their bar receipts. They are what keep the junior teams ticking over. They provide for the bus to play away games. They are important because they ensure that the pitch can be maintained and the shirts can be provided. Can we bring sports clubs in with those concerns that may benefit from this possible revenue and thus allow them to derive some benefit from it?
Why have I brought this amendment back? It is understandable, given the rapidly changing nature of this Bill, with Ministers from other departments coming in, but I was told at Second Reading that sports venues could get a special licence but in Committee I was told that that will not happen at all under this legislation. It is possible that both those statements are correct, but I rather doubt it. The Minister has been very helpful on this issue and I know that she has been looking at what I am talking about. She may regret having done so now, but she has taken action.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 52 on digital ID and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, as well as my noble friends Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom—who was squeezed out by the limit of four proposers. I also thank the British Retail Consortium for its advice. The members are old friends because for many years during my Tesco days, I was the consortium’s deputy chair. It turns out that digital ID is a subject that garners great interest right across the House and indeed, despite her rather discouraging comments in Committee, I discover that it is also of considerable interest to my noble friend the Minister, and her response today will be critical.
There are two key issues. The first is the urgent need for digital ID to complement the system of physical ID on which we currently rely for sales of alcohol, whether in shops or in pubs. This, as the Minister explained in Committee, is because there is no industry standard for digital ID. Ironically, the work on developing it has been delayed by the pandemic until next year, as we heard from the Minister. That seems to be very slow given the security technology that exists and our proficiency in such matters here in the UK.
The situation with alcohol contrasts with that on verifying sales of knives—which is surely more dangerous—tobacco, lottery tickets and fireworks. Digital ID is in regular use in all these areas, despite the lack of this standard. Operators are ready and willing to use this for alcohol too, and it would bring benefits through productivity, fraud control and—this is the second key issue for today—infection control under coronavirus. Its use would remove the need for customers or staff to wash hands or resanitise. There would be no requirement to show paper ID or carry a passport, as some youngsters do when they go out, sometimes leading to loss in my experience. That is a serious matter, given current Passport Office delays. It is especially helpful at automatic check-outs and could speed up queues at pubs and elsewhere.
Our Amendment 52 permits the use of digital verification, provided the licence or certificate holder reasonably believes, with all reasonable precautions and due diligence, that the individual purchasing alcohol is under 18 years old. The amendment is drafted, in effect, to allow the Government a trial for digital ID. It would end after six months, in January, and could be extended once only, by which time we expect the industry standard to be in operation and Covid to be behind us.
We need both a firm commitment from the Government to make this standard happen in the first half of next year and a temporary arrangement to permit the use of digital ID during Covid. For some other requirements, for example at the CMA and ICO, regulators are operating an easement programme during Covid. Another approach that occurs to me is for the Government to give guidance to trading standards that the requirement for paper checks for age ID for alcohol will not be enforced, where there is a reliable digital verification method in operation, until the new standard is adopted. We all want proper enforcement. We must make progress on this, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says before pressing my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, Amendment 52, which I have signed and strongly support, is similar but different, in a crucial respect, to the one which the noble Baroness and I tabled in Committee. I am delighted that we are joined by even heavier artillery on Report. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said:
“At present it is not possible to use a digital ID as proof of age for the purchase of alcohol in the UK because there is no industry standard for digital ID… Until such a standard is agreed, the current restrictions should be upheld. I hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment. I shall finish there.”—[Official Report, 13/7/20, col. 1435.]
I am not going to repeat what I said in Committee—for which I am sure the Minister is grateful—but I know she is always open to sound argument. I want to show why her brief in Committee was not entirely accurate.
It is rather misleading to say baldly that there is no industry standard for digital ID. Back in 2016, the age verification group of the Digital Policy Alliance—which has some distinguished and knowledgeable present and former parliamentarians among its members—sponsored a publicly available specification, PAS, code of practice standard number 1296 on online age checking. This was adopted by the British Standards Institution and the independent regulator, the Age Check Certification Scheme. It is now PAS 1296:2018.
A publicly available specification is a voluntary standard intended to assist providers of age-restricted products and services online with a means to adopt and demonstrate best practice and compliance. There are easily available audit processes and services to check conformity with the PAS, involving policy, quality and technical evaluation, and an enormous number of reputable companies provide age-verification services through digital ID systems. As the noble Baroness said, in many ways the UK is leading the way in digital ID. It is active across the range of age-restricted products and services, such as DVDs, gambling, lottery tickets and scratchcards, knives, air weapons, fireworks, petrol, solvents and cigarettes, but not—perversely and uniquely—alcohol.
This is the digital ID marketplace that the Government said they wanted to build, in their call for evidence last year. Most of these companies are UK-based and many are global. Nearly all work to the standard set by PAS 1296:2018. Many of them have other forms of certification and security standards in place, such as ISO 27001. There is an active trade body, the Age Verification Providers Association, whose members—as the Minister probably knows—have just had good news from the High Court in an important judicial review case involving non-implementation of the age-verification provisions of the Digital Economy Act.
Another government department, BEIS, through its Office for Product Safety and Standards, together with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, provides training that
“will enable participants to confidently apply the PAS 1296:2018”.
Not only is there a form of auditable standard in place, but reputable training in compliance with PAS 1296.
As we pointed out in Committee, this is a strongly deregulatory measure. Retailers have noted that almost 24% of supermarket baskets contain an age-restricted item. As a result of current rules, many customers are waiting longer than necessary. This would ease any congestion, mitigate the risks of queuing, reduce the need for continual sanitisation by staff—as the noble Baroness said—and be for the benefit of all in infection control. Rather than being the last ship in the convoy, can the Home Office not steam ahead on this? The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, explained that it is essentially a pilot period only. I urge the Government to accept our amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 52. I very much hope that the Government welcome the spirit of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, even if they cannot accept the amendment today—although I hope they can. There are a number of areas in public life where we urgently need a proper age-verification system that deals directly with what an individual can and, on occasion, cannot do. Gambling and access to legal pornography are two that come to mind, but access to alcohol, whether consumed on or off the premises, is under direct consideration today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke convincingly in Committee and again this evening on the benefits that a digital ID system would bring. This was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who also explained what is happening in the digital marketplace. If, as the noble Baroness says, this boils down simply to putting ID cards, passports or driving licences on mobile phones, it is hard to see why the Government do not grab this initiative. It is already widely used, particularly for verifying age for knife sales.
There may be other work going on in the Home Office on digital ID, but I would be satisfied if the Government today confirmed that they are aware of the benefits of digital ID, supportive of the technology in principle and prepared to work with the industry to resolve any outstanding issues in the near future.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I too will address Amendment 52. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for the interest she has shown in digital ID. I again declare my interest as chairman of the board of PASS, the Proof of Age Standards Scheme. I welcome the opportunity to again put on record my support for digital age verification. I am proud of the work PASS does; it has stood the test of time well in providing assurance through a set of national standards and an independent audit of physical proof-of-age cards. However, we are determined that PASS will not stand still. In an age when so many young people own a smartphone—according to Ofcom data in 2018, 95% of 16 to 24 year-olds own a smart- phone—it is only pragmatic for proof-of-age schemes to adapt to the technology most widely used by young adults.
That is precisely why PASS launched a consultation to seek views on its proposals to develop a set of standards to underpin digital proof of age. The PASS proposals will offer a seamless transition from physical to digital verification, continuing to support the many thousands of physical proof-of-age cards currently in use while mirroring those high standards for a new generation of digital proof of age. It will create a universal solution that will work in any number of outlets that sell or provide age-restricted products, as well as for alcohol licence holders. It will avoid additional costs for retailers and pubs, which are, as we all recognise, experiencing unprecedented challenge and change—that is why this Bill, and its measures to help businesses as the economy starts to reopen, are so welcome. It will allow for a level playing field of competition and choice for the new market of digital-age providers, where retailers and licence holders will not be reliant on a single supplier.
I do not believe that we want to prejudge the findings of the consultation: it closes this week, on 24 July, and the responses so far run into hundreds. However, there is support for the direction of travel set out by PASS from retail trade bodies, including the Association of Conveniences Stores, the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, the Retail of Alcohol Standards Group, and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, and high-street supermarket brands, some of which are members of the British Retail Consortium. There is support within the hospitality sector, including from some well-known pub companies, and from the majority of card issuers, including CitizenCard and Young Scot. There is also support from the Age Verification Providers Association, which includes many of the new generation of tech companies, specialist in digital solutions, and the Government’s very own commissioned expert panel on age restrictions.
I pay tribute to the hard work and responsibility of the retail and hospitality industries over recent years. That we talk less today than in the past of the scourge of underage drinking and the dangers of age-restricted products is a great tribute to their hard work and responsibility. But let us not lose sight of the importance of preventing the sale of such products to minors; the protection of children from harm is a vital licensing objective. Regulation is important in managing risk, and accreditation against agreed and independently audited national standards is vital.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Oh, as he is not there, I will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey.
Lord Harris of Haringey [V]
My Lords, this is a slightly strange group of amendments. We have talked about microbreweries and so on, but most of the debate has focused on Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I support what has been said on it. Of course there is no industry standard yet for digital ID; the whole process has been very slow. However, as a number of noble Lords have commented, security technology has been moving very rapidly and there is no doubt that this could be delivered without any great difficulty.
The reality at the moment is that, when young people go out to pubs or bars for an evening of entertainment, they have to take a physical card with them; often, it is a passport or a driving licence. In the nature of things, those physical documents get lost, which brings extra costs and security issues that we should all be wary of. However, people’s ability to safeguard their mobile phone is always very high.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, gave us probably more detail than any of us ever wanted to know about this particular topic and the standards being adopted and agreed. However, I think that the approach taken by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara is the way forward, and I hope that the Minister can agree something this evening.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She was clearly concerned that if this amendment were to pass tonight, it would somehow favour one or other of the current developers of the technology for digital age verification. However, if you listen to her speech, you will find that she seemed to be defending the right of PASS—a scheme which she chairs, and which has done noble service to age verification over the years—to continue as is for several more months.
I hope that when the Minister looks at this, she can find a way forward along the lines of Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
[Inaudible.]—and related amendments, including one tabled by my noble friend Lord Addington that seeks to give sports clubs, which often rely on bar takings, the same facility as pubs and other bars to provide off-sales. An amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to achieve the same extension for small breweries. These amendments support small businesses and give essential support to community clubs, and as such we on these Benches support them both.
Another very important amendment, Amendment 52, would enable digital age verification. It is surprising that that does not already exist. A very strong case has been made for this change by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. In the light of the experience throughout this crisis of a significant shift being made across society to digital means of providing services, this proposal should surely be accepted by the Government. Perhaps the Minister will be able to indicate when that move to digital age verification will be enabled—as come it will.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Addington, relating to small breweries and sporting clubs. I am a bit disappointed that the Government have not found a way to do something here. We hear lots of talk about supporting small business, but we seem to be in a rigid situation, where we cannot move out of where we are. I do not see why we could not do something and it is regrettable that we could not find a way. I accept that breweries do not have licences now, but they could be given something temporarily. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made the point that sports clubs are often open only a couple of nights a week. Why have we not sorted them out? In this emergency Bill to deal with Covid-19, we have chosen to ignore them, and that is regrettable. I do not see why the Government have done that. They could have moved a bit more on that. I support the amendments, and it is regrettable that there will be no progress on them.
A convincing case has been laid out for Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and other noble Lords. I supported the idea in Committee. Equally, I see some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I accept that this is a temporary Bill; perhaps doing something permanent in a temporary Bill may be a problem, but the least we should get tonight is a commitment. Technically, this can be done and the Government should get on and make sure that it happens.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly for the interest in Amendment 52, tabled by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Bourne and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, on digital age verification. I could agree with virtually everything said in the debate on this amendment. I am very keen to progress this agenda, and it was in discussing this that my noble friend and I realised that we had a mutual interest in moving this agenda forward—she as a former Digital Minister and me dealing with data and identity in the Home Office.
The Government have carefully considered the concerns raised by this amendment. We support its aims, and we believe that a more holistic approach is needed to enable the use of digital identity in compliance with age-verification requirements in the Licensing Act for the sale of alcohol. As I explained in Committee, the protection of children from harm is an objective that all licensed premises should promote. Age verification plays a critical role in this and it is essential that we have confidence in the forms of identification presented as proof of age to promote this licensing objective. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said, the PASS accredits a number of national and local suppliers of ID cards, offering retailers flexibility to choose an appropriate card to fit their needs and fulfil their licence condition.
At present it is not possible to use a digital ID as proof of age for the purchase of alcohol in the UK due to the lack of an agreed industry standard for digital ID. Without trusted digital identity standards in place, licence holders cannot know that market solutions are fit for purpose. This would make it very difficult for them to meet the reasonable precautions and due diligence requirements described in Amendment 52. The lack of an equivalent national standard for digital ID would lead to uncertainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was correct in saying that movement on this is slow. I share his frustration and I know that my noble friend, a former Digital Minister, does too, but we do not think it is right to place licence holders in a position in which they are being asked to accept proof of ID without a set of agreed standards, even on temporarily. To do so may place them at risk of committing a criminal offence.
Although the Government are resisting this amendment, we do not disagree with—in fact we are very supportive of—the principle of digital ID. I set out in Committee some of the steps we are taking to progress work in this area. A call for evidence was launched last summer and the responses overwhelmingly agreed that the Government have a role in developing a framework for digital ID use in the UK. Respondents stressed the need for legal certainty on how to use digital identity. The Government will consult on developing legislation to set provisions for consumer protection relating to digital ID, specific rights for individuals, an ability to seek redress if something goes wrong and where responsibility for oversight should lie. The Government will also consult on the appropriate privacy and technical standards for secure digital identity. Sufficient oversight of these standards needs to be established to build trust and to facilitate innovation, which will provide organisations with a handrail to develop new, future-facing products, which I know is exactly what my noble friend seeks.
The Government plan to update existing laws on identity checking to enable digital ID to be used in the greatest number of circumstances. However, it is only when the framework and, most importantly, the standards are in place that we can expect industry and citizens to trust and have confidence in using and accepting digital IDs. Now, knowing our mutual interest in this subject, I hope that the Government and I will be able to draw on my noble friend’s considerable experience in this area as plans develop. I invite her to engage with Ministers and officials on this work as it develops. I am happy to give a commitment, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Barran, that we will work together with my noble friend towards our shared aspiration. To be honest, after four years in the Home Office I am glad that I have found someone interested in my policy area of digital ID and data. I hope that, with that commitment, my noble friend will support me in my longer-term vision for digital identities and will not move her amendment when it is reached.
I now turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Holmes. As noble Lords will be aware, the provisions in the Bill add permission for off-sales to most premises with an existing on-sales premises licence. It is not a mechanism to amend the process by which premises licences are granted.
I shall deal with Amendments 42, 43 and 50, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes, first. My noble friend has spoken passionately in support of small breweries. He is right to say that they have thrived over the past few years and we do not want to lose that. They are important. I note his point that his amendments could help breweries to sell alcohol to the public. However, as I said in Committee, we feel that any proposal that a business should be given a full premises licence without proper scrutiny by the local licensing authority, the police or the public is a step too far.
Similarly, with regard to Amendment 51, we are not currently seeking to make changes to the number of temporary event notices available for application in one year. Temporary licences granted for a limited period should not be used as a route to a permanent licence. As I have set out, there are crucial scrutiny mechanisms in place for granting them to ensure that all premises are selling alcohol responsibly.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call on the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to ask a short question for elucidation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
My Lords, I was a little disappointed by my noble friend the Minister’s response, especially given our shared aspiration to get digital ID to come in. Will she agree to either a meeting or a letter to talk in a little more detail about the timing of digital ID—recognising that there are some difficulties but that she has made some good progress with her call for evidence? We could also discuss whether there is anything to be done on the enforcement of age verification for alcohol during the Covid-19 period, perhaps using an easement of the kind that I mentioned to her has been used by some other departments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I would be delighted to meet my noble friend to discuss making progress on this. As I say, I am very glad to have a friend in digital identity.
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this group of amendments. I am very attracted to Amendment 52, along with many noble Lords who both spoke and signed up to the amendment. My only reason for not signing was that it already had the support that it needed. It illustrates the need across Government to up the activity of all potential digital applications. We have world-leading businesses in digital. We need to look at every possible opportunity and means of enabling them to flourish and solve problems which have dogged our society for decades. We have the tools to do so, and Amendment 52 is but one clear and effective example of that.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for, as she said, her fulsome response. As always, she addressed all the issues which were raised with her. I am slightly disappointed that we could not go further to assist innovative businesses in our country. I understand the points that she raised, and I accept them, but would she be prepared to join me on a visit to a small independent brewery to hear at first hand the issues such businesses are facing? Through that discussion, perhaps we could consider whether there is anything else we could do to help this vibrant, innovative sector of our economy and society moving forward. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can tell my noble friend that I would love to come with him to a brewery.
“(11) In this section “pre-cut off time”—(a) in relation to licensed premises and a day, means any time between when the premises first open that day for the purposes of selling alcohol for consumption on the premises and 11pm (but this is subject to paragraph (b));(b) in relation to licensed premises and a day throughout which the premises are open for the purposes of selling alcohol for consumption on the premises, means any time between when the premises are first open that day for the purposes of selling alcohol for consumption on the premises and 11pm.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s amendment at page 8, line 33.
“(12) Where a premises licence authorises the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption in an outdoor area of the licensed premises at some, but not all, of the times when it authorises the sale by retail of alcohol for consumption elsewhere on the premises, times when the premises are not open for the purposes of selling alcohol for consumption in the outdoor area of the premises are to be regarded for the purposes of this section as times when the premises are not “open for the purposes of selling alcohol for consumption on the premises”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that certain new permissions for off-sales do not apply to times when the premises licence does not allow sales of alcohol for consumption in outdoor areas of the premises.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s power to extend the date on which Clause 11(1) to (10) expires, and another date in that Clause, can only be exercised if the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so to mitigate an effect of coronavirus.
“(14A) In subsection (14) “coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is consequential on the Minister’s other amendment to page 20.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNichol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 53. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 12: Removal of powers of court in relation to unfair relationships
Amendment 53
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Stevenson, for supporting this amendment, which limits the disapplication of the Consumer Credit Act in Clause 12 to being only in so far as it relates to affordability.
There is no disagreement over disapplying affordability criteria, given that the Government have asked banks to speed up loans and dispense with the usual due diligence on affordability. However, we can see no reason for disapplication for unfair treatment, such as in default measures, which have been at the centre of more than one SME banking scandal. This is not an unreasonable amendment, because disapplication for affordability is exactly the same measure that has been introduced throughout the Lending Standards Board’s voluntary lending code. Why do the Government have to go further in disapplying remedies for all unfair treatment under this Bill rather than limiting it to affordability?
Apart from for micro-businesses, there is no regulatory protection for business loans or recovery procedures other than the measure the Government now seek to disapply. This was excruciatingly elaborated in the Financial Conduct Authority’s report on RBS’s Global Restructuring Group, which said that the FCA had no regulatory power. It also said that it was unlikely the behaviour would have been caught by the senior managers regime, had that applied. Andrew Bailey has since spoken before committees in Parliament and at many other meetings, explaining how business lending and debt recovery are outside the regulatory perimeter.
In Committee, the Minister said that
“the Government have retained Financial Conduct Authority oversight for debt collection, meaning that lenders must comply with the Financial Conduct Authority rules on arrears, default and recovery.”—[Official Report, 13/7/20; col. 1516.]
Those rules are only for loans up to £25,000 made to sole traders, unincorporated associations and partnerships of fewer than four people—that is, micro-businesses. The Bill deals with removing protection from loans up to £50,000, which is by far the majority of bounce-back loans, given that the average loan is £37,000. Why, when there is more restrained disapplication for micro-businesses, and in the voluntary code, are the Government so resistant to a similar compromise in the Bill? Why are the Government depriving most bounce-back borrowers of the courts’ protection, at least for debt recovery?
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to this extremely important amendment. However, I congratulate the Government on their introduction of the bounce-back loans and their enormous efforts to try to help businesses survive this crisis, which was not of their making or anybody else’s.
I am sure that my noble friend is sympathetic to the circumstances that could arise, and hope that she can reassure the House that the intention of this measure is not to change the balance of what is fair in circumstances where debts are being recovered by the lenders of these bounce-back loans. I find it difficult to understand why the Government have only really preserved the regulations relating to default and debt recovery for those loans up to £25,000, and only for micro-businesses. I would appreciate it if my noble friend could help the House in this regard. Restaurant owners and hairdressing salons which are limited companies may find that their equipment is subject to seizure when banks try to recover these bounce-back loans.
The banks do not need to recover the loans—indeed, they have expressed reservations and discomfort about being asked to take these borrowers to court. I believe there will be consultation with Ministers over the summer about how this is going to work. If they have a guarantee, they do not need, in theory, to press too hard to recover the loans. But if there are some attractive assets, it may be tempting for them to do so. I hope the Government will be able to state clearly that they want reasonable debt recovery only, and the intention is not to change the balance of fairness in these circumstances.
Forgive me if I am asking too much at this late stage of the Bill and with the emergency nature of the legislation, but I ask my noble friend to consider whether the Government might accept that they could take the power to make regulations, reapplying the Consumer Credit Act to debt recovery should that prove a popular and necessary measure, or whether they can include the range of £25,000-£50,000 in some other way so that we can avoid the reputational damage that may go along with this. Nevertheless, I welcome the bounce-back loans and I encourage my noble friend to give us some clarification.
Lord Carlile of Berriew [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, whose amendment this is—and I am very pleased to be a signatory—is a considerable expert on the subjects under discussion, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I have enormous respect for them both, and for their skills in this area. I am but a mere lawyer and feel, to an extent, inadequate to parry on the financial details under discussion.
I have spent a lot of my time in recent decades dealing with fraud cases in which people often got themselves into financial difficulty, through no fault of their own, and were then under huge pressure from the banks. We have recently heard cases in which the Post Office prosecuted people who pleaded guilty to criminal offences which they had not committed. We have heard about the remedial action that is having to be taken, very expensively, to put those wrongs right.
The bounce-back loans are of course very welcome, but they bring a whole new cohort of people into, what is for them, often very substantial borrowing. Many of the businesses we are talking about do not have substantial overdrafts in the ordinary run of things. They are able to live on a cash balance, albeit often small, and they do not have to enter into sophisticated agreements with banks. This applies particularly to family businesses, which have either been created recently or are long established. The debt picture and the debt threats for such companies are frighteningly great compared to the time before coronavirus.
Therefore, over the years, there are plenty of examples, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, of banks being sometimes very oppressive towards customers who are put out of business without understanding what redress they may have against those banks. Unfortunately, these provisions remove some of that redress, which they might discover they have against the banks.
In my view, some simple legal remedies with flexibility are needed, so that if, for example, a company defaults on a loan but can demonstrate that, within a couple of years, it can haul itself back to not only profitability but the ability to repay the loan, we would be in a much better position. Surely that would be a far better outcome. The amendment we are considering is one solution to that problem, and that is why I support it.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, with whom I have exchanged emails, at her instigation, about this amendment. I said to her yesterday in an email that the Government really should produce some kind of arbitral procedure which would enable loans in the range we are debating to be discussed, a solution to be found that would satisfy the banks in the long term, and the businesses concerned to carry on trading. These loans have of course been introduced in an emergency, but it is actually less of an emergency for the banks than for the people who take out the loans, and about whom we are talking. Unless something better is offered, this amendment would rebalance fairness so that there is a level playing field between the lender and the borrower.
The Deputy Speaker
I now call Lord Naseby.
Let us go to Lord German and then we will try to return to Lord Naseby.
Lord German [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment, tabled by my noble friend, because, put simply, it would do two things. First, it would put beyond doubt the protection which borrowers of bounce-back loans have against their lenders pursuing punitive action if they default. Secondly, given the relatively low take-up of these important loans, it would give reassurance to companies seeking to use the facility provided by the Government as essential finance to keep them in business and retain employment.
Companies may have been, or are, hesitant to take out these loans for a variety of reasons. For example, they might be worried about repayment, the ongoing viability of their business or whether they wish to continue trading. But to respond to these fears, the Government must assist by providing the maximum level of certainty on what happens if the borrower cannot repay the loan. The guarantee to the lenders is that the Government will bear the cost of defaulting. This is very welcome, but that guarantee is given to the lender and not to the borrower. There is some protection in place to prevent the lender taking further actions against the borrower, but the legislation before us takes away most of the ultimate protections for a borrower—to have recourse to the courts.
My noble friend has outlined these issues in great detail. I am grateful to her for the forensic manner in which she laid out the borrower protection arguments for this amendment. I will not repeat the detail on the missing protections that she has given.
Taking the two reasons I have outlined for supporting this amendment separately, on the first it is clear that many lenders, mostly large high-street banks, will already have banking arrangements with those who are seeking or have taken out these bounce-back loans. In Committee, I quoted examples of this relationship possibly being used to influence the behaviours of lenders. Put simply, they have financial power over their borrowers through that continuing relationship with them. Other lenders, many of them now trying to lend money under these schemes, have difficulty in getting their hands on the 0.5% interest cash that the Government have made available to lend, largely because the big banks will not funnel these funds through to them, on the “Why should we help our competitors?” principle. This means that the big banks will have a bounce-back loans advantage, most frequently with their existing customers.
On the second reason, the Government estimate that many more of these loans will be needed—perhaps four times as many—to protect small companies from going under, given the consequent unemployment that would cause. These loans need to provide protection for the borrower in a way which will not deter them from proceeding. The fallback of court protection from the poor behaviour of the lender provides a higher level of reassurance to borrowers, in line with the current legislation.
I share the Government’s hope that these loans can provide a lifeline to many companies. They are a very good response to the pandemic. This amendment would support the Government’s ambition and strengthen the case for businesses considering taking out these loans by removing the concern that default could lead to unfair sanctions being imposed on them.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for her willingness to talk virtually to a number of us who have been focused on this issue; however, I came away from those discussions almost more confused than I went into them. This House will be aware that the financial regulators—certainly the FCA—do not regulate institutions but activities. One of the activities it cannot regulate is commercial lending, which is on the far side of what is generally called the regulatory perimeter. A slight sleight of hand is, to some extent, made available to sole traders, micro-companies and the very small end of small businesses so that they do merit some protection, that typically coming in the form of an appeal to the ombudsman. Although the ombudsman has very limited power to actually make sure that any remedy is effected, there is at least one to go to.
For companies that do not fall into this category—my noble friend Lady Bowles provided the detail, so I will not repeat it—there is no form of protection; the FCA has no standing. Therefore, when those companies are put into default and the banks come to collect on their debts, their only resort has been to the courts. Under this arrangement, that is now removed from those companies if they have taken out a bounce-back loan. I really do not understand why the ability to go to the courts to protest unfair treatment has been removed.
The Government have full knowledge that the FCA cannot act under these circumstances. I suppose that, occasionally, somebody in government will argue that the FCA can turn to the Senior Managers Regime, but, as we all know, having listened frequently to the testimony from Andrew Bailey, only in very rare instances would the regime apply. Indeed, the FCA has been very reluctant to use it, even in some very egregious cases; in fact, I would be interested to hear from the Minister the number of times the FCA has actually used it. It is not a workable mechanism for trying to force the banks to provide fair treatment to the larger end of SMEs if they go into default under their bounce- back loans.
The Bounce Back Loan Scheme is brilliant, but I am very concerned that it will end up with a stain on its character when, in 18 months’ or two years’ time, we have a chain of companies that are clearly being treated unfairly by the banks and both the Government and the regulators stand back and say, “There is nothing we can do. This was an unregulated activity, only contract law applied, and we have disallowed these companies’ ability to go to the courts to seek any form of redress”. Frankly, it is a tragedy and a scandal in the making.
I am not sure it has been made clear to companies that when they apply for bounce-back loans, it is caveat emptor and they will be without even the normal range of protections should they go into default. If I understand correctly, the Government have decided to disapply the right to turn to the courts as part of an enticement to the banks to participate in the Bounce Back Loan Scheme. I cannot believe that that concession should be given; and if it was asked for by the banks, I am even more worried because, as we know, the banks seek opportunities to make profit—that is the business they are in.
Perhaps the Minister is not that familiar with the RBS and GRG scandals. The GRG was a profit centre. The RBS staff who were part of the GRG were looking not only to get loans and interest repaid but to make an additional profit, particularly by seizing assets. Under the various contract terms, they could identify firms that would value those assets. The owners or borrowers could argue that the assets were being valued at well below market value, but had no means of enforcing that, and of course we know from the various reports that followed that it was not infrequently the reality that assets were valued very low, triggering the default, and months later, having been seized by the bank, were resold for multiples of the valuation.
The mechanisms that the banks use when they have the opportunity to put a company into default are frequently outside the boundaries of what any of us would consider fair and appropriate. I do not understand stripping away from companies any possible route to a remedy under those circumstances.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]
My Lords, my name is on this amendment, and I am in general support of the points powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in Committee and today, and by others who have spoken. They have made the main arguments, which I will not repeat.
The Government argue that the key driver for this initiative is to get the bounce-bank loans out to as many small businesses as want them and can use them, and to reduce barriers to that effect. I sympathise—it is very hard to be against that aim—but there are clearly risks here, as we have heard. While my concerns are not identical to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, they are very similar, and I would like to make three points on the issue.
First, there is general agreement that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 urgently needs bringing up to date, to be fit for purpose regarding the changed regulatory landscape of different lending practices and the tighter financial circumstances of the 2020s, now and post Covid-19. The current lender/borrower relationship envisaged under the Act does not work but, as others have said, it is very risky to remove all the court protections, and I sympathise with that.
Secondly, the Government have put on record the very tight constraints that they are putting on lenders who wish to engage with bounce-back loans, including banning fees, banning punitive interest and forbidding reach-through sanctions to personal assets such as houses and vehicles, but is that enough? There is a powerful tool in the Government’s armoury.
Thirdly, the 100% guarantee that we have been talking about is on the lender, not the borrower, but that gives the Government considerable powers which they say they will use to drive good behaviour. For me, the key question is whether, in removing access to the courts under the unfair trading clauses of the 1974 Act, the Government have put the bounce-back loan borrowers in a worse position than if they had left it all in place, or—as suggested in the amendment—just the affordability issue. It is a close call.
I would be very grateful if the Minister, when responding, could deal fully with the following points. First, will she confirm that the Government will undertake to overhaul the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in the near future, taking full account of the issues raised in this debate? Secondly, can she list concisely the limits on lenders’ ability under the bounce-back loan to penalise borrowers who are in default or otherwise transgress, irrespective of the amount of money borrowed, and the statutory and non-statutory opportunities for borrowers to protect themselves and their possessions if lenders attempt to penalise them absent the core protection of the 1974 Act?
Thirdly, can the Minister set out what she called “the steely determination” of the Government to use their power to reduce or cancel the 100% underwriting of loans made under the BBL scheme, if lenders transgress? This could be a very powerful weapon. It would be useful to know who will have the power to trigger certain sanctions, and how borrowers will be informed about the process. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggested that an arbitration structure was needed, and he may well be right. If the Minister can confirm that these points are in play and give assurances on them, then I suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, does not press her amendment to a vote this evening, as we will not support her.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Carlile, for tabling the amendment. I also thank them for the discussions that we have had on this matter since a similar amendment was tabled in Committee. I have listened very carefully to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I stress at the outset just how seriously the Government take the protection of those who have taken out a bounce-back loan. I will set out what form those protections take, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked me to do.
We have integrated significant protections into the Bounce Back Loan Scheme. I point towards the obligations that the scheme imposes on lenders to act honourably. I set out many of those terms in Committee. Loans are capped at 25% of turnover and the interest rate for the scheme is capped at 2.5%. The Government will cover interest and repayments for the first year of the loan. That helps to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that businesses might not be able to afford to repay the loan now due to current circumstances but, with a bit of time to get back up and trading, will be able to meet those payments in future.
The lender may not levy any fees or interest beyond the fixed interest rate of 2.5% a year, including any fees on default. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on this point. Lenders are required to adhere to the scheme rules as set out in this agreement. They may use their standard terms and conditions for documenting the loans. This might be where the confusion has come from, but there is no ability to charge any fees or interest beyond that 2.5% a year.
We will get more into the detail of some other protections, but a number of noble Lords raised the question of the balance of fairness in these loans. These loans set out to be a very standardised product. Protections such as no lender levy fees whatever and a fixed interest rate of 2.5% a year are also factors that need to be taken into account when we look at the balance of fairness and include in that the government guarantee at 100%.
Further protections include the provision of clear information before and during the life of the loan, which was an issue a number of noble Lords raised. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I say that lenders are obliged to make it clear in the terms of the loans that the protections under the Consumer Credit Act do not apply to these loans. That is also stated up front.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about the question raised at Second Reading on forbearance of these loans. That is provided for in the terms of the guarantee agreement. There must be forbearance on missed payments, allowing the customer a reasonable time to remedy defaults without consequence. There must also be signposting of appropriate assistance where businesses experience payment difficulties.
We come on to the retention of Financial Conduct Authority oversight for debt collection by lenders of loans that would be regulated credit agreements but are exempt by virtue of them being bounce-back loans, and the right for eligible borrowers under the scheme to access the Financial Ombudsman Service to resolve disputes. I will go into more detail on FCA and Financial Ombudsman Service oversight a bit later, because I know noble Lords will want it. A point was raised in our discussions outside the Chamber on the reservation that, despite the specific protections, the unfair loans provisions in the CCA provide a very broad and general protection so that, if some of these protections that we have specified turn out not to be enough or banks might find a further loophole, the broad provisions provide further protections.
I reassure the noble Baroness that there is also a general, overarching commitment in the guarantee agreement. The lenders have an overarching obligation that they must always act in good faith and not behave in a manner that could reasonably be expected to bring the scheme or the guarantor into disrepute, or in a way that contravenes any applicable law or regulation. This includes all actions in respect of servicing and enforcement of the loan. The lender’s performance of such obligations is subject to audit by the British Business Bank, and the obligations of the guarantee agreement are legal, valid, binding and enforceable obligations. Failure to comply with these terms in the guarantee would mean lenders risk not being able to make a claim under it, which would provide an exceptionally strong incentive to firms to conduct themselves properly. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that if such behaviour that contravened the terms of the guarantee agreement were brought to light, the Government would have no qualms about using their power to withdraw the guarantee.
The Financial Ombudsman Service, raised by a number of noble Lords, also has a more general obligation and duty in cases brought to it to make decisions on what it thinks is fair and reasonable in all circumstances of the case. The noble Baronesses will know that in 2019 the Government expanded eligibility to access the Financial Ombudsman Service so that small businesses with an annual turnover of less than £6.5 million and either an annual balance sheet total of less than £5 million or fewer than 50 employees can access the Financial Ombudsman Service. This means that an estimated 99.5% of SMEs can access the Financial Ombudsman Service. I make the point to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that for very small businesses that are inexperienced in taking out credit, a free-to-access ombudsman service—rather than a law suit—is often by far the preferred way to resolve a dispute.
As has been previously noted, the collection of debts under the bounce-back loan scheme remains a regulated activity for loans of less than £25,000 to sole traders, partnerships of fewer than four people and unincorporated associations. That means lenders under the scheme must comply with the FCA’s consumer credit conduct of business standards, rules and guidance on arrears, default and recovery in chapter 7 of the FCA’s Consumer Credit Sourcebook, as well as the FCA’s high-level principles, when collecting debts related to those agreements. As the noble Baronesses will know, this protection reflects the position for business lending more broadly and the fact that all business lending over £25,000 is not FCA-regulated.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles: it is not that we were restricting FCA regulation of debt collection in bounce-back loans to loans under £25,000. That is the cut-off point—the threshold—where we regulate that lending activity, and that has not been changed in this. What has happened is that when we removed other provisions in the Consumer Credit Act, which we did via secondary legislation, we reinserted or kept the FCA regulation of debt collection for debts under £25,000 but did not extend it, and nor would we. We think that is the right threshold for FCA regulation of activity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said.
To address the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, about limited companies, it is worth noting that the provisions in this clause would never have applied to limited companies. The protections in the Consumer Credit Act do not apply to limited companies and so, by disapplying these parts of the Consumer Credit Act, we are not changing their position in regulation at all.
A few further points were raised. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in Committee and again today more broadly about the Consumer Credit Act 1974, he is right to highlight that that legislation dates back nearly 50 years. Through subsequent amendments, it has become increasingly complex and challenging to navigate. That is reflected in the fact that, in addition to Clause 12 in this Bill, the Government used secondary legislation so that bounce-back loans would not be regulated credit agreements and are now exempt unregulated agreements.
We have made some progress in modernising the consumer credit regulation. In 2014, the FCA took over responsibility for regulating consumer credit. Part of the transfer of the provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was repealed and those provisions were replaced by FCA rules. However, there was more to do and, since then, the FCA has reviewed the remaining provisions and it published its final report into the matter in March 2019. The Treasury has been undertaking a programme of work to consider the FCA’s findings in detail. It is currently focused on our response to the Covid-19 crisis but, once the urgency of the crisis has subsided, the Government hope to set out in more detail the next steps that they will take on the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
The second point that I would like to make is about the impact of this amendment, should it be agreed. Lenders have made over £30 billion-worth of loans under the scheme in anticipation of Sections 140 to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 being disapplied. Borrowers have entered into those agreements in the knowledge that the usual protections will not apply. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord German, that over 1 million businesses have benefited from this measure, and that take-up is not insignificant.
Lenders have informed us that, should the amendment be agreed, it is likely that they would cease to offer any new lending under the scheme, thus depriving small businesses of the vital finance they need to weather this crisis. I understand the concerns expressed by noble Lords, but it is not possible to be in favour of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme but not in favour of this part of it—a part that has been crucial in getting the lending going.
My colleagues in the other place have been grateful for the constructive discussions that they have had with the Opposition during the development of the scheme and for the agreement that these measures, although extraordinary, were necessary to rapidly provide small businesses—the lifeblood of our economy—with the funding that they have needed in these extraordinary times. In developing the scheme, we have also worked closely with the FCA.
In response to those noble Lords who asked this question, there is an ongoing programme of work to look at the recoveries process for these loans. The Treasury has convened recoveries workshops with all accredited lenders, along with the FCA, the PRA and the British Business Bank, aimed at ensuring a consistent industry-wide approach to the collection and recovery of bounce-back loans. These discussions will follow the customer journey throughout the lifetime of the loan and ensure that lenders understand the type of support that they can provide to borrowers.
The legislative changes already made in secondary legislation and which we are now seeking to make in primary legislation are integral parts of the design and functioning of the scheme. They have been worked through carefully but also at pace, given the urgency with which small businesses have needed this support. The changes have been made alongside targeted protections built into the guarantee and, where possible, regulations. Without this scheme, lenders would not be able to provide the finance at the necessary pace and scale in response to the huge economic disruption caused by Covid-19.
I hope that I have given the noble Baroness reassurance that borrowers have robust protections under this scheme and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Speaker
I have received no requests for speakers to come back after the Minister, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, reminded us how attractive assets might tempt a bank or that companies’ equipment could be seized when they ended up in default after a period of forbearance. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with reference to the Post Office cases, reminded us how bad things can happen and that sometimes things that perhaps start off looking reasonable get very much out of hand. My noble friend Lord German reminded us that companies need the confidence to borrow. Perhaps we need four times as many bounce-back loans as have already been applied for, but they need protection.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 55. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 55
Baroness Doocey
“Amendment of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018
(1) The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/634) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 2(3) leave out “at least two different types of” and insert “the carriage of passengers with at least one other”.(3) In regulation 2(5) leave out “at least two different types of” and insert “the carriage of passengers with at least one other”.Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to amend the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 make transport a mandatory component of package travel. This would allow small local businesses to make a combined offer without incurring the responsibilities of a package holiday operator.
Baroness Doocey (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 55 standing in my name aims to modify the package travel regulations, retaining protection for consumers travelling abroad but removing barriers which stop small businesses working together in the domestic market. The amendment does so by stipulating that, for something to constitute package travel, an element of travel must be part of the package.
Visitor numbers in the domestic tourism industry are down by 30% to 50%, and research shows that only a third of families intend to take a domestic holiday this year. Tourism in the UK is by definition a feast and famine industry—a feast in summer and a famine in winter. What small businesses in the sector face this year is the famine of the lockdown, followed by the seasonal famine of winter. The industry therefore desperately needs to attract trade and to persuade people to start taking holidays in the UK.
The primary purpose of the package travel regulations is to protect consumers who take package holidays overseas by making the tour operator legally responsible for the package and ensuring that the holidaymaker can be repatriated if the tour operator goes bankrupt. These are very valuable protections. The problem for small domestic tourism businesses is that the definition of a package holiday has been poorly drafted so that the smallest B&B working with a local pub or a local golf course to offer a discounted deal ends up being deemed to be a package tour operator. The consequence is an intolerable legal jeopardy for the small business concerned, because the regulations make the B&B owner legally responsible for what happens to the customer while they are at the golf club or in the pub. If the customer suffers any injury there, it is the B&B owner who is sued. Small businesses simply cannot get insurance to cover them, which makes the financial risk of offering deals too great. The customer then loses access to discounts and the businesses are unable to stimulate sales.
In addition, the regulations require the B&B owner to be a bonded travel company, which is expensive, or to use a trust fund so that payments can be withdrawn only after the customer has visited. Anyone who has ever run a small business knows that this is not a sustainable way to operate. These problems are why most accommodation businesses in the UK do not offer discounted deals. The Government have said that the significant component element of the package travel regulations guards against the problems I have outlined. These provisions are totally unsatisfactory, because they require a business to guess whether a consumer would or would not have bought their product without the additional benefit of the deal. Furthermore, the 25% element is both inadequate and invidious because standard deals can easily exceed the 25% level, and a percentage threshold disadvantages those parts of the country with the cheapest accommodation.
This simple amendment preserves all the protections for customers taking holidays overseas while freeing up small businesses here in the UK to provide discounted added-value deals to their customers. A survey by the Tourism Alliance estimated that this modest change would increase domestic tourism expenditure by £2.2 billion per annum, which is enough to protect 40,000 jobs. This is not a boost that our domestic tourism industry can afford to wait for. We cannot wait out the winter while the Government consider this further. The famine is now, so the time to change the law is now. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and I will speak in support of it. I shall be brief, considering the time of night. I am pretty certain that my noble friend will not press this amendment, but I hope that the Minister can give some assurance that, although changes to the legislation will not come about through this amendment, he will agree to meet with representatives of the travel industry to look at how the law can be reformed. The regulations that underpin this area are part of European Union law and, as we leave the EU and start to look at British iterations, this is the perfect time to address the issue. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that his officials will meet with members of the travel industry to discuss these matters.
The Deputy Speaker
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I think we have a problem with the noble Baroness’s sound, so I suggest we move on to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
My Lords, this amendment has the noble aim of boosting local tourism and raises questions about the package travel regulations. We are still awaiting the Government review of the package travel rules and I am reluctant to accept the Minister’s previous suggestion that we cannot consider this issue until we have left the EU. The Government should do whatever is possible to support the domestic tourism industry through this tough time, so I would welcome it if the Minister were able to expand on what support they will offer.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
Noble Lords, I apologise for the technical fault that rendered my audio not working. My noble friend Lady Doocey again made a very persuasive case for giving a lift to our local tourism sector by enabling an innovative approach whereby local businesses combine to provide additional benefits to the local tourist economy. What an easy way that is to support regions that depend on tourism, such as the Lake District, Devon and Cornwall. The Minister needs to respond positively to give hope to these businesses that have gone through such a hard time.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendment 55 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, seeks to alter the package travel regulations in a manner similar to the amendment tabled in Committee. The noble Baroness is right to identify the difficulties facing the UK tourism sector, in particular the many SMEs in the sector. It is therefore right that we do all we can to support this sector through the crisis.
On 3 June, we announced a £10 million kick-starting tourism package, which will give small businesses in tourist destinations grants of up to £5,000 to help them adapt following the pandemic. As of last week, the VAT rate applied to most tourism and hospitality-related activities has been cut from 20% to 5% for six months to help the sector get back on its feet. We have launched the “enjoy summer safely” national marketing campaign to encourage British people to enjoy UK tourism. Ministers and officials have been meeting representatives from the tourism sector regularly via the Tourism Industry Emergency Response Group. We are actively considering all the recovery ideas suggested to us by stakeholders, including schemes to promote domestic tourism.
In that spirit, I would like to follow this up by arranging a meeting with the sector representatives that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has met to explore the points she has made about domestic tourism and package travel. I hope that offer is welcome. As confirmed in Committee, the Government have indicated that we will undertake a further review of the package travel recommendations. As these are EU laws, this review is better conducted when the transition period with the EU is over. I say that with some emphasis, as the EU Commission has recently commenced infraction proceedings against several member states that have amended laws in contravention of the package travel directive.
It is also important to reflect, as the noble Baroness recognised, on the balance to strike between business flexibility and consumer protection, so it is important to consult a wider range of interests. For the reasons I have given, I am not able to accept this amendment, and I hope the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw it.
Baroness Doocey [V]
I thank the Minister for his response, for offering to review the regulations and for the meeting that he suggested. It will definitely be followed up. If we wait until January 2021 in order to start reviewing the regulations, I fear that tourism will be pushed to the back of the queue behind so many other issues that the Government will need to resolve after Brexit is complete. I therefore suggest that the review should take place now in readiness for legal change as soon as possible in the new year. I hope the Minister will consider this, that we can discuss it further at the meeting he suggested and that he will engage further with me and the industry on this critical point of timing. However, at this stage I thank the Minister for the constructive way in which he has engaged with this issue, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 56. I remind noble Lords that Members, other than the mover and the Minister, may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 16: Modification of conditions relating to construction working hours
Amendment 56
Baroness Pinnock
“( ) The application must also include—(a) an assessment of the impact of the modifications on the local community, and any mitigation plans that would be put in place to minimise disturbance; and(b) an assessment of the impact of the modifications on the environment and local conservation interests, and any mitigation plans that would be put in place to minimise disturbance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require an application to include details of the impact on the local community and environment, and how these disturbances could be mitigated.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
My Lords, just to make it quite clear, we on these Benches support the moves the Government are seeking to make in the Bill to provide additional flexibilities to the construction industry. We support the proposed extension in the time given for planning applications and listed building applications with the provisos included.
However, with regard to the proposal to enable construction firms to extend their hours of work, even 24-hour working, we have a number of concerns. Amendment 56, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Shipley, concerns establishing a fair balance between the needs of construction on the one hand and those of local residents, the wider community and the environment on the other. One of the key conditions in every planning application is restricted hours of working. It is also often the factor that worries local people. Residents often ask me in my role as a councillor about construction traffic that frequently arrives well before the regulated start time for working. They ask about noise nuisance from heavy machinery early in the morning and late at night and ask why they should have to tolerate disturbance for the sake of profit-making companies. The answer is, of course, that there is a balance to be reached between the two needs, and that is the purpose of our amendment.
It is likely that there will be pressure on planners making decisions to comply with requests from construction in order to help the local economy. Our amendment would require planners to ask the applicant for mitigation measures. They would simply ask the construction businesses to stop and consider others. The best will. Those who have little regard for the needs of others will not. The amendment would put the best and the worst construction companies on a level playing field. There is a need to respect our environment and nature’s cycle of life, to limit noise and dust pollution and to consider others. That is why we are continuing to press these issues and hope that the Minister can provide some safeguards for residents and the environment. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 61 in my name. Indeed, in this group, there are nine amendments, Amendments 61, 62, 64, 68 to 70, 72, 76 and 77, which, in relation to Clauses 17, 18 and 19, all have the effect of moving the extension of planning permissions and listed building consent from three months to four months. I will not, at this late hour, repeat what I said at Second Reading and in rather more detail in Committee. All I want to say is that I very much appreciate that my noble friend the Minister took very seriously what I said in Committee.
We have had some extremely productive conversations on a practical level about what the construction industry’s difficulties might be with the delays in the pipeline. In pursuance of those conversations, I tabled these amendments in the hope that the Minister will tell the House that he is able to accept them. Were he to do so in response to the debate, when the time comes, I will formally move those amendments in my name.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, I propose to speak only to Amendment 56, tabled by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and to which I have added my name. It is approximately seven hours since this stage of proceedings began. Throughout, I have been reminded endlessly of two lines of a poem by Robert Frost:
“But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep.”
However, noble Lords should not be apprehensive, because I hope only to make some comments in addition to those of my noble friend, to underline what I believe is the very strong case for this amendment.
At Second Reading and again in Committee, I raised the question of the impact on amenity of extending construction hours. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, will forgive me if I say that I have been a little disappointed in the responses, both from him and his noble friend the Minister who has dealt with other parts of the Bill. It is worth reminding ourselves that an extension could go on until 1 April 2021, could be seven days a week and could extend to a whole day. It does not take much to realise that there is considerable potential for impact on the amenity of households, churches, hotels, hospitals and care homes.
It is helpful to ask why planning authorities imposed conditions for working hours. As my noble friend has already indicated, the purpose is to provide a balance, and part of that balance is the protection of amenity. In every instance, an authority will have been required to reach a judgment about how that balance should be constructed. It seems to me that it follows logically that any increase in hours will tilt that balance against amenity and in favour of the applicant.
The difficulty with what we are considering is that we do not know to what extent that may occur on any one of the occasions in which an extension is sought. That is why I believe it is a matter of necessity to require applicants to produce an impact study to the planning authority, together with plans for mitigation. I believe it can reasonably be argued that that is in the interests of both the planning authority and the applicant. First of all, the planning authority is working against a very tight timetable, and, so far as the applicant is concerned, it is obviously in their interest that as much information as possible can be provided to the planning authority. I believe therefore that an impact study is a necessity.
Indeed, I go further than that: the decision of the planning authority is an administrative one, and any administrative decision of this kind could be subject to judicial review. It would be much easier to resist any such application for judicial review if it could be demonstrated that the applicant had produced the impact assessment to which I have referred and that the planning authority had taken it into its considerations.
The Deputy Speaker
The noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lady Neville-Rolfe, have withdrawn from the list. I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Baroness Kramer [V]
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to government Amendment 54 to say thank you. The Government have made the amendment that was required by the mayoral development corporations and Transport for London to be able to hold virtual decision-making meetings and meetings which the public can attend. They have done what was needed, and I and many others are grateful.
It would be helpful if the Government could confirm that the relevant clause will come into effect on Royal Assent and no later than Royal Assent. This is also a request to the Government to amend the relevant flexibility regulations—SI 2020/392—as soon as possible after Royal Assent, and then bring those regulations into effect as soon as is practical, perhaps in less than the normal 21-day period, because that will ensure that the most use can be made of the new method of working that has been approved by this amendment. Again, my thanks.
Lord Balfe [V]
This legislation, which we are almost at the end of, is caused by the Covid crisis. It is, in many ways, a panic Bill, since we are trying to write things we may or may not succeed in.
I make two points. First, please let us not throw away environmental gains which mean a lot to communities, and particularly to residents. Many of them have fought for years to get decent standards for starting and ending developments and ending working days. Secondly, please keep it temporary: make sure that the provisions that we are told will lapse will do so in due course. I support what my noble friend Lord Lansley is doing, but I hope the criticisms aimed at local authorities for their slowness, often wrongly, are also taken on board by developers, who are sitting on massive land banks and need to get on with things. They did not need this legislation; they had been able to build hundreds of thousands of houses, but have not managed it, so let us keep a sense of perspective, and not throw the proverbial baby out with the legislative bathwater.
The Deputy Speaker
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has withdrawn from the list, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.
Lord Shipley [V]
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 56. I spoke in Committee on the need to avoid any unintended consequences of extending construction hours. There will be cases where an extension is entirely justified, and we should support that. But it is reasonable to expect that an impact assessment from the applicant with a description of how any adverse impact can be mitigated is provided. Secondly, an assessment of any impact on the environment and how that can be mitigated should be produced. Thirdly, there could be an explanation of any mitigation that would be put in place to minimise disturbance, particularly where a construction site is close to houses and other local buildings. To be clear, these need not be complex requirements and they should in practice speed up the process if that process is followed effectively. That would help the planning authority.
As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, we do not want to undo the good that has been achieved by the planning system. Where there have been agreed planning permissions and where restrictions have been put in place, those restrictions and conditions will have been justified and should not be undone.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, when I first spoke this evening, I should have mentioned that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, so I mention it now for the record. I will be very brief. If the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are successful, I will be the first to congratulate him.
In respect of meetings of mayoral development corporations, I am pleased that the Government listened to the points that I and other noble Lords made, and I thank them. I have only one question: can the Minister confirm that, when we agree the government amendments tonight, they will come into effect on Royal Assent and the required regulations will be laid quickly so that we do not have to wait for weeks and weeks before they can take effect? With that, I am happy to give way to the Minister.
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, I rise to speak to government Amendments 84, 88 and 89—tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe—which are grouped with Amendments 85 and 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Shipley, and Amendments 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 70, 72, 76 and 77, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley.
I turn to Amendments 84, 88 and 89, government amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe, and Amendments 85 and 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The purpose of these amendments is to secure that mayoral development corporations, Transport for London, urban development corporations and parish meetings are subject to the power in Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which enables the making of regulations to allow these bodies to meet remotely until 7 May 2021.
They correct the omission of these bodies from the Coronavirus Act, which was an accidental oversight due to the pace at which the Act was drafted. It is wholly consistent with the current policy of the Government that bodies such as local authorities—in the broadest sense—should be able to meet remotely, carrying on their business while protecting the health and safety of members, officers and the public. The Government have received representation on this matter from, among others, the Mayor of London—particularly on behalf of the London Legacy Development Corporation—Transport for London and the National Association of Local Councils with regard to the inclusion of parish meetings.
I will answer both the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, by saying that the Government’s intention is to make the amended regulations with urgency following Royal Assent. In fact, Amendment 89 specifically allows early commencement of Amendment 84 and, in addition, we will move at pace to ensure that the regulations are in place in a matter of days, as opposed to the typical 21 days. This is a similar pace to the laying of regulations following the passing of the Coronavirus Act.
I note Amendment 85 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which would have put the change to Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act in the Bill in respect of mayoral development corporations, and Amendment 86, which seeks to include a specific reference to the highway authority for the Greater London Authority in the local authority remote meetings regulations. We support the spirit of these amendments but, in the light of the government amendments, we hope that noble Lords will not move those amendments. I hope that will also be the case for the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Shipley, for Amendment 56. We agree that local planning authorities should have sufficient information about the impact of extended construction hours on the community and environment to enable them to make a timely decision. We believe that the most appropriate way of ensuring that this happens is through guidance. There is likely to be a range of possible responses from the construction industry to this measure and variation in what will be requested—from an additional hour or so on some sites, so that workers can have staggered start and finish times, to longer evening extensions on others. Therefore, we need a flexible and proportionate approach that can be tailored to the circumstances.
However, we listened to noble Lords’ views during Committee and we hear their concerns. We recognise the need for balance and to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect amenity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Shipley, have asked for. We have strengthened the draft guidance so that it also lists an assessment of impacts of noise on sensitive uses nearby as something that local planning authorities may wish to encourage an applicant to provide to aid swift decision-making. This is in addition to providing a justification for extended hours and mitigations to aid swift decision-making, which were already covered in the guidance.
We have also taken the advice of the Institute of Acoustics, the Association of Noise Consultants and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and gone further still to make other changes to strengthen the guidance, including that applicants provide information on the primary construction activities expected to take place during the extended hours, including the plant and equipment expected to be used. Taking into account these changes, I beg noble Lords not to press their amendment. I also assure my noble friend Lord Balfe that the legislation is temporary and we will not see any diminution to the environmental gains that have been achieved by the planning system.
I turn to the nine amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, which relate to Clauses 17, 18 and 19, and the extension of planning permissions and listed building consents. These amendments would extend the time limit for relevant planning permissions and listed building consents to 1 May 2021, instead of 1 April as currently drafted. I note that he has tabled these amendments as a compromise given my concerns about accepting his amendments in Committee, which would have introduced an extension to 1 June 2021.
I agree with my noble friend that any extension of unimplemented planning permissions or listed building consents needs to be of sufficient length to aid the development industry, given the impact that Covid-19 has had on development. We certainly think that it will take time for many developers to commence new residential and commercial development. I thank him in particular for his insightful points during the debates on these measures, particularly on the potential impacts of the winter months on the productivity of the development industry.
I am pleased to say that the Government will accept my noble friend’s nine amendments. They will provide a modest extension into the more accommodating spring months. I also recognise that this additional time would be welcomed by developers and local planning authorities, given that the development industry is experiencing a slow and cautious return to full operating capacity. We accept that this is appropriate in the circumstances.
The amendments would, in effect, give any eligible planning permissions and listed building consents nine months, or three-quarters of a year, from now to take steps to implement the permission. We will, as previously mentioned, keep the use of powers to extend certain dates in the legislation under review if the impact of the coronavirus continues.
These are modest amendments, but I agree that they will give additional certainty to developers in these exceptional times. I trust that they will be well received by your Lordships’ House, as well as by the industry. On this basis, I am happy to accept my noble friend’s amendments.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
I thank all noble Lords who contributed on this group of amendments. I am pleased that the Government’s administrative oversight in connection to the mayoral development agency in London has been put right. I very much thank the Minister for his reply and the information that government guidance will be strengthened regarding applications to extend construction hours to protect communities and the environment. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s power to extend the date on which Clause 16(1) to (5) expires, and certain other dates in that Clause, can only be exercised if the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so to mitigate an effect of coronavirus.
“(8) In subsection (7) “coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to page 26.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will extend the time limit for planning permissions to which subsection (1) applies to 1 May 2021 instead of 1 April 2021.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the time limit for commencement of development for those relevant planning permissions under section 93B to 1 May instead of 1 April 2021.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for subsections (1) to (5) to expire at the end of 1 May 2021, rather than 1 April 2021.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s power to extend the date on which Clause 17(1) to (5) expires, and certain other dates in that Clause, can only be exercised if the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so to mitigate an effect of coronavirus.
“(7A) In subsection (7) “coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to page 30.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a relevant outline planning permission with a reserved matter application time limit as specified under subsection (1) is deemed to have that time limit extended to 1 May instead of 1 April 2021.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the extension of a time limit for an outline planning permission, to which subsection (1) refers, to 1 May 2021 instead of 1 April 2021.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that where an additional environmental approval is granted, or deemed to be granted, the time limit is extended to 1 May 2021 instead of 1 April 2021.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for subsections (1) to (5) to expire at the end of 1 May 2021 instead of 1 April 2021.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s power to extend the date on which Clause 18(1) to (5) expires, and certain other dates in that Clause, can only be exercised if the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so to mitigate an effect of coronavirus.
“(7A) In subsection (7) “coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is consequential on the Minister’s other amendment to page 35.
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for listed building consents to which subsection (1) applies to have their time limit extended to 1 May 2021 instead of 1 April 2021.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for subsection (1) to expire at the end of 1 May 2021 instead of 1 April 2021.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s power to extend the date on which Clause 19(1) expires, and certain other dates in that Clause, can only be exercised if the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so to mitigate an effect of coronavirus.
“(4) In subsection (3) “coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to page 36.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State’s power to extend the date on which Clause 21(1) expires can only be exercised if the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so to mitigate an effect of coronavirus.
“(4) In subsection (3) “coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is consequential on the Minister’s other amendment to page 38.
“Local authority meetingsPower to make provision relating to local authority meetings
In section 78(7) of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (meaning of local authority: England), after paragraph (r) insert—“(s) a Mayoral development corporation established under section 198 of the Localism Act 2011;(t) an urban development corporation established under section 135 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980;(u) a parish meeting constituted under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1972;(v) Transport for London.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause secures that Mayoral development corporations, urban development corporations, parish meetings and Transport for London (which all have functions relating to planning) are subject to the power in section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 to make regulations in relation to local authority meetings.
“(2A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 5(6) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the negative resolution procedure for regulations under the power proposed by the Minister’s amendment to Clause 5.
“(3) In Part 3—(a) sections 16 to 21 extend to England and Wales only, and(b) section (Power to make provision relating to local authority meetings) extends to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s new clause inserted after Clause 21.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment secures that the Minister’s new clause inserted after Clause 21 commences on Royal Assent.
Business and Planning Bill
Monday 20th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 View all Business and Planning Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-R-I(Corrected-II) Marshalled list for Report - (15 Jul 2020)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this Bill has passed through your Lordships’ House at greater than usual speed, and all noble Lords understand the reasons for treating it with such urgency. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their constructive engagement with the Bill and for raising many important topics. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Government have considered and responded to the concerns of noble Lords and have made suitable changes to provisions where appropriate. We have had good debates and the Bill is now in a much better form than it was when it entered your Lordships’ House.
I thank the other members of the ministerial team: my noble friends Lady Penn, Lord Greenhalgh, Lady Williams and Lady Vere. I congratulate especially my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who made his first Second Reading speech when introducing the Bill to the House. As my noble friend said in that speech, the Bill supports businesses in four key areas of the economy. It has been a pleasure to work with this team on such a wide-ranging set of measures.
I also extend my appreciation to the Front-Bench spokesmen and spokeswomen on the Benches opposite —for the Liberal Democrats, the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Doocey, Lady Northover and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Addington and Lord Paddick; and for the Official Opposition, the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Stevenson and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox—whose constructive and consensual approach has ensured that the Bill is fit for its intended purpose.
Once again, I extend my thanks to all noble Lords throughout the House for scrutinising the Bill with such care, and for their constructive engagement. The Bill is needed urgently, before the summer, so that its provisions can reach their full potential. I hope, therefore, that the other place will promptly accept the amendments we have passed so that the Bill can come into force without delay. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark(Lab-Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his kind comments and join him in thinking that the House has worked very well in dealing with this important Bill. We send it back to the Commons in a much better state. Members from all around the House raised important issues; the Government considered them carefully and listened. We have passed many good amendments over the last few days. I am very grateful to the noble Earl and all his ministerial team for their work.