House of Commons
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
Our thoughts remain with the people affected by the terrible events in Beirut. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I spoke with the Lebanese President, Prime Minister and ambassador respectively. We rapidly deployed UK medical, humanitarian, military and logistics experts to support Beirutis in their response to the blast. The UK is a long-standing friend of the Lebanese people, and we were pleased to commit £25 million to help the most vulnerable.
On refugee resettlement, the resumption of arrivals remains dependent on covid-19 developments internationally and in the UK. We are not in a position to resume arrivals in the short term.
Philip Dunne [V]
I thank the Minister for that answer and for the UK humanitarian response. The Lebanese people have suffered greatly from the consequences of civil war and then failed political institutions. What is the Minister doing to help bring about a stable political settlement, to allow the people of Lebanon to restore peace and security to their lives? Will he and the Foreign Secretary consider introducing Magnitsky-style sanctions in conjunction with other key members of the international community if any political leaders are found culpable?
James Cleverly
As I say, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have engaged at the highest levels with the Lebanese Government, and ensuring that there is political and economic stability, as well as security, is key. We support the Lebanese Government in many ways, including through the Lebanese armed forces, which recruit cross-faith and cross-community. Our diplomatic efforts go hand in hand with our humanitarian efforts. My right hon. Friend will understand that future designations under our autonomous Magnitsky sanctions regime are not something that we wish to speculate about at the Dispatch Box, but we will ensure that our support to the people of Lebanon, and Beirutis in particular, continues.
Tim Farron
Migrants are crossing the channel partly because of a lack of safe and legal routes. Refugee resettlement, including from Lebanon, is a safe and legal route, but the pandemic has understandably seen it suspended. Now is surely the time to reopen those safe and legal routes. Will the Minister take steps this week to assist the Lebanese Government in restoring safe routes to the UK for refugees?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. In 2015, the then Prime Minister committed to help 20,000 vulnerable refugees. As of March this year, 19,768 had been taken in by the UK, in a typical act of generosity. As I say, future acceptances will be dependent on the covid situation, which we will keep under review.
Royston Smith
Before last month’s tragic blast in Beirut, Lebanon was already facing financial ruin, requiring investment from regional partners. Countries will obviously be reluctant to invest if they feel that some of their money may go to help fund Hezbollah and its activities. Has my right hon. Friend had conversations with his counterparts in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states about what they can do to help Lebanon in its time of need?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is right that the diplomatic efforts of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office go hand in hand with its humanitarian efforts. We have indeed spoken to good friends of the UK across the region about what more they can do to support the Lebanese people. I hear what he says about concerns about money going to Hezbollah, and I can assure him that the money committed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to support the Lebanese was targeted directly at the vulnerable people in need and did not go through Hezbollah.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) [V]
One month on from the horrific explosion in Beirut and the subsequent collapse of the Lebanese Government, the UK Government have rightly pledged aid to support the people of Lebanon. Global leadership is urgently needed now to ensure the rapid reconstruction of the port of Beirut, to allow vital supplies and international aid to reach those in need. How are the Government planning to work with our international allies, such as France, to ensure that aid is delivered swiftly and directly to those who need it most on the ground in Lebanon and that the port can resume its vital role as a point of entry for UN aid to the whole region, including Syria, Iraq and Jordan?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of Beirut as a port city for the Lebanese—a traditionally internationalist and commercially minded people. On international leadership, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary engaged very swiftly at the highest level and, in her role as Secretary of State at the Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) engaged within days with an international group of leaders—national leaders—to co-ordinate the response. I am very proud that British expertise, including under-sea survey experts, was deployed at haste to Beirut to help with the technical support in its rebuilding programme.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
The UK is leading by example on climate change. We are the first major economy to legislate on net zero by 2050. Globally, we have provided 33 million people with improved access to clean energy and helped 66 million people cope with the effects of climate change. As co-host of the conference of the parties and president of the G7 next year, we will bring together accelerated action on the climate change crisis.
Dr Luke Evans
With the UK being president of the climate change conference, COP26, I am really pleased to see the Government bring forward proposals that would prohibit large businesses from using products that have been grown on illegally deforested places such as in the Amazon, but what steps is the Minister’s Department taking to ensure that this is a workable and successful policy?
James Duddridge
As a Government, we have worked for many years to tackle deforestation, and specifically deforestation caused by trade in unsustainable agricultural commodities, including timber. For example, in Indonesia, we have worked to improve regulations, improve independent monitoring and improve law enforcement. I am pleased to say to the House today that 100% of timber exports from Indonesia are sourced independently from audited factories and forests.
Andrew Jones
Next year, the UK will both host the UN climate change conference and assume the presidency of the G7, so does my hon. Friend agree that, at this crucial time for our foreign policy, now is the perfect opportunity to bring together security, foreign and development work and leverage that behind tackling climate change?
James Duddridge
I do agree with the thrust of the question. The world is looking for the UK to show global leadership in one of the greatest challenges of our time. The creation of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office brings together our diplomatic and development experiences, which means that we can do more to tackle climate change. The Department and I are working very closely with ministerial colleagues to support this agenda. In particular, we are working with Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, who is known well to Members in this Chamber.
Jerome Mayhew
If we are to achieve our goal of carbon net zero by 2050, some form of effective carbon taxation that takes account of the challenges of international trade will be necessary. Given that, what negotiations has the Department had with our European partners on the establishment of an effective system of carbon border adjustment payments?
James Duddridge
I have discussed this incredibly important and technical matter with Treasury officials. I can reassure the House that we remain a global leader on decarbonisation and recognise that, as we cut domestic emissions, it is important to ensure that that does not lead to emissions elsewhere. An active debate is under way on which interventions are going to work, and the Government are monitoring and actively engaging with those discussions.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
To avoid scrutiny, the Secretary of State snuck out cuts of £2.9 billion from the aid budget on the day Parliament rose for the summer recess. That is around 20% of the aid budget, despite the fact that projections of an economic downturn suggested a required fall of something closer to 9%. Can the Secretary of State tell us where those cuts will come from, and how the Government will ensure that they tackle poverty and the climate crisis and deliver value for money for the British people? Will he today commit to ending the use of UK aid and investment to fund fossil fuel projects in the global south?
James Duddridge
The Government take our responsibilities very seriously. I remind the hon. Lady that we have delivered on 0.7%, but that does mean that the budget goes down as GDP goes down. In our prioritisation process, we have looked at a number of things to protect, including, in particular, the vulnerable, the bottom billion, climate, girls’ education and using Britain as a force for good overall. The details of that will be presented to the House in due course.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The humanitarian situation in Yemen is worsening, and we are particularly concerned about the growth of famine. In addition, UK-funded modelling predicts that the number of symptomatic cases of covid-19 in Yemen could reach as many as 10 million. In response to the risk of famine, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs announced last week that we are committing a further £25 million to Yemen, and we continue to reiterate the UK’s unequivocal support for the efforts of the United Nations special envoy, Martin Griffiths.
Paul Holmes
Does the Minister agree that the action this Government have taken to support those in need in Yemen will be further enhanced by bringing together our diplomatic clout and development expertise in the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?
James Cleverly
I agree with my hon. Friend on that. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary speaks with his international counterparts about the international effort to support Yemen, and I speak with the Yemenis themselves. The best thing that can happen for the people of Yemen is for the conflict to cease, which is why diplomatic pressure is applied to that end.
Alison Thewliss [V]
Today, Oxfam campaigners are visiting the new FCDO to hand in a letter on behalf of thousands of people, including my constituents, that calls on the UK Government to stop fuelling the war in Yemen and to reverse the decision to resume arms sales licences to Saudi Arabia. Does the Secretary of State not accept the inherent contradiction between selling arms with one part of the FCDO and providing aid with the other? Does he also accept that what Yemen needs is an urgent and immediate ceasefire, rather than an escalation of this five-year-old conflict?
James Cleverly
The UK has an internationally respected and robust arms trade licensing regime. We have a close working relationship with the allies that are involved in the conflict in Yemen, to minimise civilian casualties and collateral damage. It is completely legitimate for all countries around the world to defend themselves against external aggression, and we are proud of the work we are doing to help the people of Yemen through this difficult time.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
The Government are deeply concerned at the situation in the north-west and south-west regions of Cameroon. We are assisting humanitarian efforts, and today I can announce that we are increasing funding to the humanitarian efforts by £4.5 million, bringing the total for this year to £13.5 million.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and for his clear commitment, as I am to the Chair of the Select Committee for his interest in this area. What is going on in Cameroon is concerning for us all, whether we are talking about the multiple hundreds of thousands of displaced persons internally or in neighbouring countries, the more than 1 million people going hungry or the significant and continuing violence, including last month’s suicide bombing. This country has a special connection to Cameroon and a special responsibility to be part of a peaceful future there, as does France. It is hard to see a future settlement that does not involve both countries, so will the Minister tell us what conversations he has had with his counterpart in France about working together to bring about a peaceful solution?
James Duddridge
That is an excellent point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passion on Cameroon, and I know that a number of colleagues share concerns, which the Government of Cameroon understand. We regularly engage with a number of partners, including the French and Americans, and the UN, where there have been resolutions. I intend to travel to Paris, covid permitting, in the next few months to discuss areas of mutual interest across the continent where we can work together, and Cameroon will be high on that list.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
The Government have been clear: we do not accept the results of the fraudulent presidential elections in Belarus. We have strongly condemned the shocking scenes of violence by the authorities in Belarus towards peaceful protestors and the targeting of journalists, including representatives of the BBC. I have raised these concerns with the Foreign Minister of Belarus, and in my statements to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe on 28 August and to the UN Security Council on 4 September. The Belarusian authorities must be held to account, and we are calling for an independent investigation through the OSCE. We support sanctions, and there must be dialogue between the people of Belarus and the authorities.
Neale Hanvey
My constituents in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath do not view the suspension of military training to Belarusian forces as a cause for celebration. That the UK was supporting the last dictator in Europe does not square with the UK’s espoused role as a beacon of hope. Between 2018 and ’20, UK armed forces provided training to 17 of the 30 countries where the FCO is particularly concerned about human rights issues. Will the Minister urgently provide me with comprehensive detail on the specific training provided to the Belarusian armed forces and full details of police and military training being provided to Turkey, Bahrain and the Philippines?
Wendy Morton
With specific regard to Belarus, the hon. Gentleman raises a very important point around defence co-operation. The UK shares a co-operative relationship with the Belarusian armed forces, including mutual learning, winter survival training, language tuition and peacekeeping, but in the light of recent events we have suspended all defence engagement with Belarus.
Kerry McCarthy
There are protesters outside Parliament today trying to draw attention to the situation in Belarus. I hope that the Minister will find time to pop out to meet them, as it is really important that we talk to members of the diaspora community here. The EU is currently drawing up a list of Belarusian officials who they will make subject to asset freezes and travel bans. Is the UK looking to do likewise, and if not, why not?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. She can rest assured that we will, at the very least, match that list.
Damian Collins [V]
As the Minister said, two BBC journalists have had their accreditation revoked in Belarus, and we have also seen entire shutdowns of the internet in that country to stop citizens both reporting on what is happening in their country and finding out information for themselves. Does she agree that this is completely intolerable and a violation of the rights of citizens of that country? What representations have we made to the Government of Belarus that they should stop these internet shutdowns and removals of accreditations for BBC journalists?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this with me today. The Belarusian authorities have indeed blocked internet access for the entire country on several occasions. I have made clear through my statements at the OSCE and the UN that the democratic values and rights of the Belarusian people, including freedom of expression and media freedoms such as access to information, must be respected, and those who violate them must be held accountable.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I know that my hon. Friend shares my deep concern about the violence we have seen to suppress the peaceful demonstrations in Belarus, and I welcome her comments so far. Can she assure me that she will continue to work with our international partners to put pressure on the Belarusian regime to stop all violence against journalists, protesters and opposition candidates, and does she share my concern over the forced deportation of such individuals?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for his interest in the situation in Belarus. I can assure him that we are supporting an independent investigation through the OSCE into the fraudulent election and the violations by the Belarusian authorities. I spoke to Germany and the US on 18 August and France on 19 August, and I have also spoken to the Baltic states, Finland, Sweden and Poland.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
We on the SNP Benches, and I am sure those across the House, support and salute the bravery of pro-democracy activists and call for the immediate release of all political prisoners, along with, of course, Maria Kolesnikova. I am sure that we all agree on that point.
I am grateful for the Minister’s statement and I agree, as far as it goes, but I would urge her to go further. I make four concrete proposals specifically based on the rule of law. There are things we can do through the OSCE and European partners, but there also things we can do specifically. Targeted sanctions on individuals under the Magnitsky regime is something that the UK can do now. We welcome the suspension of military co-operation, but could we have an explicit statement on what it actually involves and its ramifications? Can we explore humanitarian aid to activists? Poland has given €10 million to brave activists. Can we explore sanctions against companies involved in facilitating oppression by the regime? These are concrete points that the UK can act on now.
Mr Speaker
You have two questions, so do not take so long, please—we have to get other colleagues in.
Wendy Morton
First, on sanctions, we have made it very clear that we support sanctions against those responsible for the election fraud and human rights abuses. We will work with our international partners to sanction those responsible and to hold the Belarusian authorities to account. We currently implement EU sanctions and we will continue to do so during the implementation period, and we will consider future designations very carefully, based on evidence.
The hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. I want to touch on humanitarian support and support for civil society, which will be really important. That is why we have doubled our support to independent media, human rights organisations and community groups in Belarus with an extra £1.5 million of projects over the next two years. I am sure that he will welcome that.
Alyn Smith
I will be brief, Mr Speaker—my apologies. I welcome the Minister’s comments. There is a lot of common ground. Will she commit to meet Belarusian activists here in the UK? My office will be happy to facilitate that.
Wendy Morton
I will undertake to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman’s office to see if that can be arranged.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I do hope that the Minister has a chance to meet the activists who are outside Portcullis House as we speak. There is a consensus that the bravery and determination that they have all shown during this terrible crisis has been an inspiration to us all.
I have some specific questions around election monitoring in Belarus and other countries. Have the Government cut funding for that particular function? Is there a desk officer on Belarus who speaks Belarusian? At the same time, the Government are turning up the heat on European allies with leaked briefings that they will break internationally binding treaties, which is hardly the behaviour of a responsible Government intent on working with our allies to solve common challenges. Could we have, perhaps, great tweets but also specific action, to pull together with Europe to solve this terrible problem?
Wendy Morton
Let me be absolutely clear. The hon. Lady raises some very important points here. We are working very hard with our international partners, because we recognise the importance of doing so. As I highlighted earlier, we are working through the OSCE. We are also working to support sanctions. In terms of the support that I have from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, I have a great team of officials who are working really hard on this area, as I am sure the hon. Lady would expect and welcome.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
As I made clear in my statement on 13 August, we welcome both the suspension of plans to annex parts of the west bank and the normalisation of relations between the UAE and Israel. The deal was a historic step forward between two great friends of the United Kingdom.
Sam Tarry
A week before the election in Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu indicated he would move forward with the expansion of the illegal settlement at Efrat—an additional 3,500 homes. That plan had been previously frozen for years. It would cut off the north and the south of the west bank and is particularly problematic. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the suspension of annexation plans should be made permanent and should not be substituted for the massive settlement expansion such as the 5,000 homes that are planned in E1 zone, which represent—in my view and that of my constituents—annexation in all but name?
Dominic Raab
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that settlements are both contrary to international law and counterproductive to peace. It is hugely welcome, first, that Israel has taken the plans off the table for the foreseeable future, coupled with the UAE deal, which is a substantial step forward in the wider process of reconciliation and peace between Israel and its Arab neighbours.
Rosie Cooper [V]
I welcome the Israel-UAE deal, which stops the prospect of any damaging annexation and should bring about normalisation between the two countries. What steps are the Government taking to encourage more Arab states to follow the UAE’s lead and to use it as a catalyst to get lasting negotiated peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady. She is right and there can hopefully be a virtuous cycle of these normalisation agreements. I have been in touch with US authorities, including Jared Kushner when he visited London and Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, and I visited Israel on 25 August, where I not only saw Prime Minister Netanyahu, Alternate Prime Minister Gantz and Foreign Minister Ashkenazi, but visited the west bank and spoke to President Abbas and Prime Minister Shtayyeh—all with a view to encouraging normalisation with the countries of the region and, now that annexation is at least off the table for the foreseeable future, encouraging greater dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israeli Government.
Mary Glindon [V]
Will the Secretary of State talk to European colleagues, particularly the Irish, with a view to taking joint action on settlement trade and on recognition to ensure the Israeli Government do not go ahead with their annexation threat in future?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady. We do talk regularly to our E3 and wider European colleagues—we consider all the different permutations—but I think the positive here is that, through engagement and indeed through this wider process of normalisation, Israel has pulled back from those plans for annexation. That does create a window of opportunity not just with the countries of the region, but with the Palestinians themselves. My focus and the Prime Minister’s focus is on trying to use that to catalyse dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which is the only route to a two-state solution, which is the only route to enduring peace.
Michael Fabricant [V]
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the United States Administration and indeed the US State Department on helping to broker this deal? I suspect he will not agree with me when I say that I think it is their pragmatic approach to say that a two-state deal is not going to happen as long as we have Hamas and Hezbollah taking the line they do, but what I would ask my right hon. Friend is: what role does he see for the United Kingdom in brokering further such peace deals between the United Kingdom and Arab states?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend. I think he is right about the positivity of this step. We need some good news in the peace process and in the middle east, and I think the UAE deal with Israel is very positive. We are looking to and will certainly be encouraging—indeed, we have already started to encourage—others to follow suit, but also to make sure that we can engage with the Palestinians, at the level of the Palestinian Authority, to try to galvanise some dialogue between the two principal protagonists to the dispute.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows very well that one of the reasons for the proximity between the United Arab Emirates and Israel is the pressure put on both by the Iranian regime, and the work that his Department has done in holding the Iranian regime to account at the UN has been hugely impressive. Applying the rule of law and applying the principles of non-violable international treaty to international negotiation has been so important. Could he please tell me that the UK will read the letter of the treaty of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231, and recognise that any of the named states has the opportunity to snapback sanctions on the violating state of Iran? Will he recognise as well that those international treaties are not for interpretation, but are actually pretty clearly laid out in black and white?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. Lawyers will always have different views on the precise permutations, but I think the position on snapback in relation to the joint comprehensive plan of action is tolerably clear. He is absolutely right also to point to the role that Iran plays not just with its own activities—those it engages in directly—but working through Hamas and Hezbollah and other proxies throughout the middle east as a source of tension and instability. We are working with all of our allies to try to make sure we limit and hold to account Iran for those activities.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The social and health situation in Gaza is extremely serious, especially with regard to covid-19, and recently there was a clash between Israel and Hamas. Fortunately, a ceasefire was agreed, but a concern is that it is only a matter of time before another outbreak of violence occurs. How does the Secretary of State believe that further conflict between Gaza and Israel can be avoided?
Dominic Raab
First, we need to see an end to the targeting of civilians and the firing of improvised explosive devices by Hamas into Israel. That is unlawful and totally unacceptable. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns on the broader humanitarian situation. When I visited the west bank on 20 August, I announced £2.7 million-worth of further humanitarian assistance. Now that Israel has taken annexation off the table, it would make sense, even irrespective of the broader peace talks, for the Palestinian Authority to engage with the Israelis on finance and security co-operation in the west bank and Gaza, including in relation to being able to receive tax revenues to pay Palestinian public servants. As a confidence-building measure, given the UAE deal, that is something the Palestinians could do on their side as well.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The United Kingdom has a strong relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which allows us to have important frank discussions. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised human rights defenders with Saudi Ministers on his recent visit to Riyadh, and I have raised concerns with Dr Awwad, the head of the Saudi human rights commission, as did Lord Ahmad in June.
Grahame Morris
I am pleased to hear that the Minister is having robust conversations with the Saudis, but will the UK Government publicly call on the Saudi authorities to immediately and unconditionally release the five women human rights defenders who are still being detained, including Loujain al-Hathloul, Samar Badawi and Nassima al-Sada, and for all charges to be dropped against the 13 women’s rights defenders currently on trial for peaceful protest and activism?
James Cleverly
It is important that we recognise that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is taking significant steps in the right direction, and we encourage and support it to do so. The Foreign Secretary raised the release of those human rights defenders face-to-face on his visit to Riyadh just last month[Official Report, 15 September 2020, Vol. 680, c. 1MC.].
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
The Government will prioritise the bottom billion, the very poorest around the world, as part of our core mission. This is in our national interest and it will project the UK as a force for good in the world.
Lee Anderson
The UK has a proud record as a provider of aid across developing countries and has achieved significant milestones in reducing poverty abroad. However, can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents in Ashfield that this aid money will be used as effectively as possible and will not be provided to countries that spend vast amounts of their GDP on projects such as space programmes, as opposed to addressing their own poverty problems?
James Duddridge
I am happy to reassure the residents of Ashfield and beyond that reducing poverty will be at the beating heart of the FCDO. That is why we are committed to the Independent Commission for Aid Impact; that is why the Foreign Secretary has appointed Nick Dyer as the first ever envoy on famine prevention and humanitarian affairs; and that is why we have allocated a new £119 million package to look at the threat of the coronavirus and of famine more generally across the bottom billion.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
Promoting the rule of law internationally is integral to the UK’s global influence and to our status as a force for good. That is one of the reasons that the Foreign Secretary has commended the candidature of Judge Joanna Korner QC for election as a judge in the International Criminal Court in the December 2020 elections. The FCDO is supporting ROLE UK to provide expertise in law and justice to developing countries through its partnerships for development programme.
Sir Robert Neill
I thank the Minister for that answer, and I wish my old friend and colleague Judge Korner well in her candidature. Of course, the best way to promote the rule of law is always to adhere to it ourselves. But more specifically, will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue with the excellent ROLE UK, the rule of law expertise programme that has been run by the Department for International Development for the last five years, which has given very modest grants to enable British lawyers and judges to give pro bono advice and support to developing countries?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend. We have greatly appreciated the enormous contribution of the pro bono work of some of the UK’s best judges and legal professionals, delivered through the ROLE UK programme. This year we had to reduce its funding due to potential shrinkage in the UK economy and a decrease in the value of the 0.7% commitment. The FCDO has had to prioritise urgent and high-priority work, such as tackling climate change, championing girls’ education, and UK leadership in the global response to covid-19. Although this is a significant cut, through our conversations with ROLE UK we are satisfied that we will be able to continue its good work.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The UK enjoys a strong relationship with Egypt, which is a key economic and security partner. We regularly engage at the most senior levels. In January, we welcomed President Sisi to London for the UK-Africa investment summit. The Foreign Secretary speaks regularly with Foreign Secretary Shoukry and I spoke with the Egyptian ambassador yesterday.
Mr Holden
I thank the Minister for his answer. Security Print Solutions in Consett, County Durham, has a long-standing contract with the Egyptian Government to provide high-quality tax stamps for tobacco products, which have seen revenues to the Egyptian exchequer rise by 121%. Egypt is in the process of developing its own facility, but in the interim, ongoing contracts remain. Will the Minister use his good offices to do all he can to work with the Department for International Trade to help SPS fight for those interim contracts and look for other long-term opportunities to protect and expand export jobs in Consett worldwide?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend, in his relatively short time in the House, has shown himself to be a passionate defender of the businesses and people of North West Durham, and I commend him for doing so. I am aware of the case that he has raised. The ambassador and I did not speak directly on that case, but we did talk about bilateral trade relationships. I know our officials are following up on that, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend directly, so he can raise the case with me.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Wendy Morton)
Standing up for the right of every girl to 12 years of quality education is a major priority for the Government and the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but covid-19 is having a profound effect on the barriers girls face to education and putting them at risk of dropping out of school permanently, so a focus on girls’ education is more important than ever. That is why, in response, we have adapted our education programmes in 18 countries and provided more than £10 million of new funding to support refugee and displaced children to access education.
Mr Sheerman [V]
I hear what the Minister has said, but today and this week we want the Prime Minister to stick to his agreements and promises, and he recently promised me that the Government’s highest priority would be tackling the lack of education for girls worldwide. Some 15 million little girls do not even get to primary school. There is an enormous commitment from the United Nations sustainable development goals to do something about that. Can I have an assurance that the ministerial team will keep berating the Prime Minister until we get action on that?
Wendy Morton
Let us be absolutely clear: as the FCDO, we will continue to deploy the UK’s diplomatic clout and world-leading development expertise to secure greater global ambition and investment in girls’ education. The Prime Minister has been clear in his commitment to that.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The integrated review was formally launched in February 2020. It was paused because of covid and then recommenced in June. We expect it to conclude in the autumn. Ministers have met regularly. I have chaired those meetings on key themes from trade to security.
Angela Crawley
On the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, I would like to understand what specific steps the Secretary of State is taking to establish an atrocity prevention strategy to avert further identity-based violence worldwide.
Dominic Raab
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s passion and commitment on the subject. Of course, we have already introduced Magnitsky sanctions, which allow us to target the perpetrators of human rights abuses with visa bans and asset freezes. More generally, in the context of the integrated review, one of the powerful themes is the United Kingdom’s role in the world being joined up, which is why we have brought DFID and the Foreign Office together, in solving disputes, managing conflict and holding the worst perpetrators of human rights abuses to account.
Mr Ellwood
I strongly believe that the Government must be more transparent and engage with the British people as we attempt to define our place in the world and how ambitious we want to be. Let us follow the example of the confederation papers, which through consensus helped unify what the US originally stood for. Will the Foreign Secretary please publicise the threat assessment of how the world is changing and the strategic options in response that reflect the degrees of global ambition and the scale of influence we might pursue? Only then can we design the appropriate defence posture. If he takes the nation with him as we define what “global Britain” really means, there will be greater support for the upgrading of our soft and hard power tools that is so urgently needed.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend. I share his commitment to making Britain an even stronger force for good in the world. We have engaged far and wide. We are engaged with the Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry on the integrated review. We are engaged with think-tanks, from the Royal United Services Institute to the Overseas Development Institute. In the other place, Baroness Sugg is chairing regular meetings with representatives of civil society, led by Bond and including Save the Children and Plan International. Those meetings are related to the covid recovery, but they also touch on the merger, both of which are key elements of the IR.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
The integrated review was unpaused in late June. It is supposed to be the most comprehensive evidence-driven evaluation of foreign policy since the cold war, so why did the call for evidence go out only in mid-August for 20 working days, and why are the sustainable development goals absent from the scope of the review? Should we assume that the outcomes are a foregone conclusion?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady. She should not assume any foregone conclusion. It is precisely because the consultation is open that we have not stipulated any particular thing with the level of specificity she has asked for. I have explained to the House the breadth of consultation. She is right to note that it was interrupted—that was an inevitable result of covid-19—but I reassure her that we are absolutely committed, as the merger into the new FCDO shows, to bringing all our international assets and attributes together to be an even stronger force for good in the world.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
Since the last oral question session, on 25 August I visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories to press for a new dialogue and to reinforce the UK’s commitment to a negotiated two-state solution. On 2 September, we launched the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to integrate our aid expertise and our diplomatic reach and to project global Britain as an even stronger force for good in the world.
Suzanne Webb
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the case of Ye Ming Yuen in Singapore, and will he ensure that the Government continue to raise our objections to the use of corporal punishment all over the world?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and our staff continue to support Mr Yuen and his family during what must be a very distressing time. I can tell her and reaffirm that the United Kingdom’s long-standing global position is to oppose corporal punishment in all circumstances and to call for the consideration of alternative sentences.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
In the last six months, the Foreign Secretary has publicly reminded Iran, Israel, China and Russia of their obligations under international law. I agree with him, so does he agree with me and with the most senior legal official in Government, who has behaved with honour and principle this morning, that when the Prime Minister briefs that he will unilaterally tear up our international obligations under the withdrawal agreement, it undermines our moral authority, harms our national interest and makes a mockery of the Foreign Secretary’s attempts to stand up for international law? Will he assure the House that he, as the Foreign Secretary, will never vote for amendments that violate our international obligations?
Dominic Raab
I obviously respect all the brilliant civil servants who work for us. I used to work as a Foreign Office lawyer myself. I can say to the hon. Lady that I am surprised she would open up this question. As we go through the uncertainty of changing our relationship with the EU, we will make sure that there is maximum certainty for businesses as regards the UK internal market, and of course we will legislate to that effect. Ultimately, we will take every measure necessary to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom and to comply with and live up to the Good Friday agreement, ensuring that it is respected. I am surprised she is not supporting that.
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not read the newspapers, because his own Government have been briefing the precise opposite. Let me try him on another international obligation. An international arbitration ruling determined that the UK owes a debt to Iran, which has not yet been paid. In a letter to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s family last week, the Defence Secretary said that the UK
“acknowledges there is a debt to be paid”
and is seeking to find ways to pay it. It is absolutely vital that the Government have a clear and agreed strategy for Nazanin, Anoosheh Ashoori and all dual UK nationals to ensure that they are brought home as soon as possible. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Defence Secretary, and if so, what steps is he now taking to resolve these heartbreaking cases?
Dominic Raab
I can tell the House that I had two conversations throughout August with Foreign Minister Zarif. We pursue all the cases of our dual nationals. The question of the International Military Services debt is a parallel issue, but we have always said that we would work to resolve that. As well as all the wider issues that have already been raised in relation to Iran, there is never an engagement, a meeting or a telephone conversation that goes by without our being absolutely clear—and I hope that the hon. Lady agrees—on the appalling and arbitrary detention of all dual nationals and calling for their immediate release.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend and hugely welcome all his efforts in this regard. We are taking forward all these strands—from media freedom to the Magnitsky sanctions, to the work that we are doing on LGBT rights. He will know that we intend to build on our current official development assistance allocation for the strategic review on LGBT rights, which will be completed in the autumn. As a founding member of the Equal Rights Coalition of 42 states sharing the same values, in 2019 we took on the role of co-chair and we plan not only to deliver the first ever UK-led five-year action plan, committing the coalition to taking domestic and international measures on LGBT and equality issues, but to expand the ERC and, in particular, to try to draw in more participation from Asia, Latin America and Africa, for all the reasons that he mentioned.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the UK has a comparative advantage internationally, with research that is going on at Oxford and Imperial in pursuit of the vaccine and the leadership that the Prime Minister showed at the Gavi summit to smash all the records and get $8.8 billion-worth of funding to ensure equitable access to the whole world. That is good for the United Kingdom—we do not want a second wave globally—and important as a matter of moral responsibility. On misinformation, we have discussed it in the G7 and plenty of other formats, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we must be rigorous and robust in rebutting false information, particularly when it is irresponsible about something such as vaccine safety standards.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does as one of the leading parliamentarians and Select Committee members, and indeed, Chairs. The normal position that the Government take is that Select Committees ought to shadow Departments, but having said that, the representation is ultimately for the House to decide. I welcome all the scrutiny; he will know that we have not only affirmed the role of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact in providing scrutiny and accountability on aid decisions, but I want to review it to make sure that it is focused on what adds the most value and that its critical analysis is followed by practical recommendations.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Dominic Raab
First, on the issue of timing, covid has shown precisely why we need to integrate more in respect of our international endeavours. That was true in relation to the combination between research for a vaccine, the Gavi summit and the misinformation that was asked about earlier. On the cost of the merger, we would envisage that, notwithstanding our commitment to 0.7%, over the long term—over the course of the comprehensive spending review—we can make considerable savings on administrative costs as we streamline, fuse and synergise the various different aspects of the previous Departments.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
As we have left the EU, it is curious to have an operation overseas. We have a global network of 280 overseas posts, which represent all parts of the UK, including Cornwall. The decision to operate overseas is one for Cornwall Council and, ultimately, the voters of Cornwall, who I am sure will want at the next local elections to have a say on whether it is a good idea and a good use of their taxpayers’ money.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
Dominic Raab
I thank and pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for an exceptional endeavour. As we depart the EU and forge our way in the world, we ought to have stronger relationships with that part of the world. I would be very interested in receiving directly those proposals and ideas and would make sure that either I or the Minister for the region meets the hon. Gentleman and those involved.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend will know that the resolution that was tabled garnered only two votes in the UN Security Council. The UK’s position is clear: we want to see the continuation of the arms embargo. It has to get through the Security Council, as frustrating as that may be. We have offered our good offices; indeed, had time been allowed between the original tabling of the resolution and the vote, we had offered, with the E3, to work with all the permanent members of the Security Council to try to find a compromise. Ultimately, unless the resolution can pass, it has no impact in restraining Iran.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and he is absolutely right to raise it. We have serious concerns about gross human rights violations being perpetrated against Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, including the extrajudicial detention of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in political re-education camps—as they have been referred to. We are playing a leading role in holding China to account for its widespread violations of human rights. On 30 June, the UK led a joint statement on behalf of 27 other countries at the UN Human Rights Council about the situation in Xinjiang. Finally, the Foreign Secretary has again raised Xinjiang with his Chinese Foreign Minister counterpart.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend will know that, along with our E3 colleagues, we have triggered the dispute resolution mechanism for the JCPOA on the nuclear side. It has always been the case that the JCPOA did not encompass the wider destabilising activities in which Iran engages in the region through militias and proxies, and we have always been open and willing, and indeed pressing, to try to incorporate a bigger agreement. But it is also right to say that until there is scope for that wider agreement, what we have is the JCPOA, which provides the vehicle for some kind of restraint on Iran, although I accept that it has been eroded because of systemic non-compliance. We would be reluctant to move to something bigger until it is in place, and should not lose sight of what the JCPOA adds.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Dominic Raab
I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the situation in Zimbabwe. We follow it carefully and engage with our international partners as well as directly with the Government of Zimbabwe. Working with our partners, we have the tools, if the evidence allows and we decide it is the right thing to do, to apply targeted sanctions on those who commit the most egregious human rights abuses.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Petition
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
No, we should not be surprised; the hon. Member’s timing was absolutely perfect—to the second.
Kate Osborne
Thank you again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to present a petition signed by more than 13,500 of my Jarrow constituents.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Jarrow.
Declares that it is vital that high quality, compassionate palliative and end-of-life care is accessible across the country; further declares that each person who is nearing the end of their life should feel safe in the knowledge they will receive the very best care and be supported to die peacefully and painlessly; notes that in the Jarrow constituency, St Clare’s hospice collapsed into insolvency in January 2019 after more than 30 years, leaving the borough without an end-of-life care facility; and further notes that a petition requesting to keep palliative care at the Primrose Terrace site in Jarrow, rather than setting up an alternative site elsewhere within the borough, has received 13,500 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the NHS South Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group in reopening the St Clare’s hospice site at Primrose Terrace, Jarrow.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002595]
Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Legal Obligations
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the UK’s commitment to its legal obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
We are fully committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and have already taken many practical steps to do so. The protocol was designed to maintain the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the gains of the peace process, and to protect the interests of all people in Northern Ireland, and that is what this Government will do and will continue to deliver on. Throughout the last year, as we have taken steps to comply with our obligations under the protocol, we have always sought to honour both our international obligations and our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland.
The protocol itself states that it should
“impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities”
and it explicitly depends on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland for its continued existence. As we continue to implement the protocol, this overriding need must be kept in mind. The Government have consistently said that people and businesses in Northern Ireland will have unfettered access to the whole of the UK market. Our manifesto made a very clear commitment to that. The approach that we will take in this legislation builds on that commitment and on the specific commitment that we made in the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, to legislate for unfettered access by the end of the year. This has been one of the most consistent asks from Northern Ireland businesses since the protocol was agreed, and we are now moving to provide certainty.
Our approach guarantees that we will be able to deliver the objectives that we set out for implementing the protocol in a way that protects the interests of the people and the economy of Northern Ireland. We are working hard to resolve any outstanding issues through the Joint Committee and will continue to approach those discussions in good faith, but we are taking limited and reasonable steps to create a safety net that ensures that the Government are always able to deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland and in line with the protocol.
Louise Haigh
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
This week starts a crucial period in our trade negotiations with the EU. Labour wants the Government to succeed—to secure a deal in the national interest and to protect the Good Friday agreement—so it is very welcome to hear the Secretary of State’s confirmation of their commitment to the protocol. But it has been deeply concerning ahead of these talks that the Prime Minister has appeared to undermine our legal obligations and his own deal. The resignation of the Government’s chief legal adviser this morning suggests that concern over the Government’s approach runs to the very top. It risks jeopardising the progress of the negotiation and the chance of securing a much-needed deal.
The protocol was not foisted on the Prime Minister by Brussels, by a previous Government or by Parliament. The Prime Minister personally renegotiated it, campaigned on it, legislated for it and ratified it in an international treaty. With these latest moves, some fear that the Prime Minister is once again using Northern Ireland as a political football to suit his wider political means. We cannot forget that at the heart of this are the people and businesses of Northern Ireland who risk paying the price. For them, this is not the latest episode in a Brexit drama but a profoundly worrying moment that will shape their livelihoods, their businesses and their future. It reopens the uncertainty that they hoped had been settled, takes us backwards in negotiations and undermines trust with the European Commission.
Ultimately, this is about trust. How can the people of Northern Ireland trust this Government with the careful progress made over the past two decades when they tell them that the protocol is necessary to protect it and then suggest that the protocol undermines it? How can the British people trust a Government who swore that they had an oven-ready deal only 10 months ago and now tell them that the deal was ambiguous and contradictory? How can our partners and allies around the world trust us to enter trade negotiations on multilateral arrangements?
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Treasury Solicitor resigned today in response to the Government’s plans to bring forward legislation that will undermine our legal obligations? Will he confirm whether a ministerial direction has been given on the internal market Bill? Will he further outline what legal advice he has seen and whether the ministerial code will be breached if MPs are asked next week to vote on provisions that will undermine those legal obligations?
There was no need for it to come to this. The elements of the protocol left to negotiate are not insignificant, but neither are they insurmountable. With trust, progress could easily have been secured. At the start of a new chapter for our United Kingdom, we cannot afford to be seen as a country that cannot be trusted. As Margaret Thatcher said,
“Britain does not renounce treaties. Indeed, to do so would damage our integrity as well as international relations.
In those interests and in the national interest, I urge the Government to stop the posturing, rediscover their responsibility and secure the deal that was promised to the people of this country.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady should wait until she sees the legislation tomorrow, because I hope she will then see that we are delivering on the very promises to which she just referred. She commented on the Prime Minister’s campaigning and our manifesto pledges, which I referred to in my opening remarks. The Bill, as she will see, will absolutely deliver on them.
The UK internal market legislation that we will bring forward this week delivers on our commitment to legislate for unfettered access, which Northern Ireland businesses have consistently asked us to do to ensure that we deliver certainty. The legislation will give the certainty that the people, businesses and economy of Northern Ireland have been asking for, and supports the delivery of the protocol in all circumstances, in line with the approach we set out in our Command Paper in May.
The safety net that we will implement, which we will outline this week, will deliver on the commitments made in the general election manifesto. Specifically, we will implement the provision in the protocol that Northern Ireland is fully part of the UK customs territory by ensuring that goods moving within the UK will never even inadvertently have to pay EU tariffs. We will ensure that businesses based in Northern Ireland have true unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom without paperwork, and we will ensure that there is no confusion about the fact that, while Northern Ireland will remain subject to the EU state aid regime for the duration of the protocol, Great Britain will not be subject to EU rules in that area.
Those steps are rightly part of the UK internal market Bill, the overriding aim of which is to ensure that the UK’s own internal market operates effectively, and I hope all Members will support that endeavour. The House will of course have an opportunity to debate these matters when it sees the details in full when considering the Bill. Further, the Bill will strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory and ensure that the UK does take back control of its laws in an organised way after 31 December—exactly as we promised in the manifesto that won a resounding victory and mandate from the people of this country at last year’s election.
I cannot comment on the details of the Treasury Solicitor’s resignation because I have not seen his resignation letter, but we wish him well. We will continue to work at pace with the EU in the Joint Committee, and I stress to the hon. Lady that she should not presume what the outcome of the Joint Committee will be. We continue to work with the EU on that to ensure that we can reach a fair and positive outcome for Northern Ireland. That has always been and continues to be our priority.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
The United Kingdom Government signed the withdrawal agreement with the Northern Ireland protocol. This Parliament voted that withdrawal agreement into UK legislation. The Government are now changing the operation of that agreement. Given that, how can the Government reassure future international partners that the UK can be trusted to abide by the legal obligations in the agreements it signs?
Brandon Lewis
We have worked with the EU in a spirit of good faith, and both sides continue to work in that spirit to implement the arrangements that uphold the fundamental principles that lie behind the protocol. Of course, our first priority continues to be to secure agreement on the protocol on the Joint Committee and on the wider free trade agreement, but the withdrawal agreement and protocol are not like any other treaty. They were written on the assumption that subsequent agreements could be reached between us and the EU on the detail—that is the entire purpose of the specialised Joint Committee—and we continue to believe that that is possible, but as a responsible Government we cannot allow our businesses not to have certainty for January. The reality is that the UK internal market Bill and the Finance Bill are the last legislative opportunities we have to give the people and businesses of Northern Ireland the confidence and certainty that we will deliver what we agreed in the protocol, what we outlined in our manifesto and what we set out in the Command Paper.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister referred to Northern Ireland and said, “This is a good deal”, when he struck it last year. Now he seems to disagree with himself. There are U-turns everywhere, but this is something else. No wonder it is reported today that the head of the UK Government Legal Department has just quit because of the rowing back in respect of the withdrawal agreement and Northern Ireland. The internal market Bill is taking a wrecking ball to devolution. The Government are hellbent on a poor deal or no-deal Brexit—and hang the implications—but using the Bill to renege on parts of the withdrawal agreement is extraordinary and dangerous.
Can the Minister explain what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues about the impact of these plans on Northern Irish businesses and the Good Friday agreement? What advance discussions did he have with the Northern Irish Executive? I suspect the answer is: precious few. We have all seen the Government’s wilful disregard for devolution and their own international reputation. Who will want to do business with a Government who cannot stick to an agreement with themselves, never mind anyone else, and who make it up as they go along, as we heard just now and as people in Scotland are only too aware?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady and I have a distinct difference of opinion, because whereas the SNP want to hand powers straight back to Brussels, we, the UK Government and the Conservative party, have been clear that we want to take back those powers for the residents and citizens of the United Kingdom, and indeed we will be devolving power to the devolved authorities, as we have outlined in our discussions with those authorities, including the First Minister of Scotland just this week. This is about taking back power from the EU, as people voted for, and giving it back to the people of the UK, including the Scottish Parliament. I am just sorry that the SNP does not share the desire to see democracy exercised here in the UK.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I wonder if my right hon. Friend recalls that in clause 38—the sovereignty clause—of the Act that gave effect to the withdrawal agreement the Government reserved to themselves the right to make clarifications. Given that, and given that when the protocol was signed, the Government recognised that state aid rules would apply to Northern Ireland, their extension to the rest of the Great Britain is an interpretation by the EU, and the Government are quite within their rights to dispute that interpretation and use clause 38 to explain that they do not agree with that and will not implement such an agreement.
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend has spoken about these issues over the last year or so and has been clear about his position, and he is absolutely right. The UK internal market Bill will make clear what will apply in January if we cannot reach a satisfactory and mutually suitable conclusions through the specialised Joint Committee and the wider free trade agreement. It is reasonable and sensible for the Government to give that certainty and clarity to businesses and people in Northern Ireland, which in itself will ensure that we abide by and deliver on the Good Friday agreement by ensuring that there will be no borders between east and west and north and south. He is also absolutely right that Great Britain will not be subject to EU rules in a state aid area while recognising the unique position of Northern Ireland.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am afraid the Secretary of State’s protestations of innocence will not wash, because over the past two days—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) addressed this question—the Government have given the impression that they may not be trusted to honour obligations they have freely entered into.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can answer a very specific question relating to the Northern Ireland protocol, which he had some trouble answering in the summer when he appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Will goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland be required to complete export declarations, import declarations or entry summary declarations—yes or no?
Brandon Lewis
As I assume the right hon. Gentleman knows, that forms part of the discussions that are going on in the specialist committee, between us and the EU, to deal with these issues. Our view is that the regime should be very flexible, as Michel Barnier has outlined, in terms of respecting the unique position of Northern Ireland, because those goods going from GB to Northern Ireland are, by definition, very low risk, and we must ensure that we do not end up in a situation where it is presumed that 100% of the goods going from GB to Northern Ireland are what the EU would refer to as “at-risk goods.” That would be inappropriate for Northern Ireland businesses, would drive up prices in Northern Ireland and would restrict supply to Northern Ireland. That does not fit with the protocol’s outline of Northern Ireland remaining an integral part of the UK customs territory and single market.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
At the moment, for Northern Ireland, there appears to be no certainty for businesses, and no certainty for the long-term future of the Good Friday agreement, as clearly any transporting of goods between north and south will now need to be checked somewhere and somehow. Also, in echoing the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), there appears to be no certainty for the continuity of our country as a country that keeps its word and abides by the rule of law and international obligations. What certainty can my right hon. Friend give me that the Government understand the seriousness of these issues?
Brandon Lewis
We, as a country, stand for international law and the order of the international system, and we always will. I think countries around the world are aware of that. They are equally aware that we are in these negotiations with the EU. Our focus is on concluding those in a satisfactory and suitable way in order to get a good outcome with a free trade deal, and good outcomes from the specialist committee that work for Northern Ireland. We must remember that delivering on the Good Friday agreement is not just about north-south; it is also about east-west and ensuring that there are no borders, north-south or east-west. That is why we have made the commitment on unfettered access, and that is what we will deliver through the UK internal market Bill.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
There are those in this House who say that the protocol is the problem here, when in fact the protocol is a symptom of the problem, which is four years of terrible political decision making. It is now the law and the Government are obliged to implement it in full. A Member of the House told the BBC yesterday that his party had been engaged with the Government since January to achieve the change. Given that the Government are legally bound to rigorous impartiality, and given that they have cited the peace process among their motivations, I hope that they will indicate what engagement there has been with all the parties, and whether they value better the guidance of their top legal adviser or the DUP. May I caution the Secretary of State, please, not to use the threat of a border on the island of Ireland or the hard-won impartiality of the Good Friday agreement as a cat’s paw in this or any other negotiations?
Brandon Lewis
In large part, I agree with what the hon. Lady just outlined. We had a letter from her party and others yesterday, outlining the issues around the Good Friday agreement. The point is that this is also about ensuring that we continue to deliver on all the gains of the peace process in Northern Ireland, and ensuring that we are able to give Northern Ireland businesses the certainty that, no matter what happens over the next couple of months, at the very least in January they can be assured of having the unfettered access that we have promised. That is what we will set out in the UK internal market Bill, to ensure that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of both the customs union and the single market union of the United Kingdom.
We shall continue to have conversations with Northern Ireland businesses and parties, as we did around the Command Paper earlier this year, as the hon. Lady knows from the conversation that I had with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
My party has voted against this withdrawal agreement. We have warned Ministers about not just the impact that the withdrawal agreement has on Northern Ireland but the foot in the door for the EU for the rest of the United Kingdom. I am pleased that we now have a Bill that—at least, according to reports—appears to deal with some of those issues. But I am disappointed to hear from the Secretary State today that we still do not know the depth and width of checks for goods coming into Northern Ireland and that we will still be left with state aid rules applying in Northern Ireland, which will stop us defending ourselves against predatory behaviour from the Irish Republic and other European countries. I want to emphasise to him that we will judge this Bill on whether it delivers on the issues that he and his Government have promised to address, in trying to undo the damage that the withdrawal agreement has caused. But ultimately, this agreement, which damages the whole of the United Kingdom—this Union splitting, economy destroying and border creating agreement—has to be changed and replaced. It can be replaced and should be replaced.
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman has had a strong, consistent view on these issues from the very beginning. I think that there is a huge opportunity for the whole United Kingdom and businesses in Northern Ireland as we leave the European Union. I think there are big opportunities for growth in the Northern Ireland economy, including in areas such as cyber. I believe that the EU will continue to act in good faith, as we are acting in good faith, in these trade negotiations and the specialist Joint Committee to get a good, mutually beneficial outcome for the EU and the United Kingdom. We are very focused on that. That is our priority and our desired outcome. If that does not succeed, we want to ensure, through the internal market Bill, that Northern Ireland businesses have confidence and clarity about what the situation will be in January. That is a reasonable, sensible step for the Government to take, and it will deliver unfettered access.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
This Government were elected on a manifesto which guaranteed that Northern Ireland would truly remain in the UK customs territory and committed that EU law would not get in the way of other elements of essential Government business. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these changes are simply delivering on that landslide winning, red wall smashing manifesto commitment?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We outlined very clearly—I do not think anybody can be under any misapprehension about it—our position at the general election: that we would deliver unfettered access, that we would deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and that we would continue to deliver on the Good Friday agreement. That is exactly what we are still focused on doing. We are doing that through the negotiations, but we also want to ensure that we are taking reasonable steps to be prepared for January should we need to be. We will do that in the UK internal market Bill, delivering on that manifesto pledge.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
Any unilateral change to the very necessary protocol risks undermining the Good Friday agreement, risks a hard border returning to the island of Ireland and places Northern Ireland businesses in a very uncertain legal position. Do the Government recognise that, in the event that they make unilateral changes to and, in particular, undermine the agreement, they will reduce the prospects of a future relationship with the European Union? In particular, there will be zero chance of negotiating a trade deal with the United States under a Biden Administration and with a Democrat-controlled Congress.
Brandon Lewis
On the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, quite the opposite—we are focused on coming to an agreement through the trade negotiations and the specialist Joint Committee, to ensure that we are able to deal with the detailed issues that were always, as set out in the protocol, to be worked out by the Joint Committee. That is exactly what the Committee is there to do. All we will be doing in the UK internal market Bill is giving clarity to the businesses and people of Northern Ireland about what happens on 1 January if that does not come to a satisfactory conclusion. I say to him gently that that is the best way to give certainty to the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Given the sovereignty clause, the need for certainty and clarity for businesses and the timeframe involved, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely right for the Government to use domestic legislation—the UK internal market Bill—to ensure that Northern Ireland truly remains part of the UK customs territory after the end of the transition period?
Brandon Lewis
Yes. My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. We should be clear that the UK internal market Bill and the Finance Bill are the last two legislative opportunities for us to put into law what we will need to do if the Joint Committee and the negotiations do not come to a satisfactory conclusion. It is nothing more than that. It means that we have a sensible and reasonable position and can say to people in Northern Ireland, “If that is what happens, this is what the situation will be in January.” It gives confidence and certainty to businesses and people in Northern Ireland that we will deliver for them.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
What authority do we have to criticise China for not keeping her side of the bargain under the joint declaration on Hong Kong if we are seen to approach our own treaty obligations to the European Union in this way?
Brandon Lewis
As I said earlier, specific issues in the protocol were always designed to be worked out through the Joint Committee. It is right that the Government are taking reasonable, sensible and limited actions to make sure we have that certainty for people in January should the Joint Committee and the withdrawal agreement negotiations for the free trade agreement not come to a satisfactory conclusion.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The EU signed a withdrawal agreement and political declaration with two things at its core: it would respect the restoration of UK sovereignty, and it would work for a free trade, tariff-free agreement. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the EU kept its word on those two colossally important points, the problems it has created in Northern Ireland would disappear?
Brandon Lewis
This is exactly why it is important that we are clear about our intentions to ensure that we are delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. As I say, I am sure that the EU negotiating team will continue to be negotiating in good faith. Michel Barnier has said that peace in Ireland is due
“thanks to the open border”,
and that this process
“should not and must not lead to the return of a hard border, neither on maps nor in minds.”
He is absolutely right on that and we are determined to ensure we deliver on it. I am sure that the negotiations will be able to get us to that point, but it is right that we are able to say to the people of Northern Ireland that should those not succeed, we will legislate in UK law to ensure that.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I did not hear an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), so I will ask it again: can the Secretary of State explain whether a failure to uphold international legal commitments would breach the ministerial code?
Brandon Lewis
I think I did outline earlier that, as a Minister, my focus is on ensuring that we are delivering for the people of the United Kingdom and, within that, the people of Northern Ireland. As Northern Ireland Secretary, my focus is on ensuring that we are delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, as we said we would both in the Command Paper and in our manifesto.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
For the avoidance of any doubt, is it the case that if the EU negotiators, including those on the Joint Committee, are prepared to move forward to implement the existing agreement in a workable way, these provisions will not be necessary?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend, as often, is absolutely right; these provisions will be in the Bill to take effect if other things do not come through. I think that with both parties acting in good faith we will get to a position where these provisions become, in effect, irrelevant, exactly as he has outlined.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State recognise that, as others have reminded him, there would be terrible future consequences for Britain if the Government fail to abide by an international treaty they have signed? Does he recognise that—yes or no?
Brandon Lewis
As I said earlier, I absolutely recognise the importance of following international laws and the rule of law. We have a unique situation with this treaty. Listening to what some Members have been saying from a sedentary position, it seems that there is a fundamental misunderstanding here; there are items and issues in the protocol that were always designed to be worked through in the Joint Committee, because they were not able to be agreed and worked through at the time of the protocol. What we will be outlining in the UK internal market Bill is what the UK Government’s position will be if that does not succeed, in order to ensure that we are delivering for the people of Northern Ireland as part of the internal and integral market of the United Kingdom.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) [V]
This Government have been clear that they will work flat out during September to agree our future relationship with the EU. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no reason why these clarifications as to how the protocol is implemented should undermine our negotiations in any way whatsoever?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is right on that. Those negotiations are ongoing—they are ongoing today, in fact. As I say, I am confident that our negotiating teams and the EU negotiating teams are all focused on getting a good outcome for both our friends and partners in the EU and us in the UK, and that they will come to a solid and good conclusion. We are simply taking reasonable, limited steps to outline what the position will be if that does not succeed, but I am with him in being confident that it will.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of how the failure to implement the protocol in full will impact on the flow of Northern Irish goods exported to Great Britain necessarily through the Republic of Ireland and then through the port of Holyhead?
Brandon Lewis
The purpose of the clauses we will be putting into the UK internal market Bill is to ensure that we continue to have good, free-flowing trade across the whole of the United Kingdom, including for Northern Ireland—I have mentioned the issue of unfettered access before. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman sees the clauses in the Bill that we will publish and introduce tomorrow he will see that that is a positive and sensible step.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give that the UK internal market Bill will provide the certainty needed in Northern Ireland to ensure that it remains within the UK customs territory, and that there is no reason whatsoever that the negotiations should be detracted from or undermined by such an Act?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The clauses we will put into the Bill are very clear about ensuring Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom customs territory and single market. The EU has recognised that that is important, and it is a key thing that we will be delivering. There is respect for that point. Acting in good faith by both parties will, I am sure, bring us to a good and sensible conclusion to the negotiations.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
We know that people in No. 10 like to move fast and break things, but I do not think we knew that that extended to the Northern Ireland protocol, with the consequences that will have for the Good Friday agreement and the devolution settlement as a whole. Does the Secretary of State accept that these are not just bits of paper, but that they affect people’s lives and livelihoods? Who, once all this is broken, is going to pick up the pieces?
Brandon Lewis
I suggest the hon. Gentleman waits until he has seen the detail of the text tomorrow so that he can support us, as this is about delivering on ensuring that people in Northern Ireland stay part of the United Kingdom, regardless of whether he wishes to or not.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Article 6 of the Act of Union provides, in essence, that no duties will be applied to goods passing between Great Britain and Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these are constitutional rights still enjoyed by the people of Northern Ireland, and that unless the protocol is clarified and adjusted, those rights may possibly be infringed?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He is right in the sense that Northern Ireland is and has been an integral part of the United Kingdom for almost 100 years—as we know, next year, we celebrate the centenary of Northern Ireland. It is an integral part of the United Kingdom. The negotiations have recognised that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom customs territory and single market. The clauses we will put in the UK internal market Bill to be published tomorrow will confirm that, regardless of the outcome of those negotiations.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
A little over two months ago, the Government in their Command Paper defined the Northern Ireland protocol as existing
“to ensure that the progress that the people of Northern Ireland have made in the 22 years since the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement is secured into the future.”
It went on to say:
“Whilst the Protocol is in force, both the UK and EU must respect and abide by the legal obligations it contains, as well as our other international law obligations.”
Does the Secretary of State stand by that commitment, and if not, why not?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, and I suggest to the hon. Lady that paragraph 19 states:
“The Protocol is clear that nothing in it prevents Northern Ireland business enjoying unfettered access to the rest of the UK internal market. We will ensure this. As set out in New Decade, New Approach, we will legislate to guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market”.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no indication that the UK is at this stage seeking to leave the withdrawal agreement, and that it is right and legitimate that adjustments are made so that UK courts have jurisdiction in the UK and the Northern Irish economy is protected from otherwise punitive tariffs?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said in my opening remarks, we are still determined to deliver on the withdrawal agreement and the protocol. We hope the negotiations come to a suitable and sensible conclusion. This is purely a set of clauses that we are putting in place so that, should that not happen, we are clear about what the position will be in January and so that there are legal structures in place to be able to deliver on those issues, including unfettered access.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On 20 May, the Government outlined their four key principles for supporting Northern Ireland through this process. They said that we would have unfettered access for businesses across the Irish sea, that there would be no tariffs on internal UK trade, that there would be no new customs infrastructure, and that Northern Ireland would benefit equally from the trade deals that are currently under negotiation. I hope the Secretary of State will agree that any customs arrangement that affects trade, or impacts in any way on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom in either direction, is unacceptable and must be stopped. Do this Government have the mettle, or do they have a tin foil spine when it comes to standing up to our detractors in Brussels and our debtors in the Republic of Ireland? Give the people and the businesses of Northern Ireland the certainty that they deserve and let us have certainty in those four key principles.
Brandon Lewis
Our determination and desire is to be able to deliver that certainty through the free trade agreement negotiations and the Joint Committee work. What we will be outlining tomorrow in the Bill is how, if that does not succeed, we will be giving that certainty to Northern Ireland businesses about what the framework and the legal structures will be from January to ensure that we do deliver on unfettered access. Let me just say that we are continuing to deliver on the protocol. With the issues around live animals, with the agrifoods work that we have done, with the EU settled status scheme and with other such issues, we are delivering on what we have agreed. We will continue to do that, and we will do so in good faith.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The much hyped Financial Times story has caused understandable concern right across the island of Ireland and more widely, so can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the measures being introduced tomorrow are solely a safety net to the work of the Joint Committee, do not in any way prevent the Government from complying with the Northern Ireland protocol in full, and do not compromise the Good Friday agreement?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are doing this in order to ensure that we can always deliver the wider objective of the protocol, which is to protect peace in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Belfast agreement, and to do so as part of the protocol, outlining, as we did in the Command Paper, how we would deal with those issues that are still outstanding—if they are outstanding—at the end of December.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The truth is that, whatever reassurances the Secretary of State gives today, the people in Northern Ireland simply cannot trust a word that comes out of this Tory Government’s mouth. At every single turn, they have used us as a bargaining chip, as a useful tactic and as part of a cynical game. Rather than taking his steer from cosy chats with the Democratic Unionist party, will he once and for all accept that people in Northern Ireland—the majority voice in Northern Ireland—will accept nothing less than the full implementation of the protocol?
Brandon Lewis
If the hon. Gentleman looks at what we have been doing on the protocol, such as the dedicated mechanism, the settled status scheme and the live animals and agrifoods work that we have done on sanitary and phytosanitary checks, he will see that we are delivering on the protocol and delivering on what we said we would do, as we did with the rules and regulations that we passed this year, not least on victims’ pensions. We have a good track record of delivering and doing exactly what we say we want to do. One thing that we said we would do, that we outlined we would do, and that we have a manifesto pledge and a mandate to do was to deliver unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses, and we will do that.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Secretary of State has said that he and the Government are committed to the rule of law. Does he recognise that adherence to the rule of law is not negotiable? Against that background, will he assure us that nothing that is proposed in this legislation does, or potentially might, breach international legal obligations or international legal arrangements that we have entered into? Will he specifically answer the other point: was any ministerial direction given?
Brandon Lewis
I would say to my hon. Friend that yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. We are taking the power to disapply the EU law concept of direct effect, required by article 4, in certain very tightly defined circumstances. There are clear precedents of this for the UK and, indeed, other countries needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change. I say to hon. Members here, many of whom would have been in this House when we passed the Finance Act 2013, that that Act contains an example of treaty override. It contains provisions that expressly disapply international tax treaties to the extent that these conflict with the general anti-abuse rule. I say to my hon. Friend that we are determined to ensure that we are delivering on the agreement that we have in the protocol, and our leading priority is to do that through the negotiations and through the Joint Committee work. The clauses that will be in the Bill tomorrow are specifically there should that fail, ensuring that we can deliver on our commitment to the people of Northern Ireland.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I am astounded that the Secretary of State has just conceded that he is proposing to break international law. Perhaps for the first time I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). It is a question of trust when it comes to signing international treaties. We cannot condemn others for seemingly breaking the international rules-based order if we are prepared to do the same. It is incredibly damaging to our reputation if we are seeking to acquire trade treaties and the UK internal market Bill tomorrow seeks to disapply section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That would be a clear breach of our international obligations, and for that reason should he not rule it out?
Brandon Lewis
As I have said several times today, obviously our focus is on ensuring that none of these clauses is required because we are able to secure a free trade agreement through the negotiations, which are ongoing this very day in London, as well as through the work of the Joint Committee. These clauses will simply put in place reasonable and limited structures to ensure that, should those negotiations not come to a satisfactory conclusion, in January we are able to show that we are delivering unfettered access for the people of Northern Ireland and ensuring that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK customs territory and single market.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Prime Minister was clear yesterday that an agreement with our European friends must be made by 15 October if it is to be enforced by the end of the year. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that under no circumstances will we agree to any demands that would force us to give up our rights as an independent state?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely. That was very clear in the votes in 2016 and the past two general elections, arguably in 2017, as well as the overwhelming mandate in 2019, bearing in mind that people, even Labour voters, were at the time voting for a party that said it would deliver on leaving the EU. I appreciate that Labour has changed its position somewhat over the past year or so. There has been a regular, clear mandate from the people of the United Kingdom that we should get on and deliver on what they asked for: to leave the European Union, to bring back sovereignty to the UK Parliament, and, where we can—as we will be doing through the UK internal market Bill—to devolve more powers to the devolved authorities as part of the United Kingdom.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Adam Tomkins MSP described the proposed changes to the Northern Ireland protocol as being
“in breach of our international treaty obligations”.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that he agrees with his Tory colleague’s analysis, and does he accept that the UK internal market Bill demonstrates a complete failure of the negotiating strategy that gives Scotland a raw deal that it did not vote for?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate that the nationalist party in Scotland wishes to put a border between Scotland and England. The reality is that what we are looking to do is to take powers back from Brussels. We feel that people in Scotland can exercise them better than people in Brussels. That is what we will do through the UK internal market Bill.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Is not the right way forward to reach a free trade agreement of the kind that the EU proposed to us back in the spring of 2018 and of the kind that the Government want to reach, combine it with the border arrangements set out in Prosperity UK’s excellent report—arrangements of the kind that the DUP supported—and use that to supplant the protocol? Is not the key to doing that a spirit of good will that accepts that the whole UK is leaving and has left the European Union?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a really powerful point. The best way forward—this is what we are all focused on, and I am sure our partners and friends in the EU are, in good faith, as well—is to get the agreement on a free trade deal that delivers on all those issues in the right and appropriate way. I say to Members across the House that it would be wholly wrong for the UK Government not to take this approach to ensure that, should that fail, there is a safety net to ensure that in January businesses and people in Northern Ireland know that they have the confidence of a structure in place that delivers on our promises. He is absolutely right. Our focus remains on getting that positive agreement.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Hon. Members across the House have talked about the importance of trust and how this will damage the trust of our European Union partners in the trade negotiations that we are currently undertaking. The timing is strange, as we head towards the crunch point for those negotiations. Was it an intentional effect or an unintended consequence that we have put this torpedo into the confidence of the European Union just as we are heading towards that point, making it much more likely that we have destroyed its trust in us and that the no-deal scenario that so many Conservative Members want to achieve is actually achieved?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman may wish to look back in Hansard at what my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have said this afternoon and previously. Our desire, as I have outlined, is to get a free trade agreement, as the previous question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) specifically outlined. We are still working on that, but I have confidence that the negotiators of the UK and EU will be able to do that in the full knowledge that what we will outline in the UK internal market Bill tomorrow is a safety net should they not succeed. It is good practice for the Government to be ready for all scenarios. It would be inappropriate for us not to prepare the UK for all scenarios should those negotiations fail, but they are where our focus is and they are the way we want to go forward. I am confident that they will do so positively.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
As a responsible Government, the internal market Bill is simply a necessary and precautionary step to ensure that good government is maintained in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to avoid the need to implement those measures is for the EU to finally get a grip and negotiate a free trade agreement that will benefit all the people of the island of Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point in that the best way forward is for us to agree that free trade agreement. I am confident that that is the EU’s overriding position and focus, and that that is why it is at the negotiations. I hope that we will be able to come to a positive conclusion that will be good for people across the United Kingdom and Europe—and, from my point of view as the Secretary of State, for the people of Northern Ireland.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Conservative party manifesto described the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol as “a great new deal” that was “signed, sealed and ready.” It explicitly stated, “No more renegotiations.” It also promised to take our
“whole country out of the EU as one United Kingdom.”
Given that none of those things has proven to be true, and given that the Secretary of State has just conceded that the Government are proposing arrangements that would break international treaties, why should anyone at home or abroad trust a single word the Government say?
Brandon Lewis
Apart from the fact that countries around the world will look at our wider position, as I said earlier, on international law and the rule of law, for which we are a beacon around the world, if the hon. Gentleman looks back at his question, he will see that it reinforces the reason we are taking this position, which is to ensure that we deliver on the points that we included in our manifesto, where we specifically outlined the issues that are in the Command Paper published in May this year, which businesses are supportive of—businesses asked for that certainty—and said:
“We will ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses and producers enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK and that in the implementation of our Brexit deal, we maintain and strengthen the integrity and smooth operation of our internal market.”
That is exactly what we will be doing in the UK internal market Bill when we publish it tomorrow.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend concur that this complex issue is ultimately about the good people of Northern Ireland and that any future protocols will be agreed with their best interests at heart?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That has to be at the core of what we do and at the heart of that is why the concept of consent is important. It is right that we remember that for the people of Northern Ireland.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Signing an international treaty is not a game; it is a commitment. Catherine Barnard is professor of European law at the University of Cambridge, and she warns that we agreed to a dispute resolution mechanism that could lead to heavy fines or further sanctions. What legal advice have the Government taken? If Ministers choose to ignore that advice, can the Minister spell out the consequences for those Ministers?
Brandon Lewis
As I said in response to an earlier question, our focus is on ensuring that we are delivering on the protocol or delivering on securing a free trade agreement and the discussions in the Joint Committee. That is our priority and that will ensure that we go forward in a sensible and agreed manner with our partners and friends in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman should wait and see the clauses tomorrow, which will deliver, as I have outlined, on the promises that we have made to ensure that the people and businesses of Northern Ireland have the certainty that they need should that not succeed. I am confident that it will, but should it not, it is sensible and reasonable for the Government to have that safety net in place so that people have confidence in what the situation will be in January.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
My constituents and I are clear that we want our obligations to Northern Ireland to be upheld and for there to be no delays or extensions. If a deal cannot be reached with Brussels by the middle of October to ensure that we are a truly independent country, we have no choice but to walk away from the table. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that under no circumstances will the country agree to any demand that does not give us sovereignty over our laws, land, sea and borders?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. When people voted to leave the European Union in 2016, they were giving us a very clear message that they wanted us to return powers and decision making to the UK Government, and that is what we are doing. We are also moving those processes closer to people directly in their everyday lives by then devolving powers, as we will outline through the process of the UK internal market Bill.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Mr Speaker,
“Whatever form it takes, Brexit cannot be allowed to imperil the Good Friday Agreement, including the seamless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland”.
That is a clear statement of intent from your counterpart in Capitol Hill, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Given that they make it clear that the Secretary of State’s Government can rip up international agreements to suit their own version of Brexit or they can have a US-UK trade deal, but not both, what will it be?
Brandon Lewis
I am not sure that I quite follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s question, bearing in mind that his party is arguing for a border between Scotland and England; it seems more than ironic. Our top priority will always be to preserve the huge gains from the peace process and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We will not do anything or take any risk that may harm that. In fact, as we will be outlining in the Bill tomorrow, we are seeking to take actions through which, should the trade negotiations not come to a satisfactory and positive conclusion, we can ensure that we are delivering on the Good Friday agreement and keeping not just peace in Northern Ireland but prosperity and economic growth for the people of Northern Ireland as part of the internal structure of the United Kingdom.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It seems to me that these measures for contingency planning give clarity and make sense in the case that we do not get an agreement. It would make sense for officials north and south of the border to have something they can put their hands around in case it does not work out as we hope it might.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend succinctly makes an excellent point: this is about having a safety net and contingency planning. These measures will not prevent the Government from complying with our commitments. They will provide Ministers with the powers needed for the UK Government to comply with the Joint Committee’s agreed decisions. As he outlined, they will provide a safety net, so we avoid activating any harmful defaults, even inadvertently, that could jeopardise the peace process or create confusion, by giving certainty about the fact that we will deliver as we said we would on unfettered access and issues that protect Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
With the UK at the foothills of a new era and a raft of trade negotiations ahead of us that will affect the lives of people in Putney and across the country, what message does the Secretary of State think it gives about our word that the UK is prepared to break international law at times, to override treaties and rewrite commitments that we signed up to only months ago?
Brandon Lewis
I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that, as I said earlier, there are some precedents in very specific, technical circumstances. Countries around the world, including some of those that we will be looking to and are working to secure trade deals with, vary their position on international laws, as I have outlined that we will be doing in this situation. As our trade negotiations start and are ongoing, countries around the world will be looking at the UK as a country that is outward-looking and global, that believes in free trade and that wants to deliver that for the benefit of economies around the world and for the United Kingdom. I want to make sure that Northern Ireland benefits from that. The clauses that we put in the Bill tomorrow will ensure that, regardless of anything else, Northern Ireland will benefit from those kinds of trade deals.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his earlier answers to my colleagues, which have given me and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme reassurance that, although we all want a deal, we will not compromise in the negotiations on the things that make our state independent. On Northern Ireland, does he agree that we need “flexible and imaginative solutions”? Those are not my words, but the words in the EU negotiation guidelines.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Those kinds of flexible outcomes are exactly what we need. I am sure that the negotiators on the EU side, as well as on our side, are determined to ensure that we deliver on that because that is how we get the right outcome for people across the United Kingdom. Importantly, it means that we can continue to deliver for the economy of Northern Ireland and to continue to protect the peace process.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The purpose of the protocol is to protect the Good Friday agreement. Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions he has had with parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly and with the Irish Government about the new clauses in the internal market Bill?
Brandon Lewis
Obviously, I am having conversations with party leaders, party members and indeed the Irish Government all through, but the clauses in the Bill will not be published until tomorrow. We will be having ongoing conversations with partners and colleagues on that. However, I would just say to the hon. Lady that in order to ensure we can continue to deliver on the Good Friday agreement, it is important to ensure there are no borders, north-south or east-west. That is all part of ensuring that we deliver on the Good Friday agreement. We are determined to do that. We will do that. The clauses that will be in the UK internal market Bill are important in ensuring that, even if we do not come to an agreement on the free trade agreement, and even if the Joint Committee does not come to positive conclusions on how we manage the protocol, we, the UK Government, are able to show that we are delivering on that and there will be no borders.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In the technical note on the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol earlier this year, the European Union suggested that its rules, quotas and tariffs might be imposed on fish landed from Northern Ireland vessels into Northern Ireland that was destined for Great Britain. That runs contrary to the Command Paper earlier this year, certainly, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it also drives a coach and horses through the Northern Ireland protocol itself?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point and that is one of the key areas the Joint Committee is continuing to work on. It is important that it comes to a satisfactory, sensible and positive conclusion for both parties, to ensure that we can deliver on the protocol in a way that we can all agree on in a positive way. That is the perfect outcome. That is what we are focused on and want to see achieved.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that the north-east has traditionally sent proportionately more of its young people into the armed forces than any other region. As a consequence, we have many veterans who served during the troubles. They, their loved ones and indeed all of us are proud of the hard-won peace. At the heart of the protocol is protecting the Good Friday agreement. Is he seriously contemplating using it as a bargaining chip in a trade deal?
Brandon Lewis
If the hon. Lady looks through my answers throughout this afternoon, she will see that I have been absolutely clear that it is quite the opposite: we are determined to ensure that we have a structure and a situation for the United Kingdom and the people of Northern Ireland that continues to deliver on the Good Friday agreement. We are determined to ensure we do that. That is a peace that has been hard won and it must be protected and delivered in the future as well.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) worked tirelessly to get the Northern Ireland Assembly back up and running—something people said could not be done. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken out key members of the New IRA because of his commitment to peace and the hard work he is doing. He is also a very successful businessman who understands that business needs certainty moving forward. Does he agree that it is hubris in the extreme to doubt this Government’s commitment to the governance of Northern Ireland, the protection of Northern Ireland and the peace in Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a very generous point about a number of my predecessors. They all worked hard—across this House, to be fair—in terms of the gains from the peace process. He is absolutely right that one message that consistently comes from Northern Ireland businesses across all sectors is the desire for certainty and understanding of what the situation will be for them in terms of trade, as Democratic Unionist party Members have outlined as well today, should we get to January and a free trade agreement has not been agreed. We have outlined the matter in the Command Paper and the guidance notes, which was positively received. The work we have done on the UK internal market Bill will go further to ensure that they have confidence in what the situation will be, even if we are not able to succeed in a positive outcome to those agreements and discussions of the Joint Committee.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that what was used as a negotiating ploy over the first few years was the concept of a hard border on the island of Ireland, when most people should know—if they are in the real world—that it is inadvisable, unworkable and undoable? No one wants it to happen and no one is going to construct it. Will he ensure his colleagues know that we must not allow something that is not going to happen to impede the need to get something that must: a good deal?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point, and he is absolutely right that nobody wants to see, and there is no reason for there to be, a border either on the island of Ireland or between the island of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We are determined to deliver on that. As I have said, the clauses in the UK internal market Bill are there as a safety net to ensure that, even if we do not reach a satisfactory conclusion to the free trade agreements, although that is something that I am sure both parties, acting in good faith, will be able to do in the coming weeks and next few months.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
May I ask a very simple question, in case anybody is still unclear? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of paramount importance to protect the peace process and that, to do so, unfettered access is essential between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Listening to the debate today, would I be right in summarising that the oven-ready deal we were promised by the Conservative party at the general election is missing a cooking apparatus?
Brandon Lewis
I would say that the apparatus we are using is working through the Joint Committee on the free trade agreement deals and the UK internal market Bill. As anything, this is all part of a package of things that mean we are able to ensure that, when we finish the transition period at the end of December this year, companies, businesses and the people of Northern Ireland have confidence about what the situation will be in January, even if we are not able to conclude those negotiations satisfactorily.
Mr Speaker
We are now heading to Bob Blackman, who is about to land his question. [Laughter.]
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the statements made by my right hon. Friend. Clearly, we hope that there will be a comprehensive free trade deal with our friends from the European Union, negotiated in good faith. But does he agree that it would be wholly irresponsible of the Government not to take measures to ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom and to preserve the ability of Northern Ireland businesses to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom by publishing this draft Bill tomorrow, and that the Government will ensure that we preserve that integrity while always preserving the sanctity of the Good Friday agreement?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend has put the situation absolutely perfectly. The Bill, as we will publish it tomorrow, as colleagues and Members across this House will see, will set out how we ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom trading markets—that customs union and the single market that has been so much a part of the United Kingdom for hundreds of years, in reality. It will ensure we are delivering on our determination to ensure we continue to see the benefits of the peace process, we deliver on the Good Friday agreement and we deliver on our promises to ensure that there are no borders, that we have unfettered access to Northern Ireland businesses, and that we deliver on exactly what we said in our Command Paper and in our manifesto.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 7 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 coronavirus. As a country, we have made huge strides in our fight against this invisible killer. Today’s Office for National Statistics figures show that weekly coronavirus deaths have dropped to the lowest number since mid-March, and the latest daily number of recorded deaths is three. However, we have seen a concerning rise in the number of positive cases, particularly among younger people. These figures serve as a salutary reminder that this virus is still very much with us and remains a threat, so it is critical that we maintain our collective commitment to controlling this disease.
Social distancing is the first line of defence. While young people are less likely to die from this disease, be in no doubt that they are still at risk. The long-term effects can be terrible, and of course they can infect others. Six months on, many people are still suffering chronic fatigue, muscle pain and breathing difficulties. Previously fit and healthy people have been reduced to barely being able to function. A King’s College survey published today shows that 300,000 people in the UK have reported symptoms lasting for more than a month and that 60,000 people have been ill for more than three months.
I also want to address the point, which is of course good news, that the number of people who are sadly dying from coronavirus in this country is currently low. We have seen all across the world how a rise in cases, initially among younger people, then spreads, leading to hospitalisations and fatalities. In Spain, where the rise in cases started around two months ago, hospitalisations have risen 15 times since mid-July. The number of daily deaths there has reached 184. In France, hospitalisations have more than tripled in the same period.
This must be a moment of clarity for us all. This is not over. Just because we have come through one peak, it does not mean we cannot see another one coming towards our shores. But together we can tackle it, so long as we remember that, in a pandemic, our actions today have consequences tomorrow for the people we love, for our communities, and for our country. Each and every citizen has a responsibility to follow social distancing and help to stop a second peak. After social distancing, the next line of defence is test and trace. Over the past six months we have built the biggest testing system of any major European country, and one of the biggest testing systems in the world. Today, I can tell the House that we have met our target to provide testing kits to all the care homes for older people and people with dementia that have registered to get tests.
But I will not rest. We are working flat out to expand our testing capacity even further. Using existing technology, we are expanding our capacity right now, and we are investing in new testing technology too. Last week, I was able to announce £500 million for next-generation tests such as saliva tests and rapid turnaround tests that can deliver results in just 20 minutes. The ability to get rapid, on-the-spot results will significantly increase the weapons in our armoury, in our fight both against coronavirus and for economic recovery. We are rolling out these tests right now, and plan to use them to relieve capacity constraints, to expand asymptomatic testing to find the virus and to give people the confidence that a negative test result brings.
Where it is necessary, we will not shy away from taking targeted local action. In June, I established the Joint Biosecurity Centre, to provide the best possible data analytics, using information from all possible sources. Our local action is driven by the data. We now publish daily local data on cases, so that everyone can see the data on which these decisions are taken, and this shows that our approach is working. For instance, in both Leicester and Luton, the weekly case rate more than halved during August. I want to thank the people of Leicester, including the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), of Luton and of the other areas where we have taken local action, who have followed social distancing and helped to bring the virus under control.
Sometimes local action requires us to act fast and respond to changing circumstances. Unfortunately, after improving for several weeks, we have seen a very significant rise in cases in Bolton. Bolton is now up to 120 cases per 100,000 population—the highest case rate in the country—and I am publishing the data behind the decisions that we have taken. I must therefore tell the House that, working with the local council, we are taking further local action. The rise in cases in Bolton is partly due to socialising by people in their 20s and 30s; we know that from contact tracing. Through our contact tracing system, we have identified a number of pubs at which the virus has spread significantly. We are therefore taking the following action in Bolton, starting immediately. We will restrict all hospitality to takeaway only, and we will introduce a late-night restriction of operating hours, which will mean that all venues will be required to close from 10 pm to 5 am. We will urgently introduce further measures that put the current guidance—that people cannot socialise outside their household—into law.
I want us to learn the lesson from Spain, America and France, not to have to learn the lesson all over again ourselves through more hospitalisations and more deaths, and take this local action in Bolton. Crucially, we all have a part to play. Young people do not just spread the virus to each other. They spread the virus to their parents and their grandparents. They spread it to those they come into contact with and others who they love. I know that social distancing can be hard and that it will be extra tough for students who are starting university, but I ask them please to stick with it and to play their part in getting this virus under control.
We are also putting in place extra measures, including visitor restrictions, to restrict the spread of the virus into care homes and hospitals in Bolton. I want to thank the leadership of Bolton Council, who are doing an outstanding job in very difficult circumstances, and colleagues who represent Bolton in this House, with whom I have discussed these measures. I want to say this directly to everyone living in Bolton: I know how anxious you will be, and I know the impact that these measures will have. We are asking you to take a step back, at a time when we all just want to get on with our lives and what we love and get back to normal, but we need to take this crucial step to keep the virus at bay, because as we have seen elsewhere, if we act early and control the virus, we can save lives.
As well as controlling the virus using the tools we have now, we will do everything in our power to bring to bear the technologies of the future. Over the past few months, we have seen the pivotal role that technology has played in our response, such as next-generation rapid testing, machine-learning tools to help the NHS predict where vital resources might be needed, and the discovery here in the UK of the only two treatments known to save lives from coronavirus. We want to keep that momentum going, so today, we are allocating £50 million from our artificial intelligence in health and care award. That fund aims to speed up the testing and evaluation of some of the most promising technologies, because through bringing new technologies to the frontline, we can transform how we deliver critical care and services across the country.
Finally, the best way out of this coronavirus pandemic remains a vaccine. We have already announced that we will roll out the most comprehensive flu vaccination programme in history this winter. We now have agreements with six separate vaccine developers for early access to 340 million doses of coronavirus vaccines, and we will use every method at our disposal to get as many people protected as possible.
This virus feeds on complacency, and although time has passed since the peak in the spring, the threat posed by the virus has not gone away. Now, with winter on the horizon, we must all redouble our efforts and get this virus on the back foot. 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. There can be no question but that the rise in case numbers in recent days is deeply worrying, and I agree that this is no time for complacency, that those who suggested this could be over by Christmas were foolish, and that we should be taking every reasonable measure possible to utterly suppress this virus. It is indeed a very dangerous virus and I am pleased that he and his Department have recognised the condition of long covid—we probably need a better term for it—whereby many people get long-term conditions as a result of the virus. I am pleased about the emerging research into that.
We have been seeing the trends in young people catching the virus for some time, in Greater Manchester, and indeed in Leicester, where the lockdown was due to the trends among young people. Many have warned that we could be facing a resurgence as we move into winter.
The Secretary of State has just announced the closure of pubs and other parts of the hospitality sector across Bolton. Has that been discussed and agreed with the Mayor of Greater Manchester? Can I ask the Secretary of State a very practical question? He may not realise it, but I grew up in Radcliffe, which is next to Bolton. What happens if people in Bolton want to go for a drink and end up going to Radcliffe or Bury, or indeed Chorley—which will be of interest to Mr Speaker? Will they be allowed to travel to neighbouring areas for a drink? How will restrictions be enforced? Given the action that the Secretary of State has taken on the hospitality sector in Bolton, is he keeping that sector under review in other hotspot areas? What guidance has he issued to pubs, restaurants and so on in those areas?
I am grateful for what the Secretary of State said about Leicester, and we have made great progress in the city of Leicester, but we still have in place the rule that people cannot congregate in private gardens with their extended family. Can I ask him again to set out the evidence for that? Can he update us on when Leicester will next be reviewed, because infection rates have come down?
Universities are set to return imminently, yet the SAGE analysis was not published until last Friday. Will the Secretary of State urgently produce a national plan for reducing transmission of the virus in the higher education sector? On schools, we have seen several outbreaks in recent days, including at the school the Prime Minister visited in Coalville a few weeks ago to promote the opening up of schools, yet the exact circumstances in which a school ought to close if a pupil displays symptoms are still unclear. In what circumstances does the Secretary of State believe a school should close?
The Secretary of State may recall that I warned him early on that one of the biggest barriers to self-quarantining would be not fatigue but personal finances. Does he accept that the Government need to go much further in helping people who need financial or housing support to self-isolate? Otherwise, he will never get on top of infections in areas characterised by low pay, child poverty and overcrowded housing. Does that not help to explain the poor record of contact tracing in these areas? In Bolton, contacts were reached in only 57% of non-complex cases; in Oldham, only 50%; in Blackburn, only 47%; in Bradford, only 43%. Nationally, only 69.4% of contacts are now reached and asked to self-isolate. [Interruption.] These are the latest statistics—his own statistics that he publishes. What is world-beating about that?
There was little explanation in the Secretary of State’s statement of what has gone wrong with testing in recent days. He tells us we have capacity for about 300,000 tests a day and that about 100,000 of those are antibody tests. What is the current capacity for testing? How many PCR tests are available at the moment? Yesterday, he said no one should have to travel further than 75 miles for a test, but for many people, such as the 20% of home careworkers on zero-hours contracts, taking a 150-mile round trip for a test simply is not feasible. At the moment, it is not even possible! Last night, it was reported that there were no tests in London. People in Kent were asked to travel to Cardiff. In Denton, they were advised to visit Llandudno. In Leicester, someone was advised to head north to Edinburgh. Helpfully in Devon, people were told they need only travel 20 miles, but unfortunately that involved crossing the sea to get to Swansea. Now, I know the Secretary of State thinks he walks on water, but many of our constituents cannot.
In the Health Select Committee earlier, the Secretary of State admitted that it would take weeks to fix these problems, yet last week he was boasting of plans for 10 million tests a day as part of his Operation Moonshot. When he cannot get the basics right, never mind Moonshot—people will think he is on another planet. His testing regime has been a fiasco in recent days, yet we have had no apology from him today. Is not the core of the problem that he did not listen to the experts? They all advised him to invest in public health teams and NHS labs. Instead, he gave contracts to outsourcing firms such as Deloitte, Serco and G4S, which had no experience in testing and tracing. He should now accept that that was a mistake and invest in public health teams.
We must do everything reasonable to suppress this virus, but in recent weeks we have had muddled messages, failed testing and ineffective contact tracing. Winter is coming, and the Secretary of State needs to get a grip.
Matt Hancock
I will certainly answer the questions posed by the hon. Gentleman, but as for his proposal to dismantle the testing system that we have built so painstakingly over the past six months using not only the NHS and PHE, but all the testing capacity of the nation, that is one that I and the British people will reject. We need to build our capacity, and we need to build on what we can do. We have built one of the biggest testing capacities in the world over the past six months, and I will reject all narrow, partisan calls to dismantle a testing capacity that is working.
Of course, with the increase in demand for tests that we have seen in the past few days, there have been challenges, which we have acknowledged, and we are working day and night to fix them. The long-term solution, using the new technologies that are coming on stream, is a critical part of ensuring that we can expand testing capacity still further.
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman got into a bit of a muddle on contact tracing, saying that under 70% of contacts are traced. That is simply untrue and below the number that we publish weekly—we published the latest figure last Thursday.
Some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions were sensible. On schools, he is quite right that having clear guidance on how we approach schools and on what schools should do in the event of an outbreak is important. That guidance has been published and sent to schools. In the first instance, of course, a school should work with their local director of public health to minimise the impact of an outbreak.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about financial support for those who have to self-isolate, and we have put that in place. We have rolled that out in areas of the north-west, and we are watching the progress effectively.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asked about Leicester, where, of course, he has both national responsibilities and a local interest. The local lockdown in Leicester has resulted in a significant drop in the number of cases, and we will take a formal review of the measures in Leicester on Thursday. I will be certain to talk to him in advance of that and take his local intelligence and views into account.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a plan for higher education. An enormous amount of work has been done with all universities to ensure that the sector can open safely in the coming weeks.
Finally, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman started his response in a constructive form in respect of the measures that we must take in Bolton. I have communicated with the Mayor of Greater Manchester and he has had a briefing from the official team—that has been offered. The statutory responsibility of course lies with Bolton Council, with which we have been working very closely to put into place measures that in essence build on the measures that Bolton Council has been putting in place. I put on the record my thanks to those in Bolton Council—its leader, David Greenhalgh, who has been doing an excellent job, as well as the director of public health and the chief executive—because it has been a difficult challenge in Bolton.
Thankfully, what we have learnt from this sort of local action elsewhere in the country is that we do not see large-scale numbers of people travelling to other areas nearby where there is a problem. We have not seen that yet. Of course, we remain vigilant on that and on all these measures, but I am sure that the people of Bolton will understand how significant this problem is and will follow the guidance and, indeed, the new laws that we will bring in to back up the proposals we have made today.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his public recognition of the terrible symptoms that many people face many months after their coronavirus bout has ended; his words will give great comfort to the 60,000 people who have been suffering for more than three months.
On testing, it is important to recognise the step change that we have seen and the massive increase in the volume of testing that is now taking place. Will the Secretary of State give the House some sense of the confidence he has that, with the increased testing and the local lockdowns that are now being rightly pursued, we will be able to follow the low infection levels seen in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, and not see the increases we have seen in France and Spain and have to go back into another national lockdown?
Matt Hancock
The Chairman of the Health and Social Care Committee precisely sets out our goal. Some countries—not only in the far east but closer to home—have seen a rise in cases, especially among younger people, and taken action that has turned the curve. That is particularly true in, for instance, Belgium, which we were very worried about a month ago: the case rate came right down when Belgium put a curfew in place. We are taking local action here, and our approach to local action has been commended by the World Health Organisation.
Of course, the responsibility is on all of us. I know that this is a riff that we talked about a lot in March, April and May, as the cases were coming right down, but we all have a role to play in this, because the local action and the test and trace—actions that we take in Government and with local authorities—are only the second and third line of defence. The first line of defence, for everybody in this Chamber and all our constituents, is to follow the social-distancing advice. We will be stepping up the communications and making sure that people are reminded very clearly of the rules, and we will also be taking action to step up enforcement, to make sure that we can keep this virus under control until we can build up both the mass testing capacity and ultimately, as I mentioned in my statement, the vaccine on which the scientists are doing great work, although all vaccine work is uncertain until we get clarity from the regulators that a vaccine is safe and effective to use.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
I agree that it is indeed critical that everyone recognises the importance of our own personal actions in controlling covid, but we also need an efficient test, trace and isolate system, the first step of which is for people to get access to a test. With UK cases having trebled over the past fortnight, demand has increased and there have been many reports of people being sent hundreds of miles to get a covid test. One of the most extreme examples was somebody in Plymouth being sent by the booking system to the test centre in Inverness.
I understand that demand varies depending on local incidence, but surely it is dangerous to have possibly infectious people travelling long distances when they are unwell and may need to use motor-services facilities on the way. Would it not make more sense to allow covid tests still to be taken locally, and just shift the samples around the UK to the labs with the greatest capacity?
While the commercial pillar 2 testing has increased dramatically since April, the
laboratories are very centralised, whereas NHS hospital laboratories are far more numerous and based within easier reach of communities. To meet the high demand that is likely this coming winter, will the Secretary of State consider additional funding to the NHS to allow the expansion of its PCR facilities and to maximise pillar 1 testing capacity?
Matt Hancock
The answer to that last question is, absolutely, yes. The hon. Lady is quite right that expanding the NHS capacity, as well as expanding the so-called pillar 2 capacity, is right. The SNP spokesperson and I sometimes have robust exchanges but on this, she is completely right. It is an “and/and together” strategy of having the pillar 2 mass testing across the board and the expansion of NHS capacity. I am working as closely as I possibly can with Jeane Freeman, my opposite number in the SNP Government in Edinburgh, to deliver that as effectively as possible right across the UK.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Please do not take this as unduly critical, because none of us could have done any better, but the problem for the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] It is easy to be wise after the event. The problem for the Secretary of State is that given the contradictory nature of advice given to people—maybe necessitated by events—fewer and fewer people are listening to him, particularly young people. I think we need a different approach. The approach of the nanny state, of ordering people about, particularly in this country, is not going to work. We have to appeal to the good sense of young people—“Stay away from grandpa and grandma. It is your responsibility.” These lockdowns and things are not going to work—it is their responsibility. And for us grandads—“Stay away from your grandchildren”. The problem is that if we order people about more and more, they stop listening. They realise the Secretary of State cannot enforce anything. He will become the emperor without clothes, and we will go backwards. We need an approach based on traditional self-reliance and to trust the people.
Matt Hancock
I understand the argument that my right hon. Friend is making. Unfortunately, we have seen this play out in other countries around the world. We have seen a sharp rise in the number of cases—in the first instance, among younger people—and we have seen people make this argument, entirely understandably, because younger people are much less likely to die of this disease. Notwithstanding the point about long covid and the fact that young people can have debilitating long-term consequences from this disease, the problem is that the isolation of older people who are more likely, because of their age, to have very serious consequences has simply not been effective anywhere in the world. The challenge is that younger people may pass it on, for instance, to their parents, who, in turn, can pass it on to theirs. This disease is absolutely insidious in getting from person to person. In its natural state, it spreads on average from one person to between two and three others, and it doubles in the community every three to four days.
The challenge is that without widespread social distancing, as opposed to the segregation that my right hon. Friend proposed, all the evidence is that we will end up with more hospitalisations and more deaths. I would rather get ahead of this here, learning the lessons from what we have seen first in America, and then in Spain, and now, sadly, it is starting to happen in France. I absolutely take the point about the need to communicate more but I believe, with my whole heart, that we need to communicate that we all have a responsibility, including young people, and we cannot let this rip through any part of the population, because it will inevitably then get into all.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Today in Hull, the prospects of getting a timely local covid-19 test are patchy. People are being sent as far away as Leeds and Withernsea, so how can it be right that local councils such as Hull City Council, with statutory public health responsibilities, are being kept completely out of the loop in sorting out local testing problems, in a system that seems all about protecting Deloitte, G4S and the noble Baroness Harding, rather than having that joined-up national and local system that safeguards public health during this pandemic?
Matt Hancock
I will do everything I can to solve the problems and the challenge of having more demand than supply in testing capacity everywhere in the country, including in Hull. However, trying to split, according to their employer, the different people who are working on this, be they in local authorities, the local NHS, Public Health England or the private sector parts of this delivery, is just not going to help—in fact, it will make the problem worse. It was a pity to hear this from the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), because he is so often a very sensible person. What we have to do instead is all work together to solve these operational problems.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on the positive elements of his statement, but he will know all too well that rural communities have lived in fear in the past few months, especially during lockdown. He and the Chancellor have made a great deal of money accessible and available through the budget, but can he provide further funding for our rural healthcare network as we enter winter, not only to ramp up testing, but to deal with undiagnosed cases and operations not undertaken?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes an important point; especially in parts of the world such as the south-west, we have to make sure we get the treatment out and we get the recovery of the NHS from covid, so that we can get things going again for people who have been waiting for operations, which might have been delayed necessarily because of the pandemic. The NHS has set a goal of getting back to 95% of these elective operations and has put with it the funding to make that happen, and we have to make it happen, especially in rural communities and right across the country.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that we all need to work together, and I am sure he will agree that we need to make better use of the excellence of public health officials at the local level. The director of public health in Sheffield, Greg Fell, has said to me that there are two obstacles to doing that. One, of course, is the need for more resources from the centre to enable local level activity to take place. Secondly, he says that local authorities such as Sheffield have not got full access to the data under the contact tracing and advisory service system. Currently, they have access only to the case management element of the system and not to the contact management element. That second element is made available only to authorities on the watch list. Will the Secretary of State now remove that obstacle and make sure that all authorities that really want to engage fully in this are enabled to do so?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman makes an important technical point, which I will take away and look at.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I really welcome the announcement about the increase in testing capacity, the comprehensive flu vaccination programme and, of course, the early access to coronavirus vaccines. My right hon. Friend will, obviously, have heard that there are some problems on access and availability. Will he set out his plans to overcome those operational difficulties, so that we have availability at local centres?
Matt Hancock
In the short term, we have seen a rise in demand for testing, and the capacity—the supply—has been increasing too. We had some short-term problems with contracts; before the summer, I came to the House to describe the problem with a particular contract to do with swabs and the cleanliness of the swabs. The bigger challenge is to make sure that capacity stays ahead of demand, and when demand has gone up sharply, we need to make sure that capacity expands. There are two ways of doing that. The first is more expansion of the current technology, which we are doing, both within the NHS, as the Scottish National party spokesperson correctly called for, and by using more private sector capacity—the combination of the two. The second, where we can really break through this, is with the new generation of tests, which are much, much easier, much better value for money and easier for people to use. The combination of trying to drive up capacity in the existing system, as we have been doing for months and months, and then bringing onstream these innovative new tests is what we are trying to pull off.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The call list has the party of Mr Alyn Smith wrong—he is from the SNP.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
Like many people in Scotland, I am a former Labour supporter and I switched to the SNP some time ago.
Alyn Smith
If I was in England, I would be, but I am in Scotland, so I am SNP.
I have much sympathy for the Secretary of State, who is doing a difficult job at a difficult time. If he is promoting a precautionary approach, he will have allies on these Benches. That said, does he agree that the exhortations from the Prime Minister to get people back into crowded transport systems, crowded city centres and congested offices is irresponsible at this time and undermines his public health messaging?
Matt Hancock
It is incredibly important that people have the confidence to know that when workplaces are covid-secure, it is safe to go to them. Trying to get through this pandemic, protecting as much as possible the education of our young people and the livelihoods of people in work, while keeping the virus under control, is a difficult and challenging balance, but it is the right balance to be attempting to strike. The hon. Gentleman might note that both the actions of the Scottish Government and the actions that we are taking locally, for instance today in Bolton, have economic consequences, and I regret that, but they are targeted as much as possible on reducing the social activity, which is where we are increasingly seeing transmission.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
We heard further evidence from Prostate Cancer UK today of how the original national lockdown impacted detrimentally on cancer referrals and other aspects of cancer care. I entirely accept that that was unavoidable because of the necessity of protecting the NHS through the peak of the pandemic in the spring, but as we move to a new phase of hopefully local rather than national lockdowns, can the Secretary of State assure me that the NHS will do everything possible to ensure that rising numbers do not again translate into a negative impact on those with other conditions that can, after all, also be fatal?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point with which I agree wholeheartedly. The backlog that was caused by the inevitable and, as he put it, unavoidable delays to treatment in the peak has more or less halved, which is good news. So there is progress. We have changed the NHS to be split, essentially, between sites that are covid-secure and sites where there may be covid. That will help us to protect cancer treatment, as we go forward, exactly as my hon. Friend asks.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
On 16 July, I flagged with the Secretary of State that the Academy of Medical Sciences was warning that we needed a rapid expansion of test and trace to be prepared for a second wave. He told me they were learning lessons as we go. Today, pupils and parents in my constituency are being sent as far afield as Aberdeen and Newquay for tests. They cannot get home tests. Children are back at school. Forget world-beating—what is he doing to ensure that we have a functioning test-and-trace system in place right now?
Matt Hancock
We have the largest testing system imaginable. We want to expand it further and of course there are challenges, as many Members have raised, but the imperative for people who have symptoms to get a test is important. We are trying to solve the operational problems that the hon. Lady raises.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I was saddened yesterday to hear that, because of a rise in local cases, care home visits in Wolverhampton are to be severely restricted again. I have a dear friend, Felicity, who lives in a care home. Without regular visits from family and loved ones, her mental health and wellbeing has declined very noticeably over the past months. I absolutely recognise the heroic efforts of care home staff, but how can we facilitate safe family visits so that care home residents can enjoy quality of life?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend asks an incredibly important question with great sensitivity. The decisions over the visitor arrangements for care homes are rightly made by the care home in consultation with the local director of public health, according to the local risk. Of course I want to see as much visiting as possible and to see it done safely. That is the difficult balance that needs to be struck, not least because of the negative health impacts, both mental and physical, of the restriction of visiting to care homes. I also very much hope that, as testing expands, we will be able to use that more and more to provide for safe visiting.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Looking to the long term, obesity is a leading risk factor for contracting covid-19, and problems with obesity usually start in childhood. By this year, the Government were aiming to reduce sugar by 20% in the food products most popular with children, but Public Health England’s 2019 review showed a sugar reduction of just 2.9%. The Government are clearly way off track. Why has the 20% ambition not been met?
Matt Hancock
I entirely agree with the premise of the question, which is that tackling obesity is critical for the long-term health of people, and that has been highlighted yet further because of the impact of obesity on the likelihood of someone dying from covid if they get it. Of course I want to see that sugar reduction. The sugar tax has had a very significant impact on the areas that it covers, and we have a wider obesity strategy that the Prime Minister set out in July to drive forward this agenda.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
Across Watford and the entire UK, volunteers have been going out on the frontline, helping our brave NHS workers. One group that I met recently was from St John Ambulance, and they explained to me that the red tape in place a year ago would have made it impossible for them to be able to help, and now they have been able to cut through that during the covid crisis. Can my right hon. Friend please assure me that as we move forward, that red tape will not start binding their hands again and they can continue to help?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. My hon Friend is quite right. There are improvements that we made in the heat of this crisis that we should never go back on. He has just highlighted one example. There are legion others. In this House, we discuss the problems that need to be fixed. That is quite right, and often they are raised and I did not know about them in advance and I go out and fix them. That is my job, as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) raised with his example, but we should also note where things have gone well because of changes and be clear that we will not be going back on that.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
This month, more than 1 million students are moving to university for the new academic year. I welcome the thousands who will be joining Coventry University and the University of Warwick, both of which are in my constituency. Both SAGE and Independent SAGE have warned that the Government need to get a grip and work to minimise the risk of that return to university leading to more covid-19 spreading. Will the Secretary of State work with his colleagues to support universities and to heed the recommendations of scientists, the University and College Union and the National Union of Students, including the recommendation to move to remote learning by default?
Matt Hancock
We are working very closely with the universities sector, including the two universities that the hon. Lady mentions, to make sure that we can get the universities open in a covid-secure way.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
From today, indoor gyms and dance studios can now open in Keighley, so I thank my right hon. Friend for that move, which I know is welcome to many. However, I have been contacted by many shop owners who, unfortunately, are being verbally abused when reminding customers to wear face coverings. Will he join me in calling for all to adhere to the basic rules of washing hands, wearing face coverings and social distancing?
Matt Hancock
Yes, and people will be hearing far, far more about hands, face, space. It is really simple: wash your hands, wear a face covering when you need to and keep that social distance. That is the responsibility of everybody to help us control this virus.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State has had four months to respond to a letter I sent as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, requesting a national cancer recovery plan. Of course I recognise the extreme strain that covid-19 has put on the NHS and his Department, but people living with cancer—diagnosed and yet to be diagnosed—have been left in limbo. When will the Secretary of State respond to my letter, and when will he make public his Government’s national cancer recovery plan?
Matt Hancock
I will respond right away. I am very glad that the hon. Lady has raised this issue. It is something that I have been doing a huge amount of work on, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). We have been working on it intensively and, as I say, the backlog has come down by about half, but clearly there is much more to do.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Testing is a vital line of defence against coronavirus. Although we have one of the best testing systems in the world, I appreciate that there is much more that can be done. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to explore the benefits of repeat population testing; and if that is effective, will he look to scale that up throughout the country?
Matt Hancock
We are looking at the asymptomatic testing of parts of the population where the virus is rife. Testing roll-out is about the prioritisation of what can be done with the capacity that we want to grow. As the capacity grows we could do more, but also it is necessary to prioritise within that capacity. It is not impossible to envisage reaching a point where everybody tests, say, weekly or more regularly, but there are very many steps along the way.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
With the universities returning shortly, there will be lots of students moving into shared houses, so there is real concern in communities like mine in south Manchester, where there are lots of houses in multiple occupation. There is clearly plenty of good work going on to make campuses covid-secure, but the recently published SAGE advice is very thin on community spread around universities. Will he urgently provide a national plan for managing that situation by limiting transmission in communities around where students live, to include comprehensive testing at universities?
Matt Hancock
We are doing a huge amount of work on the very issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Ultimately, when students are off campus they are citizens like everyone else—hence the focus on the social distancing rules that we all have to follow. However, he is right that we have seen the biggest rise in infections among 17 to 21 year-olds, many of whom will be going to university in the next few weeks.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their tireless work throughout the pandemic. Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the Kuumba centre in West Bromwich, where I met Patricia and her team to hear about their passion for helping the local BAME community get through this difficult time, including by providing mental health support to the local area and some junior doctors. What further support can he make available to similar organisations that are supporting the community and are heroes on the frontline of the NHS?
Matt Hancock
This is another important question about how we can provide support locally, especially in the west midlands, where it is so important, especially with cases rising, not only that we have the national response that we are discussing in this Chamber, but that we ensure that the local community, which my hon. Friend supports so effectively, can get the support it needs. I am happy to write to her with details of the extra funding that we have put into her area and to discuss with her what more might be done.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I appreciate that we must keep a very close eye on infection rates and respond quickly and effectively. The Government say that they are listening to local leaders on the local restrictions, yet the very clear data-led recommendation from myself and Calderdale’s leaders last week was for the restrictions to be lifted in Halifax, with a continued focus on test and trace and the incredibly effective targeted community work that has been undertaken by Calderdale Council. Now that Calderdale has significantly lowered infection rates in areas that do not have the restrictions, can the Secretary of State tell me when Halifax will see those restrictions lifted and what else needs to happen to make that a reality?
Matt Hancock
We look at the issue of restrictions in Halifax every week. Calderdale has seen a fall in the number of cases; it is an example of a local lockdown being effective. I was really pleased that we were able to take some parts of the local authority area out of the restrictions 10 days or so ago now, and it was very good to be able to make that progress. I accept that we had to leave Halifax in the restrictions and I look forward to working with the council and with the hon. Lady and other local colleagues. We shall consider the matter again this Thursday.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The scaling of testing has been an incredible achievement over the summer, and I heard from many constituents who were able to get same-day tests with results in as little as 12 hours. However, in recent days I have had a number of cases of constituents unable to get timed testing or being asked to travel an unacceptable distance. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to further scaling testing capacity, especially by embracing new technology; but what assurances can he give Buckinghamshire residents that that will be a rapid scaling, and that they will be able to get local and quick tests?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is exactly right—we are going as fast as we can. I recognise the importance of this. There was spare capacity earlier in the summer. We have maintained the turnaround times—they are very rapid—but there have been challenges in the last couple of weeks because of that increase in demand and some of the operational issues that we have discussed. He is right to raise this, and he has raised it with me privately before. There is no one more assiduous in putting forward the needs of their constituents than my hon. Friend, and I will keep him posted on how much we can expand testing in Buckinghamshire.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
On a similar point to the one raised by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), can the Secretary of State tell us what advice and guidance his Department is issuing to employers that are trying to use covid-related absence to trigger points for absence management interviews and to remove occupational sick pay? We saw recent such attempts by IKEA, which then dismissed the trade union representative who had the temerity to tell trade union members what their employer was up to. Will he condemn those employers that are trying to use covid-related absences to remove occupational sick pay and the like?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman raises a point that I know the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking at. Of course, returning to a covid-secure setting is safe and the right thing to do, and that is a matter between the employer and employee, but people must follow employment law. After all, as an employer, that is their statutory duty.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
We have seen incredible advances by the UK’s scientific community throughout the pandemic, and it is great news that scientists at the University of Sheffield are joining the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium to undertake research that we all hope will lead to an effective vaccine. Until we have that vaccine, we have to take seriously the threat of a rapid rise of the virus again. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with cases on the rise, we must not hesitate to use local lockdown measures such as the ones in Bolton, to ensure that increased infection rates in the young do not lead to increased hospitalisations in the older population?
Matt Hancock
That is spot on. The logic that we have seen repeated in country after country is that a sharp rise among younger people leads inexorably to a rise in the number of hospitalisations and deaths, even though it is not the younger people who tend to get hospitalised, but others who catch it from them. It is really important that we get that argument across, so that everybody feels the necessity to follow the social distancing rules that are incumbent on us all.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I think the Secretary of State has got the message about the need to sort out the testing problem, not least to help councils such as Leeds that are working really hard to limit the increase in cases. I hope he will join me in paying tribute to the public health team and the council for the great efforts they are making. He knows that local contact tracing is the most effective. I understand that the figures in Leeds for contacts are in the high 90s when it is done locally, as opposed to a lower figure when done by the national system. Given the position in Leeds, can he commit to provide more support and resource to local contact tracing in the city, to help try to prevent a further increase in the number of cases?
Matt Hancock
We are absolutely putting more resources into that local end of the contact tracing, but I stress that it is one system. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made the same category error as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). If we count contact tracing results from institutional settings within the local categorisation, of course the number of contacts that we reach is higher—for instance, in a care home it is very easy to reach 100% of contacts, by the nature of the setting. The hon. Member for Leicester South, who is also a very sensible fellow, tried to make that comparison, and it is not quite fair—it is not comparing apples with apples.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to warn against complacency, and perhaps it would be wise to remind people that we are in this for the long haul. My I ask him a question about testing? The director of testing for NHS Test and Trace has confirmed that we have testing capacity at all our testing sites, but that there is a critical pinch point in the laboratories. My director of public health, who is excellent, and a number of her colleagues in the south-west would prefer that, rather than artificially limiting access to testing sites and home testing kits, we ensured that people could take those tests locally and managed the pinch point at the laboratory end of things, because that would improve public confidence in getting testing. Is that something that my right hon. Friend could take away and look at? If he cannot do that, can he at least give me a good reason that I can take back to her about why that is not possible?
Matt Hancock
I entirely understand the point, and I can see the argument that is being made. The challenge is, since lab capacity is what we need more of, that if we take more swabs locally and send them in to the lab, we need to have the lab capacity to be able to turn them round. Otherwise, we get a much slower response, which means that we are not getting back to people fast enough for them to be able to act. That is the nature of the challenge, and the answer is more lab capacity, which is what we are driving through.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
In Wirral, there has been a sudden, sharp rise in covid-19 infections, with yesterday’s figures standing at 33 infections per 100,000. What extra assistance can the Secretary of State promise to my local authority, which is fighting hard to suppress this outbreak? On Test and Trace, if he does not want a reorganisation of Test and Trace because he thinks it will slow down progress, can he tell us why he is reorganising Public Health England in the middle of this dangerous pandemic?
Matt Hancock
Well, of course I am improving the public health responses by bringing together different organisations. I am not sure that the hon. Lady is doing anything other than—[Interruption.] Well, I am not going to query her motives, because we have worked together, at the start of this crisis especially. On her question about the Wirral, absolutely, we are vigilant in looking at the Wirral. That will be reconsidered in the Joint Biosecurity Centre silver meeting tomorrow and in the JBC gold on Thursday. Part of the improved data that we have now, compared with a few months ago, means that we will be able to pinpoint where the problem is and, working with the council, make recommendations on what action needs to be taken.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House exactly what are the main reasons behind the fact that although the level of infection often continues to rise, the numbers of deaths is now so absolutely small?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend asks an important question, and the first answer is that there is a lag between people catching the disease and the statistics for new cases and those who sadly die. The second is that this most recent rise has been predominantly, although not entirely, among younger people, who are much less likely to die. However, the danger is that they will pass it on to others and it will spread more broadly into the community. So it is important to act on these cases even though, thankfully, the current number who are dying is small.
I will try to give a better answer. Let me put it this way. If we were to wait until we saw the number of deaths rising before we took action, there would already be many people who had caught the disease and who would end up hospitalised and unfortunately die of coronavirus. We have to act before that happens and before the disease spreads to those who may die from it, because the alternative is that we will inevitably see the number of deaths rise.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Given covid, the Health Secretary said it was “mission critical” to prepare the NHS for the winter, as he unveiled the biggest flu vaccination programme in history; that is very Trumpian, I have to say. In the light of the lockdown delay, the PPE debacle, testing and tracing chaos—we could not get tested yesterday in my borough, with 300,000 people in it—not to mention, I will remind the Secretary of State, the 40,000 people already dead from covid on his watch and that of the Prime Minister against, and he is quite happy to compare internationally, 9,400 in Germany, why should we have any confidence in this bungling Government’s ability to get the flu vaccination programme in shape for this winter?
Matt Hancock
We are going to have the biggest flu vaccination programme in history. I think the hon. Gentleman simply has not taken into account the action that was taken to protect the NHS in the crisis, building a capacity for testing that is bigger per head of population than any other major European country. This country is the only country in the world that has discovered treatments that reduce people’s likelihood of dying from coronavirus. I think he should get onside with what this country is doing, not keep squabbling from the sidelines.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Government and the Secretary of State have messed up. The result has been loss of life and an economy in tatters. It is little wonder that my home, South Shields, is now seeing a rapid spike in cases, and we are approaching a potential lockdown that will irrevocably devastate us. Instead of just pointing the finger at our young people, will he take some responsibility and explain what extra direct support he is going to give us locally to help us stop this spread?
Matt Hancock
I regret the tone of the question. I think it is far better for everybody if we all work together. I know the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) seem to have taken the attitude that it is better to have brickbats thrown across this House, but I think the public would expect us to work together—to work together for the benefit of South Shields and to work together for the benefit of the north-west. I am very happy to meet her to discuss the situation in South Shields and see what we can do to try to tackle the problem, and it is better to do that together.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has identified that our response to covid is about personal responsibility, but it is made much harder when the young have the lure of socialising and the risks are substantially borne by unseen others. However, in my view, the young are just as civic-minded as all the rest of us, but it is a complex message, so what is the communication strategy to get that message over effectively to our young people, particularly when access to Parliament TV seems unaccountably low?
Matt Hancock
It is so important that we explain to everybody that they have a responsibility to “hands, face and space”—to their social distancing. The two critical messages for younger people who may think that this is not a disease that affects them are, first, that they can transmit this disease and cause great harm or death to their loved ones, but, secondly, that nobody is immune from this disease. The long-term impact of covid—so far, we have seen this with 60,000 people who have suffered for more than three months—can be devastating, and that can happen to anyone.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The credit checking company TransUnion has had difficulty issuing home testing kits to people because they are not on the public electoral register. We know that, for good reason, some people are not on the public electoral register, perhaps due to fleeing domestic violence or abuse. Can I ask the Secretary of State if he will go away and have a look at this, and see what he can do to make sure that everybody can get a home test, regardless of whether they are on the on the public electoral register?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to look at this point. Of course, we do have to verify the identity of people who are asking for home testing kits, and there have to be protections against fraud, and we take advice from the National Cyber Security Centre on that, but I will look at the point the hon. Member raises.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend on the swift action that he takes, and the way in which he comes before this House on a regular basis to update us? I think that is important, as are the lessons that are being learned from other countries. In his statement, he actually announced something as well as the lockdown in Bolton, which is that his current guidance regarding people in high incidence areas socialising only with those in their own households will be turned into law. That is presumably to strengthen enforcement. Could he take a moment to explain what that will mean in practice and whether there be an impact on venues that may be required to be part of that enforcement process, and when does he intend to bring that before the House for discussion?
Matt Hancock
That measure is specifically in Bolton, which has brought into place at a council level the guidance that people should not socialise outside their households. We will be turning that into law in Bolton. Of course, we keep all those sorts of things under review nationally, but to be absolutely clear, the measure that I announced today was specifically with respect to Bolton. I also thank my right hon. Friend for her kind words—I do my best.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We are still not fully over the Dominic Cummings cross-country drive farcical fiasco, yet day after day, we are faced with a string of embarrassing Government U-turns, which not only demonstrate incompetence, but further erode public trust and confidence in the Government at a time when we most need it to overcome the virus. To get on message, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Prime Minister to ensure that the next time he makes a public statement, it will not be followed by yet another excruciating and embarrassing U-turn?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman does better when he does not take the Labour party handout notes.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I pay personal tribute to my right hon. Friend. Bury has been under restrictions for six weeks, and both he and his team have been a constant source of support not only to me and the leader of the council but to the people of Bury through this difficult time.
I agree with everything that the Secretary of State said, but I would welcome his views on this point. One challenge being faced in my constituency is childcare. We are in a situation where many people are looking to get back into work. Many grandparents look after children, but they are struggling because they remain in the bubble that we have in Bury, which is one person to another household, and many of them still live together. They are asking whether the bubble can be extended to two people per household to allow them to provide emotional, practical and social support to their family at this difficult time.
Matt Hancock
I understand why grandparents in Bury and across the country want to see that happen. The challenge is that the support bubbles are there primarily so that when people are living on their own, they can get that emotional and mental-health support from having some people with whom they can closely communicate, whereas a couple living together have each other for that.
The challenge in terms of childcare is that although children rarely experience any negative impacts of covid, they can transmit the disease. Grandparents are typically at risk if they are over about 70, so we are quite cautious about encouraging them to look after their grandchildren, because of the problem of transmission. That is the challenge that we are trying to address, but I understand why people want to see that.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
On 3 July, the Secretary of State said that asymptomatic testing in residential care homes would give staff the confidence to continue their work. Yesterday, the Transport Secretary said that Public Health England now believes that asymptomatic testing might capture only 7% of those infected, leaving 93% of those infected to go about their business. If asymptomatic testing is as confidence-building as the Secretary of State says, and if a care home is a goose and an airport is a gander, why is the sauce of asymptomatic testing not good for both?
Matt Hancock
The question is about the timing of the tests. The proposal for care homes is for repeat asymptomatic testing. As I said in my statement, we have sent test kits out to eligible care homes. The challenge for asymptomatic testing at the border is that if we do it just once, that does not give confidence. The proposal on which we are working with the industry is for a way to do that with repeat testing to test that people have not later developed symptoms that they might have been incubating previously.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
In recent weeks, my constituency of Hyndburn and Haslingden was removed from local restrictions. I wish to put on record my heartfelt thanks to all of my community as they are why we have now fallen in line with the national picture. I would also like to thank everybody in the Department and the Secretary of State for being so responsive throughout, but can he please press that local resilience forums and local outbreak management boards set out and publish the criteria used to make their decisions for areas moving to higher or lower levels of restrictions, so that the decision making is fair, consistent, transparent and justifiable to constituents?
Matt Hancock
I will absolutely take forward the proposal that my hon. Friend rightly makes. She has been an unbelievably hard-working and assiduous voice for her community in Hyndburn. We have had a lot of contact during a difficult period and I want to join her in paying tribute to the people of Hyndburn who have followed social distancing and brought the case rate right down. It is another example of local action that has worked, but we must remain vigilant because, of course, east Lancashire, close as it is to Greater Manchester, is an area where we have seen a lot of cases, including, as I have said today, in Bolton. None the less, she has done her area and constituents proud in the way that she has represented them and made the case for them during this very difficult period.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
From 6 pm today, Caerphilly will become the first area of Wales to enter a local lockdown. Does the Secretary of State agree that Wales urgently needs more financial powers to support people affected by these necessary precautions?
Matt Hancock
I shall speak to my opposite number in the Welsh Government about that suggestion. I know that taking local action, whether in Caerphilly in Wales, in and around Glasgow and Aberdeen in Scotland, or, of course, in parts of England, which is my responsibility when it comes to local action, we only take this action with a heavy heart and when it is necessary.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State has just indicated, he is aware of the situation as it is developing in Caerphilly in my constituency, but will he give a commitment to work as closely as possible with the Welsh Government to ensure that they are effective in dealing with this situation?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I absolutely will. The UK Government and the Welsh Government working together is incredibly important. We have weekly calls, and Vaughan Gething and I speak and are in contact regularly. I support the action that he has had to take, as I say, with a heavy heart, but it is necessary action. My message to the people of Caerphilly, who are so ably represented in this House, is that this action and following the stricter local rules are absolutely critical to getting this virus under control locally, to protecting people themselves and to protecting their loved ones.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to thank the Secretary of State for his statement today.
Before I take the point of order from Maria Miller, I ask those leaving the Chamber to please do so with care and in a socially distanced way.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June.)
Point of Order
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Foreign Office questions today, a number of Members raised the plight of the people of Belarus. Indeed, yesterday we saw the remaining opposition leader, Maria Kolesnikova, kidnapped. I welcome the Minister’s updates in questions, but it is no substitute, Mr Deputy Speaker, for a proper debate on this issue and, indeed, on a range of others, so can you advise me on how we can reinstate Westminster Hall debates? It really strikes me that there is no reason why those debates cannot start up so that we can have more of an opportunity for this Parliament to play its full and proper role, not just in domestic affairs, but in international affairs as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving advance notice to the Chair. I can understand her anxiety. There are a number of issues, including Belarus, that people would like to raise in this House, and it is up to the Government to provide time in this Chamber. We get that with Backbench Business debates, which, of course, we have an example of later this week. None the less, I do understand her anxiety, and, indeed, as far as Backbench Business is concerned, there will always be more demand than there is supply. If we understand rightly from the Leader of the House, the intention is to bring back Westminster Hall from 5 October. That was the plan and that is what we hope will happen in order for more Members to get more opportunities to raise the issues that are important to them and their constituents.
BILL PRESENTED
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Secretary Jenrick, supported by the Prime Minister, Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Alok Sharma, Simon Clarke and Jesse Norman presented a Bill to make provision to change the dates on which non-domestic rating lists must be compiled; and to change the dates by which proposed lists must be sent to billing authorities, the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 174) with explanatory notes (Bill 174-EN).
White Goods (Registration)
Tuesday 8th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate White Goods (Registration) Bill 2019-21 View all White Goods (Registration) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require retailers to register white goods at the point of sale to facilitate product recall; and for connected purposes.
My Bill has a simple aim: to make the registration of white goods compulsory at the point of sale. Registration is essential because without a data bank of contact details manufacturers are unable to get in touch with buyers when things go wrong and a recall is necessary for repair or replacement, and, as we all know, things do go wrong.
According to the estimates by the charity Electrical Safety First, which firmly supports my Bill, faulty electrical products are responsible for over 7,000 domestic fires a year. In England alone over the last five years, 33 house fires a day were caused by white goods. The dangers of non-registration are real, and they were made stark in the recent Whirlpool recall scandal, where a potentially dangerous fault was discovered in certain Hotpoint and Indesit washing machines. As so few of the appliances were registered, the manufacturer, Whirlpool, was only able to make contact with 40% of customers for a recall, and then only after many months of a big, expensive campaign. The recall response rates are normally about 10% to 20%. Thankfully, nobody died or was maimed, but about 80 fires were directly attributable to that electric fault alone, many of which would have been preventable had the manufacturer been able to get in touch with the consumer easily.
The fact is that very few customers register their appliance under the current voluntary system, and that includes many of us in this place. I did a simple straw poll among colleagues last week, and found that not one single person could say, hand on heart, that they had registered every appliance that they had ever bought with the manufacturer. Hon. Members know the scenario; we take the registration card home with every intention of filling it out and sending it off, but we never do. Compulsory registration would deal with lethargy at a stroke. It would also deal with the fact that some people are put off from registering their goods because they worry about their privacy. People have bitter experiences of handing over contact details and then being bombarded with telephone sales pitches or requests to take part in umpteen bogus household surveys. My Bill deals with that by making it a requirement that the details contained in the registration documents can be used only for recall purposes, meaning no marketing and no customer loyalty information and nothing would be given to the manufacturer unless there was a recall.
We do give our details to retailers already, however, because we usually need to arrange the delivery of bulky goods. In the case of online purchases, we always give our details to a manufacturer, so all that really needs to happen is for information to be collected systematically and provided to a manufacturer if there is a recall. We need a body to hold the information centrally, of course, and to provide oversight, and I am open to discussions around who that could be. Currently, electrical goods recalls are the responsibility of a local authority, and they are not dealt with by a centralised body, because no such body—something like the Food Standards Agency—exists in the UK. However, it could be a role for the new Office for Product Safety and Standards, which is set up to deliver consumer protection. But that can be discussed.
My Bill would cover white goods, so we are talking about washing machines, tumble dryers, fridges and freezers, cookers and dishwashers, but I would add microwaves because, although not strictly white goods, they are not wired into a domestic property’s electrics and are not considered to be that portable. All such appliances exhibit an increased risk of fire when compared with small appliances such as hair dryers or irons.
I fully admit the Bill would not cover every eventuality. For example, it does not deal with white goods bought second hand, including through online marketplaces, and that is a problem area. The Government will hopefully publish their online harms Bill, which aims to make the internet a safer place for our citizens, and there could be scope within that legislation to protect consumers in the second-hand electrical market. However, I want to find a way of capturing all white goods sold and resold, perhaps through the use of a product passport to track goods throughout their life. It would be good to talk to Ministers about that, but for now the Bill needs to be simple and to the point.
The compulsory registration of white goods has widespread support from both consumer groups and the industry, and we can capture that data at the point of sale. I stress that the only data captured would be the delivery address, not who pays for it, because I am sure we have all paid for others. For example, I pay for my mother’s goods because she does not understand “that internet” as she used to tell me. The appliance is delivered to a property, so holding that information would make sense, and retailers will already have that information because they deliver the goods.
The fact is that this a common-sense Bill. It takes the onus to register white goods off the consumer and puts it on to the retailer and manufacturer, where it belongs. We would undoubtedly see fewer electrical fires in homes, fewer injuries, less damage and less need to chase people and remind them of model numbers. Who knows the model number of their washing machine? Who knows where to look for the model number of the washing machine? Before the Whirlpool recall, who knew that Indesit appliances were made by Whirlpool?
There are lots of barriers for people to overcome when there is a recall, and my Bill would be good not only for the consumer, but for the reputation of the retailer and the manufacturer. That is why I hope that this matter can be looked at seriously in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Yvonne Fovargue, Sir David Amess, Carolyn Harris, Patricia Gibson, Julie Elliott, Lilian Greenwood, Gill Furniss, Andy Slaughter, Rosie Cooper and Judith Cummins present theusb Bill.
Yvonne Fovargue accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 175).
Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 8th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 View all Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 8 September 2020 - large font accessible version - (8 Sep 2020)
16:48 - divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 241 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:07 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 244 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that, in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s Chair during Committee state, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. We should be addressed as Chairs of the Committee rather than as Deputy Speakers.
Clause 1
Power of Arrest for Extradition Purposes
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—
‘( ) Nothing in this Act changes the effect of any rule of law or any enactment in force before the date on which this Act is passed in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of—
(a) the People’s Republic of China, or
(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”
This amendment is intended to ensure the provisional arrest arrangements proposed under this Bill do not apply to extradition requests from China and/or Hong Kong.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in page 1, line 6, at end insert—
‘( ) The power to make further amendments under this Act may not be used to make any provision in relation to—
(a) the People’s Republic of China, or
(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”
This amendment would prevent the power to make amendments under this Bill being used in relation to China and/or Hong Kong.
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
‘( ) The power to make further amendments under this Act may not be used to make any provision in relation to the United States of America.”
This amendment would prevent the power to make amendments under this Bill being used in relation to the USA.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 13, at end insert “except in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of—
(a) the People’s Republic of China, or
(b) the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.”
This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of China and /or Hong Kong of the powers under the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to British overseas territories, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, in relation to any changes made by this Bill.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 13, at end insert “except in relation to extradition requests by or on behalf of the United States of America.”
This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of the USA of the powers under the Extradition Act 2003 in relation to British overseas territories, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, in relation to any changes made by this Bill.
Government amendment 11.
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 1—Annual statement on provisional arrests—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, at the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out how many individuals have been arrested under provisions within this Act.
(2) The statement must include a list of each incident broken down by protected characteristics of each person arrested, as defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report in similar terms covering each subsequent 12 month period, within six months of that period ending.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement setting out how many individuals have been arrested under provisions within this Act, broken down by characteristics of each person arrested.
New clause 2—Review of the Act—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 as amended by this Act
(2) That person may, from time to time, carry out a review of the provisions of this Act and must send a report on the outcome of such a review to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after completing the review.
(3) A review under subsection (2) may, in particular, consider operational effectiveness
(4) The person appointed under subsection (1) must carry out and report on the first review before the end of the period of 12 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(5) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that doing so will not prejudice any criminal proceedings.”
This new clause requires the changes made by this Act to be kept under review, and the first review of the Act to be carried out within a year of its being passed.
Government amendment 12.
Amendment 16, page 3, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert—
‘(4) The “designated authority” is the National Crime Agency.”
This amendment would define the “designated authority” as the National Crime Agency.
Amendment 4, page 3, line 36, at end insert—
‘( ) Regulations under subsection (7) may not add the People’s Republic of China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China as a specified category 2 territory.”
This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of China and Hong Kong of the proposed power under section 75B(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 to add to the list of specified category 2 territories under Schedule A1 on whose authority a valid extradition request may be made.
Amendment 9, page 3, line 36, at end insert—
‘( ) Regulations under subsection (7) may not add the United States of America to the list in Schedule A1 of specified category 2 territories.”
This amendment would preclude the exercise in respect of the USA of the proposed power under section 75B(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 to add to the list of specified category 2 territories under Schedule A1 on whose authority a valid extradition request may be made.
Government amendments 13 and 14.
Amendment 17, page 6, line 42, leave out “Liechtenstein” and insert “All the Member States of the European Economic Area”
This amendment would allow for all EEA Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) to be inserted into new Schedule A1.
Amendment 10, page 7, leave out line 2
This amendment would remove the USA from the proposed list of specified category 2 countries to which the provisions of this Bill will apply.
Government amendment 15.
Schedule stand part.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I rise to speak to amendment 1, but with it are a whole bunch of other amendments that I have tabled alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). I had intended when I originally tabled them to speak on the basis that the Government needed to act, but since then they have acted—and that is never a bad thing. Although I, with my colleagues, may well have provoked the Government to act, I still want to speak, because things are happening at the moment which mean, I hope, that the Government will pay full attention to further action that may be required, stretching across extradition and into sanctions.
I thank the Government for finally agreeing to rule out the extradition arrangements with Hong Kong, but it is worth noting what has been going on since the imposition of the national security law, which is now making the lives of many in Hong Kong a misery. More than that, they now fear very much indeed not only for their lives but their liberty in a way that none of us here, I sometimes think, could possibly imagine—what it is like to live in such an environment.
We have a historical relationship with Hong Kong, and we have a legal right, under the Sino-British treaty, to have an opinion and view on what is happening in Hong Kong. No matter what the Chinese Government may say, that is our right in international law. The imposition of the national security law runs counter to that arrangement—that treaty. On that basis, the Government have acted correctly in cutting off any potential problem that may arise as a result of the use of the extradition agreement—but there is more, even now, as we speak. Quite recently, we have seen action against a number of people who have done nothing other than use the kind of rights that we would take for granted in this House. Jimmy Lai, the owner of the largest pro-democracy publication in the city, has been charged with undermining the state. There have been arrests of young activists, some of which we have seen on television, but others go on. There have been media posts and people holding blank pieces of paper at protests. People have been arrested in shopping malls for sedition. The targeting of Hong Kong activists overseas is going on apace and gathering pace, as is retrospectively applying the law to supposed crimes that took place before it even came into force, which I find remarkable—perhaps I should not, but I do.
There are then all the elements that the UK Government will find themselves having to deal with, and I believe all the devolved Administrations are united in this sense as well. The evidence around censorship is really quite astonishing. References to the Tiananmen Square massacre have now been removed from all textbooks and all materials that might say anything at all about it—they are simply blanked out. There is a new cultural revolution, with teachers and students being asked and encouraged to spy on each other. If somebody says the wrong thing, or something that is considered the wrong thing, or if someone is remembered to have said the wrong thing, all such talk invokes the use of the security law. There is a new national security centre in Shenzhen to re-educate those who do not comply. Benny Tai, the organiser of the yellow umbrella protest, which is a peaceful movement—I stress that these are all peaceful movements—was fired from his teaching post at a university simply because he was party to that movement. The censorship of university content is now gathering pace, as they are filleting out anything that references any concerns or issues around the nature of China, and even its historical nature.
The latest issue that should concern the Government completely is that we are now seeing problems for journalists from the free world. I say the free world because it is not just a western issue; it is an issue of all those who believe in rights and freedom around the world, whether they be in the far east or in the west. The New York Times has to relocate its staff, completely—lock, stock and barrel—to Seoul after the visa renewal of a senior journalist was rejected; the threat was clearly there that the rest would follow. A senior journalist at the Hong Kong Free Press had their visa rejected. The Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Hong Kong described the trend as a weaponisation of visas by China. We even saw on the news the other day that the Australians are being heavily targeted—brutally targeted—and not only with sanctions; their journalists are now having to flee the country. In fact, two journalists who were due to leave were stopped from leaving and ended up in the consulate. They have now finally left, but the authorities wanted to question them for writing stuff of which they did not approve.
The whole point of this issue then comes into focus. It is the co-operation of the Chinese officials that I find perhaps the most galling. In the announcement by Chief Executive Carrie Lam that they were postponing the LegCo elections that were due to take place on Sunday 5 September—the weekend just gone—she cited covid cases as a reason for the delay. I have heard a few excuses in my time but that one really did take the biscuit, because so many other countries have had elections, both local and national, even during the covid saga. It is also worth pointing out that the Hong Kong rate of infection is lower than pretty much any of the countries that have held elections already. The idea that they can latch on to covid as some kind of excuse for cancelling elections had nothing to do with the reality; the reality was that they did not approve of the opposition and wanted to stop the election so that they had time to make sure they arrested the key elements so that they would never be able to stand. Many members of the opposition have fled here to the UK and I have met and seen them.
There are two points, really, that dismantle the whole process. I made the point earlier that a number of countries—dozens, I think—have held elections. It is part of the total crackdown and acquiescence with what is in essence an illegal process going on in Hong Kong. That brings me to the next phase. The Government are right to have reacted and to have ceased the extradition procedures, but yet more needs to be done. I like to think this is something that unites us all. The sanctions that come from the Magnitsky amendments need seriously to be deployed by the Government. When I was most recently in the Chamber for exchanges on this issue, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government would review other actions that need to be taken with regards to Hong Kong, and that they would take it as the situation develops. The situation has been developing. It has been developing at a pace which, if my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security will forgive my saying, is faster than the Government or the Foreign Office seem to be able to move. We have nothing to lose anymore by holding back. It is not as if the Chinese Government are going to turn around and thank us, because they already think that we have caused problems, so my answer is: let us get on with it.
The deterioration of the situation has accelerated over the summer, and the US Government have already sanctioned Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for the implementation of the new law and for human rights abuses. I urge my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary, who is not here, to move on to that and listen to Nathan Law, who fled directly after the Hong Kong Government did not agree to him standing. Others have also had to flee, and they have all called for those sanctions to be applied. I hope that the Government will listen to people whose lives have been under threat and whose families are still in Hong Kong and yet are brave enough to call for such sanctions, knowing full well that that might bring further problems for them.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Let me start by agreeing entirely with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith); he has argued forcefully that we should not extradite to China and Hong Kong, giving powerful humanitarian and human rights reasons, and he is right on every count.
Our extradition arrangements with the United States are not anything like as divisive as those with China and Hong Kong, but they remain deeply imbalanced and can lead to serious miscarriages of justice. As it stands, the Bill would allow individuals in the United Kingdom who are to be extradited to a list of specified countries to be arrested without a warrant. My amendments 7, 8, 9 and 10 would remove the United States from that list of countries, and I shall speak to those amendments now.
The Government say that they need the powers in this Bill because of suspects getting away if they are “encountered by chance” and it is not possible to arrest them without applying to a judge for a warrant. For hundreds of years in this country we have woken judges and magistrates up in the middle of the night to do precisely that: to carry out a police action, be it a search or an arrest. We do not bypass normal legal protections when a domestic suspect might get away, so why is this necessary in respect of individuals facing extradition? The Home Office’s own impact assessment of these new powers says that, with or without them,
“suspects are highly likely to be before the court in any event when the requesting state confirms that the suspect is at large in the UK.”
So one has to wonder why the provision is needed at all.
The methodology used in the impact assessment supporting the Bill is both opaque and bogus. It is too long to go into here, but I recommend that if Members want a confusing way to go to sleep, they should read it—it is completely useless. Even so, it asserts that the proposed change would result annually in just
“6 individuals entering the CJS more quickly than would otherwise have been the case.”
That is just six individuals a year in the criminal justice system, out of the more than 100,000 criminals we deal with in this country every year, and for that we are giving away a fundamental legal protection for the innocent, as well as for anybody else.
The Bill’s explanatory notes try to justify the legislation on the basis that it is similar to powers introduced by our European neighbours, such as Spain. Let me give the House one example of that in operation. Members will know the name of Bill Browder, who campaigned on behalf of Sergei Magnitsky, the man who died in Russian imprisonment; in effect, he was killed by the Russian state. The Russians put out a red notice through Interpol for Mr Browder, and the Spanish Government executed it. Right enough, a judge subsequently released him, but I ask the House to think how Mr Browder would have felt, sitting in a Spanish prison considering the prospect of being extradited to be imprisoned in Russia and put into the hands of the people who had killed Magnitsky. These things are not without price.
As for other European countries, a number of them have absolute embargoes on extraditing their own citizens to anybody outside the EU, for reasons that I will come to in a second, but which in essence relate to a lack of trust in other countries’ justice systems.
The Bill’s impact assessment states:
“Under the proposed new power, the police could arrest a suspect who was wanted for extradition by a trusted partner country”.
The Bill defines such a country as
“those who respect the international rules based system”—
broadly speaking, although not entirely, the United States does that—
“and whose Red Notices and Criminal Justice Systems the UK trusts”.
We like to think of the US justice system as similar to our own, but recent high-profile cases have highlighted just how wrong that is and how we cannot trust the system with the interests of British citizens.
When the 2003 extradition treaty and the associated Bill were introduced, they were sold to the House on the basis that they would be used principally for paedophiles, murderers and terrorists. I was shadow Home Secretary at the time and I remember it vividly. I remember the leader of the Conservative party at the time accepting it on those terms, because he thought it was in the interests of the country. But the people we are extraditing to the United States are mostly white collar businessmen who pose no danger to United Kingdom citizens, or indeed United States citizens.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a characteristically sensible and robust speech. Does he agree that at the moment the international rules-based system is under great pressure but matters hugely to all of us? Is the case of the United States not an example of a totally asymmetric approach to extradition and will that asymmetry not be seen by people in Britain as most unfair and as bringing the whole process into disrepute?
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is right on several counts, and I will elaborate on the unfairness in a second, but he is right also to highlight something else, which is that international rules-based systems work only if everyone sees them treating all countries and their citizens identically. If they do not do that, they fall down. An American exceptionalist approach, therefore, destroys the systems we are trying to uphold. So there is an interesting philosophical point in his intervention, as well as the moral one that I will major on.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when these measures came in quite a number of us on the Opposition Benches were uneasy about the asymmetry and unfairness? It is good to see him reviewing the matter at this late stage.
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and I was one of those, although at that time I was not allowed to say so. It was not the first time I have been overruled by my boss, and it will not be the last.
Since 2007, the United Kingdom has surrendered 135 UK nationals to the United States, 99 of them for non-violent offences. Over the whole period of the Act, 80% of the offences have been non-violent. So much for terrorism, murder and paedophilia! To put it another way, there have been only three violent offences per year requiring extradition to the United States.
The US deliberately uses its extradition arrangements to cast a wide legal net around the business world, seeking to be judge, jury and executioner for global commercial deals and aims. The Home Affairs Select Committee’s 2012 reported concluded that the United States
“has the power to reach out around the world and—provided there is a very, very tenuous connection with the US—it generally has the power to prosecute.”
Or as the distinguished extradition lawyer, Robert Dougans, puts it:
“The Department of Justice effectively uses criminal extradition as a lever for US interests in commercial matters, which is not what it is for.”
This has been shown in case after case, such as those of Ian Norris, the chairman of Morgan Crucible; the NatWest three; Christopher Tappin; and a number of others, including, most recently, Dr Mike Lynch.
How does it work? Once a person extradited from the UK arrives in the US, they are treated as guilty from the moment they land. They face invasive strip searches—that is exactly how it sounds—and they are electronically tagged. They are kept in appalling conditions completely alien to the British justice system. They are shackled and perp-walked into and out of court in front of television cameras and paparazzi, so that the US Department of Justice can claim a PR victory at the expense of the presumption of innocence.
Some of the people extradited sit in court facing allegations dressed head to toe in orange prison garb. They are then faced with enormous pressure from the US authorities to agree to a plea bargain. They are told that if they plead innocent they will face decades in these appalling conditions but if they plead guilty they will face a much lighter sentence in an open prison, with possibly half of it served back here in the UK. As the case is held in America, very often witnesses from the UK will not appear, because they themselves fear incarceration. That has certainly happened in some current cases. A massive 97% of cases are settled by plea in the United States. For a foreigner, unprotected by the US constitution, that is not a justice system; it is a very effective but not at all fair prosecution system. It is not justice.
Much of this would be better if the accused were tried in Britain, completely sidelining the need to extradite at all. The NatWest three, for example, were British citizens and their alleged crime was in Britain against a British company; at worst, they should have been tried in front of a British court, but the British authorities did not see them as having a case to answer. However, the extradition treaty does not recognise this. Anyone caught in this system faces an asymmetric and unbalanced treaty process. Unlike in the US, a person in the UK has no right to insist on probable cause before being extradited. The 2011 Joint Committee on Human Rights report called this a lack of reciprocity in the treaty, and it has resulted in the US surrendering only 11 individuals to the United Kingdom since 2007, while 135 have gone the other way. Since the United States is roughly five times bigger than the UK, this is an effective disparity of 50 in risk of extradition.
Mr Mitchell
It is not just a case of lack of reciprocity. The people in the NatWest case, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, had no case to answer according to the British authorities, yet in spite of that they were extradited. That is an appalling abuse of their human rights.
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Interestingly, in their case human rights were not used as a defence mechanism, whereas in another case the only thing that stopped Gary McKinnon being extradited was the implementation of the human rights law. My right hon. Friend is right more generally, too; they did not have a case to answer in a normal justice system, but they gave in and confessed to guilt rather than face 30 years in a grim high-security Texan prison, never seeing their families again, which is what this would have amounted to. That illustrates where the disparity lies, and why it is so unfair.
The US Government also have much greater discretion in refusing extradition requests. Under the Extradition Act 2003, the Secretary of State “must”—the word is “must”—issue a certificate for extradition. The equivalent US code states that the Secretary of State “may” order the person to be tried. Of course, there is no stronger demonstration of this than the case of Anne Sacoolas, the person responsible for the tragic death of Harry Dunn. In Ms Sacoolas’s case the US Secretary of State used this discretion—I think in the view of most in this House, wrongly—to prevent her extradition. The Dunn family may now have to settle for a wholly unsatisfactory virtual trial of Anne Sacoolas, because our extradition arrangements have failed to give them proper justice.
That is just the latest example of how the completely lopsided treaty allows US citizens to evade justice while exposing United Kingdom citizens to miscarriages of justice. The Prime Minister himself has recognised this imbalance. At Prime Minister’s questions on 12 February he said:
“I do think that elements of that relationship are unbalanced, and it is certainly worth looking at”.—[Official Report, 12 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 846.]
Due to the scope of the Bill, my amendments would not rebalance the extradition arrangements with the US, but they would prevent, in a very small way, further facilitation of further miscarriages of justice. It would be a tiny improvement in a system that requires an entirely radical rewrite, so I am only moving them as probing amendments today.
The simple truth is—I make this point very firmly to my right hon. and very old Friend the Minister for Security, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench—[Interruption.] He is older than you think. I say to the Minister that this really needs, in the words of the Prime Minister, a rethink. I do hope that the Government will rethink this treaty and ensure that in future when we extradite British citizens to any other justice system in the world, that justice system will work as it is supposed to, and give them what is in the title: justice.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
This is an important Bill. We need an extradition system that ensures that UK law enforcement agencies are supported in apprehending dangerous criminals in order to keep the public safe, both in Britain and abroad. This Bill helps facilitate the extradition of those who have committed serious crimes abroad, and all of us in this House can support that.
However, it is vital that this Bill includes the necessary safeguards. The amendments, both from the other place and those put before the House today, share common themes of transparency, fairness and support for parliamentary scrutiny; these are values that every Member should hold. It is right that the Bill compels the Government to consult with the devolved Administrations and non-governmental organisations before adding or removing a territory, as well as confirming to Parliament that the territory does not abuse Interpol red notices. That amendment promotes dialogue and discussion among relevant parties, respects the role of the devolved Administrations and ensures a level of transparency that is necessary in Government. It is difficult to see how any reasonable Government could object to that. Moreover, given the trouble that the Government have had with carrying out consultations before making major decisions, it is important that such a measure is included in the Bill. If any Member needs evidence of that, I refer them to the former Department for International Development.
The second amendment carried in the other place, which mandates that territories can only be added to the extradition process individually, is designed to increase both transparency and scrutiny. If we allow territories to be added when grouped together, there is a real risk that a country with a problematic human rights record could be included alongside countries that respect human rights. Considering the Government’s vocal support for a Magnitsky Act to deter human rights abuses, it would be somewhat hypocritical to oppose an amendment that has the same purpose.
Furthermore, by considering whether to add a territory on its own merits, we are not only ensuring that those countries do not abuse Interpol red notices, we are also adding a further layer of parliamentary scrutiny to the process. The House should seek to support additional scrutiny, not limit it. It is therefore disappointing, if not surprising, that the Government seem set on opposing these common-sense safeguards. As well as the amendments passed in the other place, it is important that this House further strengthens the Bill. Given that the legislation includes increased law enforcement powers with the purpose of keeping the public safe, it is right that the House should be able to see the effectiveness of those measures. Compelling the Secretary of State to update the House annually on the number of arrests made would help to achieve that. For the same reason, it is important that the Act is kept under regular review by this House. Again, that would strengthen Parliament’s role while ensuring the measures are working as intended.
Finally, although the Bill rightfully updates our extradition process with territories such as New Zealand and Canada, it is clearly wrong that there is still uncertainty regarding our justice and security arrangements with members of the European Union. Many of those states are some of our closest allies, while a potential lack of access to the real-time European criminal databases will undoubtedly affect the ability of UK law enforcement agencies to protect the public. It is concerning that the Government have yet to adequately address that point.
While the Bill should be supported by the House, it is not perfect and there are gaps and uncertainties that still exist within it. The Opposition amendments seek to fill and strengthen the Bill and ensure that it is fully effective, while also aiming to increase transparency and co-operation. I urge Members to support the Opposition amendments today and to protect the amendments agreed to in the other place.
John Redwood
Two very important principles should be in all our thoughts when framing extradition legislation. First, there is the imperative to make sure that where someone has committed a serious and violent crime, such as a terrorist offence or murder or some other such crime, in the United Kingdom and has escaped abroad, we have arrangements so that we can pursue justice against them through co-operation with countries around the world. We should also have very much in our mind the issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) drew to the attention of the House. We should be very concerned about innocent people in our country who may be the object of extradition requests or demands from countries abroad to take them into justice systems that are not up to the standards of our own, or not the kind of thing we would want an innocent person, particularly, to have to approach, only to see justice not done in those countries if we have undertaken such extradition matters. I echo my right hon. Friend’s request that we need to look again at how the US relationship is working. This was sold to the House some years ago on the basis that it would be targeted on those criminals we could all agree about—the terrorists, rapists and murderers who were committing violent crime—and it is of concern for us to discover that that has not been its main use at all.
I hope the Minister will share with the House his thoughts on what arrangements we will move towards with the other European countries now we have left the European Union. There may be a move to put all European Union, or European economic area, countries under these provisions, but we should definitely look at the different standards of justice system in those countries. While many of our European friends have excellent justice systems that we would be very happy with, there are very variable standards throughout the European continent. Given that we are rethinking our foreign policy and our position in the world generally, this is a good opportunity to look at them one by one and to ask whether some of them are below the standards we would expect and whether they have not made good use in the past of the very widespread powers granted to them under the European arrest warrant.
When I was preparing for this debate, one set of figures I saw in a commentary was for the period from 2010 to 2018. It said that over that period, continental countries had used the European arrest warrant eight times as often as we had used it for criminals, or alleged criminals, that we needed to undertake it for in our courts, so it has been asymmetric. In part, that is because there are many more people on the continent than there are in the United Kingdom, but it also tells us something about the seriousness of the offences that they are interested in for extradition.
I am pleased to see that there is some recognition in the legislation that extradition should be reserved for more serious offences. One does not want a complex and expensive system such as this to be used for a lot of minor offences. The Government have chosen to define it as something that is an offence in the United Kingdom and which would command a prison sentence of three years or more in the event of somebody being found guilty. I think that is a good start, because one of the features of the European arrest warrant that many people did not like was that somebody could be extradited under it from the United Kingdom for something that was not actually an offence in the United Kingdom. That did not seem a very fair system or proposal.
I hope the Minister will share with us some of his thoughts on what would be an appropriate list of European countries and whether they should just slot into the proposals that we are debating today. I think I am happy with the list of countries that we are being asked to endorse, with the caveat that we need to look at the American relationship in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden suggested. I fully understand that now is not the afternoon to try to make dramatic changes to that and why he has tabled only a probing amendment. We are asking the Government about that, but there are big issues here that we would like them to review.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on a Bill that is so crucial to the security of our country and the safety of our citizens. The extradition Bill plugs the capability gap that currently exists whereby the police become aware of a person who is wanted by a non-EU territory but are unable to arrest them without obtaining a warrant from a court first. Due to the delay, the suspect may abscond to avoid justice or to commit further crimes, this time in the UK. It is not a point of debate that we all want to see those who perpetrate such serious crimes brought to justice, wherever they may be. Furthermore, the people of Rother Valley do not want foreign criminals exploiting loopholes in our system to commit further crime in our communities. This Bill enables British police to quickly and efficiently arrest suspects without warrant for the purpose of extradition. It is similar to the powers that already exist under the European arrest warrant and will apply to a small number of countries with legal systems that are equally as rigorous and robust as ours.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for setting the scene so very well. When he referred to the persecution of the Uyghur Muslims, I was tempted to intervene on him to put on record my concerns about the brutality, violence and outright criminality that the Chinese Government are committing against their own people. It abhors everything that is decent, and it underlines the fact that we cannot do it on our own. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, but we can do it in conjunction with other countries as well. That goes part of the way to setting the scene, but we have to recognise that we must work with others to make things happen.
It is nice to see the Minister of State in his place again. He is doing double-duty in this Chamber. He did it last night, and he is back again for more. My goodness, he is some Minister. It is very pleasant to see him in his place.
I welcome the opportunity to make some comments. The UK has extradition arrangements with more than 100 territories around the world. That partnership is essential not only to ensure that criminals are properly processed, but also to ensure our need to extradite, and that the ability to do so is subsequently reciprocated. However, it is right and proper that the Secretary of State announced in July an end to the Hong Kong extradition treaty in the light of the imposition of the new security law in Hong Kong by Beijing that is a serious violation of the country’s international obligations. I welcome the statements that the Secretary of State has made in this House on the matter.
I am not sure whether Members have had the chance to check today’s press, but it contains the story of a 12-year-old child who was arrested in Hong Kong by three burly police officers, if I can say they that are burly—ever mindful of their size; they were certainly in excess of five times the strength of the child. The child was out getting paints for her school classes, but was perceived to be a protester. The actions of the Hong Kong police were totally outrageous, as they have been with everyone, but that event in particular concerns and rankles me greatly.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. I am aware of and very disturbed by the treatment of those who do not fit the mould of how the Chinese believe things should be done. The treatment of Uyghur Muslims in particular has been in the news of late. I have spoken about the issue before and the APPG has been reporting on it for some time. The thought that the extradition treaty with the Hong Kong Government could mean the inhumane treatment of many people extradited to China after a pause in Hong Kong is quite simply frightening, and it is absolutely right that the Secretary of State took the steps that he did.
It is not only the persecution of the Uyghur Muslims; there is also persecution of Christians, who have had their churches desecrated and attacked, and their right to worship monitored and restricted. In addition, people of the Falun Gong belief have been systematically used for organ transplants, sometimes on a commercial scale. China has been guilty of all the worst crimes in the world against those who do not fit the form that it wants them to. I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and unfortunately do not see enough steps on human rights in the legislation, although I am quite sure that the Minister will give us some reassurance on that.
It is essential that we get this legislation right and fulfil our moral obligations. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) referred to moral obligations, which I think we all have. There are duties that we have the capacity to alter and change as is necessary. I fully condemn any Government who carry out any human rights abuses or the persecution of religious minorities and ethnic groups. I am concerned about the lack of human rights safeguards in this legislation. The background information from the Library refers to the discussion of the Bill in the other place, referring to the lack of human rights safeguards as well as
“the use of wide regulation-making and Henry VIII powers; the lack of specific criteria or safeguards to be applied when adding Category 2 territories to the specified list in the future…the integrity of the Interpol red notice system; the impact of losing access to the EAW, and what other measures might be necessary to mitigate against those risks”.
Perhaps the Minister will give us some clarification on those matters.
I am all for trade deals and for working in partnership, but not at the expense of lives. As furious as those who are removed from our treaty list may be, doing the right thing may mean doing the difficult thing. Sometimes the difficult thing is the moral and right thing to do, and this legislation must be given the freedom to do those things. I welcome the Government’s commitment to legislate to change, and we will all support the introduction of the Magnitsky Bill that the Secretary of State has mentioned.
I am a great admirer of America, and not just because I go there on holiday every two or three years. I love the American people. I love the escapism that America has and I am proud of my Ulster Scots foundation, history and tradition. I am pleased to say for the record that 18 Presidents of the United States of America have Ulster Scots ancestry, which tells us something about the part of Northern Ireland that I come from—that we can produce 18 Presidents of the United States of America. It tells us that they were fine presidents, by the way, and that the history of the United States comes from here and other countries in the world.
I am aware that our extradition policies may not be equally reciprocated, and when it comes to our dealings with the USA, that should be taken into account. Therefore, when I saw the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden that highlight the US situation—others Members have spoken on this—they gave me pause and should give the Committee great pause for thought about what they do. We all know the cases—I do not need to say them again; other hon. Members have referred to them—that are in my mind and in the media spotlight, and are therefore important.
There have been various examples. Indeed, this year, our Prime Minister was open enough to admit that it might be appropriate to characterise our relationship on extradition as lopsided; I think that tells us all about the position between the UK and the USA. It has been well argued that the current legislation and the 2003 treaty require the UK to meet a higher evidential threshold—I understand that—than the US before extradition will be ordered. It is abundantly clear that we must take steps to rectify that in the Bill and I am pleased that that seems to be the case. Again, however, perhaps the Minister will give us some clarification on that.
I also ask the Minister about contact with the local Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—to which the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) referred. Will the Minister confirm that those talks and discussions have taken place and that the regions’ full input is part of the deal?
It seems that there are certain nations that allow us to give but do not reciprocate at the same level. The National Crime Agency must have the ability, under the authority of this legislation and the Secretary of State, to make changes to ensure that if we are at pains to help others to bring home criminals to be accountable for their crimes, we get at least the same level of help when it comes to our own criminals.
Hailing as I do from Northern Ireland, as other hon. Members will remember—I have said it in the past but I want to put it on the record—it was disheartening to see men and women who carried out terrorist activities and left people with unspeakable loss, pain, injury, hurt and lives that would never be the same wandering about in the Republic and living their lives in defiant freedom. Some of those who carried out some of the worst atrocities have walked around the Republic of Ireland in comparative safety and sanctuary for some time.
Those who killed my cousin Kenneth Smyth and his friend Daniel McCormick on 10 December 1971 escaped across the border and have never been held accountable for their crimes, so hon. Members can understand how, 49 years later, I feel quite concerned. I have lived my life knowing that murdering criminals unrepentantly live their lives in freedom just miles across the border from their dreadful deeds, and it is something that I would wish on no one.
The basic principle of our extradition treaty must be that we will help others to get criminals off the streets, but the underlying pin that holds it together must be that the moral duty, to which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden referred and to which I believe we all adhere, and the duty to human rights are premium. The Bill is our opportunity to get that right.
I welcome some of the tidying up that has been done by Committee members, whose input and commitment I also welcome. A lot of work has taken place to get us this far, but again, I ask for the Minister’s assurance that he believes that our human rights obligations are fully enshrined in this legislation, not simply for today’s globe, but future-proofed for our ever-changing world.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly in this afternoon’s important debate. There have been some excellent contributions from hon. and right hon. Members, and it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Many Members have rightly highlighted the positives in the Bill, but they have also drawn attention to some of the perceived negatives. I echo the comments of the hon. Gentleman when he said that we have a strong history of doing the right thing and doing the lawful thing, even when there is perhaps an imbalance in relationships, which we occasionally see. However, I wish to approach the Bill from a slightly different perspective.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I rise to give my party’s support to the amendments in the names of the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I should also say that the Scottish National party supports the official Opposition’s new clauses 1 and 2, which seem eminently sensible.
The Scottish National party fully supports reasonable measures to keep our citizens safe from those who have committed serious crimes furth of this country, and we fully support working with international frameworks to do so. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why we, and the majority of people in Scotland, were so keen on the security and justice co-operation afforded through our membership of the European Union, and why we voted for its continuance repeatedly and are so sad to see it go.
To return to the amendments, it is important to remember that, in addition to a duty to protect the safety of our citizens, this Government and this Parliament have a duty to uphold international human rights standards. We should be loth, therefore, to do anything to permit extradition to regimes that do not uphold the right to a fair trial, free speech or freedom of expression. Many of our constituents are extremely concerned about human rights abuses in China, particularly in respect of the Uyghur Muslims. These and other human rights abuses are indicative of a regime that is very far indeed from putting the same store by human rights as we do. Many of our constituents have watched with horror as the situation in Hong Kong has unfolded and as the brutal suppression of pro-democracy activists continues. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to the footage of a 12-year-old girl being subject to a violent arrest at a pro-democracy protest—I am sure we are all very grateful to those brave enough to film that footage and get it out to the rest of us. I very much want to associate myself with the comments of those who are very keen to impress on the Minister—I am sure he is alive to this—the importance of not making it any easier for human rights-denying regimes to get their hands on their citizens who have sought refuge in these islands.
Let me turn now to amendments 7 to 10 in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I share his concerns about the unbalanced extradition arrangements that we have with the United States of America. There is a lot that could be said about those today, but I will not go into it in detail because it is beyond the scope of this Bill to redress that imbalance. None the less, I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising it, and I wish to impress on the Government as we move forward, particularly given the nature of the current President of the United States of America, that we should be looking afresh at these unbalanced extradition arrangements, particularly when we see the outcome of a number of high-profile cases at the moment.
I want to turn now to the Government amendments. I am keen to know from the Minister—I realise that we have received a letter from him in the past hour or so, but I have not had time to digest its contents properly—just exactly why Government amendment 15 is now seeking to include EEA countries in proposed new schedule A1. Is this the start of our growing and perhaps inevitable recognition that, when we leave the transition period at the end of this year, there will not be any replacement for the European arrest warrant? If that is so, it is a most regrettable state of affairs, and one that is of great concern to my colleagues in government in Edinburgh and also to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland and to Police Scotland. An update on exactly what is going on here would be very much appreciated, particularly as the Solicitor General told us on Second Reading that this Bill was not about the European arrest warrant. If that has changed, we really deserve a full explanation of why it has changed and where we are in the negotiations in that respect.
I wish to oppose Government amendments 13 and 14. Government amendment 13 removes a provision that was inserted in the other place imposing certain conditions about a consultation assessment and requiring reports on the making of regulations under section 74B(7) of the Extradition Act 2003. I very much regret that the Government are attempting to remove these additional safeguards. I regret in particular the Government’s determination to remove the obligation to consult the devolved Governments before adding, removing or varying reference to a territory. I very much fear that this deletion is indicative of the Government’s lack of good will towards the other Governments of these islands. It will come as little surprise to viewers in Scotland that the Government will do anything they can to get out of any obligation to take account of public opinion in Scotland or the views of Scotland’s elected representatives. In that respect, I urge them to think again, because, as was said in the other place, the devolved institutions can be a source of “valuable information” relevant to changes that might be proposed in relation to individual territories. Although extradition is a reserved matter, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for justice, policing and prisons, and their views ought to be considered. Furthermore, many members of the Scottish Government and Parliament have expertise in relation to human rights and a particular interest in human rights aspects of territories that the British Government might seek to add.
That brings me to the deletion of any obligation to consult non-governmental organisations. I have already spoken about how central human rights must be to our decision as to whether to add any territories to these provisions. NGOs will have direct experience or information in relation to the human rights position on the ground of a particular country or territory, which can only aid Government decision making and, importantly, parliamentary scrutiny.
Finally, I support what the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) said about the unfortunate deletion of the obligation to do this territory by territory, with one statutory instrument per territory, rather than rolling up a number of them into one. As was said in the other place, by exiting the European Union, we have made ourselves as a state “vulnerable to pressures” in the context of seeking trade agreements. If we have one statutory instrument per territory, it is much more likely to be identified on the Floor of the House where such undue pressure has been brought to bear. I will leave it at that for now.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Rosie, and to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), with whom I have shared many assignments on the Floor of the House and in Committee on these matters. I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments 16 and 17, in my name and those of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary.
There is a slight irony in the fact that we are discussing a Government Bill designed to strengthen international law just a matter of hours after we heard from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the Dispatch Box that the Government intend to break international law in relation to the withdrawal agreement. I want to put on record how good it is to see the Minister for Security in his place. I thank him for the co-operative and courteous way in which he has worked with me over the last number of months since I was appointed. I would expect no less from a person of his calibre, but it is very much appreciated.
We have heard a serious tone in the debate. As a relatively new Front Bencher, it is quite daunting to follow the speeches of such distinguished and senior parliamentarians as the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Wokingham (John Redwood). We also heard from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) and the esteemed Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), who shows that there are still a few reds left in the red wall, thankfully. We also heard characteristically dignified words from my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
This Bill seeks to fill a gap—notably, the situation where UK law enforcement becomes aware of someone wanted by a non-EU territory but is unable to arrest them without first seeking a warrant. The risk that the Bill seeks to address is that a wanted person may abscond or even reoffend before they can be detained. We acknowledge the context, the arguments and the safeguards set out by the Government on Second Reading, and we have carefully considered the comments made by the Director of Public Prosecutions and others. We also believe that the scrutiny and refinement of the Bill during its passage in the other place has significantly improved and strengthened it.
We have approached the Bill in a constructive spirit, with a determination to work across the House to get important legislation right for the protection of all our citizens. It is critical to ensure that serious criminals—some of whom, let us not forget, are wanted abroad for the most heinous crimes—are arrested and swiftly brought to justice before the opportunity arises for them to reoffend or abscond. We fully accept that, in a world where criminals increasingly respect no national borders or boundaries, we must work to achieve our overriding priority to keep the British public safe in collaboration with our international partners. However, important amendments have been tabled, and I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the points raised on both sides of the House, to ensure that we build the strongest, most robust and fairest legislative framework for our extradition process.
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement setting out how many individuals have been arrested under provisions in the Act, broken down by the characteristics of each person arrested as set out in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010. This would ensure that Parliament receives the information and facts to enable us to fulfil our duty in scrutinising the effectiveness and impact of this Bill, and in particular to know to whom it is being applied. First, it is important to understand how many people this is applied to, which will enable us to understand the breadth and reach of the provisions in this Act and to compare its effectiveness with current provisions, and secondly, it is equally important that we understand to whom it is being applied.
John Redwood
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Has he done any study of the impact of the European arrest warrant and whether that has had adverse consequences in the way that he thinks Interpol does?
Conor McGinn
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will come to the European arrest warrant and that point very shortly.
I hope the Minister recognises the importance of these new clauses to the effectiveness of the Bill, and responds accordingly.
On Government amendments 12 and 16, which define the designated authority as the National Crime Agency, we recognise that and are pleased to see that the Government have tabled an amendment to that effect. I have no doubt that this will give an important sense of clarity and purpose to those brave men and women working in the National Crime Agency and their operational partners, whose efforts, let us not forget—right at this moment, in fact—do a great deal to keep the public safe and secure. The role of the designated authority is fundamental to the success of the legislation, given that it will be carrying out the functions of certifying requests. However, can I ask the Minister to confirm to the House that powers of redesignation, if ever necessary, will be open to scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament, because I think he will appreciate that that is an important issue for future oversight?
We feel that Government amendment 13 seeks to undo the valuable amendment made in the other place by my hon. Friend the noble Lord Kennedy of Southwark. It received support from all sides in the other place, and it requires certain key conditions to be satisfied before the Secretary of State can add, remove or vary reference to a territory. That amendment was reasonable, proportionate and practical, and it should present no problem for the Government, so I am not quite clear why the Minister is seeking to undo the good work done by the noble Lords in the other place.
Nothing in the Lords amendment stops the Government doing what they want to do; it simply ensures a proper process of consultation and assessment, which any major changes to a framework of this significance should undergo. Where the proposal is to add a territory, it requires a statement confirming that the territory does not abuse the Interpol red notice system. The first part of the amendment places a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on the merit of the change, and there are two groups in the consultation proposed here: first, the devolved institutions; and secondly, NGOs and civic society. As the Bill currently stands, after consultation an assessment has to be laid before Parliament outlining the risks of the proposed changes and confirming that where the proposal is to add a territory, it does not abuse the Interpol red notice system. It is my contention that that should remain in the Bill.
In a similar vein, we will also be defending the amendment made in the other place by Baroness Hamwee, which the Government are attempting to remove by means of their amendment 14. The Bill as it now stands requires each order to add, vary or remove a territory under new schedule A1 to contain no more than one territory. There is of course nothing to prevent the Government from laying several instruments, each relating to one territory, at the same time, so there should not be any delay to process. Each country will have differing characteristics and varying degrees of compliance, so grouping them could result in the waving through of some territories with questionable human rights records purely because to fail to do so would jeopardise a potentially urgent extradition agreement with another country. Each country will have varying levels of compliance and different approaches to issues of human rights and criminal justice, and this is important because while we agree with legislating on the basis of those currently specified as trusted partners in this Bill, we should not leave the door open. We intend to defend the inclusion of this clause as a safeguard for the effective application of this legislation.
We have tabled amendment 17 to allow all European economic area member states to be inserted in new schedule A1, and we note that the Minister has made a similar proposal in Government amendment 15, but, frankly, the lack of progress on the justice and security talks with the European Union gives us a great deal of concern, and 31 December is approaching with no positive signs of agreement on these hugely important issues. I ask the Minister: is he concerned about our losing access to the capabilities afforded by the European arrest warrant? We on this side of the House are clear that any loss of capability, regardless of whether it is mutual, would have disastrous implications for UK law enforcement’s ability to identify and question suspected criminals and thus keep our country secure.
I refer the Minister to comments made in February 2019 by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richard Martin, the UK law enforcement lead for Brexit and international criminality, in relation to the loss of the European arrest warrant and the Schengen Information System, and the potential implications for policing of no deal. He said:
“Every fallback we have is more bureaucratic, it is slower”.
He said that while policing was “not going to stop” and would still meet the threat,
“we will be much more limited than we currently are”.
He went on to say:
“If something takes two or three times as long as when you were doing it before, that’s probably another couple of hours maybe you are not back on the streets”
and not being visible doing your core role. Such an outcome would be not only undesirable but unacceptable.
Specifically on extradition, we know that the UK and EU falling back on prior arrangements in the 1957 Council of Europe convention would complicate proceedings and add needless delay. That is not my assessment but that of the previous Conservative Government and their former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). We entirely accept that the Bill’s scope relates solely to the powers conferred on UK law enforcement, so I would like to ask the Minister exactly what the Government are doing to ensure adequate levels of reciprocity in future extradition arrangements, particularly if we lose the powers we presently enjoy under the European arrest warrant and other such mechanisms.
I will turn briefly to the amendments tabled in the names of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and other colleagues. I listened carefully to the powerful speech the right hon. Gentleman made today about the admirable work he has been doing on this issue over previous months, which is wholeheartedly supported by those of us on this side of the House. We welcomed the Government’s decision to suspend the extradition treaty with Hong Kong, which will offer much needed assurance to the Hong Kong diaspora and pro-democracy activists. It is important that the UK works with democratic partners around the world to ensure a co-ordinated international response that enables holders of the British national overseas passport, pro-democracy activists and the people of Hong Kong to travel without fear of arrest and extradition. The Government must not waver in their commitment to the people of Hong Kong, and we will support them in their endeavours if that is the case. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s assurances.
I also acknowledge the work of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and his amendments. I stressed before that we acknowledge that the Bill’s scope relates predominantly to powers of arrest conferred on UK law enforcement, not the extradition process itself, but we need to do all we can to ensure levels of reciprocity when it comes to our extradition agreements, not least with our most trusted partners. It is not acceptable that we are not able to bring those wanted for serious offences to justice here in the UK because they are elsewhere when the reverse would be perfectly possible. That is all too often the case, because for an extradition agreement to have any value—this goes to the heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s point—British citizens must believe that their Government will support and stand up for them and uphold the integrity and equivalence of any agreement. I hope the Minister will take those arguments seriously.
In conclusion, we have, as always, sought to be a constructive Opposition during the progress of this Bill, and our amendments today serve only to strengthen and improve the legislation, building on the cross-party work done in the other place.
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
It is a privilege and pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their contributions during the course of this thoughtful debate, and I recognise and appreciate the support for the principles that are enunciated within a short Bill with a defined purpose.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and I will come to his amendments and his important points in relation to Hong Kong. I will also address the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)—my long-standing friend—on extradition. Indeed, he and I have debated such points over many years, and he will remember the changes that were brought about on things such as forum bars and where the right forum actually is. I can certainly say to him that we will always keep our extradition arrangements under review.
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for her challenges, and I will come to them during my contribution. Turning to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), there are obviously issues around the EU and how we negotiate and how we use the freedoms that we now hold as an independent state. I hope to explain further the negotiations in relation to the EU, which are very much extant. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) for his support and for so clearly setting out the purpose of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made several wide-ranging points, underlining why we have extradition to hold up our justice system and to ensure that those who need to be brought to justice are, including in significant cases that touch so many of our constituents. On that note, I appreciate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). We are clearly aware of the constituency case she highlighted, and we are working with our colleagues at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in connection with the case. It is important in that context to highlight how we approach such matters, ensuring that appropriate standards are met and applied, and she sought to underline certain issues. I will not comment on the detail of the individual case she raises on behalf of her constituent Jonathan Taylor, but I say to her that this Bill does not change the role of the court or the Secretary of State in relation to a person’s extradition or any of the existing safeguards in the Extradition Act 2003. No individual will be extradited if the request is politically motivated—that touches on the broader point she was seeking to highlight, and I can give her that assurance.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
When the police make one of these immediate arrests, how long do they have before they have to allow the suspect to go?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes an important point about safeguards. He will see that the arrested individual will need to be before a judge as soon as practicable after arrest. That is one of the safeguards that I wanted to highlight, as it underpins this Bill. The new arrest power, in the prescribed circumstances, is the only change—this is another important point to stress—to current extradition law and practice that is introduced. It is designed to bring a wanted person into extradition proceedings under part 2 of the Extradition Act in an expedited way, without changing the likelihood of successful extradition. It does not change the current legislative framework, nor any of the process for the extradition proceedings themselves. The Bill is purely about shifting the point at which the police can intervene and arrest a wanted person. It in no way reduces the safeguards that must apply to any subsequent extradition proceedings considered by the court or the Home Secretary. Judicial oversight will continue as it does now after any arrest. The courts will continue to assess extradition requests as they do now, to determine, for example, whether extradition would be compatible with the individual’s human rights or whether the person would receive a fair trial. If they would not, extradition would be barred.
The Bill includes five main safeguards. It applies only to certain specified countries. Countries with a poor human rights record or those that have abused Interpol systems could not be considered suitable for this provision. The addition of any countries would require the consent of both Houses, and it only applies to sufficiently serious offences; the power will only be available in relation to offences that would be criminal in the UK for which an offender would receive a prison sentence of at least three years and which is a sufficiently serious form of that offence to justify arrest.
The designated authority must be satisfied that arrangements are in place to ensure that requests made by the country concerned are made on the basis of an underlying warrant or a conviction. Also, as I have indicated, the arrested individual will need to be brought before a judge as soon as practicable after arrest, and the power does not alter extradition proceedings in any other way and does not interfere with the court or the Secretary of State’s role in extradition proceedings.
I hope that that sets out quite clearly the importance of the safeguards. I know that some Members raised the issue of Interpol. I stress that the UK continues to work with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust, effective and complied with. It is notable that the former chief constable of Essex was recently made the executive director of policing services for Interpol—the most senior operational role in that organisation—and a UK Government lawyer has also been seconded to Interpol’s notices and diffusion taskforce to work to ensure Interpol rules are properly and robustly adhered to by Interpol member states.
I turn to Government amendments 11 and 15, which provide a contingency to keep an important current law enforcement protection for the UK public in place after the end of the transition period, whatever the outcome of the current negotiations. As the House knows, the negotiated outcome we are seeking with the EU would create a warrant-based system based on the EU’s surrender agreement with Norway and Iceland. The purpose of amending the Bill in this way at this time is to ensure the continuation of relevant arrest powers, should that prove necessary. Amendment 11 is a consequential amendment that will ensure that amendment 15 will be commenced only if we do not have in place new extradition arrangements with the EU at the end of the transition period. If an agreement is reached, these provisions will not need to come into effect. This is simply a contingency, and the provisions also provide a contingency in the event that we do not agree new extradition arrangements with Norway and Iceland to maintain the arrest power currently available by virtue of the EU-Norway-Iceland surrender agreement.
Opposition amendment 17 covers similar ground, although framing it in EEA terms. I hope the hon. Member for St Helens North will appreciate that we should approve participants on a state-by-state basis, which he would probably acknowledge, and that is therefore why we think the better approach is to name countries individually.
On the progress of the negotiations on law enforcement and criminal justice, I think there is a good degree of convergence in what the UK and the EU are seeking to negotiate in terms of operational capabilities. We will keep working to bridge the gap where differences remain. There is still an agreement to be had and we will continue to work hard to achieve it.
Government amendment 12 specifies the National Crime Agency is to be the designated authority for this legislation. The designated authority is the agency that will have the task of certifying that the international arrest alerts conform to the right criteria for them to carry the new power of provisional arrest. The drafting is future-proofed, as it allows for the designated authority to be changed by regulation should the need arise. We have taken that approach as the direct alternative to using secondary legislation on this occasion, to ensure the best use of parliamentary time. The amendment therefore represents a change of process rather than policy and is reflected by Opposition amendment 16. I hope that the Opposition will recognise, because of the future-proofing arrangements, that this is an improvement to the technical approach they would take.
Government amendment 13 will overturn one of the two changes made in the other place. Statutory requirements are added for the Government to consult on the merits of adding, removing or varying a territory from the Bill with the devolved Administrations and relevant interested stakeholders. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have been clear in our commitment to ensuring that Parliament can scrutinise any decision to bring a new country in scope of this power in exactly the same way as Parliament does in relation to the Extradition Act. To that end, the Bill mandates that the addition or removal of any territory is by the affirmative resolution procedure. This gives Parliament the right to scrutinise in detail such proposals and to accept them or, indeed, reject them.
It is important to stress that while extradition is a reserved matter, relevant officials are engaged in regular discussions with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations and law enforcement agencies who operate right across the UK to collaborate on operational policy and ensure the effectiveness of our extradition system. Indeed, such discussion and consultation has already taken place in relation to the Bill and the amendments. Of course, given that any countries being added would be subject to the affirmative procedure, there will be opportunities for Parliament to probe the extent to which the views of the devolved Administrations and other organisations have been sought. Therefore, we believe that there is no need to add this provision to the Bill.
Amendment 14 would overturn the second provision altered in the other place, which provides that the removal or addition of a country must use a single statutory instrument. Any additions will be dictated by the will of Parliament, not by an unusual process such that this would impose. If a country is proposed that Parliament does not agree should be specified, then the regulations will be voted down in the normal way. We judge that that remains the rightful process.
Turning to amendments 1 and 2 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I am grateful to him for the way in which he has approached this and for the important points that he and other Members have made. It might be useful to set out the measures the Government have taken in dealing with the situation in Hong Kong since the amendments were tabled. As the Committee will be aware, because of the new national security legislation in Hong Kong, the Government have indefinitely suspended the 1998 UK-Hong Kong agreement on the surrender of fugitive offenders—our extradition treaty. As a result, the Government will not deal with extradition requests sent by Hong Kong to the UK under that treaty. We are also creating a new bespoke immigration route for citizens from Hong Kong to come to the UK, reflecting the unique and unprecedented circumstances in Hong Kong and the UK’s historical and moral commitment to British nationals overseas citizens.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and Members across the House who have brought this issue to the House in ensuring that we stand with the people of Hong Kong. This Government have demonstrated our absolute commitment to the people of Hong Kong. Any changes to the Bill in the form of these amendments would not change our extradition relationship with Hong Kong, as I think my right hon. Friend has recognised. However, the points that he has made are very powerful, and I know that colleagues in the Foreign Office will equally have recognised them. We will certainly keep this issue under careful review.
In relation to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, I would reiterate that the purpose of this Bill is to rectify a policing capability gap, to better protect the public. I recognise that he perhaps makes his points within a broader purview and that his amendments were probing and there are other issues that he might like to return to on another day. The US is just one of the UK’s extradition partners, and the legal processes in each of those jurisdictions will be different. He has been a champion of the important liberties that this Government seek to protect in relation to each and every extradition case that goes to the UK courts. I recognise and respect the approach that he takes. While we take a different view on these issues of imbalance, he will recognise some of the previous reviews that have looked at these issues in seeing whether that imbalance does exist. As I have indicated, we keep all our extradition arrangements under review, and I look forward to continuing this conversation with him in the weeks and months ahead.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend for rightly drawing attention to the case of Anne Sacoolas. Harry Dunn’s death was a terrible tragedy. We have every sympathy with his family for their tragic loss and share their desire to ensure that justice is done—a point that the Prime Minister himself has reaffirmed in the last few days.
Finally, I turn to new clauses 1 and 2. Throughout the passage of the Bill, there has been considerable cross-party consensus on its aims and measures, alongside the robust scrutiny that I have come to rightly expect from this House. New clause 1 would require the publication of an annual statement on arrests. The National Crime Agency already keeps data and publishes statistics on arrest volumes in relation to part 1 of the Extradition Act. It does that without having been required to do so by primary legislation. We have no doubt that it will similarly do so in respect of arrests under this new arrest power, as this is sensible operational practice. While I have some sympathy for the new clause, I am not persuaded of the necessity of a statutory obligation at this time. I hope that we will be able to review this as that information is published.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend and, given the nature of what the Government have already undertaken since the amendments were tabled by my right hon. Friends and I, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment made: 11, page 1, line 16, at end insert
‘, but paragraph 3A of the Schedule may not be commenced so as to come into force in relation to a territory before that territory is a category 2 territory for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003.’—(James Brokenshire.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 15 and provides that the amendments that are to be made by amendment 15 to Schedule A1 to the Extradition Act 2003 (inserted by paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Bill) cannot be brought into force in relation to a territory before the territory is designated as a category 2 territory for the purposes of that Act.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
Power of arrest for extradition purposes
Amendment made: 12, page 3, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 and insert—
‘(3A) The “designated authority” is the National Crime Agency.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the meaning of “designated authority”.’—(James Brokenshire.)
The Bill currently provides for the Secretary of State to designate the “designated authority” in regulations. This amendment instead provides, on the face of the Bill, that the National Crime Agency is the designated authority and confers a power on the Secretary of State to amend new section 74B to designate a different authority.
Amendment proposed: 13, page 3, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 4.—(James Brokenshire.)
This amendment leaves out a provision inserted in the Lords imposing certain conditions relating to consultation, assessments and reports on the making of regulations under new section 74B(7).
“Austria”; |
“Belgium”; |
“Bulgaria”; |
“Croatia”; |
“Cyprus”; |
“Czech Republic”; |
“Denmark”; |
“Estonia”; |
“Finland”; |
“France”; |
“Germany”; |
“Greece”; |
“Hungary”; |
“Iceland”; |
“Ireland”; |
“Italy”; |
“Latvia”; |
“Lithuania”; |
“Luxembourg”; |
“Malta”; |
“The Netherlands”; |
“Norway”; |
“Poland”; |
“Portugal”; |
“Romania”; |
“Slovakia”; |
“Slovenia”; |
“Spain”; |
“Sweden”. |
James Brokenshire
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their scrutiny of the Bill, and I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate in Committee today and on Second Reading before the recess. Bills that relate to extradition are not always the easiest, and I thank all Members for their really informed and stimulating interventions and amendments that have helped to shape and inform the Bill.
There is no doubt that important contributions were made by many and, as ever, the scrutiny that this House provides continues to test and improve the legislative programme that the Government seek to pass into law. All of us on these Benches benefit from the work of officials from the Home Office. I also pay tribute to the officials in the Public Bill Office and all those who have supported the Bill’s passage.
The Bill is designed to bring a wanted person into extradition proceedings in an expedited way without in any way changing the likelihood of successful extradition or the legal process itself. It is about ensuring that our police have the right powers to keep the public safe and bring those who may flee justice before justice as appropriate. The extension of police powers in limited circumstances specifically to protect the public does not in any way interfere with the ensuing extradition process. It is about how suspects enter that process and minimising the risk that a wanted person evades justice. There are powerful public policy reasons and benefits to ensuring that those wanted for extradition for serious criminal offences enter the extradition process as quickly as possible, and that UK laws do not create the possibility of impunity for those accused or convicted of such offences.
I thank Members from across the House for their support of the principles of this Bill today and for making amendments and proposals that will ensure that we can continue to keep UK citizens safe. Throughout its passage, the Bill has not lost sight of our ultimate aim, which is to provide UK police officers with the arrest powers that they need to keep up with the challenges of trans-national crime—crime that is often organised and that often has more than one victim in more than one country. This law will prevent fugitives responsible for such crime continuing to evade justice through an operational loophole, which puts the public at risk. This Bill closes that gap. I am pleased that we have been able to reach a position of broad consensus on all the Bill’s provisions, and I very much appreciate not only the support, but the scrutiny that has been applied through its passage today and previously, and therefore commend the Bill to the House and commend the positive effect that I believe it will have to protect the public.
Conor McGinn
I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said in thanking his departmental officials who, alongside the Minister himself, have been courteous and helpful in providing us with information and briefings throughout. I also thank the officials in the Public Bill Office for their diligent work and assistance in helping the official Opposition and our colleagues across the House to scrutinise the Bill.
I do not intend to detain the House long. We had a good and wide-ranging debate on Second Reading and the Bill has had good scrutiny in Committee on the Floor of the House today. We are disappointed, but not entirely surprised, that the Government did not accept our amendments, but we will not be opposing the Bill on Third Reading.
We have always said that we accept the need for comprehensive legislation to address the gap that currently exists for UK law enforcement prior to extradition proceedings. We hope that the Bill will assist in closing that and help to keep the British people safe. We are determined to ensure that serious criminals who make their way to our country or commit offences in other countries cannot rest easy on our streets and evade the full force of law, and we believe that the Bill will help to achieve that.
In conclusion, we discussed in Committee the need for an extradition agreement to have integrity and that for it to have value, British citizens must believe that their Government will support and stand up for them and uphold the said integrity of any agreement. We have talked a lot about reciprocity, but I also want to talk about credibility. I say gently to the Minister that the credibility around international agreements and international law is not given in isolation, and it ill behoves the Government, on something as sensitive as this, to talk about wilfully breaking international law. I hope that he and his colleagues will consider that in relation to other matters. However, on the substantive matter of this Bill, we will not divide the House this evening.
Joanna Cherry
I was remiss earlier in not welcoming the Minister back to his place, and I thank him for his courtesy, as always, in keeping me apprised of his intentions in relation to this Bill. The Scottish National party supports the principles behind it and we support reasonable measures to assist in tackling transnational crime, provided the importance of protecting human rights is respected. As I said earlier, the SNP fully supports working with international frameworks to keep our citizens safe. That is one of the reasons why we and the majority of people in Scotland were so keen on the security and justice co-operation afforded through our membership of the European Union, why we voted for its continuance repeatedly, and why we have been so sad to see it go.
I will not divide the House on the Bill, but I regret the Government’s refusal to countenance an obligation to consult the devolveds when adding, removing or varying a provision in relation to a territory. The devolved Government in Scotland have a real interest here given the devolution of criminal justice, and as I said, I think it indicates the lack of respect from this Government about the impact of the devolved settlements on our constitution that no consultation has been forthcoming. It is also perhaps an indication of ignorance of the fact that Scotland’s separate legal system is protected not just by devolution, but by the Act of Union. I have recently expressed concerns about a potential breach of article 19 of the treaty of Union by the Government’s proposals in another field of law, in relation to judicial review. To pick up on what was said by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who speaks for the official Opposition, it seems now that the treaty of Union is not the only international treaty that the Government are bent on breaching, and I add my voice to his.
It is extremely shocking to see a Government Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and confirm that the Government intend to breach international law. I am sure that as I speak, the Law Officers who advise the Government—the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Advocate General, the UK Government’s Law Officer in Scotland—will be very carefully considering their position, as will, I am sure, the Lord Chancellor, who is bound in terms of the constitution Act to respect the rule of law. I look forward over the coming days to seeing what the British Government’s Law Officers have to say about their and, indeed, the Lord Chancellor’s position in relation to a Government that promise on the Floor of this House to break an international agreement and international law.
This seems to be one of the many unfortunate consequences of our leaving the European Union and, as I said, it was notable that the Government sought to amend the Bill today to provide for the situation that there will be no replacement for the European arrest warrant when we exit the transition period at the end of the year. This is a most regrettable state of affairs. It seems that this Government intend to pilot the United Kingdom into a period of lawlessness. For those of us who wish to see Scotland take a different path and who are rather sick of being lectured about how inappropriate that is, this course of lawlessness is most to be regretted.
John Redwood
We had a good debate earlier today, but I hope the Minister will come back to this House erelong on a couple of important issues explored in the earlier debate. The first is the protection of British citizens who are the object of one of these extradition requirements once we have entered into these agreements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made a powerful speech about how we need to look carefully at the conditions offered to people when they are taken abroad on charges, particularly as they may be innocent and particularly when the most serious offences that most of us had in mind when these extradition regimes were drawn up may not be involved. We all wish to keep our country safe and we all understand that we need reciprocal agreements to do that. We wish such agreements to be used to pursue those who are violent and commit the most serious crimes, but we need to think about how this can be extended and how in certain jurisdictions where we have extradition agreements people may not be accorded the same decent treatment we would want to accord somebody who has been charged with a crime but who may, in the end, prove to be innocent.
We also need to come back to how we are going to handle our extradition arrangements with other European countries. We are still not sure how that might work out, and we fully understand that it is still the subject of various discussions and negotiations. It is entirely prudent to make some provision today. However, some of us think that if there is to be no European arrest warrant when we have completed our so-called “implementation period”, that could be an opportunity for us to have a better and more suitable system, because the European arrest warrant had features that were not to this country’s liking and there was an element of compromise in it, as there has to be. I hope that we will therefore have some greater guidance on what might materialise.
As two other speakers in this Third Reading debate have referred to a topical issue that goes a bit wider than this Bill, perhaps I may also be permitted briefly to do that. I have not heard or seen anything that implies that this Government wish to break the law or the international treaty. I have seen everything to say that this Government take very seriously section 38 of the European (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which was the assertion of sovereignty, and it was a fundamental proposition of the political agreement and the withdrawal agreement, which the EU willingly entered into, that British sovereignty was going to be assured and central, just as it was central to that agreement that there would be a free trade agreement. If there can be a free trade agreement, the other legal issues fall away.
One did need to correct that wider point, but, in conclusion, this Bill is a necessary one. There are issues arising from it that could warrant further thought and treatment. I hope this Government will take the advantage of that thought which our leaving the EU can provide to look again at how in the longer term we have a good judicial relationship—a co-operative relationship—with the EU that is fair to both sides and to any innocent people in Britain who may have to stand trial abroad.
Jim Shannon
I wish to make a few quick points. I said to the Minister in the Lobby what a pleasure it is to see him in his place and looking so well. I told him that I do not think I have seen him looking so healthy in a long time. He asked me how my constituency was and I told him that it is getting more beautiful every day—he knows that, as I do. I am pleased to see him back, just as I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). He and I have been good friends for a long time. We might have a difference of political opinion on some things, but we agree on a lot of important things in this House, on behalf of our constituents, and it is good to do that. The DUP supported the Bill and voted with the Government, and Bill has now been passed and moves on to its next stage. The Government and the Minister have given a commitment to speak up for those around the world. The right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and indeed myself and others, spoke about human rights abuses around the world. The human rights angle of the Bill perhaps does not put in place everything we would like to see, but we are pleased to see things moving forward. Around the world, people are suppressed, persecuted and abused; hopefully, the Bill will make people accountable and we can use this law for that purpose.
Today, our Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I always love saying that, by the way, because we are better together; the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) might have a slightly different opinion, but I do not think we disagree too much—have made it clear that if someone does something wrong, they will be caught, and that there is a moral obligation to speak up. The House has supported the Government and the legislation they have brought forward, but we also have a moral obligation. It is important that all of us in this House speak often about this important moral issue: people cannot just do something wrong and get away with it. Legally and morally, the House has made the right decision.
I would love to see, as I have said previously, the Chinese Government being held accountable in a court of law—under moral law and legal law around the world—for what they do to others. There are many other countries like them, but this country and our Government have acted correctly.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just over three years ago a constituent, Mr Glynn Brown, came to my office to indicate that his son Aaron, an adult with special needs and a resident of Muckamore Abbey Hospital, had been assaulted. He was concerned not only that his son had been assaulted, but that it had taken two weeks for the medics on whom he relied for care to speak to Mr Brown. After contacting the Department of Health, I remember getting a chilling phone call one month later that indicated that the assault of Aaron Brown was not isolated and that it would take some time to uncover all that was going on at Muckamore Abbey Hospital.
In the intervening period, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has discovered 1,500 separate incidents of criminal abuse of adults who were under the care of our health trust. I raised this issue in the Chamber a number of times during the period when Stormont was not sitting. I have campaigned for a public inquiry alongside the families involved and their relatives. I wanted to make this point of order to put on record my gratitude at the fact that today a public inquiry has been granted. We will get the truth and families shall get justice for the most heinous abuse that their loved ones have faced under the care of our state.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point. He knows, as the Chamber does, that it is not a point of order for the Chair, but I fully understand why he wanted to take this opportunity to put that important piece of information on the record. He has had a very good reaction to it from those present in the Chamber.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 and 5 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Electricity)
That the draft Electricity and Gas etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Energy)
That the draft Electricity and Gas (Internal Markets and Network Codes) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 6 July, be approved.—(Eddie Hughes.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Public Health
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No.3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 750), dated 16 July 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 July, be approved. —(Eddie Hughes.)
Question agreed to.
Palliative care at Primrose Terrace, Jarrow
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
No, we should not be surprised; the hon. Member’s timing was absolutely perfect—to the second.
Kate Osborne
Thank you again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to present a petition signed by more than 13,500 of my Jarrow constituents.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Jarrow.
Declares that it is vital that high quality, compassionate palliative and end-of-life care is accessible across the country; further declares that each person who is nearing the end of their life should feel safe in the knowledge they will receive the very best care and be supported to die peacefully and painlessly; notes that in the Jarrow constituency, St Clare’s hospice collapsed into insolvency in January 2019 after more than 30 years, leaving the borough without an end-of-life care facility; and further notes that a petition requesting to keep palliative care at the Primrose Terrace site in Jarrow, rather than setting up an alternative site elsewhere within the borough, has received 13,500 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the NHS South Tyneside Clinical Commissioning Group in reopening the St Clare’s hospice site at Primrose Terrace, Jarrow.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002595]
History Curriculum: Black History
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“There were Africans in Britain before the English came here.”
That is the opening line of Peter Fryer’s monumental book “Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain”. Black and minority ethnic communities have roots in this country going back nearly two millennia. Among the Roman legions guarding Hadrian’s Wall in the third century AD was a unit recruited in north Africa. In 210 AD an African soldier serving in Carlisle went down in history as brave enough to make fun of the visiting emperor, Septimus Severus, who was at the time pretty much the most powerful person on the planet. In 1901 remains were discovered in York of a high-status woman living around 350 AD, born in Britain but likely to have been of north African descent, and forever known as “ivory bangle lady” for the ornaments buried with her. More recently, the remains of a young black girl were found in North Elmham near Norwich dating back to the Saxon era around the year 1000. A small black community appears in the account books of the court of King James IV at Holyrood shortly after 1500, and John Blanke was a black musician who performed for Henry VIII.
In past centuries, long before Windrush and the modern era, history records black British people as sailors, soldiers, teachers, craftsmen, retailers, nurses, writers, actors, singers, farm workers, entrepreneurs, vicars and chefs and in hundreds of other occupations. But from the late 1500s, of course, the majority of black people who came to live in this country were domestic servants, many initially brought here as slaves.
It is estimated that in the 245 years between the first British slave trading voyage and abolition in 1807, British ships carried around 3.4 million enslaved Africans to the Americas. The appalling depravity and cruelty of the triangular trade makes it one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed. It is true that there were brave and principled men and women in this country who campaigned for many years for an end to this abomination, including many who served proudly here in this Parliament, and it is also true that after the Abolition Act came into effect, the British Navy was prominent in stopping slavers who tried to carry on; but it is none the less a matter of national shame that the transatlantic slave trade was allowed to endure for so long, with involvement from across the British establishment, including MPs, the monarchy and the Church.
I am afraid that, even with the slightly extended time that we have available, the time is short to begin consideration of the complexities of the legacy of empire and colonialism, but I am in no doubt that those wishing to understand Britain today need an understanding of its colonial past.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has brought this subject to the House and I would normally speak if I could, but I spoke yesterday so I will not. Can she confirm that when slavery was abolished, compensation did not go to those who had been enslaved, but to the owners?
Theresa Villiers
I can confirm that, and it is astonishing, by the standards of our own values, that that was the decision that was made, and even more astonishing that the Government were still paying off that debt in 2015. I do not think there are any words to describe the devastation of the impact that the slave trade had.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on bringing this subject forward for debate; it is certainly timely. Does she not agree that history must be told in its entirety and factually, and not to fit any changing narrative; and that we can and must learn from all periods of history, whether it is dressed up prettily or is just the ugly truth? Educating our people should and must happen; I believe that is the way forward.
Theresa Villiers
I do agree with that, and of course, coming as the hon. Gentleman does from Northern Ireland, he understands the emotional resonance that the history of controversial events in our past still has. I know that he and colleagues in the Northern Ireland devolved institutions have worked hard to try to ensure that this decade of very sensitive and politically charged centenaries has passed off peacefully. I very much hope that that continues as we move towards the centenary of partition and the creation of Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State. It is a reminder of how history is so relevant to our outlook on so many issues today, whether that is the subject of this evening’s debate or those centenaries in Northern Ireland.
We also need to understand that the racism and injustice that black and other ethnic minorities were subjected to in this country’s history was pervasive; it was often violent; it lasted for centuries; and its legacy continues to have an impact today. Even a cursory understanding of black history provides a reminder that the values that we are rightly proud to espouse in this country—that everyone should be entitled to equal concern and respect, whatever their ethnicity and from wherever their ancestors might have come—were the result of very long, and sometimes very bitter, struggles, and that many steps forward were strongly opposed at the time, including in Parliament.
The time available for this debate does not enable us to do any kind of justice to the richness of the story of the lives of black British people over so many hundreds of years.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fact, as I do, that when we look at the guidance that was published by the Department for Education on the inclusion of black history within the wider context of the curriculum, we see that it sets out an expectation for schools that the complexity and richness and the dark side of these different campaigns that have been run, which my right hon. Friend has highlighted in her speech, are explored, and that that is done in a way that reflects the local context of the school, the children who are hearing about it and the heritage from which they come, and also the knowledge and expertise of teachers as to how that can be set in the wider context both of the community and of events of today?
Theresa Villiers
I do welcome that, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s exploring those issues in more detail. I particularly agree with my hon. Friend that in looking at black history, yes, we need to focus on the injustice and the dark episode of the slave trade, but we also need to celebrate the incredibly positive contribution of black and minority ethnic communities over the years.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that we should ensure that the regional history of black Britain, particularly those who have contributed to our proud, shared history in the west midlands, is part of the national curriculum? We should recognise how black Britain helped to build my city of Coventry into what it is today—from its manufacturing expertise to its car-building might and our enviable arts and culture.
Theresa Villiers
I think the hon. Lady is right. It is so important that we celebrate the phenomenally positive contribution of black British people over the centuries. Highlighting that in the classroom in the curriculum is incredibly important. That is why I am honoured to have been able to secure a debate on this really important subject today. I welcome the fact that suddenly the interest in black history has grown considerably. Who would have thought a few years ago that we would see people protesting on the streets and campaigning via those demonstrations for a better understanding of black history in the classroom? This is an opportunity for the Government to seize.
David Simmonds
On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important that, when that history is being explored, especially with young people, we are able to do it fully in context? I represent a London constituency with more than 100 first languages and an incredible diversity of backgrounds among all my constituents, and it is important to recognise that black history is part of that wider and complex history of the United Kingdom. The local context, and ensuring that everybody appreciates the context of their background within that wider community, is important. Schools, councils and other community organisations need the flexibility to respond in a way that reflects local diversity.
Theresa Villiers
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is really important to have the flexibility for schools to reflect local circumstances. I am sure that is something that the Minister will agree on as well.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for hosting this debate on such a topical issue. It happens, by glorious coincidence, that the Gloucester History Festival, which I founded 10 years ago, has just started—it is our 10th anniversary. Because necessity is the mother of invention, this year the festival will be largely a virtual, digital event. For those who are particularly interested in black history, the advantage of that is that a number of events will be live-streamed and available on our website free of charge.
If my right hon. Friend does not object, I would highlight that on 13 September there will be a brilliant talk on African Europeans by Olivette Otele, and on 14 September a talk on 100 Great Black Britons by Patrick Vernon and Angelina Osbourne. Those are just two of the great talks that will highlight some of the great contributors to our own story, which involve people of all colours and all nations. If that is something that can flow through our little history festival into cities across the country, that can be stimulated to do something similar and realise that the diversity of today’s populations is an echo of contributions across the ages, we will all benefit and our children and grandchildren at schools likewise. It is such an important aspect of our story. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Theresa Villiers
I am delighted to have been able to give my hon. Friend a platform to advertise his local festival. It is a good reminder that black history is not just for October and is not just about London—it is something that can command interest and engagement right across the country. I welcome the contributions of hon. Members who are making the point that getting more black history into the curriculum really does matter.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way and for securing this very important debate. Does she share my concern that the content on black history currently available within the national curriculum is taught to fewer than 10% of students? It is vital that every child being taught in British schools, whatever their background and heritage, can say with pride, “Our history is British history”, and that makes reform essential. Will she join me in calling on the Minister to do what he has so far been unwilling to do, which is to meet with a group of passionate young people from my constituency who really just want to tell him why this matters so much to them?
Theresa Villiers
The Minister’s diary is of course a matter for him, but I very much agree that I would like to see every child in school in this country learning black history. It is an important opportunity to try to take that agenda forward, and I will certainly make that appeal to the Minister. I think that is important because I love history, and I believe that black history is a fascinating subject to study, but I also believe that every child should learn black history in the classroom so that every child growing up in this country knows that the presence of black people here is not some 20th century novelty.
Most important of all, I want more black history to be taught in the classroom because I want children from BAME communities to understand that people of colour have been a crucial part of our island story for very nearly 2,000 years. I want them to know that it was not just William Wilberforce who campaigned to abolish the slave trade, but such people as Olaudah Equiano, who had themselves been enslaved but who achieved freedom, fame and success against incredible odds and adversity. I want them to know about Ignatius Sancho, who in 1782 was the first black writer in prose to be published in this country. I want them to know about Tom Molineaux, the boxer and former slave who should have been the England heavyweight champion in 1810, if he had not been unfairly robbed of the title by an underhand trick. I want them to know about John Kent, who became the first black police officer as far back as 1837. I want them to know about thousands of soldiers from Africa, the Caribbean and India who fought and died for this country in two world wars.
Taking the Indian subcontinent as just one example, 1.27 million men served in the British Army in the first world war, including in the blood-soaked killing fields of the western front and Gallipoli. More than 2.5 million men from the area now covered by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh volunteered for service in world war two, producing the largest volunteer army in history.
David Simmonds
I am very proud of the fact that in the predecessor constituency to the one I have the privilege of representing, William Wilberforce had his London home. He lived there when he was campaigning in this House for the abolition of slavery, although he was a Member of Parliament from Hull. He was a resident of a house called the Chestnuts. That is very much celebrated locally, but will my right hon. Friend expand on the remarks she has made about the complexity of this representation in our curriculum? The guidance covers everything from slavery as something where, in the country that is now the United Kingdom, we saw empires taking people, through to the role of Britain in the abolition of that trade. It also talks about the incredible positive contribution that so many black Britons have made throughout our history and identifies the complexity of those relationships in the context of empire; again that is strongly reflected in the guidance to schools. Does she also agree that in an incredibly diverse city like the one where we are both privileged to be Members of Parliament, the ability for teachers to take that guidance and translate it back so that those children get their education very much in context is a vital part of how our society responds to this debate today?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I should just point out for the record that there is plenty of time and there are very few people here, and that was a very interesting intervention from the hon. Gentleman, but it was rather long and I do not want to create a precedent. There is a difference between an intervention and a mini speech.
Theresa Villiers
Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. It is important that teachers are engaged in this process and have the flexibility to explore the complexities. As he says, the history of empire is one of the most complex. There are undoubtedly gravely negative aspects of the history of colonialism but there are some positives as well, and it is important for people to be able to explore that within the history curriculum.
My outlook on life was profoundly shaped by the history that I learnt in school, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank two inspirational teachers—Valerie St Johnston and Gillian Blyth—who taught me. My study of history has greatly influenced the way I think, the way I write, and the way I analyse problems and challenges. I very much doubt that I would have achieved the political office that I have been privileged to hold were it not for the rigorous intellectual grounding that those two very gifted teachers gave to me.
I can well understand why changes to the history curriculum have been a key demand from many who took to the streets earlier this year to protest about inequality and racism, or who took time to email their Member of Parliament. In diverse, complex, multi-ethnic Britain, we need far more people to understand that we have a diverse, complex, multi-ethnic past. It is not possible to understand modern Britain without an understanding of its past. As the eminent US historian, David McCullough, put it:
“History is who we are and why we are the way we are”,
and as Marcus Garvey once said:
“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.”
I call on the Minister to announce plans to give black history a much more prominent place in the school curriculum. I call on him to embrace the enthusiasm that we have seen on our streets for the study of black history, so that we can give future generations a better knowledge and understanding of how we came to be the nation that we are today.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
May I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on securing this debate, and on her interesting, well researched and compelling speech? She is right, of course—and I am sure that there is no one in this House or the country who disagrees—that the 245-year slave trade was, in her words, depraved, cruel and an abomination. But as the Secretary of State said in June, this country also has a lot to be proud of and children should learn all aspects of it—the good and the bad. Time and again, this country has made a difference and changed things for the better right around the world, and we must teach about the contributions from Britons of all ethnicities, both men and women, who have made this nation the great nation that it is today.
The Government believe that all children and young people should acquire a firm grasp of history, including how different events and periods relate to each other. That is why it is compulsory for maintained schools from key stages 1 to 3, and why academies are expected to teach a curriculum that is as broad and ambitious as the national curriculum. The national curriculum that we inherited in 2010 had been stripped of knowledge, with a heavy focus on vague concepts such as skills of learning. The Government therefore embarked on significant reforms to the national curriculum, with the aim of restoring the importance of subject knowledge in all its complexity and fascination. In 2014, the new, more ambitious, knowledge-rich national curriculum came into force in England, and from 2015 we introduced more rigorous GCSEs.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Would the Minister agree with me that, if we do look at putting a greater emphasis on black history, there should be a clear focus on doing so to promote greater unity and a sense of shared Britishness, and that we should be slightly cautious that we do not promote more separateness?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend makes an important point about not being divisive with our curriculum and, indeed, with schools’ ethos in general. The Government have strongly promoted the study of history to the age of 16 by including GCSE history in the English baccalaureate measure for all state-funded secondary schools in England. With the introduction of the EBacc, we have seen entries to history GCSE increase by a third since 2010. The reformed history curriculum includes teaching pupils the core knowledge of our past, enabling pupils to know and understand the history of Britain from its first settlers to the development of the institutions that help to define our national life today. It also sets an expectation that pupils ask perceptive questions, sift arguments and develop perspective and judgment.
The curriculum does not set out how curriculum subjects or topics within the subjects should be taught. We believe that teachers should be able to use their own knowledge and expertise to determine how they teach their pupils and to make choices about what they teach.
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the changes made to the curriculum and the way in which teachers can interpret it to bring alive the points required. Does he agree that there is a huge opportunity in each locality for teachers to work with local civic trusts, local history festivals and so on to develop activities that bring alive some specific items? For example, visiting the Roman wall in Gloucester brings Roman history alive and seeing how the civil war damaged a church gives an idea of what being under siege was like 377 years ago. Such things can be more joined up with encouragement from the Department.
Nick Gibb
I agree with my hon. Friend. I think the gist of what he is saying is, “Please attend the Gloucester history festival, coming soon to a town near you.”
Teachers have freedom over the precise detail, so they can teach lessons that are right for their pupils, and they should use teaching materials that suit their own pupils’ needs. At the same time, the teaching of any issue in schools should be consistent with the principles of balance and objectivity, and good history teaching should always include the contribution of black and minority ethnic people to Britain’s history, as well as the study of different countries and cultures around the world. The history curriculum has the flexibility to give teachers the opportunity to teach across the spectrum of themes and eras set out in the curriculum.
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but there is a problem with the approach he describes. Without resourcing, guidance and encouragement from Government, teachers will for very good reasons keep on teaching the content that they have always taught. My 14-year-old daughter is learning the same history that I studied 30 years ago. We will not see progress in this area, and we will not see our children being taught a more rounded, inclusive and truthful version of British history, unless the Government demonstrate some leadership and offer some guidance and resource for teachers to teach new content. That leadership needs to come from the centre.
Nick Gibb
While I take on board the hon. Lady’s important point—in fact, some of the things she said can be applied to other elements of the curriculum—we do believe in autonomy and in trusting professionals. She highlighted in her earlier intervention the proportion of young people taking up the option of studying “Migration, Empires and the People” in the AQA history GCSE, and she was right to point out that it is about one in 10. I expect more and more schools to consider offering that option to their pupils, particularly given the publicity that she and others have given to the issue. She may also be interested to know that the exam board Pearson is currently developing a study option on migration in Britain and, subject to Ofqual approval, it will also provide more choice to schools.
To support that, the curriculum includes a number of examples that could be covered at different stages, drawn from the history of this country and the wider world. Examples include, at key stage 1, teaching about the lives of key figures such as Mary Seacole and Rosa Parks. The key stage 2 curriculum suggests that teachers could explore the Indus valley, ancient Egypt and the Shang dynasty of ancient China as part of teaching on early civilisations. It also calls for study of a non-European society, with examples including Mayan civilisation and Benin in west Africa from 900 to 1300 AD.
At key stage 3, as part of the teaching of the overarching theme of Britain from 1745 to 1901, topics could include Britain’s transatlantic slave trade, its effect and its eventual abolition, and the development of the British empire. Key stage 3 also requires teaching of at least one study of a significant society or issue in world history and its interconnections with other world developments, with examples including Mughal India from 1526 to 1857, China’s Qing dynasty from—as I am sure you know, Madam Deputy Speaker—1644 to 1911 and the USA in the 20th century.
The Department sets out that GCSE history specifications produced by the exam boards should develop and extend pupils’ knowledge and understanding of specified key events, periods and societies in local British and wider world history and of the wide diversity of human experience. The GCSE in history should include at least one British in-depth study and at least one European or wider world in-depth study from the three specified eras. There is significant scope for the teaching of black history within those eras. As I said, two exam boards—OCR and AQA—provide options to study migration in Britain and how this country’s history has been shaped by black and minority ethnic communities in the past.
Many of the issues discussed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and Members intervening on her can be taught in other curriculum subjects. As part of a broad and balanced curriculum, pupils should be taught about different societies and how different groups have contributed to the development of Britain, including the voices and experiences of black and minority ethnic people. Across citizenship, English, PSHE education, arts, music and geography, teachers have opportunities to explore black and minority ethnic history further with their pupils, helping to build understanding and tolerance.
The UK has a tremendous history of standing up for freedom and tolerance around the world, from Magna Carta and Oliver Cromwell’s readmission of the Jews to the Royal Navy’s five-decade campaign against the slave trade, which captured hundreds of slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans. Black and minority ethnic Britons have played a fundamental part in our island’s story, from black Tudors to the Commonwealth soldiers who served with such distinction in two world wars. It is right that our current curriculum ensures that children have the opportunity to learn about them in school. At the same time, schools must be mindful of their duty of political impartiality under the Education Act 1996. Teaching should be inclusive, not divisive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said, and the curriculum must never be co-opted to promote a narrative that is extreme or one-sided.
Polling earlier this summer from Policy Exchange’s history project, chaired by the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, found that 69% of people rightly believed that UK history as a whole was something to be proud of, while only 17% thought it was something to be ashamed of. Similarly, large majorities were found to be in support of retaining statues of our great heroes, such as Sir Winston Churchill and Admiral Nelson, as well as national memorials such as the Cenotaph. As the Prime Minister has said, we should not be embarrassed about our history, and we should celebrate and honour it. At the same time, we should celebrate the voices of those who may not have been heard as strongly in the past.
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I just want to ask him, as I asked the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), whether he will meet a group of young people from my constituency who are campaigning on this issue and are desperately keen to have a conversation with him about their own experiences and why this is so important. They want every young person in this country to be proud of the contribution that their communities of heritage played in the history of this country, but that content is so often absent. Will he meet them?
Nick Gibb
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, at the moment we are in the middle of a covid crisis: we are focused on tackling the issues of GCSEs and A-levels, the autumn season and next year’s summer exams, making sure that schools are reopened safely—getting people back into school, back into study and back into catching up on lost education—and all the other issues that relate to tackling the covid crisis that is confronting this country and the Government. Department officials have actually, though, discussed black issues with a number of organisations, and we do welcome the profile given to the importance of teaching about the contribution of black and minority ethnic people to Britain’s history by bodies such as the Runnymede Trust, The Black Curriculum, Fill in the Blanks, and many other groups and individuals over the years.
On tackling discrimination and intolerance in our schools, I first want to say that there is no place for racial inequality in our society or in our education system. The Department for Education is committed to an inclusive education system that recognises and embraces diversity and supports all pupils and students to tackle racism and have the knowledge and tools to do so. We are funding several anti-bullying programmes that encompass tackling discriminatory bullying—for example, the Anne Frank Trust’s Free To Be programme, which encourages young people to think about the importance of tackling prejudice, discrimination and bullying. Our preventing and tackling bullying guidance sets out that schools should develop a consistent approach to monitoring bullying incidents and evaluating the effectiveness of their approaches. It also points schools to organisations that can provide support with tackling bullying related to race, religion and nationality.
In addition, effective holocaust education supports pupils to learn about the possible consequences of antisemitism and other forms of racism and extremism and to help reduce the spread of antisemitism and religious intolerance. The Department supports schools’, pupils’ and teachers’ understanding of the holocaust by providing funding for the Holocaust Education Trust’s Lessons from Auschwitz project and University College London’s Centre for Holocaust Education. Additionally, in October 2018 the Chancellor announced £1.7 million for a new programme in 2019-20 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by British troops. Within and beyond the national curriculum, schools are required to promote fundamental British values actively, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect for and tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet for raising these important matters. I welcome the opportunity to set out how black history is already supported within and beyond the national curriculum. I am confident that our schools will continue to educate children to become tolerant, culturally and historically knowledgeable citizens who embrace the values of modern Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
What an interesting debate! That is not always the case on the Adjournment.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Chris Elmore |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) | Chris Elmore |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir William Cash (Stone) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) | Chris Elmore |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) | Chris Elmore |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) | Patrick Grady |
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) | Gagan Mohindra |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Maria Caulfield |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Farry (North Down) | Alistair Carmichael |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Theo Clarke |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) | Mark Fletcher |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) | Alistair Carmichael |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Judith Cummins |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Rosie Duffield |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) | Chris Elmore |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Zarah Sultana |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) | Patrick Grady |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) | Chris Elmore |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) | Jacob Young |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) | Chris Elmore |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) | Chris Elmore |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Chris Elmore |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Chris Elmore |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) | Stuart Andrew |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) | Patrick Grady |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) | Charlotte Nichols |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) order 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I thank Members for their attendance. I advise them that this is my first chairing obligation, so please be gentle and I will be kind.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2020.
Thank you, Chair. This is also my first time as a Minister delivering a piece of legislation—a double first.
The draft order will allow the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, or ECITB, to raise and collect a levy from employers in the engineering construction industry. Engineering construction touches our lives daily in unseen but vital ways, powering our homes and offices, providing clean water, processing and producing food, and the production of pharmaceuticals. The industry makes up more than one fifth of the total UK economy. Before covid, it directly supported about 190,000 jobs and was due to expand. It delivers crucial infrastructure that allows us to compete globally and has a key role in moving the country ever closer to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Even without covid’s impact on gas and oil, in which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) would have a keen interest, were he in his place, engineering construction is a changing sector. High-tech skills are being poached by other sectors, the workforce are ageing and technologies are fast changing. That is why the Government announced a £5 billion accelerated investment in infrastructure projects to help fuel—excuse the pun—jobs and economic recovery from covid-19. For my Department, together with the ECITB, it is now more important than ever that we invest in skills and training to bring new talent up through the pipeline, to improve diversity and to retain existing knowledge.
The ECITB was established under the Industrial Training Act 1964—which makes it even older than me— to address the market failure of the sector to provide employee training. It provides targeted training grants to employers to enable workers to access and operate safely on engineering construction sites, to drive up skill levels and to incentivise training that would otherwise not take place. There is a balance to be struck between attracting new people and retaining existing workers.
Post covid, the ECITB swiftly introduced, among other measures, a scheme to help employers retain apprentices and graduates, and a new scholarship for trainees embarking on engineering construction careers. Recently, it has also published a report on transferability of skills, which will become increasingly important as we move from our dependency on fossil fuels to green energy. I am sure that our Scottish neighbours will have a keen interest in that, too.
On the draft order, the ECITB recognises budgetary pressures on small and medium-sized enterprises, which is why exemption thresholds have been retained. Approximately 25% of all establishments in scope of the levy will be exempted from payment and yet still able to access the pot. The levy rate for off-site employees, however, is increasing from 0.14% to 0.33% of an employer’s annual payments to workers for services. That will be phased in over three years.
That increase reflects a substantial growth in demand for training grants for off-site workers. Last year, off-site training took out almost 25% of the levy pot and paid in 13%. The ECITB considers that that demand is likely to increase further still as companies harness opportunities from new technologies and as more work is conducted remotely, such as remote fault diagnostics.
The ECITB has consulted industry on the levy proposals via its consensus process. Consensus consists of two tests: both the majority who pay the levy and in addition those who pay more than half of the levy raised must agree to the proposals. I reassure the Committee that both tests have been met overwhelmingly: 78% of off-site levy payers voted in favour, 66% of Scottish employers were in favour—representing 93% of the Scottish levy raised—and, collectively, 75% of all companies in scope of paying the levy and that together are likely to pay 87% of it voted in favour of the proposals before us.
That support is a testament to the value that the industry attaches to the ECITB and the recognition that there is a long-term skills challenge that can only be addressed through collective action. During the three-year levy period, this order is expected to raise around £80 million, which is to be invested in skills training for the engineering construction industry. In 2018, 99.4% of the levy raised went directly into supporting training.
To conclude, the order will enable the ECITB to continue carrying out its vital training responsibilities, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Thank you very much indeed, Ms Bardell, for calling me to speak; it is a great pleasure to serve under your fledgling chairship. I also congratulate my counterpart, the Minister, on her virgin voyage, and I thank her for setting out the order, as published.
I do not intend to detain the Committee for too long. I am pleased to outline our support for the order, as we have supported it for many years previously. As many hon. Members may remember, when my hon. Friend Gordon Marsden—the previous Member for Blackpool, South—gave his approval to then order in 2017, he said that the ECITB and its associated board, the Construction Industry Training Board
‘have been an excellent example over more than 50 years of bodies in the industry coming together voluntarily to work with Government to make progress.’
—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 March 2017; c. 6.]
I share that assessment.
As Members will be aware, industry boards such as the ECITB were set up in the first place to encourage young people into the industry and to address skills shortages. Given the current economic challenges, which the Minister has just laid out, those needs are greater than ever.
Industry has changed significantly since the initial creation of industry boards back in 1964. Today, engineering construction is often made up of short-term and project work. For that reason in particular, investment in upskilling and retraining is especially vital for both the industry and its workforce. As the Minister said, pre-covid 190,000 people were dependent on engineering construction. The EICTB’s three-year plan outlined that it was consulting on a tier one provider model, including exploring course in a box product and online training courses, and funding a pilot programme for providers to develop and evaluate virtual learning and training solutions. In the light of covid, it would be helpful to know the extent to which those plans have been accelerated since the report was produced.
Since the previous order in 2017, the ECITB’s grants consultation summary report sets out that in 2016-17 30% of the grant expenditure went to management and professional training, 18% went to apprenticeships and 15% to technical training. The consultation and the truly overwhelming support within the industry for a levy on itself were a recognition that the levy was an investment not only in the staff of particular companies but in the entire industry’s future pipeline of workers. That is a really positive sign and a really positive development.
I also welcome the £4.5 million scheme announced in June by the ECITB to support the retention and development of key skills in the industry, in particular its new scholarships to support trainees embarking on an engineering construction career. I am interested to know whether the Minister feels that that scheme is enough currently, whether she feels confident that all of that money will be spent, and whether she thinks there will be a need for further investment to encourage more apprenticeships and training schemes for young people in the light of the huge drop-off in apprenticeships that we have seen in recent months.
In its recent three-year plan, the ECITB set out its commitment to a graduate programme, which is very welcome. However, it would be useful to know how the most disadvantaged young people will be encouraged into the industry, so I have a number of other questions that I hope the Minister can respond to.
Have the relevant devolved Administrations been consulted about this order? The Minister mentioned the hon. Member for Midlothian—I would be interested in any communications with the devolved Administrations and whether any specific issues have been raised about those markets. Have the plans and the proposals changed or been updated at all following the advent of covid, and has there been any assessment of whether they need to be?
I was very pleased to read that £500,000 will be made available from the grant scheme for diversity and inclusion training for managers, and interventions to support under-represented groups. What key performance indicators will monitor the impact of those programmes to encourage women, black, Asian and minority ethnic and disadvantaged or under-represented groups into the industry?
Given the impact of covid on employers, has consideration been given to whether there should be the option of a staggered levy, paid over the course of the year rather than in one instalment and with one month to pay? How will the Department for Education levy be used to support the training and development of staff working for smaller firms as well as of those working for larger ones? The Minister will be aware that, although only 18% of the levy in 2016-17 went towards apprenticeships, 54% of respondents to the survey believed that apprenticeships were the most valuable component of the levy expenditure, so does she have any plans to ensure that more of the levy is spent on apprenticeships?
I welcome the commitment from the ECITB in its three-year plan to equip the industry with skills to ensure that relevant sectors are able to deliver the net zero carbon economy by 2050. Does the Minister believe that we are on target? Should we be being more ambitious? In the light of covid, does she have any reservations about our capacity to achieve that? Is there an argument for greater accountability of the ECITB going forward? How does the DFE monitor and evaluate its aims and objectives, and to what extent does she feel that it is a successful model?
We welcome this fine example of a trade body being willing to invest in the skills of the future. Its recognition of their value is far-sighted and reflects well on the industry and its members, particularly given the financial pressures that have been brought to bear on the sector. Although I await with interest the Minister’s responses to my questions, I also look forward to supporting this very worthy initiative.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Before I turn to his questions, I reiterate the important strategic role that the engineering construction industry has to play in the economy as the country responds to and recovers from the impact of covid-19. There can be no doubt about how reliant we are on a skilled engineering construction workforce.
The hon. Gentleman asked how we will evolve training. A number of conversations have been had about modular training, and enabling people working in one sector, such as oil and gas, to use and transfer their skills into other sectors, such as renewables and renewable energy. The ECITB is very much focused, along with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, on looking at how we can facilitate that transfer of skills and move into green jobs, so the skills in a box—the ability to have more modular upskilling capability to enable our green jobs revolution—is very much at the heart of our strategy.
Apprenticeships are absolutely key to the way that the industry goes about training its young people. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Department has introduced traineeships that are also being considered as pre-apprenticeships, to enable even more people to build the pipeline. There are 132 apprenticeship standards, so the Department and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education have done a lot of work to ensure that we support the sector, and a broad range of apprenticeship standards are in place.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned diversity and the ability of those with special educational needs and any sorts of disabilities to access the sector. Equality and diversity within the industry is a challenge, and the industry knows that, and knows that it needs to encourage greater diversity among the engineering construction workforce, particularly by increasing female and BAME representation. The ECITB has recognised that it has a key role to play in that. The levy enables initiatives that are aimed at attracting a diverse pool of new entrants to the industry and promoting careers and training in engineering and construction post 16.
The ECITB is working with partners such as the Women’s Engineering Society and EqualEngineers to raise awareness and showcase diversity in action through public relations activities and campaigns. The ECITB has a female chair and four of the 12 board members are women, which also shows good progress. As is typical with all courses offered by the DFE, further education providers and independent training and apprenticeship providers, it is vital that all those providers make sure that their courses are accessible to anybody with special educational needs. Much more effort is being made to focus on that to make sure that accessibility results in more people with disabilities having opportunities in this field.
On overview, a strategy and business plan takes account of what will happen in the three years and how we will facilitate the move to green jobs to facilitate net zero carbon economy and to attract young people, who are probably much more attracted by an industry that has renewables and green jobs than perhaps they would be by an old oil and gas sector, so that is a way to make sure we have a solid pipeline of workers. I have oversight of the strategy and business plan, and I also conduct an annual performance appraisal of the chair of the ECITB. In fact, I completed that just last week. The ECITB is doing a good job, which is borne out by the fact that so many employers still support its overall purpose and aim, and many of the board members are key leaders in the sector.
The ECITB levy is ring-fenced for activities such as training new staff in many different ways or developing the skills of the existing engineering construction workforce. The majority of the engineering construction training would be unlikely to take place without that, and without such investment we would not have the skilled workers that we need and we would not be able to deliver infrastructure projects. Most of that is project-based work which will form part of the country’s recovery as well as support the transition to greener, sustainable energies linked to decarbonisation. That strategy continues to represent the collective view of employers in the engineering construction industry. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman and his Labour party colleagues also support that policy, because it is right that engineering construction industry training should be funded through a statutory levy system in order to secure a sufficient pool of skilled and talented labour. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020.
It is a real pleasure to open this short debate, I hope, with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. The Order in Council, which was laid before the House on 13 July 2020 in draft under the Climate Change Act 2008, establishes a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading system—a UK ETS—as a policy replacement for our participation in the EU emissions trading system. The UK will cease to participate in the EU ETS at the end of the transition period at the end of the year as a consequence, obviously, of our withdrawal from the EU.
This stand-alone UK ETS, as some people refer to it, has been agreed by the four Governments of the UK nations, and those positions are set out in the Government’s response to the future of carbon pricing consultation, published on 1 June this year. Further secondary legislation will be introduced later this year that will introduce additional elements to the UK ETS. We have drawn on the best of the current system, which the UK, as everyone knows, was instrumental in developing, and we have made a number of improvements where possible to ensure greater flexibility to work in the interests of the UK and the global fight against climate change.
Given the importance of our net zero commitments, we will consult next year on what an appropriate development for the UK ETS cap is for the remainder of the first phase, once the Committee on Climate Change’s advice on the sixth carbon budget is published. We expect that to be published later this year. Reducing emissions while supporting UK business is central to my Department’s mission. We think that this is exactly the right way to go, and we always like to remind people that over the past 30 years our emissions have gone down by 45% while the UK economy has grown by 75%. It is absolutely the case that reducing carbon emissions is not really the enemy of economic development but can work very well with it.
The draft Order in Council establishes a UK ETS, as I have said, that will be operational from 1 January 2021. It establishes the scope of the UK ETS, which includes energy-intensive industries, the electricity generation sector and aviation, and it establishes a cap on allowances created under the UK ETS each year. That is a crucial point. The initial level of the cap will be 5% below what would have been the case had we stayed in the EU ETS. That means that the standard that we are establishing is more stringent in terms of carbon emissions than would have been the case had we stayed in the EU ETS.
The Order in Council also establishes a scheme for monitoring, reporting and verification requirements. The UK ETS clearly offers participants a robust and proportionate enforcement system, and it will establish and define the roles of national regulators in monitoring and enforcing the scheme. Finally, the order will establish a post-transition period carbon pricing policy for the UK. We want to encourage the best means of reducing carbon emissions and we feel that that is obviously central to the net zero target that we enshrined in law last year. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. The matter that we are discussing this morning is important, and although, for reasons that I will come to, the Opposition support the establishment of a UK-wide emissions scheme and consequently do not intend to press the order to a Division, I hope that Committee members will forgive me if I spend a short time setting out a series of questions that I hope the Minister will be in a position to answer.
We know that carbon pricing alone will not deliver sufficient decarbonisation to achieve the net zero emissions target that we legislated for just over a year ago, but if we are to deliver significant reductions it is essential that the UK has a robust carbon price, however that is achieved, at the point that our participation in the EU ETS ceases at the end of the transition period on 31 December. Given the circumstances in which we find ourselves, the Opposition’s clear preference is for a UK ETS that is linked to the EU ETS. That latter option would retain for the country the key benefits that flowed from participation in the latter, with its larger pool of participants, including more opportunities for emissions reduction, greater cost-efficiencies, increased liquidity and a lower risk of market abuse.
We therefore support the order on the basis that a UK ETS is a precondition for a linked UK-EU scheme and recognise that, given the uncertainties around the ongoing negotiations with the EU, it is important that the legislation that will establish it is completed before the end of the transition period. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some further clarity regarding the Government’s present position on the possible future link between the UK ETS, to be established via the order, and the EU ETS.
In the May 2019 consultation document on the future of UK carbon pricing, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations stated clearly that securing a linking agreement with the EU was their preferred option. In contrast, the explanatory memorandum to the order merely states that the UK Government are
“open to considering a link…if such a linking agreement…is in both sides’ interests”.
I obviously do not expect the Minister to comment on the ongoing negotiations, but I would be grateful if he could clarify that a UK ETS link to the EU ETS remains the Government’s preferred option, and that they are still actively seeking to secure it as part of the negotiations.
The Opposition hope that a linked agreement is successfully negotiated, but there is obviously a chance that that is not the case, or at least that no agreement is secured for some time following the end of the transition period. In those circumstances, in order to avoid a carbon pricing gap, the Government have made it clear that we would have to fall back on either the UK ETS that the order facilitates, but as a stand-alone system, as the Minister made clear, or a carbon emissions tax from 1 January 2021.
Both options are, I think, sub-optimal compared with the option of a UK ETS linked to the EU ETS, and both, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, are potentially problematic. The management of a stand-alone UK ETS will require a significant amount of Government intervention on the part of his Department, and even then risks being dysfunctional, with a highly volatile price plagued by low levels of liquidity and high levels of speculation.
In contrast, a carbon emissions tax provides certainty of price, but may be less cost-effective for business, more open to political interventions that risk undermining price stability and, because there is obviously no cap on total emissions, would require institutional safeguards to ensure that prices remain consistent with the UK’s net zero target. Some of those problems may be overcome by good policy design, but the workings of either scheme are not the focus of this morning’s discussion.
I am concerned about certainty for those covered by the arrangement. With just 16 weeks until the transition period ends, surely the Minister recognises that the emitters covered by either scheme require some certainty about which of those two options the Government will ultimately opt for as a fall-back if no linking agreement is in place on 1 January next year. That choice is not subject in any way to the negotiations taking place with the EU.
We have been asked to pass today’s order and will, one presumes, be asked to pass a similar order for those aspects of the carbon emissions tax yet to be legislated because the Government have not been able to resolve internally which of the two is their fall-back preference, and have therefore been forced to ask Parliament to authorise both options in advance of a decision. We know that officials at the Minister’s Department and at the Treasury have failed to reach agreement, but he should at least be able to tell the Committee when a decision will finally be made on what the preferred fall-back option is if the Government fail to negotiate a linked UK-EU ETS, ready to go in 16 weeks’ time, so that those affected can properly plan for what comes next. I hope that he can shed some light on those aspects.
Before I bring my remarks to a close, I have two technical questions about the UK ETS, which is the subject of the order, and I hope that the Minister might be able to shed some light on the Government’s thinking on both of them. First, he must surely accept that the proposed initial cap, which I concede is set 5% below the UK’s notional share of the EU ETS, is wholly inadequate as a tool for reducing emissions. UK emissions last year in sectors covered by the EU ETS stood at 129 megatonnes and are predicted to fall further next year. The allowance cap that the Government propose for a UK ETS through the order is 156 megatonnnes—well above that level.
I note the Government’s arguments about the impact of the pandemic and the economic emergency in predicting future emissions as well as the need to minimise the risk associated with the transition, but the arguments for that amount of proposed headroom are far from robust. Will the Minister explain why it was determined that the scheme’s starting point should not be the latest data on UK emissions in the traded sector, particularly given that the market stability mechanisms, which the Government argue will support the price, will not function in the first year of the UK stand-alone ETS?
Secondly, we of course agree with the Government that the cap should be tightened in line with a trajectory consistent with a net zero target and the Committee on Climate Change’s advice on the sixth carbon budget. We also appreciate that the market needs appropriate forewarning and that industry should have enough notice to prepare for that. However, given how important ambitious climate action is in this decade, as the Minister knows, why will it take until at least January 2023, and potentially until 2024, for that alignment to take place?
The Opposition support the establishment of a UK-wide emissions scheme as a necessary contingency, but I cannot stress enough to the Minister that, as he knows, we cannot have a dysfunctional carbon pricing system in place in the year we are to host COP26. The challenge of designing a watertight stand-alone UK ETS should be a spur to the Government’s efforts to negotiate a link-in agreement with the EU system as soon as possible.
Kwasi Kwarteng
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, he will know that in the past the Government consistently said that our primary objective was to get a UK ETS linked, as he described, with the EU ETS. However, he also knows, as he mentioned, that that is a subject of ongoing negotiation and discussion between our negotiators and the EU. Should there fail to be an agreement, this is our fall-back position.
In terms of a carbon tax and a UK ETS stand-alone scheme, we are talking to the devolved Governments all the time and it would be premature for me to say here what the outcome of those discussions will be. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Treasury is also involved in the discussions. I can shed no further light on that.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s technical questions, yes, he can say that the proposed target, even though it is 5% more stringent than if we had stayed in the EU ETS, is not going far enough, but we have said specifically that once the cap is established we will consult on tightening it. We have also said, very specifically, that we will wait for what the Committee on Climate Change says about the sixth carbon budget. When that happens, we can have a further discussion and look at the cap again. As I have said, this is bridging legislation, trying to smooth our ETS and carbon emissions policy as we exit the EU. Clearly, once we have more information, particularly from the CCC about the sixth carbon budget, we can look at the cap again and, I am sure, make it even more stringent.
Alongside the UK ETS, the Government have a range of ambitious policies that will help industry reduce costs and decarbonise. Of course, in the midst of the covid-19 crisis, we are very focused, as many hon. Members know, on the green recovery. These schemes, along with this Order in Council, will maintain that we have an effective carbon pricing policy. With the EU ETS having covered about a third of UK emissions between 2013 and 2020, carbon pricing is, as the hon. Gentleman suggested a key tool. It is not the only way in which we will deal with carbon emissions, but it is a key tool in the fight against climate change. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 8th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2020 - (8 Sep 2020)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairs: † Steve McCabe, Sir Charles Walker
† Bonnar, Steven (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
† Bowie, Andrew (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
† Butler, Rob (Aylesbury) (Con)
† Coutinho, Claire (East Surrey) (Con)
† Duffield, Rosie (Canterbury) (Lab)
† Fletcher, Katherine (South Ribble) (Con)
† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
† Morris, James (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† O'Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
† Owatemi, Taiwo (Coventry North West) (Lab)
† Peacock, Stephanie (Barnsley East) (Lab)
† Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
† Prentis, Victoria (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
† Smith, Cat (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
† Wild, James (North West Norfolk) (Con)
† Young, Jacob (Redcar) (Con)
Rob Page, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Tuesday 8 September 2020
(Morning)
[Steve McCabe in the Chair]
Fisheries Bill [Lords]
The Chair
Good morning. I will make the usual preliminary points. We have been asked to be fairly strict about social distancing, so I ask you to bear that in mind. If you find that you are bit constrained on one side of the room, people are allowed to sit where there is space; it will not affect your vote or anything like that. I also ask you to switch your phones and electronic devices to silent. Mr Speaker does not permit tea, coffee or other drinks to be consumed during the sitting.
We shall start with the programme motion, which was agreed at the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 8 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 September;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 September;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 17 September;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 11; Schedule 1; Clauses 12 and 13; Schedule 2; Clauses 14 to 19; Schedule 3; Clauses 20 to 23; Schedule 4; Clauses 24 to 29; Schedule 5; Clauses 30 to 35; Schedule 6; Clause 36; Schedule 7; Clauses 37 to 44; Schedule 8; Clauses 45 and 46; Schedule 9; Clause 47; Schedule 10; Clauses 48 to 54; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 17 September.—(Victoria Prentis.)
The Chair
We are off to a flyer. We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for the sitting is available in the room; it shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together. Amendments on the same or a similar issue are generally grouped together, but please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated—I know this occasionally confuses all of us—but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects.
Clause 1
Fisheries Objectives
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) Any public authority with functions relating to fisheries activities or fisheries management must have regard to the fisheries objectives in the exercise of those functions.”
This amendment would place a duty on public authorities to have regard to the fisheries objectives in exercising their fisheries functions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 62, in clause 2, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must annually lay a statement before Parliament on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
(3B) The first such statement under subsection (3A) must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of this section coming into force.”
This amendment would add a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual statement on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
Luke Pollard
It is good to be back in the Fisheries Bill Committee. A few of us in the room—the hardy few—are alumni of the last time that we had a sitting of the Bill Committee, which was a good debate. We have a Committee that is made up of all political parties and is focused on getting the best deal for our fishers, which is what the Opposition seek to do by proposing a number of amendments that look at how we strengthen our fishing sector, how we make it more sustainable, and how we do so clearly. I know there has been a lot of misdirection around positions on fishing in the past, especially after the Second Reading debate. However, I trust that there will not be any further misdirection by political parties’ press offices, especially the ones responsible for the rather shameful adverts that we saw after Second Reading.
Labour supports the Bill. We support it because we want our fishers to have a sustainable future. We want to see a coastal renaissance that creates more jobs in fishing, lands more fish in British ports and enables us to eat more local fish. It is in that spirit that we have tabled a number of amendments. Amendments 61 and 62 stand in my name and that of the shadow Fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East. A lot has changed in the past two years, but I hope that we can make some real progress and get a good deal, because time to get a good deal for our fishers is running out, with the hard deadline for our departure from the Brexit transition period the end of the year.
Clause 1 sets the tone for the entire Bill, highlighting the objectives—what they are, and how they will be put into practice—but it also sets the tone for the next 50 years of fishing in Britain. If we get this right, we have the opportunity to create more jobs and that coastal renaissance, but we will need amendments to the Bill to get there. That is the simple challenge that I put to members of this Committee. How sustainable do we want our industry to be—indeed, do we want it to be sustainable or not? Our amendments show clearly that we want fishing to be more sustainable, because there is no future for fishing if it is not sustainable. Sadly, that is not implied by the Government amendments.
The amendments in the House of Lords that made sustainability the prime consideration of fisheries management were a really important statement. It said that Britain will not be overfishing, that Britain values our fish stocks, and that we will support our industry so that it has a sustainable future. Those Lords amendments were a beacon of sustainability and good environmental practice, and we should defend that in this Committee.
I am pleased that the Government took the time to consider the amendments proposed by Labour the last time that this Bill was discussed—indeed, a large number of those amendments have now been made and they will be defended by the Government. I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for listening to our arguments, if not at the time then subsequently, and for accepting those amendments. But when it comes to sustainability, we need to recognise that more needs to be done.
Fishermen and women are some of the original stewards of our environment. Many of those I have spoken to in Plymouth, which I represent, and in fishing ports across the country know how important it is that fishing is sustainable, that we protect our ecosystems. We must recognise the impact climate change is having on fish stocks and reproduction rates, on the zones where certain species are found, and on the growth of certain species in some fishing areas and the decline of species in other areas.
We have these objectives for the Bill, but the Bill does not explain what will be done about them and how they will be achieved. What is the point of having these objectives that we have all worked so hard on if they are not going to be achieved? Our amendments are very simple. Amendment 61 would oblige any public body that has functions relating to fishing to have regard to the objectives, instantly giving them a practical aspect. There is already a requirement in the Bill for a report to be made, but we should give the Bill some teeth by ensuring that the report is presented to Parliament, as amendment 62 sets out. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East will say more on this when we discuss clause 2.
Both amendments relate to the important idea that fisheries must be our key consideration. Why would anyone not support amendment 61? If Members do not support this amendment, they do not want public bodies to pay due regard to these objectives.
The Chair
Mr Pollard, I am sorry to interrupt you, but I just want to be sure that we have all understood that amendment 62 is also being discussed now.
Luke Pollard
Yes, Mr McCabe. I am still on amendment 61. I beg your pardon; I will get to amendment 62 in just a moment.
Amendment 61 would ensure that public bodies—national Governments, regulatory bodies, science bodies and, in relation to funding arrangements, bodies of the Government that allocate funding to our coastal communities—have due regard for the objectives. If they are not to have due regard for them, why are they there at all? Why have a sustainability or ecosystem objective, or a bycatch objective, if they are just to create lines in the Bill and are not an important part of it?
Turning hurriedly to amendment 62, Mr McCabe, the important part of laying the statement before Parliament is that we want the opportunity to discuss it on an annual basis. In the previous Bill Committee, the transcripts of which I am sure the Minister has read thoroughly, there was a good debate about the frequency with which the Government should report to Parliament. Historically, we had the annual fisheries debate in Westminster, which was designed to strengthen the hand of the Fisheries Minister ahead of the December Fisheries Council, to set out clearly for them the concerns of our fishing sector and coastal communities, and to ensure that they would fight the corner of the species and sectors that were most at risk. However, the annual fisheries debate has become slightly less frequent, and it has moved around because of the frequency of fisheries Bills. Having an annual report laid before Parliament and therefore discussed by parliamentarians is the key part of amendment 62 that would allow us to look at what progress has been achieved towards the objectives. Amendment 61 states that people must have due regard in the exercise of public functions, and amendment 62 states that there must be decent scrutiny of the progress towards those objectives. Both are important starting points for the Bill. Both set the tone, which is that sustainability must be the prime consideration.
Although there is good, sound logic to say that all the objectives are equal, there is one simple truth: if we overfish our seas, there will not be enough fish left for a fishing industry to exist. That is why sustainability has to be the prime consideration. I want jobs in our coastal communities to continue. That is the argument that Labour Members present. We need to make sure we manage our fish stocks at sustainable levels, that we do not set total allowable catches above maximum sustainable yields, and that we ensure that sustainability is the prime consideration at all times. For that to take place, we need to make sure that all public bodies have due regard to the objectives set out in the Bill. I know that the Minister and her officials have worked very hard on those objectives and will make further proposals to improve them shortly, but what is the point of all the work that has gone into those provisions if no regard is paid to them?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and to speak to this important Bill. I hear what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport says about Labour’s support for the Bill, and I am grateful for the genuinely consensual way in which Labour and Conservative Members normally work on fisheries. Those negotiating on our behalf with the EU hear how this House speaks as one on fisheries, as we did very strongly on Second Reading. We are all determined to get the very best for our fishermen.
It is fair to say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the previous Committee worked hard to improve the Bill. Those improvements and those made in the other place are reflected in the Bill before us today. I am grateful to all the people who worked so hard to bring it to its current incarnation.
The blanket requirement that amendment 61 would place on all authorities is not appropriate. It is for the fisheries administrations to determine appropriate policies for meeting the objectives set out in the Bill. Public authorities already have relevant duties under a vast amount of other legislation. A statutory body’s objectives and duties will be set out in primary legislation. Inshore fisheries conservation authorities already have a duty under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to seek to ensure that the,
“exploitation of sea fisheries resources”,
is carried out in a sustainable way. Under that Act, the Secretary of State may give guidance to an IFCA on how it performs the duty, and the IFCA must of course have regard to such guidance. I am worried that the amendment could dilute the accountability of fisheries policy authorities, as clearly established in the Bill, by dividing responsibility for the objectives more broadly across a wide range of public authorities, which might lead to divergent approaches.
A similar argument applies to amendment 62. The Bill already contains a robust framework of reporting and review requirements that will provide sufficient information to inform and drive progress against the fisheries objectives. Clause 11(1) states that the fisheries policy authorities must, every three years, prepare and publish a report on the extent to which the policies set out have been implemented. Clause 11(2) requires the report under subsection (1) to include the extent to which the policies contained in a relevant fisheries management plan have been implemented and how they have affected stocks.
Bearing in mind the number of objectives, we strongly believe that an annual reporting requirement would place a disproportionate burden on fisheries managers and the industry for not a great deal of gain. Not enough would have changed in a year, and the report might have little value. It would divert needed resource away from direct fisheries management, reduce the authorities’ ability to move towards co-management with the industry, and potentially hamper the deliverability of the eight objectives.
There is of course nothing to prevent a parliamentary debate—a Government debate, an Opposition day debate or a Back-Bench debate—from taking place if that were considered appropriate as an annual event, or more frequently. I for one am always happy to talk about fisheries policies in Parliament and I am sure that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is, too. However, that does not change my view of this amendment, and I therefore ask him to withdraw it.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I hear what the Minister says about how we have all sorts of options, including as Back Benchers. Is not the point, though, that we can have lots of debates on this issue but they are not legally binding and will not compel the Government? It is just nice for us to talk about it. The point that the amendment is making is about the need for a legal requirement for the Government to follow.
Victoria Prentis
For the reasons that I have set out, I believe that the reporting requirements that need to be legally binding and are in the Bill are more than sufficient, but I am not in any way denigrating the idea that we might want to talk about fisheries far more often.
Luke Pollard
I am a big fan of having votes on these proposals and putting Labour’s positions clearly, but on this amendment, I have listened to what the Minister has said and I am happy not to push it to a vote. I like the commitment that the Minister has given to good scrutiny of fisheries policy in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“(i) the public asset objective;
(j) the safety and workforce objective.”
This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the “public asset” and “safety and workforce” objectives, defined in Amendment 72.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 72, in clause 1, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(10A) The “public asset objective” is to manage fisheries, and the rights to exploit those fisheries, as a shared resource and public asset held in stewardship for the public good.”
(10B) The “safety and workforce objective” is—
(a) to protect and enhance the safety of workers in fishing activities,
(b) to set and protect minimum standards for wages, terms and conditions of employment in fishing activities,
(c) to prevent modern slavery in fishing activities, and
(d) to ensure the application and enforcement of the national minimum wage by HMRC on fishing vessels within the United Kingdom’s Exclusive Economic Zone.”
This amendment defines the “public asset” and “safety and workforce” objectives.
Luke Pollard
For future reference, Mr McCabe, I will be dealing with all the amendments to the first clause.
In amendments 71 and 72, Labour is suggesting that we add two further objectives: a public asset objective and a safety and workforce objective. Each is important, but the safety one is particularly so. I know that there is a good amount of cross-party support for it, and I wish to ensure that that matter is kept separate from the cut and thrust of other political debates around fishing.
I have already spoken about why strengthening the objectives is important, but if we are truly to back our fishers, we need to go further. That is why Labour proposes two new objectives. The public asset objective would deliver on the pledge in the Government’s original fisheries White Paper:
“We aim to manage these fisheries—and the wider marine environment—as a shared resource, a public asset held in stewardship for the benefit of all.”
That aim has cross-party support, but it seems to have got lost somewhere along the way between the White Paper and the Bill. In addition, the Conservative manifesto for the recent general election said:
“British farmers and fishermen should be able to profit by producing food and fish that are the envy of the world—both for their quality and the high standards to which they were produced…we want those same farmers and fishermen to act as the stewards of the natural world, preserving the UK’s countryside and oceans as they have for generations.”
It is important that we recognise that our oceans are the inheritance of us all, and their fishers need to be their protectors but also their stewards along the way.
Listing fish as a public good in this Bill would allow us to say definitively that fish should be allocated for the benefit of the whole country. Ministers have not set that out clearly enough in the Bill. This is an important point, because this is where UK fisheries management has diverged from the management of fisheries of our European friends during the time when the UK has been in the common fisheries policy. Many of our European friends regard quota as a permission to fish that is allocated by fisheries authorities. The UK has—somewhat confusingly—allocated quota as a property right. That is a very important distinction, because a permission to fish can be based on the policies of the day, the practice, the stock levels, and the greater understanding that the permission to fish is attached to the good that the quota delivers for the country. A property right of quota is a different beast altogether. I appreciate that—as the Minister will know—some of that definition is a result of court cases and not of primary legislation alone, which is why the Fisheries Bill provides us with an opportunity to clarify the intent of Parliament on the ownership of quota.
If we have quota as a property right, we will experience what we have seen in the past few decades: the aggregation of quota by increasingly larger firms. Much of the quota—up to 50%—is owned by families on the Sunday Times rich list. Much of our quota is owned by foreign fishing interests that may have a brass-plate company in the UK or whose fishers fly a flag of convenience. I believe that one of the promises made to the people during the Brexit referendum was a greater connection between the fish in our waters and the benefit to our country. That is why a public asset objective is an important test, because it states that the fish caught in our waters should deliver an economic benefit to the country.
As Government Members know, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, the Minister for Rural Affairs and Biosecurity, set out in the other place that the national benefit objective
“seeks to ensure that a benefit to the UK is felt as a result of UK boats fishing stocks from UK waters”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 February 2020; Vol. 801, c. 2168.]
I am sure that Members will agree that a vague promise of a benefit somewhere along the line is not the same as acknowledging that our fish stocks are a public asset and should benefit us all. That specificity is important. I encourage the Minister to accept the amendment so that there can be no doubt, obfuscation or sleight of hand in policy—particularly in the coming days—from this or any subsequent Government, about fish being a public good and benefits being shared by the nation.
If Parliament were able to make that really important statement, it would support not only the redistribution of quota, but the rebirth of fishing in many of our coastal communities. That would also mean that those who own quota under UK law—rather than simply having permission to fish—have a greater responsibility to fish in accordance with objectives based not just on their fishing licence, but on permissions granted by Government.
Unfortunately, we have not had an evidence session because the Bill started in the House of Lords. That process could do with updating, because Members should have had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill earlier with expert advice. In the evidence session for the last iteration of the Fisheries Bill, we heard from Griffin Carpenter, an economist at the New Economics Foundation. He said:
“When I have spoken to stakeholders, even the quota holders, everyone starts from the same premise that fish is a public good, but from my perspective that has not been followed through in the way we treat the opportunity to fish that public good.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 06 December 2018; c. 104, Q200.]
Members on both sides of the Committee will no doubt have had contact with Aaron Brown from Fishing for Leave. He and I disagree on much, but there was a point of agreement when he said:
“Fish always has been a public resource. Various judicial hearings have defined that as well. Indeed, it probably stretches all the way back into Magna Carta, right back through our constitution.”––[Official Report, Fisheries Public Bill Committee, 04 December 2018; c. 62, Q134.]
I do not have a copy of the Magna Carta with me, but the fundamental point was a sound one. I see the Minister reaching for her phone; if she is googling the passage about fish in the Magna Carta, I look forward to her response.
The key point is that fish should be a public asset. We should make the case for the fish in our waters to be caught, looked after and cared for to the benefit of our whole country. There is a subtle but important distinction between a permission to fish, which is the method of implementation of the common fisheries policy that our EU friends largely enjoy, and the quota aggregation used in the UK, where quota is owned, especially by the richest and, in many cases, by foreign-owned fishing companies. The Minister may disagree with that form of words and claim that it is not necessary, but it is certainly desirable.
We should ensure that the Bill and all fishers who are governed by it have a sense of the Government’s priorities. Having fishing as a public asset should be high in the Government’s and the Bill’s key priorities. It is fine to mention it in statements, which we will come to in due course, but being clear that fish are a public asset should be on the face of the Bill in the objectives. That is what our fishing communities want. If fishing is not a public asset and if quota is not a public asset, one might be challenged to question what will change if our exit from the common fisheries policy keeps the current ownership models of quota in place.
I said that I would try to keep the two objectives separate and I will now turn to the safety and workforce objective. I hope the Committee will understand that this has a special importance for me. Since being elected in 2017, we have lost two trawlers from Plymouth, with a loss of life on both. I therefore take safety measures for fishing very seriously. I am grateful to the Minister and to the previous maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who have done an enormous amount to support fishing safety and, in particular, have listened to the campaigns of coastal communities, including the Labour council in Plymouth in supporting our lifejacket scheme—I will return to some elements of that later.
Labour’s safety and workforce objective amendment recognises that fishing is a dangerous career—it is a dangerous profession. Each year, we lose British fishers to the sea. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State was right to pay tribute to the six fishers who died, and I joined him in paying our respects. It is our duty to do everything we can to stop more deaths this year and next. A number of things need to happen to address marine safety. The rules and regulations need to be better and more appropriate to the methods of fishing today. We need better enforcement by authorities and better adoption of those standards and best practice by the industry. There is a job for everyone to improve safety.
We should demand higher safety standards, including wearing lifejackets and personal locator beacons—I suspect we will return to that later. I would like every UK fisher, and every fisher in UK waters, to wear a lifejacket with a personal locator beacon. Of the opportunities to change the regulatory environment for fishing in our waters that the Minister set out on Second Reading, one of the key ones we should insist on is high safety standards. We want every fisher, when they leave their port to go fishing, to be able to return to their families afterwards. As we have seen to our cost, that has not happened on several occasions, both in the case of British fishers and fishers around the world, including foreign fishers fishing in UK waters.
There seems to be universal agreement that personal locater beacons attached to lifejackets are a good thing. We know to our cost that many fishers are not yet attaching personal local beacons or taking them with them. I know the Minister will be aware of concerns over the summer from Seafish about advice given to the fishing industry that suggested modifying lifejackets and PLBs, rather than having the original manufacturers’ products or ones that have been through safety tests. I know that we will liaise with the Minister in correspondence about that, because it is important that Seafish gives accurate advice that keeps fishers safe and there is concern around that. That is one reason why the safety and workforce objective is so important.
I have majored on safety, but the workforce objective, which amendment 72 covers, also includes provision to prevent modern slavery in fisheries activities. Modern slavery is a scourge that affects nearly every sector of the British economy in some shape or form. We should not be blind to the fact that modern slavery exists in our fishing sector. We have seen examples of it and it is especially concerning. Again, the Bill gives us an opportunity to send a signal to the sector that modern slavery will not be accepted and will be specifically addressed in its objectives. That is why amendment 72 includes the provision in proposed new subsection (10B)(c)
“to prevent modern slavery in fishing activities”.
Proposed new subsection (10B)(d) refers to a further activity in relation to workforce to ensure a national minimum wage is paid to fishers who fish in our waters.
Without delving into the complexities of maritime law too much, for fear of boring everyone to death, it is fair to summarise that not everyone who is on the sea is paid a national minimum wage. Indeed, one of the key parts of crewing vessels sometimes with foreign crews is that the levels of pay afforded them can be at a lower rate than for British fishers. The House needs to send a message, as we did with the passing of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and subsequent improvements to it, that there is a minimum standard for what we expect fishers to be paid in UK waters.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of fishermen are paid a share of the catch? Therefore they may have a good day or a bad day. Were we to impose national minimum wage objectives, that type of payment system could well be disrupted.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the share fishing that many trawlers go with. I think the point is that there should be a base minimum. That debate on the consequences of a national minimum wage was held in Committee Rooms such as this when nearly all the Members now on the Opposition Benches were at school. The consequence of introducing a national minimum wage in fishing will be that all fishers are paid a basic level. That is especially true for those who are currently paid well below it, not because of a bad day at sea or weather obstructing fishing activity—I believe that that is what the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting—but because of the deliberate pay policy of the fishing organisation in question, to pay below the minimum wage, and in particular to pay foreign crews below the minimum wage.
The signal that the safety and workforce objective would send out in relation to that—although the Minister will no doubt say that subsequent work would be needed to sit behind it—would be a strong message that we expect a certain standard of pay for fishers. As to poverty pay for those fishing at sea, which is a dangerous profession, it would show that we as a newly independent coastal state, to borrow a phrase often used by the Conservative party, will set a high standard. Whether it is a matter of safety or pay, there is a profound case for high standards, especially for the foreign crews who are often paid less, which creates market distortion vis-à-vis the pay for British crews. There is an opportunity to level the playing field and create the basic standards that will say that safety and workforce issues matter. That is why the safety and workforce objective sends a clear message about our intentions.
I suspect that the Minister will disagree with most of what I have said, and I predict she will not want the objective to be in the Bill, but I hope she will be able to set out what measures the Government will take on the issue, recognising that there is a grey zone of responsibility, with safety sitting between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, while the minimum wage sits between that and fisheries.
Mr Goodwill
No one would doubt the importance of health and safety, but there is already an obligation in the Bill, in clause 35(1)(e), to be able to give help, in terms of health and safety funding. I suggest that the amendment is superfluous, given that the issue is covered elsewhere in the Bill.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman highlights a good topic, which I did not touch on, but am happy to, about the optionality of safety. My view and that of the Labour party is that safety should be a minimum standard, not an optional extra. Under the clause 35 financial assistance powers, the Secretary of State has the ability to arrange financial assistance for
“maintaining or improving the health and safety of individuals who are involved in commercial fish or aquaculture activities”.
He has the ability to do that: there is not a minimum standard that insists on it.
If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that clause 35(1)(e), on which we can still table amendments as we have not reached it yet, should be a compulsory measure—that the Secretary of State should ensure that there is always funding to create a minimum standard—I would agree. In the absence of a minimum standard, clause 35(1)(e) solely suggests that the Secretary of State can fund such provision if he or she wishes. That is a very different point from a minimum standard, and that is why it is so important that there should be a safety and workforce objective that establishes at a high level the belief that there should be minimum standards.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in your place, Mr McCabe, as well as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. It is a pleasure to get the band back together, with a few notable extras.
We are absolutely in favour of amendments 71 and 72, and if they are put to a vote we will support them. The public asset objective for our fisheries is hugely important and runs parallel with the Scottish Government’s aim of managing Scottish fisheries as a national asset.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was right to highlight the barriers that have been put in the way of those wishing to join the industry, through the concentration of incredible amounts of quota in the hands of a tiny number of very wealthy individuals. If the fisheries industry is to be a public asset, it has to benefit the public that it should serve. At the moment, it fails to do that.
It is correct that the safety of the workforce has to be paramount. No one in this room with a fishing community in their constituency has not felt the pain of a fishing tragedy. In my own Argyll and Bute constituency we went through something similar a couple of years ago. Every community has a tale to tell. We need to make safety a top priority, as part of the creation of an environment that will encourage more people to join the industry.
Those two issues are closely connected. If we create a safe environment in which young people believe that they can prosper and have a future in the fishing industry, through safety measures and through a change to the quota system, we can make fishing an attractive career of choice. That will help to alleviate a lot of the issues that we currently face in trying to attract people, particularly young people, into the industry.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is correct when he says that the treatment of many non-EU nationals and non-EEA nationals who have worked in the fishing industry has to be looked at, but I would not go so far. From my experience of speaking to local fishermen in my constituency, they tend to be extremely good employers, but there has to be a minimum standard set and a minimum requirement for anyone wishing to employ people, regardless of where they come from, in the fishing industry.
If amendment 71 is pushed to a vote, we will support it as we are in broad agreement with the hon. Gentleman.
Victoria Prentis
I appreciate the intention behind both amendments 71 and 72. However, as anticipated by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I feel that the law is already clear on both those points. I do not think it is necessary to amend the Bill in this way and I will go into some detail about why that it is.
As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport gets to know me better, he will learn that I am never happier than when discussing older laws. My personal university and legal background make the Magna Carta a fascinating document to me—indeed, I was discussing with the Fisheries Bill team yesterday. He should not set me down trains of thought unless he wants to hear the responses.
On the proposed public access objective, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—UNCLOS—establishes that the UK has sovereign rights to manage the marine resources within our exclusive economic zone, which obviously includes fish. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that UK case law, which is slightly more recent than the Magna Carta, recognises clearly that those fish are a public asset, held by the Crown, for the benefit of the public. The public right to fish was confirmed most helpfully in a case called Malcolmson v. O’Dea in 1863. Legally, it is well established that no one individual can own the fish.
In terms of the rights to exploit and fish the fish, most UK fishing opportunities are managed, as the hon. Gentleman set out, through fixed quota allocation units. As he said, the High Court has held those units as a form of property right. Fixed quota allocation holders do not own the fish in the sea, but the FQA units entitle those holders to a share of whatever quota is available in that particular year. That is quite clear in the legal cases.
Mr Goodwill
Will the Minister recognise that there are exceptions to that in terms of royal fish, in that whales, porpoises and sturgeon become the property of the monarch? Indeed, in Scotland, any fish of that type that cannot be pulled on to shore by six oxen pulling a wain would qualify as royal fish, be the property of the Crown and be dealt with by the Scottish Administration on the Crown’s behalf.
Victoria Prentis
It is always a pleasure to give way to the former fisheries Minister, who has knowledge of areas of law I can only dream of.
Fixed quota allocation units do not confer a permanent right to quota, but Government policy, as set out in the fisheries White Paper—a document particularly beloved of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—is to maintain the FQA system, which has provided certainty to the industry for many years. That is important to those who have invested money in FQA units and very important to those who have borrowed money in mortgage form using FQA units as collateral.
Brendan O’Hara
Does the Minister accept that the legal position she is spelling out and the reality in practice are totally different? They are barely nodding acquaintances. Is she saying that she does not see any need to reform the quota system and that she is quite happy for it to continue as it is?
Victoria Prentis
I believe very firmly in the rule of law, and I would never accept that the legal system and reality are in any way in divergence. The Government have made it clear that the current quota system needs to stay in place for the reasons that I am in the middle of giving. However, for future quota allocation we will—and probably should—look at very different ways of doing that. I will go on to explain why that is the case.
To go back to FQA units and the existing law, which is reality as far as I am concerned, this method of allocation has its detractors across the House and in the industry. However, FQA units confer benefits, such as creating a sense of stewardship of the resource and enabling quota to be traded to get into the hands of those who want to fish against it. If amendment 71 were passed, I am concerned that it could undermine the FQA regime and that that would undoubtedly cause instability, prevent investment and, ultimately, have a damaging effect on the jobs and coastal communities that we all want to thrive. For example, I know that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, Interfish is one example of those that fish to FQAs. We propose to keep the existing quota system broadly as it is, while looking at the future system for the extra quota that we will be able to allocate.
Luke Pollard
The Minister mentions Interfish, which is a brilliant fishing company that I am very proud to have in the patch I represent. However, I do not follow her argument. Can she set out how having “public asset” already in UK law, as defined by the court case she has just mentioned, and then having a public asset objective are different? They seem to be very similar. Saying that we already have a public asset within UK law but that we cannot have a public asset objective in UK law because that would be bad seems to be contradictory. Can the Minister clarify that?
Victoria Prentis
There is no contradiction; I just do not feel that the extra amendment is necessary. Another reason for that is that the national benefit objective in the Bill already requires UK fishing activities to bring social or economic benefits to the UK. That means, in effect, that the Bill already recognises the importance of managing fisheries for the public good.
I now move on to the important issue of safety and training requirements. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is right to highlight that the matter was mentioned a great deal by Members across the House on Second Reading. It is right that I should—as I did on Second Reading—pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s long campaigning on this important issue. It rightly concerns us all and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is shared between Departments, but that does not in any way detract from the importance of moving forward. Indeed, it rather strengthens our hand across Government.
Safety at sea is, of course, not just about fishing. It is a maritime vessel issue. The safety of all vessels falls within the remit of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Legal requirements for the safety of vessels are already in place in several pieces of legislation, most particularly in the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997. Adding further complexity to an already comprehensive framework of legislation will not do much to improve safety. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport rightly said, training and behaviour change are what is needed. I was particularly glad to hear him mention personal locator beacons, not least because grants are available to fund those at the moment. I encourage all those who could benefit from wearing a personal locator beacon to apply for those grants. I am pleased to see—I think the hon. Gentleman would agree—that positive progress has been made, with the industry taking greater responsibility, with support from the relevant authorities where possible. We should not be complacent, obviously, and I look forward to continued working across the House on that important issue.
On the equally serious issue of modern slavery, working conditions and the general wellbeing of our fishers, the UK has fully implemented the requirements of the International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention. Of course, we have the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which ensures that—from 2016—officers from police forces, the National Crime Agency and Border Force can board and search vessels, seize evidence and arrest offenders. Section 1(2)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 already requires that
“all seafarers working on ships within the UK internal waters and ports are entitled to be paid at least the national minimum wage.”
That is
“regardless of where the ship is registered”
or where the worker ordinarily lives or comes from. The legal exception to that is for those paid by crew share. We know that almost three quarters of fishermen are paid that way.
Recent research conducted by Seafish shows that average gross crew shares in the UK range from £1,060 a month for onshore workers to over £4,000 for mates. That is in line with or better than national minimum wage requirements, so we do not feel that the amendments are necessary and I ask the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport not to press them.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out her reasons for disagreeing with the amendments and for setting out the importance of safety. We will return to safety later. With that in mind, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
‘(2) The “sustainability objective” is that—
(a) fish and aquaculture activities are—
(i) environmentally sustainable in the long term, and
(ii) managed so as to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and
(b) the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”
This amendment alters the definition of the “sustainability objective” so as to revert to the definition as it stood before it was substituted at Report stage in the Lords.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 74, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, after “marine” insert “and aquatic”
This amendment would add the avoidance of the degradation of the aquatic environment to the definition of the “ecosystem objective”.
Amendment 75, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out “minimised and, where possible,”
This amendment changes the definition of the “ecosystem objective” to include the reversal of negative impacts on marine ecosystems in all circumstances.
Amendment 76, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out “minimised and, where possible,”
This amendment changes the definition of the “ecosystem objective” to include the elimination of incidental catches of sensitive species in all circumstances.
Amendment 77, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“(aa) real-time scientific data is generated from both research vessels and all fishing vessels,”
This amendment would add the generation of accurate real-time scientific data to the definition of the “scientific evidence objective”.
Amendment 78, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out paragraph (c)
This amendment removes the objective for bycatch to be landed where appropriate.
Amendment 79, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, after “area” insert “, fishing opportunity, or entitlement for any resources”
This amendment would extend the definition of the “equal access objective” to cover equal access to fishing opportunities.
Amendment 73, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert—
“(a) fish and aquaculture activities achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, including in particular through efforts to—
(i) improve the environmental performance of fishing ports;
(ii) promote the decarbonisation of fish and aquaculture activities; and
(iii) phase out the use of fossil fuels;
(b) fish and aquaculture activities adapt to the impact of the climate emergency;
(c) fisheries policy is compliant with the United Kingdom’s obligations under—
(i) the United Nations Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
(ii) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
(iii) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
(iv) the Convention on the Law of the Sea,
(v) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
(vi) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”
This amendment expands the “climate change objective”.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid this will be rather a marathon as there are a number of amendments grouped together, but I am sure we will manage to get through them.
The Government recognise the intent of the other place, and indeed the Labour party, in seeking to focus attention on environmental sustainability in these amendments. However, we feel that the Opposition amendments create serious and, I am afraid, unacceptable legal and devolution constitutional issues and would undermine the Bill, including the important environmental objectives that we are all so keen to see.
The ambiguity of a prime objective creates a significant risk that we will be prevented by law from supporting coastal communities as they transition from the status quo to a new and improved fisheries management regime. For example, in the past two years, if we had not been able to agree with the EU a small quota above scientific advice for cod in the Celtic sea, the issue of choke species would have led to the closure of many valuable fisheries in the south-west, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport knows. In fact, those fishermen target other species, some of which are certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. In 2018, fish caught near the seabed and brought into the south-west ports, plus landings of cuttlefish, were worth about £57 million and were a significant part of the economy in those areas. I am worried that under a prime fisheries objective, that level of appropriate flexibility would not be lawful. Having a prime objective would limit our flexibility in annual negotiations, I am told by the fish team, which conducts those negotiations. For example, it could mean that other parties would know that our negotiating position on quota had to be within a certain environmentally sustainable limit, and we could be tied into accepting an outcome that might disadvantage the UK.
The current hierarchy of objectives in the Bill would give priority to the social and economic parts of the sustainability objective over other objectives, including the five other environmental objectives. Proposing to revert to the original wording is not about the Government going against environmental ambitions—absolutely the opposite. Our amendment reverts to the very carefully drafted original wording, which gives equal weight to environmental, social and economic considerations. That follows the concept of the three pillars of sustainable development, which has been established in international law. To provide reassurance, I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 2(1)(c), which requires us to set out clearly how we have applied the eight fisheries objectives proportionately.
It is also important to remember that actions speak louder than words. I want briefly to draw attention to some of the actions that the Government have and are taking to improve environmental sustainability. We are introducing a hugely ambitious Environment Bill, which covers the marine environment too. We published a 25-year environment plan, and are publishing annual updates on progress. We commissioned Richard Benyon to conduct an independent review of whether and how highly protected marine areas could be introduced, and we are currently considering his report very carefully. We committed in the fisheries White Paper two years ago to an annual statement on our assessment of stocks in the UK and of interest to the UK. We have been at the forefront of efforts to increase the number of stocks fished at maximum sustainable yield. Where that is not possible, we have pressed for other technical measures to be included in the package, most recently in relation to North sea cod. We are working with Seafish and the shellfish industry to begin to develop fisheries management plans for crabs, lobsters and whelks, which have not existed before.
A really good example of where the new approach comes into its own is with scallops. We are working with the Scallop Industry Consultation Group on a package of management measures to improve the sustainability of that highly valuable, but non-quota, stock. It is heartening to see the industry’s recognition of the importance of sustainability, and it is much to its credit that it voluntarily paid a levy to support work on stock assessment. It was actually the industry that recognised that a new fishery on Dogger Bank could be being over-exploited. Following constructive discussions with all four Administrations, we have temporarily closed that area to conduct stock assessments and find out what is going on.
Stephanie Peacock
In answer to one of my written questions, yesterday the Government said that by the end of 2020, of the 67% of total allowable catches set at maximum sustainable yield, only 54 stocks will reach that. That basically means that a third of fish stocks at maximum sustainable yield will not be sustainable. Will the Minister comment on the fact that a whole third is not meeting that?
Victoria Prentis
I think the hon. Lady is possibly slightly unaware that we do not currently have good data for many stocks. We fish, we think, just over 100 stocks—we have 100 stocks available to us to fish in the UK, and we are very fortunate to have a very wide, mixed fishery—but we simply cannot say whether we are meeting MSY because we do not have the data available. That is why it is so important that we do the work where we need to, such as in Dogger Bank, to find out what is happening.
I can answer the hon. Lady more fully as we go through the Bill; we have a whole section on MSY coming up. I know it was not the intention that this amendment, inserted in the other place, should cause difficulties by introducing a hierarchy into the set of interlinked objectives, but I feel that returning clause 1 to its original balance is the best outcome for the environment, our fisheries and our coastal communities.
Amendment 74 would extend the scope of the Bill to the management of fish and aquaculture activities in freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater ecosystems are already managed through a comprehensive suite of legislation, which emanates mostly from the EU water framework directive. The Environment Agency regulates inland waters under the Environment Act 1995. Freshwater fisheries are also regulated under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. There are, of course, specific challenges to managing freshwater ecosystems, most of which are unrelated to fishing or angling—for example, those relating to water quality or obstructions in sluices. We are further strengthening our regulation of such issues through both the Agriculture and Environment Bills.
This Bill has been developed to put in place a new sea fisheries management regime and clearly focuses on the marine environment. We recognise that the term “marine and aquatic” is used elsewhere in the Bill where appropriate; we want there to be no doubt, for example, over the scope of an administration’s powers to make grants in relation to inland as well as marine activities. However, this Bill’s core purpose is managing marine and coastal fisheries, and that is why we do not feel that this is a helpful amendment.
Amendment 75 is also well intentioned, but we feel it would have significant unforeseen impacts, which could lead to stopping a great deal of fishing activity and damaging our coastal communities as a result. Requiring our fisheries and aquaculture sector to reverse all the negative impacts of their activities on marine ecosystems, as proposed in the amendment, would simply render many fishing activities impossible.
On amendment 76, we of course agree that we must protect sensitive species from incidental catches in fishing nets. The Government are committed to encouraging the fishing industry to minimise bycatch of sensitive species as much as possible, and we are developing UK plans of action for cetacean and seabird bycatch, working closely with the fishing industry and environmental groups. Our various bycatch monitoring programmes are essential to inform that work. We will be launching a broader programme of work on protected, endangered and threatened species bycatch to support a more holistic system.
However, the effect of this particular amendment would be that fisheries administrations would have to have policies that would eliminate all bycatch. While our goal is to reduce bycatch to as close to zero as possible, in some situations complete elimination of bycatch will not be possible and some sensitive species will inevitably be caught. The wording that bycatch should be,
“minimised and, where possible, eliminated”,
reflects this intention and ensures that our objective is ambitious but achievable. It is accepted by both environmental organisations and fishermen.
Turning to amendment 77, the Government support extensive monitoring. We already have an extensive data collection programme that uses effective and innovative methods, such as underwater TV surveys. We feel this amendment is unnecessary, as the objective to collect scientific data is already included within paragraph (a) of the scientific evidence objective. It is important, as not all scientific data can be collected or used in real time. There may be a period of several weeks, or indeed months, between samples being taken from a fish on deck and the completion of the scientific processes. We agree—I know we will be discussing this issue further on another day—that the increased use of remote electronic monitoring may well help us to achieve this scientific objective, which is why we have included powers in the Bill that would allow its future roll-out, or further roll-out. Even then, given the volumes of data collected, that data may well not be checked in real time.
Turning to amendment 78, the CFP’s landing obligation, which was fully implemented last year, requires all species subject to catch limits to be landed and counted against quota, rather than discarded at sea. There are a few limited exceptions. Now that we have left the EU, the Administrations are free to develop discard policies that are tailored to the industries. However, as I have noted, even when our fishing practices are highly selective there will be instances in which this unwanted bycatch cannot be avoided entirely, given the high number of mixed fisheries in UK waters. If, for example, that catch is scientifically proven to have high survivability, it will be better for the long-term sustainability of the stock for it to be returned alive, rather than landed dead. There may be some limited instances in which there would be a high economic or safety cost to land bycatch caught unintentionally, so that is the purpose behind the “where appropriate” phrase in the Bill. I am worried that the effect of this amendment would be to undermine our future discards policy.
Amendment 79 would cause significant problems for the industry and the fisheries administrations. The management of fishing opportunities, namely quota, is inherently different from managing access to fishing waters. The equal access objective ensures that all UK fishing boats can continue to access all UK waters. By contrast, the management of quota is devolved. At the start of each fishing year, UK quotas are apportioned between the Administrations by the Secretary of State, and each Administration is then responsible for distributing those quotas to industry: the Scottish Government determine how quota is allocated to Scottish-registered vessels, and so on. Allowing equal access to fishing opportunities regardless of where vessels are licensed and registered directly conflicts with those devolved arrangements, and implies that each Administration would have to make quota available to boats managed by the other Administrations. It is unclear how that would work, and the uncertainty it would create would threaten the stability of the current quota apportionment system.
Finally, I will make a few points regarding amendment 73. The Government’s world-leading commitment to net zero, declaration of a climate emergency, and the inclusion of a climate change objective in this Bill—an improvement on the Bill, in my view—all show how seriously the Government are taking their commitments to climate change mitigation and adaption. Emissions from fishing vessels count towards national emissions, and are part of national plans to address emissions in the longer term under the Climate Change Act 2008. The unique part of the Bill’s existing climate change objective is the focus on mitigating the adverse effect of all fish and aquaculture activities. While part of that mitigation is through decarbonisation, it is important to emphasise that many other potential impacts need to be mitigated, such as impacts on the health of marine habitats that impair their ability to store carbon. I am concerned that the amended wording would limit our options on developing policies for mitigation only through decarbonisation and port improvements.
Fishing activity is already part of the Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050. The UK takes its international obligations very seriously, as underlined in the fisheries White Paper. We believe that it would be inappropriate to include in the Bill references to some, but not all, of our international commitments in this area. We feel this amendment is unnecessary, as it restates existing obligations and commitments of the UK under international law. I hope that the Opposition will feel able to support Government amendment 1, and will not press their remaining amendments.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out what is a lengthy, complicated group of amendments. I will also go through each amendment in turn, with specific focus on Government amendment 1 and amendment 73, the key amendments within this group.
Government amendment 1 seeks to remove a line inserted by the House of Lords:
“The sustainability objective is the prime fisheries objective.”
That sends a very poor message to those who want us to manage our fish stocks sustainably. There is no future for fishing unless it is sustainable, which is the clear message of the current wording of the Bill. I disagree with the Minister’s argument that the current wording makes things difficult. Indeed, we have to face up to the difficult truth around fishing and sustainability—if fishing is not truly sustainable, there will not be a fishing industry in future.
It is really important that that message is clear, because the changes necessary to protect our fish stocks, including ensuring that total allowable catches are not set above MSY levels—the level at which fish reproduce to replace fish lost through being caught—are really important. Sustainability has to be the future of the Bill. Indeed, later in Committee, the Minister should be prepared for our now annual amendment to change the Bill’s title to the sustainable fisheries Bill, rather than just the Fisheries Bill, because that message about sustainability is important and should be loud and clear.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the wording proposed by the Lords would tie the hands of Ministers as they go to the annual fishing negotiations? Stocks are determined within a particular zone, and we could end up with the UK not being able to fish some of that stock because we could not take back to the UK the agreement that we would have made had we not been so encumbered.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting that out. Let me be clear: a Labour Government would not set total allowable catches above the maximum sustainable yield. Telling our European friends that we want a sustainable fishing industry is not giving the game away or betraying our fishers. It is setting out, clearly for all to see the fact that we manage our fish stocks sustainably and that we want a sustainable fishing industry, economically and environmentally. That is the level that we would approach this at. That is really important.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the move to zonal attachment, rather than relative stability, which he knows Labour supports in relation to this. It is therefore important that we set the tone and the objective that our own fisheries waters need to be sustainable at that level. That is what the amendment to the Bill sets out—fisheries sustainability is the primary driver of fisheries management.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment is entirely unnecessary, given that the people most invested and most keen on maintaining sustainable fisheries are the fishermen engaged right now? By virtue of the fact that they need that industry to survive, and therefore need fish to reproduce sustainably, they are most keen on maintaining sustainability in our oceans. The amendment was therefore entirely unnecessary in the first place.
Luke Pollard
I agree that Government amendment 1 is entirely unnecessary, and I wish that the Minister would withdraw it. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the Lords amendment was unnecessary, but to save his blushes I will correct him on that. However, I agree that Government amendment 1 is unnecessary. [Interruption.] I will make a wee bit of progress before I take any more interventions.
Opposition Members are pleased that the Government have included a new climate change objective in the Bill, which was discussed when the last Fisheries Bill was in Committee. At that time, the arguments against that were that it would be unnecessary and would make decisions more difficult in future. I am glad that, on reflection, those arguments were shown to be unnecessary themselves. I believe the same should be said about this Government amendment, because we are sending a poor message to fishers, our coastal communities and all concerned about there being more plastic than fish in our oceans if we say that fishing sustainability is not the prime objective of fisheries management, because that needs to be front and centre.
That is why the Opposition support the Lords amendment to the Bill. Indeed, we note that it was passed with near cross-party support, with many Conservative Lords speaking in support of it. This is not only a view held by those on the left—it is a cross-party view held by those with a concern about the future of our fishing sector. I am concerned about the Government’s attempts to water down commitments to sustainability, kicking the climate crisis into the long grass with vague long-term objectives and no reference to any dates. Worryingly, while the Lords amendment guarantees that the environmental standards are not compromised in the long or short term, Ministers are seeking to remove that part of the Bill and replace it with reference only to the long term.
We need to send a clear message. Ministers have been clear in sending a message on their headline political objectives for fishing, but they have not extended that clarity to their headline sustainability objectives. Sustainability should be our prime watchword in the short, medium and long term. It should not be kicked into the long grass with the vague wording, “in the long term”. Our oceans are being irreparably damaged as we speak. We know that there are fish stocks under real pressure in UK waters. We have a wonderful mixed fishery in the south-west, as the Minister acknowledged. It is a real inheritance for our children that we have such diversity in our waters. Preserving that is important.
The Minister mentioned several items that I want to pick up in relation to Government amendment 1, before I turn to the subsequent amendments. I want our European friends to know that our objective is sustainable fishing. I want our European friends’ objective to be sustainable fishing. Setting that target along with the move to zonal attachment could be a profound statement of our future fisheries management intention.
The Minister mentioned the Richard Benyon review of highly protected marine areas. I appreciate that the first part of that report was pushed out before. I am concerned that we will not see the second part. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out what comes next. In making the case for highly protected marine areas, Richard Benyon—formerly of this parish—has made a strong case for delivery of the UN 2030 target, the oceans treaty, which the Government have signed up to. Labour argued that the Government should sign up to that. We were pleased when the former Secretary of State made that announcement.
It is important, but neglected, that that treaty says that by 2030, 30% of our waters should be fully protected. The phrase “fully protected”, rather than just “protected”, is important. It relates to the importance of sustainability as the prime directive, because “fully protected” means no-take zones. It means that we are not removing biomass from those waters. I do not believe Ministers have properly explained that to the fishing community. There needs to be greater clarity. Setting that target—to great aplomb and applause form all, including ourselves—dictates clarity as to how we achieve that.
We are just over nine years away from 2030. The plan to achieve that target is important. That is why sustainability must be at the forefront, as must the recommendations from the Benyon review, suggesting that the livelihoods of fishers must also be taken into account in setting any targets. I am not here to suggest policy to the Minister, particularly on that matter, but I would like to suggest to the Minister that her Department needs to set out what that road map is, if it is not to be a report that sits on a shelf as 2030 draws ever closer.
On amendment 73, the Minister mentioned our desire to achieve net zero for fishing. I raised this point on Second Reading at the Dispatch Box, as did several Labour colleagues. Having set a net zero target of 2050—although I disagree with the 2050 date and would rather it were closer to 2030—it is important that we have a road map as to how we decarbonise every part of our economy.
Amendment 73 requires that
“fish and aquaculture activities achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, including in particular through efforts”
in relation to a certain number of items. I am a 2030 believer, as someone who is red on the outside and green on the inside. The important thing is that I want the Minister to set out clearly the plan to decarbonise the fleet.
In Fishing News and other fishing publications there are wonderful examples of modern and fuel-efficient forms of propulsion in our fishing fleet, but there is no plan to decarbonise our entire fishing fleet. Indeed, some of our smaller vessels, which tend to be our oldest vessels, can use thousands of litres of diesel for a single fishing trip. We need to make a case for having a plan to enable those fishers to afford to replace their propulsion with a cleaner method by 2030, rather than by the Government’s target of 2050. The lifetime expectations of propulsion, and particularly fishing boats, is currently within the planning horizon of many of our fishers.
If the Minister disagrees with that part of amendment 73, I challenge her to tell us what the plan is. Where is the plan? If no plan exists, when can we expect one and how will fishers be involved? There is enormous concern about how we replace propulsion within fishing, which is a really difficult challenge. There is no easy option or easy answer, but we know it must take place. The challenge is how that will be delivered.
The plan to phase out fossil fuels, which is mentioned in proposed new clause 1(10)(a)(iii) in amendment 73, is an important part of that. There is not the same focus on fuels across the full range of maritime uses as there is in the debate on the aviation sector, where there is greater focus on transition fuels, hybrid and other parts. We need to look at where that can be. The Minister will probably say that that is a matter for the Department for Transport rather than her Department, but the financial health of the fishing sector will be a matter for her Department. How fishers invest in that technology, and what technology they are encouraged to invest in, is an important part of that.
I disagreed with the Minister when she said that amendment 73 would only restrict efforts to focus on decarbonisation and the environmental performance of our fishing ports, but let us focus for a moment on the importance of improving the environmental performance of our fishing ports. In some cases our ports could do with investment in the efficiency of ice plants and the market infrastructure, given the importance of decarbonising those efforts. The amendment does not specify that they would be the only parts that Ministers could focus on; indeed, it says “including” those parts. I suggest that they give just a flavour.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a certain contradiction between what he is saying now and later amendments that he has tabled, which would indicate that fish destined for, say, the European market should be landed in the UK and then transported on trucks to their main market, rather than being landed closer to the market where they are going to be sold?
Luke Pollard
No, I disagree. I dislike the Conservative position of favouring landing fish in European ports, because we could be creating jobs in British ports. It is bad for our ports, and it betrays the promise that many people made during the Brexit referendum. It is something that we need to reflect on. We should land more fish in our ports, creating more jobs in our communities and, as a corollary, eating more of our own fish. We will return to that in future, but I do not feel that landing more fish in our ports and achieving net zero in fishing are in any way contradictory. Actually, both are necessary to have a fully sustainable fishing industry in the future, because sustainability needs to be economic and environmental—they go hand in hand.
Amendment 73 sends a really simple message: we want to see fishing achieve net zero, and we will require the Government to prepare a plan and to have an idea about how to achieve that. I hope the Minister has a plan for fishing achieving net zero, but I fear that this part of the debate has been wholly absent over the past few years. Outwith the larger debate about every single sector, but specifically on this sector, how will they work? We all know that fishing is not one sector but dozens of sectors operating within the wider remit, with different fishers catching different species of fish with different gear at different times of the year in different fishing zones. How does the plan to achieve net zero work for each of those sectors? There will be different approaches, especially with the carbon impact of certain boats.
I turn to the other amendments in this group, 74 to 79. I will talk only briefly, so that other speakers can contribute. On amendment 76, I suggest to the Minister that one thing she should take from this debate is that Ministers need to act faster than they have to date. In part, our sustainability work by Ministers, as a country, has been too slow and too passive. I hope that the Minister and her officials are hearing loud and clear from the Opposition that we want to see Ministers act faster on this.
The arguments about data collection, which the Minister mentioned, are true—there is a deficiency of data on a large number of our stocks. However, we have had a decade of the same party being in government and in charge of fisheries policy to correct that, yet that excuse is still rolled out. We want the Bill to draw a line under that decade of failure to collect the data we need on all our fish species—a debate in the previous Fisheries Bill was about how to ensure that data-deficient fish stocks are brought up, to see what the plan was—so I challenge the Minister again. What is the plan for data-deficient species? Where is the focus for Ministers, so that they can say, “We will have an understanding of data-deficient species”? That is particularly so for non-quota species, for which overfishing, especially in certain zones, might not be easily recognised in the data, because the data is not there.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury described every fishing boat as its own “floating…laboratory”. That is a powerful understanding of where fishing should be and, indeed, of where it is, given the amount of data we require our fishers to catch. We will come to remote vessel monitoring, but the idea that we look at data in realtime is one option. The amendment that talks about “real-time scientific data” is therefore important.
We want to strengthen the objectives to enhance the requirement for data collection. Each fishing boat should be its own laboratory. That is not to make every single fisher into a scientist, but to make their practice more data-driven, so that we can better understand it. One of the complaints that I have heard, and that I expect the Minister will have heard plenty of times from fishers, is the argument that says, “There is more fish in the sea than the data says there is. Why can’t we fish more fish? They are there.” In many cases, the data lag between the Ministers’ decisions and discussions with our European friends, and the reality of our fish stocks can be quite far apart. That is a common complaint of fishers.
The solution to that is to address the data imbalance—data deficiency and the gap between data collection and processing, and data usage—in the decisions taken on fish stocks. That is an important element to consider as we see more variation in our fish stocks, including established stocks, due to the climate crisis and the warming of our seas.
Brendan O'Hara
On a point of clarification, amendment 76, to which the hon. Gentleman was referring, is about the elimination of incidental catches in all circumstances. Anyone who has been a recreational fisher, or even guddled about in a pool, will know that incidental catch or bycatch is almost inevitable and almost impossible to eliminate. Surely we should be asking that commercial fishing businesses do an awful lot more to innovate and upgrade their equipment to avoid it. Is he seriously asking us to support an amendment that calls for the elimination of the bycatch in all circumstances? That seems to be an impossible ask. Surely we should be looking at a more innovative solution.
Luke Pollard
One of the difficulties of having so many amendments grouped together is that we cannot get into each one individually. That is a probing amendment to find out what the plan is. I will return to species in a moment, but to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question on bycatch, the discard ban was introduced with good intentions—to borrow the Minister’s phrase from earlier.
There is a real crisis of fish being discarded over the side of boats because people do not have the quota to catch that fish. Fishers are being put in a difficult position by existing regulations—regulations that Ministers themselves may decide on, even if under an EU directive on how things work. In mixed fisheries—which I believe is what is around Scotland, and is certainly around the west country, which I represent—for fishers to target specific species is difficult, resulting in an inevitable bycatch. The difficulty is that the discard ban states that a fisher cannot catch that, discard it or land it.
That poses questions about how a reformed discard ban would work under the new freedoms that the Minister has set out. Greater quota pooling, for instance, might be one way, especially for smaller boats, to make sure there is sufficient quota within a pool to ensure that bycatch is adequate there. There needs to be a greater understanding of the need to allocate more quota for some of those things, especially in mixed fisheries, to cope with that. The fundamental point—which I think the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was getting at, and to which I hope the Minister will respond in the spirit in which the amendment was tabled—is that the discard ban currently does not work for our fishers and certainly does not work for our environment. The intention behind it is good. We need to preserve that intention, but also ensure that the fish our fishers are catching get a good price and are preferably landed at their local port.
The hon. Gentleman also noted at the start of his intervention, in relation to the difference between commercial fishing and recreational fishing, that there is a real challenge, which we will come to later, in applying restrictions to recreational fishers who are not taking the volumes of fish out of the water that some of our commercial friends are. There is a tendency to regard the two slightly differently, which I think he hinted at in his intervention.
To briefly return to the amendments, I am grateful to hear the Minister say that the Government have declared a climate emergency. That is very welcome news. My recollection of the debate is that the Government did not oppose the declaration but did not support it either. I am very happy to hear that the climate emergency declaration is now Government policy and not just parliamentary policy. The subtle distinction is important, because if it is a Government declaration of a climate emergency, the Minister has made a bigger announcement today than perhaps she wanted to. It is important, because we are in a climate emergency and there is a climate crisis that affects our fish stocks.
One area that the Minister hinted at, which is important and why Government amendment 1 needs to be looked at again, is the changes in fish and where they reside. As the Minister knows, fish do not follow international boundaries. Laws that seek to govern fish to follow international boundaries are problematic. The Minister set out how she hoped to ensure that those fish with high survivability are returned to the sea and not landed dead —I think she mentioned that in relation to amendment 78. I agree with her, but the Minister’s statement is at odds with DEFRA’s decision not to grant the bluefin catch-and-release fishery in the south-west, because bluefin tuna, bless them, have very high sustainability and can be caught time and again. The experience for the fish might not be one that many of us would like, but a fish in the sea is worth so much more to our recreational fishing sector that charters boats to recreational anglers than it is from being landed and eaten in our food supply chain. I agree with the Minister when she talks about high survivability and hope she will respond to that point.
The bluefin catch-and-release fishery was something that I mentioned in my remarks, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) also made a powerful case in support of it. The catch-and-release bluefin fishery would not only enhance our scientific understanding of the changes causing these wonderful creatures to enter more of our British waters, or to return after a great absence to our British waters, but could create an enormous number of jobs across the west country, and they could in due course appear in the North sea, where tuna was present before the decline of fish stocks.
I have taken up enough time on this. Suffice it to say that Labour Members disagree with Government amendment 1. We would like to see sustainability as the primary mover of sustainable fisheries. The message that removing that sends to all those that care about our oceans is a poor one. Fishing should be sustainable economically and environmentally, and we should be unafraid of saying that sustainability is the primary driver of fisheries management. If we do not have sustainable fisheries, we will not have jobs in fishing or the fish in the sea that we need. To pre-empt what you might be about to say, Mr McCabe, the amendments sandwiched between that and amendment 73 are designed to probe the Minister for an explanation of the position on each of those points—which she has done in part, with the challenges that I have posed. However, amendment 73, which concerns net zero and decarbonising our industry, is absolutely critical to the future of the sector. I hope the Minister will set out the Department’s, and indeed the Government’s, plans to decarbonise the industry. She needs to be under no doubt about how seriously we take the importance of hitting net zero for fishing.
Mr Goodwill
I rise in support of Government amendment 1. Nobody so far has talked about the role of the courts. I suspect that if the wording proposed by the Lords stays in the Bill, there will be a field day for the courts and well funded environmental non-governmental organisations, which will be fighting every step of the way to ensure that the prime fisheries objective of sustainability is taken to the nth degree. We have seen that already in how the courts have been used with general licensing.
For example, at the annual fisheries meeting with other independent coastal states such as Norway, we may well decide that, as a one-off, to take account of choke species and mixed fisheries, perhaps some stocks would be fished above maximum sustainable yield, as a short-term measure to sustain our fishing industries. That additional quota could be assigned to the Norwegian waters and EU waters, but the British fishing Minister would say, “I’m sorry, but although there’s more quota on offer, we cannot take it because we would be shot down in the courts.” There are many other situations in which the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about being flexible and working with the sector would be tracked every inch of the way by environmental NGOs, which would be keen to take them to court.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Member raises a hypothetical about total allowable catches being set above MSY. He knows well that total allowable catches are routinely set above MSY levels. It is not a once-in-a-moment opportunity; it is a regular occurrence, and it is leading to a decline in fish stocks. Therefore, sending the message to our fisheries that we will have sustainable fishing in our waters is not a bad one, because we are ultimately saying to those fisheries that if we do not set at MSY levels, there will be fewer fish in the sea for the future. Whether we set levels above MSY in conjunction with our European friends or otherwise, that contributes to a decline in fish stocks. Does he agree with that?
Mr Goodwill
I agree with the hon. Member, but where levels are set above MSY levels, it is often for practical reasons to do with the sustainability of a particular fishing industry. It is also to do with choke species. We heard from the Minister how some fisheries would be closed completely were they not to be allowed a degree of choke species to be caught for which a quota is not allocated.
The point I am making is that the law of unintended consequences has not been seen clearly by the Lords. I believe many of our fishing communities would be decimated by action taken not by Ministers but by judges in interpreting the prime fisheries objective as sustainability. That would be an overriding objective and not one that Ministers could reasonably take to fishing communities in the four nations of the United Kingdom sustainably. I am therefore pleased to support the Minister in her amendment, which will prevent such an unintended consequence that even the shadow Minister, I think in his heart of hearts, understands could be a real problem.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
I echo the words of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. We must set the tone and objectives for the negotiations, so it is critical to retain the cross-party amendment passed in the other place to make environmental sustainability the driving force and priority of the legislation. Removing that objective would put the fisheries sector at risk in the long term.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State warned against creating a hierarchy of objectives, but the simple truth is that environmental sustainability must go hand in hand with economic sustainability, as we just heard. We cannot have long-term economic sustainability without first prioritising environmental sustainability, and that means prioritising fish stocks. Fisheries businesses cannot operate if there are no fish left for them to catch.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine made the good point that fisheries are striving to get those goals and achieve sustainability, but that must be enshrined in law. If we put environmental sustainability front and centre in the Bill, the rewards in the long term will be there for the fisheries sector to reap sustainably. We want fish stocks to recover and thrive, resulting in a more resilient marine ecosystem. That obviously leads to greater catches over the long term, supporting the fisheries sector and the coastal communities that rely upon it.
Greener UK, one of those NGOs, has pointed out that the UK is currently not achieving sustainable fisheries management and that decisions are often taken by the Government that end up giving priority to short-term economic factors over environmental factors. UK cod stocks are at a critical level, and the Natural Capital Committee has highlighted a lack of progress on sustainable fisheries. I point out to the Government that other countries, such as Australia, have included sustainability as a prime objective in their fisheries legislation.
I would be grateful, too, for a bit more clarity from the Minister on how the Government intend to prioritise environmental sustainability. She mentioned actions speaking louder than words. We need to protect our marine ecosystems practically. If she seeks to strike the amendment from the Bill, how will that be achieved? What concrete and measurable policies are going to be put in place to address fish stock recovery and reduce overfishing, in order to fulfil our international commitments under the sustainable development goals, for example?
If we look after the resources of our planet, then our planet will look after us. It is as simple as that. Environmental sustainability is so critical to our future that of course it has to be prioritised. That is why I will vote against the Government’s amendment.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I will speak in support of amendments 75 to 78. Amendments 75 and 76 aim to protect the ecosystem of our marine environment by mitigating the catchment of sensitive species. It is therefore right that amendment 77 allows for better monitoring and enforcement of fishers.
The absence of historical data on catches means that there is no way to gauge how much illegal discarding is taking place in our seas. There has been no way to manage or mitigate overfishing. By ensuring realtime scientific data collection we can go a long way in attempting to protect over-exploited species and the ecosystem of our seas and to better ensure that fishers are more mindful of their catches. Amendment 78 provides much-needed assurance in the Bill that we can account for what is being fished, when and by whom—again, preventing the scourge of overfishing. All of that can only benefit our coastal communities.
Turning to the benefits of putting sustainability at the heart of the Bill, as the Lords amendments made clear, last year just 59% of the UK’s fish stocks were fished at or below the sustainable level, down 10% from the previous year. We need sustainable fisheries management to stop overfishing and to safeguard the UK fishing industry’s survival. Environmental sustainability, as proposed by the successful amendments in the Lords, which the Government now seek to reverse, is crucial for the survival of our coastal communities post covid-19.
With seafood export markets hit hard, fishing businesses face huge financial hardship. The hospitality and restaurant sectors closing, and supermarkets closing fish counters, has led to a drastic dip in demand, with fishing markets struggling to continue. The sustainability amendment and other amendments tabled to this clause provide long-awaited relief to coastal communities struggling under the weight of the coronavirus and buckling under the financial hardship imposed upon them as lockdown eases.
Opposition amendments to clause 1 will ensure economic, social and employment benefits to coastal areas across the United Kingdom and will contribute to the availability of fish supplies, which in turn will rejuvenate the staggering tourism and hospitality market in those areas. The Fisheries Bill must and can do more for the UK’s fishing community and associated markets.
Stephanie Peacock
I would like to add my objections to the Government’s decision to remove the sustainability objective as the Fisheries Bill’s main objective. I will speak briefly and focus on Government amendment 1. Healthy fish stocks have been proven to create a more resilient and productive marine environment and ecosystem, which leads to increased long-term catches and greater industry profits. For the sake of our coastal communities, which rely on the UK fishing industry and the thousands of jobs that it creates, not just on the boats but in processing, logistics and food services, we must ensure that sustainability is at the heart of our fishing policy.
I am concerned that the Government are paying lip service to their election promise, as set out in their manifesto, to
“a legal commitment to fish sustainability”.
The Lords amendment put a lens of environmental sustainability over all fisheries management decisions. It required fisheries authorities to consider and demonstrate the impact of their decisions on environmental sustainability, in both the short and long term.
I would like to make it clear that the Lords Bill still granted authorities a degree of flexibility. They could still opt out of the joint fisheries statements in certain circumstances. I refer the Committee to clause 7, which we will come on to later. It states that authorities can amend or replace joint fisheries statements if they can show that there has been a change in circumstances relating to
“available evidence relating to the social, economic or environmental elements of sustainable development.”
The sustainability objective, before it was limited by the Conservative Government, simply required fisheries authorities to put an environmental lens across all decisions, demonstrating that they had put in place provisions intended to avoid any compromising of environmental sustainability in the long and short term. It would have incentivised best practice and ended the type of short-term decision making that we have seen in recent years, whereby, as has been said already today, just for this year quotas are set above scientifically recommended sustainable levels to address short-term economic concerns.
The Government have so far failed to make progress in terms of sustainable fishing, barely scratching the surface of what is needed to achieve environmental targets. Right now, the UK cannot meet 11 of the 15 indicators of marine health that were set out in its marine strategy, and the recent review of the strategy concluded that the 2020 target for good environmental status
“may not be achieved for many years unless there are further improvements to fisheries management measures”.
If we want to protect both our marine environment and the long-term sustainability of our fishing industry—in many ways the two go hand in hand—we cannot stay with the status quo. The Government need to act. Putting sustainability at the heart of the Bill would have meant that we could start to redress the balance towards restoring the health of our fish stocks and helping our marine environment to recover. We should have taken this opportunity to strengthen the Bill and change the way we manage our fisheries going forward, to the benefit of both the industry and the marine environment. Labour Members are disappointed that instead the Government have shown their disregard for environmental sustainability and the health of our seas, the marine environment and our fishing industry.
Amendment 73 sets out the net zero target about which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has already spoken. It would have placed a requirement on fisheries authorities to ensure that
“fish and aquaculture activities achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030”.
That is particularly important in the context of the UK’s environmental sustainability targets, which the Government have already committed to. We need action on all fronts and across all industries to deal with the climate and nature emergency.
Brendan O'Hara
The hon. Lady is talking about emissions targets, which are very laudable, but would we not be applying a much stronger emissions reduction approach to fishing than to any other sector, including energy, transport, agriculture and housing? Why should the fishing industry bear the brunt? It is a genuine question; I am not trying to trip her up. It seems that this amendment would apply a much higher standard to fishing than to any other sector.
Stephanie Peacock
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and I do not believe that the brunt should fall on the fishing industry. This is an issue that every sector of society and the economy has got to deal with. It does not make sense not to seize the opportunity that the Bill presents to ensure that our fishing industry can lead the charge in terms of net zero. We could be pioneers and lead the way for other countries to follow in our footsteps. We could improve the environmental performance of our fishing ports, promoting decarbonisation and phasing out fossil fuels. The end of the CFP and the passage of the Bill through Parliament does represent an opportunity to be bold and ambitious, and now is the time for meaningful change to promote the sort of greener economy that benefits both people and our environment.
Victoria Prentis
I agree, in fact, with a great deal of what is being said. I reiterate that the Government are absolutely committed to leaving the natural environment in a better state than we found it in. There is no watering down of our commitments to sustainability, which are clearly stated in the Bill in the first objective in clause 1. However, I do not feel that the amendment helps to take this further. I am worried that putting the primacy of sustainability in the Bill might—inadvertently, I am sure—cause unnecessary suffering to coastal communities.
To focus on the MSY issue for a moment, I am not going to stand here and suggest that the current position is one we should be proud of. We have undoubtedly made progress on fishing at MSY. We are now fishing at about 67% of MSY. In 1990, we were fishing at 10% of sustainable stocks, so there is no doubt that we are where we want to be, although we are moving slowly in the right direction.
The Government hope that the fisheries management plan, set out in the Bill, will work locally and holistically to make the situation much better, fast, as we must do. However, I am concerned that if we put in the clause which makes the sustainability objective prime, there will be some really serious unintended consequences for coastal communities.
I will give three examples on MSY in particular. If we followed the zero TAC advice for whiting in the Irish Sea, it could close the nephrops fishery that has critical economic importance for Northern Ireland, where landings averaged about 15 million a year over the past five years. Another example, following the zero-catch advice on plaice in the Celtic Sea would close the very valuable anglerfish and megrim fishery and could displace those boats into a more intensely fished area elsewhere, which could also displace even worse environmental harm. Out at Rockall, latterly, there is a very low quota for cod, although the quality of the scientific advice there has been questioned. Following the advice on cod would close the valuable haddock fishery that might itself be taking some of the pressures off the fishery in the North Sea.
I have been asked repeatedly by Opposition Members for further clarity on the plan. I refer them politely to the fisheries White Paper 2018. Our Secretary of State is particularly proud of this document, having worked on it a great deal himself. It sets out very clearly the direction of travel that the Government are determined to follow as we leave the common fisheries policy and are able to take further steps. We are committed to environmental sustainability, and I hope that working together when this great Bill becomes law we will be able to move forward much more quickly than in the past.
I turn briefly to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I remind him that, while this is a framework Bill and touches all areas, it does not, in fact, deal with the Benyon review or some of the specifics that he mentioned. However, I do want to be as helpful as possible. The Benyon review was pushed out on World Oceans Day, which seemed an appropriate time, despite the pandemic. It is important that we get on with this important work. The Government are considering their response at the moment. I think it would be wrong and that this is not the place to go much further than that, but I am happy to take this up with the hon. Gentleman outside the Bill as soon as he likes. We are in a great deal of communication on this at the moment, and a lot of work is being done.
On decarbonising the fleet—I am glad he enjoys Fishing News as much as I do—fishing accounts for about 10% of the domestic shipping CO2 emissions. I am not in any way downplaying that significant amount. The grant-making powers in the Bill could well be used to give grants which would encourage vessels to move to more sustainable types of fuel.
Victoria Prentis
There is no plan, but there is a very good clause which enables the plan to be made. It is something that should and will be done at local levels, but I would be amazed if decarbonisation of the fuels that vessels use was not the sort of thing to be considered.
Bluefin tuna was raised on Second Reading, and I am also happy to take that offline and discuss it with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I am aware that bluefin tuna went from a status of “endangered” to “near-threatened” in 2015. It is clearly an improving stock, but “near-threatened” would indicate that a cautious approach is still needed, and I suspect the Government’s priority will be to support the stock’s recovery. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, as well as what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said on Second Reading, and I am happy to meet him or take the matter up offline in the near future.
We are aware that the discards ban is far from perfect. That is the very reason why we rejigged the objective in the Bill to focus on reducing bycatch. We will set out future discards policy in joint fisheries statements; that is the tenor of what they are for. I support the Government amendment, but I suggest that the other amendments are not appropriate.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 73, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert—
“(a) fish and aquaculture activities achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, including in particular through efforts to—
(i) improve the environmental performance of fishing ports;
(ii) promote the decarbonisation of fish and aquaculture activities; and
(iii) phase out the use of fossil fuels;
(b) fish and aquaculture activities adapt to the impact of the climate emergency;
(c) fisheries policy is compliant with the United Kingdom’s obligations under—
(i) the United Nations Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
(ii) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
(iii) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
(iv) the Convention on the Law of the Sea,
(v) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
(vi) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”—(Luke Pollard.)
This amendment expands the “climate change objective”.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.
Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 8th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2020 - (8 Sep 2020)
The Chair
Order! Let us have some discipline in the room, for crying out loud. We are going to proceed in a very nice, straightforward, friendly way, but I am going to say this in a semi-friendly way: we have Hansard colleagues here who would really benefit from having your notes. If you are speaking from notes and you could make the notes available to the Hansard colleagues before you leave, that would be great. The reason why I have to say that is that we do not have Doorkeepers to pick the notes up from you. [Interruption.] By email—covid secure.
Clause 2
Joint fisheries statement
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 37, leave out “18 months” and insert “two years”.
This amendment extends the deadline for publishing the first joint fisheries statement. Under the Bill as it stands the deadline is 18 months after the Bill is passed; the amendment alters it to two years after the Bill is passed.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. Government amendment 2 extends the timeframe for publication of the joint fisheries statement from 18 months after Royal Assent to 24 months. That is to ensure sufficient time for drafting and sign-off by all the fisheries administrations, as well as for public and parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed policies. The change is unfortunately necessary because of the slippage in proceedings on the Bill, most latterly as a result of the pandemic. That has resulted in key stages of the joint fisheries statement drafting process, including parliamentary scrutiny, falling within the purdah or pre-election and, indeed, election periods for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments in the spring of next year and the Northern Ireland Assembly in spring 2022. The devolved Administrations have raised the matter with us and, in our view, are rightly concerned that these election processes could significantly delay the ministerial clearances that will be required ahead of public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. We are concerned that there is a high risk that the deadline will not be met. It would not be appropriate to make potentially new policy decisions during any pre-election period.
This amendment will support the development of a robust joint fisheries statement on the implementation of policies to meet the fisheries objectives that have been subject to appropriately rigorous scrutiny. I therefore ask the Committee to support the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The fisheries administrations are required to publish a joint fisheries statement setting out the policies that will achieve or contribute to the achievement of the objectives listed in clause 1, which we discussed this morning. A common UK framework should be ambitious in scope and aspiration. The recovery of our fish stocks and sustainable management of our fisheries will impact generations to come. We will no doubt agree that the establishment of the first joint fisheries statement is an important moment for the UK fishing industry. I have met representatives from across the fishing industry in recent months, as I am sure the Minister has, and I am sure that the Minister will have heard as much as I have their concerns that the process of the UK leaving the common fisheries policy and becoming an independent coastal state has felt prolonged. Many fishers are keen to make progress on this as quickly as possible—something that I am sure the Minister and I will share. I understand the reasons that the Minister has outlined for the unfortunate but necessary delay, but can she also assure us that any delays in publishing the joint fisheries statements will not impact on the fisheries objectives that we have already discussed and, in particular, on the sustainability objective, albeit we would have preferred it to be stronger?
Victoria Prentis
I agree with almost all of what the hon. Lady has to say. We share her disappointment that the amendment is necessary, but we regretfully say that it is.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 2, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a system to resolve disputes between fisheries policy authorities that result in no joint fisheries statement being published.
(5B) In establishing the system under subsection (5A), the Secretary of State must in particular ensure that the dispute resolution system makes provision to require the fisheries policy authorities to make use of the system if it appears that no JFS will be published by 1 January 2022 due to disputes between the fisheries policy authorities.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to establish a system for resolving a dispute between the fisheries policy authorities which could otherwise result in no joint fisheries statement being published.
As I am sure many members of the Committee will remember, the Second Reading debate on the Bill got quite heated in parts. Fisheries management decisions and approaches can be contentious, and it is clear that disagreements can easily arise. We have only to look at what is happening in Brussels at the moment to see evidence for that. This amendment is therefore designed to ensure that a dispute resolution process is formally established. Such a process would ensure that any disagreements over fisheries management policies could be resolved through a clear framework and in a timely manner before discussions became deadlocked to the point that a joint fisheries statement could not be produced. This provision is supported by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which regards it as essential.
The NFFO also said that it would like this provision to be implemented in consultation with each devolved Administration before policies are set out in a Secretary of State’s statement. It is my understanding that the Government are developing a memorandum of understanding with the devolved Administrations that
“aims to ensure co-operative ways of working and a mechanism for escalating and resolving disputes should they arise.”
I would like to probe the Minister further on how this mechanism would work in practice, how it would respect devolution settlements while ensuring an efficient process and how it would ensure that the joint fisheries statements were the product of an equitable and democratic process.
This amendment would provide important certainty to the industry across the UK that, should any disputes arise, a clear and fair dispute resolution process would be in place. I believe that this does have and would have the support of the wider industry.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place this afternoon, Sir Charles. As much as I can see what the hon. Member for Barnsley East is trying to do in proposing this amendment —seeking to establish a dispute resolution mechanism—and while I of course understand that it would be better for the four nations of the United Kingdom to enter into discussions in good faith and to work collaboratively to seek that joint fisheries statement, I cannot accept that this is the best way to take this forward. There should be, I agree, a mechanism to resolve any conflict that might arise between the four nations of the UK, but we do not think that giving power to the Secretary of State to establish such a mechanism is the way forward.
There has been nothing in the last few years, particularly around fishing and agriculture, to suggest that the interests of the devolved nations would be protected if the UK Secretary of State—particularly from the current Administration—was asked to establish a system in which to resolve disputes. Quite simply, we do not trust the Government to produce a mechanism that would not centralise power and decision making at Westminster. We do not think that the needs of the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish fishing industries would be adequately protected if a Secretary of State based in Whitehall was given the power to establish that dispute mechanism.
Immediately, questions would arise. What would the system to resolve these disputes look like? How independent of Government would this be? Who would appoint the members of that committee, if it were independent of Government? Would its membership be based on the nation’s fishing industry, percentage share of coastline or the size of its population? Who would ultimately decide which side was right and which was wrong, and what criteria would they use to decide that?
I struggle to see how it would be possible for the four nations of the United Kingdom to be put on a fair and equitable footing, and for a transparent dispute mechanism to be put in place, when to all intents and purposes in these matters Westminster acts as the English Parliament, and when the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) doubles as the UK Secretary of State and also the person in political charge of English fisheries.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Having been in the Second Reading debate, does the hon. Gentleman think we should have some sort of dispute resolution system in place for the Scottish National party position in Edinburgh and its position here in the House of Commons?
Brendan O'Hara
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. That has taken an awful lot longer than I imagined it would. I was primed for that one at 9.35 am morning. Obviously, clearly not, but I appreciate his sentiment.
Given the circumstances in which these resolution mechanisms have been put in place, there is a massive potential conflict of interest if the UK Secretary of State, who is also in charge of English fisheries, is the person we charge to found that dispute resolution mechanism. Rather than the Secretary of State having this power, surely any dispute resolution mechanism would have to be created by all four nations, which would be bound by it. It should be something that all four nations and Administrations can agree to. I do not think anything else would work practically or politically.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The reason why we discussed this mechanism in the previous iteration of the Fisheries Bill Committee was the very real fear that a dispute might arise between the Westminster Government and a devolved Administration in the preparation of the annual fisheries statement. Let me take the Westminster Government and Holyrood as an example, although it could be one of the others. A dispute could become a political game. So the purpose of this mechanism was to say, “What happens in that scenario?” It is not out of the question that there could be a disagreement between the fisheries approaches of the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom.
This amendment was proposed in the previous iteration of the Committee to challenge the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East has done here, to say what would happen in the event of a dispute. The answers that were given in the previous Fisheries Bill Committee were very weak, and there is still no solution to what would happen if a devolved Administration took issue with the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, or if the fisheries management plans, as detailed in the joint fisheries statement, were not compliant with the obligations set under the Secretary of State’s joint fisheries statement but were compliant with the devolved Administration’s approach. That is an important issue.
Brendan O'Hara
Does the hon. Gentleman accept the premise that the Secretary of State is also the person who is politically in charge of English fishing, and that there would be a potential conflict of interest if that individual was charged with setting up the dispute resolution mechanism? We absolutely agree that there should be a dispute resolution mechanism, but it should not be for the Secretary of State alone to decide what it should be.
Luke Pollard
I am afraid that the remit of the Fisheries Bill affords us only the ability to give certain responsibilities to certain people, and the Secretary of State is responsible for the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, so he seems to be the logical person to look at in that respect. I am pleased that the SNP wants to see a dispute resolution system in place. I say to the Minister that there is a good argument for having a plan before a dispute arises. Given that fishing is so political and important to the livelihoods of our coastal communities, as the shadow Minister said, having a dispute resolution system in place makes good sense, and it is better to design one when the Administrations are not in dispute than to cobble one together when they are.
Victoria Prentis
We do not think this amendment is necessary. As the hon. Member for Barnsley East said, the Bill places a statutory obligation on the Administrations to produce a joint fisheries statement. When it is possible to set out joint policies in the JFS, we will do so. Equally, it is perfectly possible for each Administration to have separate and different policies within the JFS. That is part of devolution, and it is not something that I am resisting. The policies in the JFS do not have to be the same ones. For instance, we were talking about bycatch earlier, and it would be perfectly possible for each Administration to put in place a different policy to achieve the same bycatch objective, as appropriate for the industries in the different parts of the UK, but we would still be working towards the same goal. That means that there should not really be a circumstance in which a JFS cannot be agreed if we are working towards the same goal.
Processes are in place to resolve disputes between the Administrations. They will be strengthened. I accept some of what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport said about the need for a memorandum of understanding between the Administrations. In fact, contrary to some of what the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said, the fisheries administrations have a strong track record of working together for the common good to develop fisheries management policy—as demonstrated by the close working on this Bill—while respecting the individual circumstances of each Administration. Most fisheries issues can be resolved through a strong working relationship at ministerial and official level, because we share an aspiration to maintain sustainable fisheries, as well as the vibrant and profitable fishing industry that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Joint Fisheries statement: procedure
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 64, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, leave out “6” and insert “5”.
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 65, in clause 3, page 4, line 14, leave out “6” and insert “5”.
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
Stephanie Peacock
Amendments 64 and 65 would ensure that fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of the Government’s current preference of six years.
I would like to probe the Minister about the Government’s choice of a six-year review period. Such a long period between reviews of policy is bad for accountability and fundamentally bad for effective policy making. Indeed, on a six-year timescale, one could be a Member of the House for an entire Parliament without fisheries policies being made available for scrutiny. I hope we can all agree that that simply is not right.
Over the years, too little time has been given to debate fish and fisheries management in Parliament. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said on Second Reading:
“It has often been the case that at the end of the year we have struggled to get 90 minutes for an annual fisheries debate.” —[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 94.]
As the EU referendum and negotiations have shown us, people care about fish, fisheries management and fisheries rights. In the earlier part of the Committee I heard the Minister say that she welcomed more time for discussions on fisheries policy, but Backbench Business and Westminster Hall debates are simply not good enough.
As we leave the common fisheries policy and establish our own fisheries policy, as an independent coastal nation, it is more important than ever that we ensure that our fisheries get the time in Parliament that they deserve. I believe that Fishing for Leave called for two years—it certainly was not six years—and that changing the review period from six years to five years will mean that fisheries are included as one of the major policy items under review at the start of the new parliamentary term.
If we are to take back control of our fishing policy, we need to make sure that the Executive is held to account and challenged, where challenge is needed. We must ensure that where policies do not deliver on the objectives set out in clause 1, they can be debated and changed. Given that those policies will be regularly affected by annual international negotiations, and changing scientific advice and data, it would not only be good governance but lead to a better policy and better outcome for us if we chose to make a joint fisheries statement on a more regular timescale.
I do not believe it is too much to ask for that to take place once in a fixed-term Parliament—once every five years. In the context of the current climate crisis and a fishing industry that is keen to grow in a sustainable way, I hope the Minister will agree that we need more scrutiny of environmental policies and not less.
Victoria Prentis
In answer to the hon. Lady’s question about why the period of six years was arrived at, I understand that the six-yearly review period mirrors that found in the requirement in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 relating to marine plans. I recognise that the hon. Lady aims, with her amendment, to ensure that the delivery of the joint fisheries statement is effectively monitored and reviewed, but I do not feel that the amendments are necessary. Similar amendments were tabled in the other place, and the Government’s view is unchanged on that.
As Lord Gardiner of Kimble set out in the other place, we have chosen a six-year review period following a great deal of discussion with the devolved Administrations, with whom we work closely. We believe that six years is sufficiently regular to ensure that the joint fisheries statement reflects the current state of fisheries management and the best available scientific evidence, while providing sufficient stability for fisheries managers and the industry. It also reflects the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Six years is enough time to allow policies to have tangible effects, while avoiding placing undue burdens on policy makers and stakeholders.
We will report every three years on progress towards achieving the objectives, which I think is right. That new commitment, which ought further to increase transparency and accountability, has been made in this iteration of the Bill in response to recommendations from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. As with the Agriculture Bill, six years is the longest possible review period—clause 3 provides that the JFS can be amended wherever appropriate—so the provisions in the Bill will enable us to respond quickly and as required to changing circumstances or really bad environmental changes, for example, ensuring that the policy remains fit for purpose.
Luke Pollard
Forgive me; I meant against a five-year period. Will she set out in which years she expects the first and second reviews to be produced, as that would allay fears that we will not have an opportunity in this Parliament, and perhaps the next, to ensure that a review is adequately addressed?
Victoria Prentis
I would like to take further soundings on that from the devolved Administrations because, as I said earlier, we are concerned about their purdah and election periods. If I may, I will talk to the hon. Gentleman about that outside the Committee. I do not think it will be possible for me to give him those years now without consulting the devolved Administrations. He knows, because he is aware of the provisions in the Bill, that it will be two months from Royal Assent, and we will then have a two-year period before the first JFS. Following that, the rest of the provisions continue to apply. I would like to reassure him that there is sufficient flexibility in the way the clause is drafted for us to act more urgently if needed.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Secretary of State fisheries statement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides for the Secretary of State to publish details of policies relating to UK quota matters and reserved matters, which are defined in the clause, in a Secretary of State fisheries statement, or SSFS. That is to ensure transparency and accountability in the event that the joint fisheries statement does not include such policies. Again, we have worked closely with the devolved Administrations in the development of this policy. If a situation arose in which we could not reach agreement on a JFS policy that related to UK quota matters or any reserved matter, an SSFS could be created to set out those policies. The statement would be legally binding and would have to go through consultation, scrutiny and reporting requirements. If publication of an SSFS is required, it must take place within six months of publication of the JFS, to ensure that a complete framework of policies is available with minimal delay.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Secretary of State fisheries statement: procedure
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 5, page 5, line 38, leave out “6” and insert “5”.
This amendment would ensure that the fisheries statements are subject to review every five years, instead of every six years.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 67, in clause 5, page 5, line 40, after “must” insert “, within 45 calendar days,”.
This amendment introduces a timeframe in which the Secretary of State must prepare and publish amendments to, or replacement of, the SSFS.
Stephanie Peacock
As I have already argued with regard to clause 3, Labour believes that fisheries management and scrutiny of fisheries policy need to take place at least once within a fixed-term parliamentary cycle. We believe that six years is too long a period between reviews and, as I have said, does not aid good governance or policy making. Amendment 66 is intended to bring that in line with our earlier amendment to clause 3.
Fisheries and coastal communities have experienced a great deal of uncertainty over recent years from both Brexit and the covid-19 pandemic. Amendment 67 seeks to place a timeframe of 45 days in the circumstance where the Secretary of State replaces or makes amendments to a published Secretary of State fisheries statement. We believe that that timeframe is adequate to enact changes to an SSFS, while also providing much-needed clarity and certainty for the fishing industry, if such changes were indeed to be made. It is important that we take steps to improve the confidence of fisheries management and provide certainty for the UK’s hardworking fishers.
I hope the Minister will agree that it would be far from ideal for our fishing industry to have a statement withdrawn without the certainty of a replacement’s coming in good time. I have no doubt that it would be the Minister’s intention to provide that certainty and that they would be working hard to that end, but, as we know, we do not always meet our intentions in a timely fashion. By placing a timeframe on changes to the policies that are not included in the joint fisheries statements, we will ensure that our fishers are not left in limbo and that we can provide certainty to an industry that we all wish to see thrive.
Victoria Prentis
We have chosen a six-year review period to match the review period for the joint fisheries policy statement. That review period, as I have noted previously, is a minimum, and clause 5 allows for the Secretary of State fisheries statement to be amended as the need arises, in accordance with the processes in schedule 1. In addition, we have committed to reporting every three years on progress, in response to recommendations from the EFRA Committee. These provisions should enable us to respond quickly to changing circumstances or environmental needs as required, ensuring that the policies remain fit for purpose.
I turn now to amendment 67, which would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish changes to an SSFS within 45 days. While I appreciate that the intent of this amendment is to ensure that a fisheries statement is updated swiftly, the amendment as proposed could decrease its effectiveness. In order to ensure that any amendments to the Secretary of State fisheries statements achieve their purpose, we need to allow sufficient time for drafting an appropriate consultation, not least with the devolveds, to take account of the best available evidence and ensure suitable scrutiny. That could last longer than 45 days and we do not want to lower our standards to meet an arbitrary deadline.
The Government are committed to delivering sustainable fisheries, and I hope I can reassure hon. Members that the Secretary of State would prepare and publish any required amendments to a Secretary of State fisheries statement as swiftly as is practicable. I therefore ask for the amendments not to be pressed.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Fisheries management plans: duty to comply with proposals in JFS
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill
Victoria Prentis
Fisheries management plans will transform our ability to manage our fish stocks holistically on a stock-by-stock or fisheries basis, as appropriate. They will help to move our fish stocks towards healthy, sustainable levels and allow us to move away from the damaging, one-size-fits-all approach of the common fisheries policy.
Stephanie Peacock
I welcome what the Minister has said. The Opposition welcome the introduction of fisheries management plans and hope that they will set out how stocks will be fished sustainably.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Fisheries management plans: power to depart from proposals in JFS
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 7, page 7, line 45, before ‘available’ insert ‘best’.
This amendment changes the reference to ‘available scientific evidence’ to the “best available”. This term is used elsewhere in the Bill.
The amendment refers to what is meant by a “relevant change of circumstances” that would allow a fisheries policy authority to depart from proposals in the joint fisheries statement. We acknowledge that a level of flexibility will always be required when circumstances change, but clause 7 is viewed by some environmental groups as an opt-out or loophole clause. Essentially, opting out must happen for the best scientific reasons, not just any scientific reasons.
The clause would make it possible to redraft a new plan should a change in circumstances occur. However, there are fears that its broad terms could undermine much of the important environmental and sustainability work that must take place to secure the long-term future of the industry and marine environment. Changes in circumstances include international obligations, action by a Government outside the UK, scientific evidence and evidence related to the social, economic or environmental objectives.
Greenpeace said that
“a loophole in the wording allows for these plans to be ‘amended, replaced or revoked’ under a wide range of ‘relevant’ circumstances. As long as national fisheries authorities publish a document to justify their decision, the Bill could enable them to carry on as normal, without delivering their sustainability plans.”
I share concerns about the breadth of circumstances that would allow a departure from the joint fisheries statement to happen without effective scrutiny, and in particular the reference to “available” science rather than “the best available” science.
The amendment would tighten up the relevant circumstances. If scientific evidence points towards the creation of a different fisheries management plan, it should be the best scientific evidence that guides the process. The scientific evidence objective in clause 1 requires fisheries authorities to draw on the “best available” scientific evidence. The amendment would bring clause 7 into line with that definition. Up-to-date independently produced peer-reviewed science should form the basis of all fisheries management decisions. We cannot allow poor-quality research to dictate fisheries policies and undermine progress towards achieving the objective discussed earlier. Only the best scientific advice will yield the world-leading sustainable fisheries management practices that will allow our country’s fisheries and marine environment to thrive.
Victoria Prentis
Of course we understand the need to base decision making on accurate science, but Administrations may need to act promptly as a precautionary matter when emerging evidence indicates that there is a problem. An example is the one I gave this morning about scallops on Dogger Bank. The fishing industry recently expressed concern about stock levels on Dogger Bank. We acted on industry calls to close the fishery so that we could commission scientific evidence on which scientists could then base their best advice on the state of stock. That is one example of a closure that might have seemed to be a pre-emptive act. However, it seemed sensible, to get proper evidence from the site.
Science is always evolving and sometimes what constitutes the best can be contested, particularly when data and evidence are collected by different parties using different techniques; so it is in our interest to allow our excellent scientists to make use of all available evidence, including that provided by the industry, to produce the best available scientific advice as referenced in the scientific evidence objective in clause 1. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Fisheries management plans: procedure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Fisheries management is complex and constantly changing, as the stocks are a wild natural resource. Further, fisheries science and technology is developing quickly and we must be able to respond appropriately to new findings and developments. It is important that policies within a fisheries management plan are reviewed regularly to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The clause ensures that fisheries management plans are reviewed at least every six years. As with the timing of the review of the joint fisheries statements, that follows the approach in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. If, after review, the relevant fisheries administrations find that changes are required, they may amend, replace or revoke the plan. The clause also introduces part 3 of schedule 1, which sets out the administrative process for the preparation of fisheries management plans. It includes all the requirements for consultation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Fisheries management plans: transitional provision
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 9, page 8, line 45, at end insert—
‘(2) In preparing and publishing a fisheries management plan under subsection (1), a fisheries policy authority acting alone must—
(a) consult any other fisheries policy authorities that it deems appropriate, and
(b) have regard to their responses before publishing the fisheries management plan.”
This amendment ensures that when a fisheries policy authority acts alone to introduce transitional provision, it must first consult with other fisheries policy authorities to ensure joined-up policymaking.
The amendment requires fisheries policy authorities to consult other fisheries authorities when preparing a fisheries management plan if a joint fisheries statement has not already been agreed to and published. That will ensure joined-up policy making, while also ensuring that the devolution settlement across the UK is respected. A co-development process will ensure that fisheries management plans are compatible with one another and work towards the best and most effective management of our fisheries. That will prevent gaps in management, monitoring and enforcement, and protect the health of shared fish stocks if a joint fisheries statement is not already in place. Management measures that are consistent with one another across fisheries policy authorities have the best chance of being successful in replenishing declining fish stocks.
Victoria Prentis
The amendment would place a duty on a fisheries policy authority to consult other fisheries policy authorities if it is preparing a fisheries management plan ahead of the joint fisheries statement being published. Part 3 of schedule 1 already sets out the broad consultation and publication obligations placed on the authority in these circumstances. They must consult interested persons, who may well be other fisheries policy authorities, but it might not always be an appropriate or worthwhile use of resources for a fisheries policy authority to consult all its equivalents on plans that may be located far from the jurisdiction of another authority. The existing schedule 1 has been drafted to give that flexibility.
Fisheries policy authorities will be sighted on the proposed fisheries management plan, since those plans will be listed in the joint fisheries statement. Our fisheries White Paper also makes clear our intention to work in much closer partnership with industry. We are beginning to do so as we develop the pilot fisheries management plans with, for example, the shellfish industry and with Seafish on plans for crabs, lobster and whelks. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Effect of fisheries statements and fisheries management plans
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause makes clear that the relevant fisheries authorities will be legally bound by the fisheries statements and fisheries management plans when exercising their functions. The UK fisheries administrations and the Marine Maritime Organisation are national fisheries authorities for the purposes of the clause. These fisheries authorities must act in accordance with the policies in the statement, unless a relevant change in circumstance indicates otherwise.
If there is a relevant change in circumstance, the authority may need to diverge from the policies set out in the statement for the fisheries management plans. That could, for example, be to ensure flexible management measures are implemented in the event of a really sudden decline in a stock, or it could be because new evidence suggests that a different approach to managing a stock should be taken. A non-exclusive list of examples of changes in circumstances is included in subsection (4). If that happens, the authority must prepare and publish a document to explain its action and the relevant change of circumstances that led to its decision to follow an alternative course of action.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Reports on fisheries statements and fisheries management plans
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 11, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
‘(b) any other person whom the Secretary of State deems appropriate.’
This amendment adds a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with any other person they deem appropriate, as well as devolved Ministers.
Over the last few months I have spoken to many people who are passionate about the management of our UK fishing industry, from environmentalists to industry representatives, and I feel it is important that they get a voice and a chance to contribute to any reports made on the extent to which policies have achieved the fisheries objectives set out in clause 1. The amendment simply gives the Secretary of State powers to consult qualified fishing experts, which would give a say to those who know the industry best and have its best intentions at heart.
Victoria Prentis
The amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult any appropriate person when preparing a report on an SSFS. It is of course important to ensure that we have sufficient evidence and data to establish the extent to which policies have been successful, but the amendment is not needed to achieve that. DEFRA already collects information from a wide range of sources, including scientific bodies, regulators, statutory advisers and industry in preparing its reports and we are committed to using robust evidence in all areas related to fisheries.
We would of course seek to follow a similar evidence-based approach to developing a report under the clause, including engaging with the fishing industry and non-governmental organisations. Any report on an SSFS must also be published and laid before Parliament, which would provide us with an opportunity for scrutiny.
Luke Pollard
Could the Minister set out whether the list of people she expects to be consulted on such statements includes organisations representing recreational fishing? There is a concern among many fishers in that sector that recent decisions, and especially those in relation to bass, for instance, were taken without adequate consultation with that part of the sector.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman, you, Sir Charles, and I all share an interest and understanding of the importance of recreational fishing to the fishing sector. I assure him that, where appropriate—it might not always be appropriate—the recreational fishing community will be included in any consultation necessary under the SSFS. As a consequence, it is not necessary to legislate for what is already our standard way of working, so I ask the hon. Member for Barnsley East to withdraw the amendment.
Stephanie Peacock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Fisheries Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 8th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2020 - (8 Sep 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning. I will make the usual preliminary points. We have been asked to be fairly strict about social distancing, so I ask you to bear that in mind. If you find that you are bit constrained on one side of the room, people are allowed to sit where there is space; it will not affect your vote or anything like that. I also ask you to switch your phones and electronic devices to silent. Mr Speaker does not permit tea, coffee or other drinks to be consumed during the sitting.
We shall start with the programme motion, which was agreed at the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 8 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 September;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 September;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 17 September;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 11; Schedule 1; Clauses 12 and 13; Schedule 2; Clauses 14 to 19; Schedule 3; Clauses 20 to 23; Schedule 4; Clauses 24 to 29; Schedule 5; Clauses 30 to 35; Schedule 6; Clause 36; Schedule 7; Clauses 37 to 44; Schedule 8; Clauses 45 and 46; Schedule 9; Clause 47; Schedule 10; Clauses 48 to 54; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 17 September.—(Victoria Prentis.)
The Chair
We are off to a flyer. We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for the sitting is available in the room; it shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together. Amendments on the same or a similar issue are generally grouped together, but please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated—I know this occasionally confuses all of us—but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects.
Clause 1
Fisheries Objectives
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) Any public authority with functions relating to fisheries activities or fisheries management must have regard to the fisheries objectives in the exercise of those functions.”
This amendment would place a duty on public authorities to have regard to the fisheries objectives in exercising their fisheries functions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 62, in clause 2, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must annually lay a statement before Parliament on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
(3B) The first such statement under subsection (3A) must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of this section coming into force.”
This amendment would add a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual statement on progress towards achieving the fisheries objectives.
Luke Pollard
It is good to be back in the Fisheries Bill Committee. A few of us in the room—the hardy few—are alumni of the last time that we had a sitting of the Bill Committee, which was a good debate. We have a Committee that is made up of all political parties and is focused on getting the best deal for our fishers, which is what the Opposition seek to do by proposing a number of amendments that look at how we strengthen our fishing sector, how we make it more sustainable, and how we do so clearly. I know there has been a lot of misdirection around positions on fishing in the past, especially after the Second Reading debate. However, I trust that there will not be any further misdirection by political parties’ press offices, especially the ones responsible for the rather shameful adverts that we saw after Second Reading.
Labour supports the Bill. We support it because we want our fishers to have a sustainable future. We want to see a coastal renaissance that creates more jobs in fishing, lands more fish in British ports and enables us to eat more local fish. It is in that spirit that we have tabled a number of amendments. Amendments 61 and 62 stand in my name and that of the shadow Fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East. A lot has changed in the past two years, but I hope that we can make some real progress and get a good deal, because time to get a good deal for our fishers is running out, with the hard deadline for our departure from the Brexit transition period the end of the year.
Clause 1 sets the tone for the entire Bill, highlighting the objectives—what they are, and how they will be put into practice—but it also sets the tone for the next 50 years of fishing in Britain. If we get this right, we have the opportunity to create more jobs and that coastal renaissance, but we will need amendments to the Bill to get there. That is the simple challenge that I put to members of this Committee. How sustainable do we want our industry to be—indeed, do we want it to be sustainable or not? Our amendments show clearly that we want fishing to be more sustainable, because there is no future for fishing if it is not sustainable. Sadly, that is not implied by the Government amendments.
The amendments in the House of Lords that made sustainability the prime consideration of fisheries management were a really important statement. It said that Britain will not be overfishing, that Britain values our fish stocks, and that we will support our industry so that it has a sustainable future. Those Lords amendments were a beacon of sustainability and good environmental practice, and we should defend that in this Committee.
I am pleased that the Government took the time to consider the amendments proposed by Labour the last time that this Bill was discussed—indeed, a large number of those amendments have now been made and they will be defended by the Government. I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for listening to our arguments, if not at the time then subsequently, and for accepting those amendments. But when it comes to sustainability, we need to recognise that more needs to be done.
Fishermen and women are some of the original stewards of our environment. Many of those I have spoken to in Plymouth, which I represent, and in fishing ports across the country know how important it is that fishing is sustainable, that we protect our ecosystems. We must recognise the impact climate change is having on fish stocks and reproduction rates, on the zones where certain species are found, and on the growth of certain species in some fishing areas and the decline of species in other areas.
We have these objectives for the Bill, but the Bill does not explain what will be done about them and how they will be achieved. What is the point of having these objectives that we have all worked so hard on if they are not going to be achieved? Our amendments are very simple. Amendment 61 would oblige any public body that has functions relating to fishing to have regard to the objectives, instantly giving them a practical aspect. There is already a requirement in the Bill for a report to be made, but we should give the Bill some teeth by ensuring that the report is presented to Parliament, as amendment 62 sets out. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East will say more on this when we discuss clause 2.
Both amendments relate to the important idea that fisheries must be our key consideration. Why would anyone not support amendment 61? If Members do not support this amendment, they do not want public bodies to pay due regard to these objectives.
The Chair
Mr Pollard, I am sorry to interrupt you, but I just want to be sure that we have all understood that amendment 62 is also being discussed now.
Luke Pollard
Yes, Mr McCabe. I am still on amendment 61. I beg your pardon; I will get to amendment 62 in just a moment.
Amendment 61 would ensure that public bodies—national Governments, regulatory bodies, science bodies and, in relation to funding arrangements, bodies of the Government that allocate funding to our coastal communities—have due regard for the objectives. If they are not to have due regard for them, why are they there at all? Why have a sustainability or ecosystem objective, or a bycatch objective, if they are just to create lines in the Bill and are not an important part of it?
Turning hurriedly to amendment 62, Mr McCabe, the important part of laying the statement before Parliament is that we want the opportunity to discuss it on an annual basis. In the previous Bill Committee, the transcripts of which I am sure the Minister has read thoroughly, there was a good debate about the frequency with which the Government should report to Parliament. Historically, we had the annual fisheries debate in Westminster, which was designed to strengthen the hand of the Fisheries Minister ahead of the December Fisheries Council, to set out clearly for them the concerns of our fishing sector and coastal communities, and to ensure that they would fight the corner of the species and sectors that were most at risk. However, the annual fisheries debate has become slightly less frequent, and it has moved around because of the frequency of fisheries Bills. Having an annual report laid before Parliament and therefore discussed by parliamentarians is the key part of amendment 62 that would allow us to look at what progress has been achieved towards the objectives. Amendment 61 states that people must have due regard in the exercise of public functions, and amendment 62 states that there must be decent scrutiny of the progress towards those objectives. Both are important starting points for the Bill. Both set the tone, which is that sustainability must be the prime consideration.
Although there is good, sound logic to say that all the objectives are equal, there is one simple truth: if we overfish our seas, there will not be enough fish left for a fishing industry to exist. That is why sustainability has to be the prime consideration. I want jobs in our coastal communities to continue. That is the argument that Labour Members present. We need to make sure we manage our fish stocks at sustainable levels, that we do not set total allowable catches above maximum sustainable yields, and that we ensure that sustainability is the prime consideration at all times. For that to take place, we need to make sure that all public bodies have due regard to the objectives set out in the Bill. I know that the Minister and her officials have worked very hard on those objectives and will make further proposals to improve them shortly, but what is the point of all the work that has gone into those provisions if no regard is paid to them?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and to speak to this important Bill. I hear what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport says about Labour’s support for the Bill, and I am grateful for the genuinely consensual way in which Labour and Conservative Members normally work on fisheries. Those negotiating on our behalf with the EU hear how this House speaks as one on fisheries, as we did very strongly on Second Reading. We are all determined to get the very best for our fishermen.
It is fair to say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that the previous Committee worked hard to improve the Bill. Those improvements and those made in the other place are reflected in the Bill before us today. I am grateful to all the people who worked so hard to bring it to its current incarnation.
The blanket requirement that amendment 61 would place on all authorities is not appropriate. It is for the fisheries administrations to determine appropriate policies for meeting the objectives set out in the Bill. Public authorities already have relevant duties under a vast amount of other legislation. A statutory body’s objectives and duties will be set out in primary legislation. Inshore fisheries conservation authorities already have a duty under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to seek to ensure that the,
“exploitation of sea fisheries resources”,
is carried out in a sustainable way. Under that Act, the Secretary of State may give guidance to an IFCA on how it performs the duty, and the IFCA must of course have regard to such guidance. I am worried that the amendment could dilute the accountability of fisheries policy authorities, as clearly established in the Bill, by dividing responsibility for the objectives more broadly across a wide range of public authorities, which might lead to divergent approaches.
A similar argument applies to amendment 62. The Bill already contains a robust framework of reporting and review requirements that will provide sufficient information to inform and drive progress against the fisheries objectives. Clause 11(1) states that the fisheries policy authorities must, every three years, prepare and publish a report on the extent to which the policies set out have been implemented. Clause 11(2) requires the report under subsection (1) to include the extent to which the policies contained in a relevant fisheries management plan have been implemented and how they have affected stocks.
Bearing in mind the number of objectives, we strongly believe that an annual reporting requirement would place a disproportionate burden on fisheries managers and the industry for not a great deal of gain. Not enough would have changed in a year, and the report might have little value. It would divert needed resource away from direct fisheries management, reduce the authorities’ ability to move towards co-management with the industry, and potentially hamper the deliverability of the eight objectives.
There is of course nothing to prevent a parliamentary debate—a Government debate, an Opposition day debate or a Back-Bench debate—from taking place if that were considered appropriate as an annual event, or more frequently. I for one am always happy to talk about fisheries policies in Parliament and I am sure that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is, too. However, that does not change my view of this amendment, and I therefore ask him to withdraw it.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I hear what the Minister says about how we have all sorts of options, including as Back Benchers. Is not the point, though, that we can have lots of debates on this issue but they are not legally binding and will not compel the Government? It is just nice for us to talk about it. The point that the amendment is making is about the need for a legal requirement for the Government to follow.
Victoria Prentis
For the reasons that I have set out, I believe that the reporting requirements that need to be legally binding and are in the Bill are more than sufficient, but I am not in any way denigrating the idea that we might want to talk about fisheries far more often.
Luke Pollard
I am a big fan of having votes on these proposals and putting Labour’s positions clearly, but on this amendment, I have listened to what the Minister has said and I am happy not to push it to a vote. I like the commitment that the Minister has given to good scrutiny of fisheries policy in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Luke Pollard
I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“(i) the public asset objective;
(j) the safety and workforce objective.”
This amendment would add to the fisheries objectives the “public asset” and “safety and workforce” objectives, defined in Amendment 72.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 72, in clause 1, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(10A) The “public asset objective” is to manage fisheries, and the rights to exploit those fisheries, as a shared resource and public asset held in stewardship for the public good.”
(10B) The “safety and workforce objective” is—
(a) to protect and enhance the safety of workers in fishing activities,
(b) to set and protect minimum standards for wages, terms and conditions of employment in fishing activities,
(c) to prevent modern slavery in fishing activities, and
(d) to ensure the application and enforcement of the national minimum wage by HMRC on fishing vessels within the United Kingdom’s Exclusive Economic Zone.”
This amendment defines the “public asset” and “safety and workforce” objectives.
Luke Pollard
For future reference, Mr McCabe, I will be dealing with all the amendments to the first clause.
In amendments 71 and 72, Labour is suggesting that we add two further objectives: a public asset objective and a safety and workforce objective. Each is important, but the safety one is particularly so. I know that there is a good amount of cross-party support for it, and I wish to ensure that that matter is kept separate from the cut and thrust of other political debates around fishing.
I have already spoken about why strengthening the objectives is important, but if we are truly to back our fishers, we need to go further. That is why Labour proposes two new objectives. The public asset objective would deliver on the pledge in the Government’s original fisheries White Paper:
“We aim to manage these fisheries—and the wider marine environment—as a shared resource, a public asset held in stewardship for the benefit of all.”
That aim has cross-party support, but it seems to have got lost somewhere along the way between the White Paper and the Bill. In addition, the Conservative manifesto for the recent general election said:
“British farmers and fishermen should be able to profit by producing food and fish that are the envy of the world—both for their quality and the high standards to which they were produced…we want those same farmers and fishermen to act as the stewards of the natural world, preserving the UK’s countryside and oceans as they have for generations.”
It is important that we recognise that our oceans are the inheritance of us all, and their fishers need to be their protectors but also their stewards along the way.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of fishermen are paid a share of the catch? Therefore they may have a good day or a bad day. Were we to impose national minimum wage objectives, that type of payment system could well be disrupted.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the share fishing that many trawlers go with. I think the point is that there should be a base minimum. That debate on the consequences of a national minimum wage was held in Committee Rooms such as this when nearly all the Members now on the Opposition Benches were at school. The consequence of introducing a national minimum wage in fishing will be that all fishers are paid a basic level. That is especially true for those who are currently paid well below it, not because of a bad day at sea or weather obstructing fishing activity—I believe that that is what the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting—but because of the deliberate pay policy of the fishing organisation in question, to pay below the minimum wage, and in particular to pay foreign crews below the minimum wage.
The signal that the safety and workforce objective would send out in relation to that—although the Minister will no doubt say that subsequent work would be needed to sit behind it—would be a strong message that we expect a certain standard of pay for fishers. As to poverty pay for those fishing at sea, which is a dangerous profession, it would show that we as a newly independent coastal state, to borrow a phrase often used by the Conservative party, will set a high standard. Whether it is a matter of safety or pay, there is a profound case for high standards, especially for the foreign crews who are often paid less, which creates market distortion vis-à-vis the pay for British crews. There is an opportunity to level the playing field and create the basic standards that will say that safety and workforce issues matter. That is why the safety and workforce objective sends a clear message about our intentions.
I suspect that the Minister will disagree with most of what I have said, and I predict she will not want the objective to be in the Bill, but I hope she will be able to set out what measures the Government will take on the issue, recognising that there is a grey zone of responsibility, with safety sitting between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, while the minimum wage sits between that and fisheries.
Mr Goodwill
No one would doubt the importance of health and safety, but there is already an obligation in the Bill, in clause 35(1)(e), to be able to give help, in terms of health and safety funding. I suggest that the amendment is superfluous, given that the issue is covered elsewhere in the Bill.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman highlights a good topic, which I did not touch on, but am happy to, about the optionality of safety. My view and that of the Labour party is that safety should be a minimum standard, not an optional extra. Under the clause 35 financial assistance powers, the Secretary of State has the ability to arrange financial assistance for
“maintaining or improving the health and safety of individuals who are involved in commercial fish or aquaculture activities”.
He has the ability to do that: there is not a minimum standard that insists on it.
If the right hon. Gentleman suggests that clause 35(1)(e), on which we can still table amendments as we have not reached it yet, should be a compulsory measure—that the Secretary of State should ensure that there is always funding to create a minimum standard—I would agree. In the absence of a minimum standard, clause 35(1)(e) solely suggests that the Secretary of State can fund such provision if he or she wishes. That is a very different point from a minimum standard, and that is why it is so important that there should be a safety and workforce objective that establishes at a high level the belief that there should be minimum standards.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in your place, Mr McCabe, as well as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. It is a pleasure to get the band back together, with a few notable extras.
We are absolutely in favour of amendments 71 and 72, and if they are put to a vote we will support them. The public asset objective for our fisheries is hugely important and runs parallel with the Scottish Government’s aim of managing Scottish fisheries as a national asset.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was right to highlight the barriers that have been put in the way of those wishing to join the industry, through the concentration of incredible amounts of quota in the hands of a tiny number of very wealthy individuals. If the fisheries industry is to be a public asset, it has to benefit the public that it should serve. At the moment, it fails to do that.
It is correct that the safety of the workforce has to be paramount. No one in this room with a fishing community in their constituency has not felt the pain of a fishing tragedy. In my own Argyll and Bute constituency we went through something similar a couple of years ago. Every community has a tale to tell. We need to make safety a top priority, as part of the creation of an environment that will encourage more people to join the industry.
Those two issues are closely connected. If we create a safe environment in which young people believe that they can prosper and have a future in the fishing industry, through safety measures and through a change to the quota system, we can make fishing an attractive career of choice. That will help to alleviate a lot of the issues that we currently face in trying to attract people, particularly young people, into the industry.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is correct when he says that the treatment of many non-EU nationals and non-EEA nationals who have worked in the fishing industry has to be looked at, but I would not go so far. From my experience of speaking to local fishermen in my constituency, they tend to be extremely good employers, but there has to be a minimum standard set and a minimum requirement for anyone wishing to employ people, regardless of where they come from, in the fishing industry.
If amendment 71 is pushed to a vote, we will support it as we are in broad agreement with the hon. Gentleman.
Victoria Prentis
I appreciate the intention behind both amendments 71 and 72. However, as anticipated by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I feel that the law is already clear on both those points. I do not think it is necessary to amend the Bill in this way and I will go into some detail about why that it is.
As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport gets to know me better, he will learn that I am never happier than when discussing older laws. My personal university and legal background make the Magna Carta a fascinating document to me—indeed, I was discussing with the Fisheries Bill team yesterday. He should not set me down trains of thought unless he wants to hear the responses.
On the proposed public access objective, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—UNCLOS—establishes that the UK has sovereign rights to manage the marine resources within our exclusive economic zone, which obviously includes fish. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that UK case law, which is slightly more recent than the Magna Carta, recognises clearly that those fish are a public asset, held by the Crown, for the benefit of the public. The public right to fish was confirmed most helpfully in a case called Malcolmson v. O’Dea in 1863. Legally, it is well established that no one individual can own the fish.
In terms of the rights to exploit and fish the fish, most UK fishing opportunities are managed, as the hon. Gentleman set out, through fixed quota allocation units. As he said, the High Court has held those units as a form of property right. Fixed quota allocation holders do not own the fish in the sea, but the FQA units entitle those holders to a share of whatever quota is available in that particular year. That is quite clear in the legal cases.
Mr Goodwill
Will the Minister recognise that there are exceptions to that in terms of royal fish, in that whales, porpoises and sturgeon become the property of the monarch? Indeed, in Scotland, any fish of that type that cannot be pulled on to shore by six oxen pulling a wain would qualify as royal fish, be the property of the Crown and be dealt with by the Scottish Administration on the Crown’s behalf.
Victoria Prentis
It is always a pleasure to give way to the former fisheries Minister, who has knowledge of areas of law I can only dream of.
Fixed quota allocation units do not confer a permanent right to quota, but Government policy, as set out in the fisheries White Paper—a document particularly beloved of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—is to maintain the FQA system, which has provided certainty to the industry for many years. That is important to those who have invested money in FQA units and very important to those who have borrowed money in mortgage form using FQA units as collateral.
Brendan O’Hara
Does the Minister accept that the legal position she is spelling out and the reality in practice are totally different? They are barely nodding acquaintances. Is she saying that she does not see any need to reform the quota system and that she is quite happy for it to continue as it is?
Victoria Prentis
I believe very firmly in the rule of law, and I would never accept that the legal system and reality are in any way in divergence. The Government have made it clear that the current quota system needs to stay in place for the reasons that I am in the middle of giving. However, for future quota allocation we will—and probably should—look at very different ways of doing that. I will go on to explain why that is the case.
To go back to FQA units and the existing law, which is reality as far as I am concerned, this method of allocation has its detractors across the House and in the industry. However, FQA units confer benefits, such as creating a sense of stewardship of the resource and enabling quota to be traded to get into the hands of those who want to fish against it. If amendment 71 were passed, I am concerned that it could undermine the FQA regime and that that would undoubtedly cause instability, prevent investment and, ultimately, have a damaging effect on the jobs and coastal communities that we all want to thrive. For example, I know that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, Interfish is one example of those that fish to FQAs. We propose to keep the existing quota system broadly as it is, while looking at the future system for the extra quota that we will be able to allocate.
Luke Pollard
The Minister mentions Interfish, which is a brilliant fishing company that I am very proud to have in the patch I represent. However, I do not follow her argument. Can she set out how having “public asset” already in UK law, as defined by the court case she has just mentioned, and then having a public asset objective are different? They seem to be very similar. Saying that we already have a public asset within UK law but that we cannot have a public asset objective in UK law because that would be bad seems to be contradictory. Can the Minister clarify that?
Victoria Prentis
There is no contradiction; I just do not feel that the extra amendment is necessary. Another reason for that is that the national benefit objective in the Bill already requires UK fishing activities to bring social or economic benefits to the UK. That means, in effect, that the Bill already recognises the importance of managing fisheries for the public good.
I now move on to the important issue of safety and training requirements. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is right to highlight that the matter was mentioned a great deal by Members across the House on Second Reading. It is right that I should—as I did on Second Reading—pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s long campaigning on this important issue. It rightly concerns us all and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is shared between Departments, but that does not in any way detract from the importance of moving forward. Indeed, it rather strengthens our hand across Government.
Safety at sea is, of course, not just about fishing. It is a maritime vessel issue. The safety of all vessels falls within the remit of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Legal requirements for the safety of vessels are already in place in several pieces of legislation, most particularly in the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997. Adding further complexity to an already comprehensive framework of legislation will not do much to improve safety. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport rightly said, training and behaviour change are what is needed. I was particularly glad to hear him mention personal locator beacons, not least because grants are available to fund those at the moment. I encourage all those who could benefit from wearing a personal locator beacon to apply for those grants. I am pleased to see—I think the hon. Gentleman would agree—that positive progress has been made, with the industry taking greater responsibility, with support from the relevant authorities where possible. We should not be complacent, obviously, and I look forward to continued working across the House on that important issue.
On the equally serious issue of modern slavery, working conditions and the general wellbeing of our fishers, the UK has fully implemented the requirements of the International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention. Of course, we have the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which ensures that—from 2016—officers from police forces, the National Crime Agency and Border Force can board and search vessels, seize evidence and arrest offenders. Section 1(2)(b) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 already requires that
“all seafarers working on ships within the UK internal waters and ports are entitled to be paid at least the national minimum wage.”
That is
“regardless of where the ship is registered”
or where the worker ordinarily lives or comes from. The legal exception to that is for those paid by crew share. We know that almost three quarters of fishermen are paid that way.
Recent research conducted by Seafish shows that average gross crew shares in the UK range from £1,060 a month for onshore workers to over £4,000 for mates. That is in line with or better than national minimum wage requirements, so we do not feel that the amendments are necessary and I ask the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport not to press them.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out her reasons for disagreeing with the amendments and for setting out the importance of safety. We will return to safety later. With that in mind, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
‘(2) The “sustainability objective” is that—
(a) fish and aquaculture activities are—
(i) environmentally sustainable in the long term, and
(ii) managed so as to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and
(b) the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”
This amendment alters the definition of the “sustainability objective” so as to revert to the definition as it stood before it was substituted at Report stage in the Lords.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 74, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, after “marine” insert “and aquatic”
This amendment would add the avoidance of the degradation of the aquatic environment to the definition of the “ecosystem objective”.
Amendment 75, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, leave out “minimised and, where possible,”
This amendment changes the definition of the “ecosystem objective” to include the reversal of negative impacts on marine ecosystems in all circumstances.
Amendment 76, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out “minimised and, where possible,”
This amendment changes the definition of the “ecosystem objective” to include the elimination of incidental catches of sensitive species in all circumstances.
Amendment 77, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
“(aa) real-time scientific data is generated from both research vessels and all fishing vessels,”
This amendment would add the generation of accurate real-time scientific data to the definition of the “scientific evidence objective”.
Amendment 78, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out paragraph (c)
This amendment removes the objective for bycatch to be landed where appropriate.
Amendment 79, in clause 1, page 2, line 24, after “area” insert “, fishing opportunity, or entitlement for any resources”
This amendment would extend the definition of the “equal access objective” to cover equal access to fishing opportunities.
Amendment 73, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert—
“(a) fish and aquaculture activities achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, including in particular through efforts to—
(i) improve the environmental performance of fishing ports;
(ii) promote the decarbonisation of fish and aquaculture activities; and
(iii) phase out the use of fossil fuels;
(b) fish and aquaculture activities adapt to the impact of the climate emergency;
(c) fisheries policy is compliant with the United Kingdom’s obligations under—
(i) the United Nations Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
(ii) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
(iii) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity,
(iv) the Convention on the Law of the Sea,
(v) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
(vi) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”
This amendment expands the “climate change objective”.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid this will be rather a marathon as there are a number of amendments grouped together, but I am sure we will manage to get through them.
The Government recognise the intent of the other place, and indeed the Labour party, in seeking to focus attention on environmental sustainability in these amendments. However, we feel that the Opposition amendments create serious and, I am afraid, unacceptable legal and devolution constitutional issues and would undermine the Bill, including the important environmental objectives that we are all so keen to see.
The ambiguity of a prime objective creates a significant risk that we will be prevented by law from supporting coastal communities as they transition from the status quo to a new and improved fisheries management regime. For example, in the past two years, if we had not been able to agree with the EU a small quota above scientific advice for cod in the Celtic sea, the issue of choke species would have led to the closure of many valuable fisheries in the south-west, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport knows. In fact, those fishermen target other species, some of which are certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. In 2018, fish caught near the seabed and brought into the south-west ports, plus landings of cuttlefish, were worth about £57 million and were a significant part of the economy in those areas. I am worried that under a prime fisheries objective, that level of appropriate flexibility would not be lawful. Having a prime objective would limit our flexibility in annual negotiations, I am told by the fish team, which conducts those negotiations. For example, it could mean that other parties would know that our negotiating position on quota had to be within a certain environmentally sustainable limit, and we could be tied into accepting an outcome that might disadvantage the UK.
Stephanie Peacock
In answer to one of my written questions, yesterday the Government said that by the end of 2020, of the 67% of total allowable catches set at maximum sustainable yield, only 54 stocks will reach that. That basically means that a third of fish stocks at maximum sustainable yield will not be sustainable. Will the Minister comment on the fact that a whole third is not meeting that?
Victoria Prentis
I think the hon. Lady is possibly slightly unaware that we do not currently have good data for many stocks. We fish, we think, just over 100 stocks—we have 100 stocks available to us to fish in the UK, and we are very fortunate to have a very wide, mixed fishery—but we simply cannot say whether we are meeting MSY because we do not have the data available. That is why it is so important that we do the work where we need to, such as in Dogger Bank, to find out what is happening.
I can answer the hon. Lady more fully as we go through the Bill; we have a whole section on MSY coming up. I know it was not the intention that this amendment, inserted in the other place, should cause difficulties by introducing a hierarchy into the set of interlinked objectives, but I feel that returning clause 1 to its original balance is the best outcome for the environment, our fisheries and our coastal communities.
Amendment 74 would extend the scope of the Bill to the management of fish and aquaculture activities in freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater ecosystems are already managed through a comprehensive suite of legislation, which emanates mostly from the EU water framework directive. The Environment Agency regulates inland waters under the Environment Act 1995. Freshwater fisheries are also regulated under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. There are, of course, specific challenges to managing freshwater ecosystems, most of which are unrelated to fishing or angling—for example, those relating to water quality or obstructions in sluices. We are further strengthening our regulation of such issues through both the Agriculture and Environment Bills.
This Bill has been developed to put in place a new sea fisheries management regime and clearly focuses on the marine environment. We recognise that the term “marine and aquatic” is used elsewhere in the Bill where appropriate; we want there to be no doubt, for example, over the scope of an administration’s powers to make grants in relation to inland as well as marine activities. However, this Bill’s core purpose is managing marine and coastal fisheries, and that is why we do not feel that this is a helpful amendment.
Amendment 75 is also well intentioned, but we feel it would have significant unforeseen impacts, which could lead to stopping a great deal of fishing activity and damaging our coastal communities as a result. Requiring our fisheries and aquaculture sector to reverse all the negative impacts of their activities on marine ecosystems, as proposed in the amendment, would simply render many fishing activities impossible.
On amendment 76, we of course agree that we must protect sensitive species from incidental catches in fishing nets. The Government are committed to encouraging the fishing industry to minimise bycatch of sensitive species as much as possible, and we are developing UK plans of action for cetacean and seabird bycatch, working closely with the fishing industry and environmental groups. Our various bycatch monitoring programmes are essential to inform that work. We will be launching a broader programme of work on protected, endangered and threatened species bycatch to support a more holistic system.
However, the effect of this particular amendment would be that fisheries administrations would have to have policies that would eliminate all bycatch. While our goal is to reduce bycatch to as close to zero as possible, in some situations complete elimination of bycatch will not be possible and some sensitive species will inevitably be caught. The wording that bycatch should be,
“minimised and, where possible, eliminated”,
reflects this intention and ensures that our objective is ambitious but achievable. It is accepted by both environmental organisations and fishermen.
Turning to amendment 77, the Government support extensive monitoring. We already have an extensive data collection programme that uses effective and innovative methods, such as underwater TV surveys. We feel this amendment is unnecessary, as the objective to collect scientific data is already included within paragraph (a) of the scientific evidence objective. It is important, as not all scientific data can be collected or used in real time. There may be a period of several weeks, or indeed months, between samples being taken from a fish on deck and the completion of the scientific processes. We agree—I know we will be discussing this issue further on another day—that the increased use of remote electronic monitoring may well help us to achieve this scientific objective, which is why we have included powers in the Bill that would allow its future roll-out, or further roll-out. Even then, given the volumes of data collected, that data may well not be checked in real time.
Turning to amendment 78, the CFP’s landing obligation, which was fully implemented last year, requires all species subject to catch limits to be landed and counted against quota, rather than discarded at sea. There are a few limited exceptions. Now that we have left the EU, the Administrations are free to develop discard policies that are tailored to the industries. However, as I have noted, even when our fishing practices are highly selective there will be instances in which this unwanted bycatch cannot be avoided entirely, given the high number of mixed fisheries in UK waters. If, for example, that catch is scientifically proven to have high survivability, it will be better for the long-term sustainability of the stock for it to be returned alive, rather than landed dead. There may be some limited instances in which there would be a high economic or safety cost to land bycatch caught unintentionally, so that is the purpose behind the “where appropriate” phrase in the Bill. I am worried that the effect of this amendment would be to undermine our future discards policy.
Amendment 79 would cause significant problems for the industry and the fisheries administrations. The management of fishing opportunities, namely quota, is inherently different from managing access to fishing waters. The equal access objective ensures that all UK fishing boats can continue to access all UK waters. By contrast, the management of quota is devolved. At the start of each fishing year, UK quotas are apportioned between the Administrations by the Secretary of State, and each Administration is then responsible for distributing those quotas to industry: the Scottish Government determine how quota is allocated to Scottish-registered vessels, and so on. Allowing equal access to fishing opportunities regardless of where vessels are licensed and registered directly conflicts with those devolved arrangements, and implies that each Administration would have to make quota available to boats managed by the other Administrations. It is unclear how that would work, and the uncertainty it would create would threaten the stability of the current quota apportionment system.
Finally, I will make a few points regarding amendment 73. The Government’s world-leading commitment to net zero, declaration of a climate emergency, and the inclusion of a climate change objective in this Bill—an improvement on the Bill, in my view—all show how seriously the Government are taking their commitments to climate change mitigation and adaption. Emissions from fishing vessels count towards national emissions, and are part of national plans to address emissions in the longer term under the Climate Change Act 2008. The unique part of the Bill’s existing climate change objective is the focus on mitigating the adverse effect of all fish and aquaculture activities. While part of that mitigation is through decarbonisation, it is important to emphasise that many other potential impacts need to be mitigated, such as impacts on the health of marine habitats that impair their ability to store carbon. I am concerned that the amended wording would limit our options on developing policies for mitigation only through decarbonisation and port improvements.
Fishing activity is already part of the Government’s commitment to net zero by 2050. The UK takes its international obligations very seriously, as underlined in the fisheries White Paper. We believe that it would be inappropriate to include in the Bill references to some, but not all, of our international commitments in this area. We feel this amendment is unnecessary, as it restates existing obligations and commitments of the UK under international law. I hope that the Opposition will feel able to support Government amendment 1, and will not press their remaining amendments.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out what is a lengthy, complicated group of amendments. I will also go through each amendment in turn, with specific focus on Government amendment 1 and amendment 73, the key amendments within this group.
Government amendment 1 seeks to remove a line inserted by the House of Lords:
“The sustainability objective is the prime fisheries objective.”
That sends a very poor message to those who want us to manage our fish stocks sustainably. There is no future for fishing unless it is sustainable, which is the clear message of the current wording of the Bill. I disagree with the Minister’s argument that the current wording makes things difficult. Indeed, we have to face up to the difficult truth around fishing and sustainability—if fishing is not truly sustainable, there will not be a fishing industry in future.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the wording proposed by the Lords would tie the hands of Ministers as they go to the annual fishing negotiations? Stocks are determined within a particular zone, and we could end up with the UK not being able to fish some of that stock because we could not take back to the UK the agreement that we would have made had we not been so encumbered.
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for setting that out. Let me be clear: a Labour Government would not set total allowable catches above the maximum sustainable yield. Telling our European friends that we want a sustainable fishing industry is not giving the game away or betraying our fishers. It is setting out, clearly for all to see the fact that we manage our fish stocks sustainably and that we want a sustainable fishing industry, economically and environmentally. That is the level that we would approach this at. That is really important.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions the move to zonal attachment, rather than relative stability, which he knows Labour supports in relation to this. It is therefore important that we set the tone and the objective that our own fisheries waters need to be sustainable at that level. That is what the amendment to the Bill sets out—fisheries sustainability is the primary driver of fisheries management.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment is entirely unnecessary, given that the people most invested and most keen on maintaining sustainable fisheries are the fishermen engaged right now? By virtue of the fact that they need that industry to survive, and therefore need fish to reproduce sustainably, they are most keen on maintaining sustainability in our oceans. The amendment was therefore entirely unnecessary in the first place.
Luke Pollard
I agree that Government amendment 1 is entirely unnecessary, and I wish that the Minister would withdraw it. I fear that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the Lords amendment was unnecessary, but to save his blushes I will correct him on that. However, I agree that Government amendment 1 is unnecessary. [Interruption.] I will make a wee bit of progress before I take any more interventions.
Opposition Members are pleased that the Government have included a new climate change objective in the Bill, which was discussed when the last Fisheries Bill was in Committee. At that time, the arguments against that were that it would be unnecessary and would make decisions more difficult in future. I am glad that, on reflection, those arguments were shown to be unnecessary themselves. I believe the same should be said about this Government amendment, because we are sending a poor message to fishers, our coastal communities and all concerned about there being more plastic than fish in our oceans if we say that fishing sustainability is not the prime objective of fisheries management, because that needs to be front and centre.
That is why the Opposition support the Lords amendment to the Bill. Indeed, we note that it was passed with near cross-party support, with many Conservative Lords speaking in support of it. This is not only a view held by those on the left—it is a cross-party view held by those with a concern about the future of our fishing sector. I am concerned about the Government’s attempts to water down commitments to sustainability, kicking the climate crisis into the long grass with vague long-term objectives and no reference to any dates. Worryingly, while the Lords amendment guarantees that the environmental standards are not compromised in the long or short term, Ministers are seeking to remove that part of the Bill and replace it with reference only to the long term.
We need to send a clear message. Ministers have been clear in sending a message on their headline political objectives for fishing, but they have not extended that clarity to their headline sustainability objectives. Sustainability should be our prime watchword in the short, medium and long term. It should not be kicked into the long grass with the vague wording, “in the long term”. Our oceans are being irreparably damaged as we speak. We know that there are fish stocks under real pressure in UK waters. We have a wonderful mixed fishery in the south-west, as the Minister acknowledged. It is a real inheritance for our children that we have such diversity in our waters. Preserving that is important.
The Minister mentioned several items that I want to pick up in relation to Government amendment 1, before I turn to the subsequent amendments. I want our European friends to know that our objective is sustainable fishing. I want our European friends’ objective to be sustainable fishing. Setting that target along with the move to zonal attachment could be a profound statement of our future fisheries management intention.
The Minister mentioned the Richard Benyon review of highly protected marine areas. I appreciate that the first part of that report was pushed out before. I am concerned that we will not see the second part. I would be grateful if the Minister would set out what comes next. In making the case for highly protected marine areas, Richard Benyon—formerly of this parish—has made a strong case for delivery of the UN 2030 target, the oceans treaty, which the Government have signed up to. Labour argued that the Government should sign up to that. We were pleased when the former Secretary of State made that announcement.
It is important, but neglected, that that treaty says that by 2030, 30% of our waters should be fully protected. The phrase “fully protected”, rather than just “protected”, is important. It relates to the importance of sustainability as the prime directive, because “fully protected” means no-take zones. It means that we are not removing biomass from those waters. I do not believe Ministers have properly explained that to the fishing community. There needs to be greater clarity. Setting that target—to great aplomb and applause form all, including ourselves—dictates clarity as to how we achieve that.
We are just over nine years away from 2030. The plan to achieve that target is important. That is why sustainability must be at the forefront, as must the recommendations from the Benyon review, suggesting that the livelihoods of fishers must also be taken into account in setting any targets. I am not here to suggest policy to the Minister, particularly on that matter, but I would like to suggest to the Minister that her Department needs to set out what that road map is, if it is not to be a report that sits on a shelf as 2030 draws ever closer.
On amendment 73, the Minister mentioned our desire to achieve net zero for fishing. I raised this point on Second Reading at the Dispatch Box, as did several Labour colleagues. Having set a net zero target of 2050—although I disagree with the 2050 date and would rather it were closer to 2030—it is important that we have a road map as to how we decarbonise every part of our economy.
Amendment 73 requires that
“fish and aquaculture activities achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030, including in particular through efforts”
in relation to a certain number of items. I am a 2030 believer, as someone who is red on the outside and green on the inside. The important thing is that I want the Minister to set out clearly the plan to decarbonise the fleet.
In Fishing News and other fishing publications there are wonderful examples of modern and fuel-efficient forms of propulsion in our fishing fleet, but there is no plan to decarbonise our entire fishing fleet. Indeed, some of our smaller vessels, which tend to be our oldest vessels, can use thousands of litres of diesel for a single fishing trip. We need to make a case for having a plan to enable those fishers to afford to replace their propulsion with a cleaner method by 2030, rather than by the Government’s target of 2050. The lifetime expectations of propulsion, and particularly fishing boats, is currently within the planning horizon of many of our fishers.
If the Minister disagrees with that part of amendment 73, I challenge her to tell us what the plan is. Where is the plan? If no plan exists, when can we expect one and how will fishers be involved? There is enormous concern about how we replace propulsion within fishing, which is a really difficult challenge. There is no easy option or easy answer, but we know it must take place. The challenge is how that will be delivered.
The plan to phase out fossil fuels, which is mentioned in proposed new clause 1(10)(a)(iii) in amendment 73, is an important part of that. There is not the same focus on fuels across the full range of maritime uses as there is in the debate on the aviation sector, where there is greater focus on transition fuels, hybrid and other parts. We need to look at where that can be. The Minister will probably say that that is a matter for the Department for Transport rather than her Department, but the financial health of the fishing sector will be a matter for her Department. How fishers invest in that technology, and what technology they are encouraged to invest in, is an important part of that.
I disagreed with the Minister when she said that amendment 73 would only restrict efforts to focus on decarbonisation and the environmental performance of our fishing ports, but let us focus for a moment on the importance of improving the environmental performance of our fishing ports. In some cases our ports could do with investment in the efficiency of ice plants and the market infrastructure, given the importance of decarbonising those efforts. The amendment does not specify that they would be the only parts that Ministers could focus on; indeed, it says “including” those parts. I suggest that they give just a flavour.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a certain contradiction between what he is saying now and later amendments that he has tabled, which would indicate that fish destined for, say, the European market should be landed in the UK and then transported on trucks to their main market, rather than being landed closer to the market where they are going to be sold?
Luke Pollard
No, I disagree. I dislike the Conservative position of favouring landing fish in European ports, because we could be creating jobs in British ports. It is bad for our ports, and it betrays the promise that many people made during the Brexit referendum. It is something that we need to reflect on. We should land more fish in our ports, creating more jobs in our communities and, as a corollary, eating more of our own fish. We will return to that in future, but I do not feel that landing more fish in our ports and achieving net zero in fishing are in any way contradictory. Actually, both are necessary to have a fully sustainable fishing industry in the future, because sustainability needs to be economic and environmental—they go hand in hand.
Amendment 73 sends a really simple message: we want to see fishing achieve net zero, and we will require the Government to prepare a plan and to have an idea about how to achieve that. I hope the Minister has a plan for fishing achieving net zero, but I fear that this part of the debate has been wholly absent over the past few years. Outwith the larger debate about every single sector, but specifically on this sector, how will they work? We all know that fishing is not one sector but dozens of sectors operating within the wider remit, with different fishers catching different species of fish with different gear at different times of the year in different fishing zones. How does the plan to achieve net zero work for each of those sectors? There will be different approaches, especially with the carbon impact of certain boats.
I turn to the other amendments in this group, 74 to 79. I will talk only briefly, so that other speakers can contribute. On amendment 76, I suggest to the Minister that one thing she should take from this debate is that Ministers need to act faster than they have to date. In part, our sustainability work by Ministers, as a country, has been too slow and too passive. I hope that the Minister and her officials are hearing loud and clear from the Opposition that we want to see Ministers act faster on this.
Brendan O'Hara
On a point of clarification, amendment 76, to which the hon. Gentleman was referring, is about the elimination of incidental catches in all circumstances. Anyone who has been a recreational fisher, or even guddled about in a pool, will know that incidental catch or bycatch is almost inevitable and almost impossible to eliminate. Surely we should be asking that commercial fishing businesses do an awful lot more to innovate and upgrade their equipment to avoid it. Is he seriously asking us to support an amendment that calls for the elimination of the bycatch in all circumstances? That seems to be an impossible ask. Surely we should be looking at a more innovative solution.
Luke Pollard
One of the difficulties of having so many amendments grouped together is that we cannot get into each one individually. That is a probing amendment to find out what the plan is. I will return to species in a moment, but to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question on bycatch, the discard ban was introduced with good intentions—to borrow the Minister’s phrase from earlier.
There is a real crisis of fish being discarded over the side of boats because people do not have the quota to catch that fish. Fishers are being put in a difficult position by existing regulations—regulations that Ministers themselves may decide on, even if under an EU directive on how things work. In mixed fisheries—which I believe is what is around Scotland, and is certainly around the west country, which I represent—for fishers to target specific species is difficult, resulting in an inevitable bycatch. The difficulty is that the discard ban states that a fisher cannot catch that, discard it or land it.
That poses questions about how a reformed discard ban would work under the new freedoms that the Minister has set out. Greater quota pooling, for instance, might be one way, especially for smaller boats, to make sure there is sufficient quota within a pool to ensure that bycatch is adequate there. There needs to be a greater understanding of the need to allocate more quota for some of those things, especially in mixed fisheries, to cope with that. The fundamental point—which I think the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was getting at, and to which I hope the Minister will respond in the spirit in which the amendment was tabled—is that the discard ban currently does not work for our fishers and certainly does not work for our environment. The intention behind it is good. We need to preserve that intention, but also ensure that the fish our fishers are catching get a good price and are preferably landed at their local port.
The hon. Gentleman also noted at the start of his intervention, in relation to the difference between commercial fishing and recreational fishing, that there is a real challenge, which we will come to later, in applying restrictions to recreational fishers who are not taking the volumes of fish out of the water that some of our commercial friends are. There is a tendency to regard the two slightly differently, which I think he hinted at in his intervention.
To briefly return to the amendments, I am grateful to hear the Minister say that the Government have declared a climate emergency. That is very welcome news. My recollection of the debate is that the Government did not oppose the declaration but did not support it either. I am very happy to hear that the climate emergency declaration is now Government policy and not just parliamentary policy. The subtle distinction is important, because if it is a Government declaration of a climate emergency, the Minister has made a bigger announcement today than perhaps she wanted to. It is important, because we are in a climate emergency and there is a climate crisis that affects our fish stocks.
One area that the Minister hinted at, which is important and why Government amendment 1 needs to be looked at again, is the changes in fish and where they reside. As the Minister knows, fish do not follow international boundaries. Laws that seek to govern fish to follow international boundaries are problematic. The Minister set out how she hoped to ensure that those fish with high survivability are returned to the sea and not landed dead —I think she mentioned that in relation to amendment 78. I agree with her, but the Minister’s statement is at odds with DEFRA’s decision not to grant the bluefin catch-and-release fishery in the south-west, because bluefin tuna, bless them, have very high sustainability and can be caught time and again. The experience for the fish might not be one that many of us would like, but a fish in the sea is worth so much more to our recreational fishing sector that charters boats to recreational anglers than it is from being landed and eaten in our food supply chain. I agree with the Minister when she talks about high survivability and hope she will respond to that point.
The bluefin catch-and-release fishery was something that I mentioned in my remarks, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) also made a powerful case in support of it. The catch-and-release bluefin fishery would not only enhance our scientific understanding of the changes causing these wonderful creatures to enter more of our British waters, or to return after a great absence to our British waters, but could create an enormous number of jobs across the west country, and they could in due course appear in the North sea, where tuna was present before the decline of fish stocks.
I have taken up enough time on this. Suffice it to say that Labour Members disagree with Government amendment 1. We would like to see sustainability as the primary mover of sustainable fisheries. The message that removing that sends to all those that care about our oceans is a poor one. Fishing should be sustainable economically and environmentally, and we should be unafraid of saying that sustainability is the primary driver of fisheries management. If we do not have sustainable fisheries, we will not have jobs in fishing or the fish in the sea that we need. To pre-empt what you might be about to say, Mr McCabe, the amendments sandwiched between that and amendment 73 are designed to probe the Minister for an explanation of the position on each of those points—which she has done in part, with the challenges that I have posed. However, amendment 73, which concerns net zero and decarbonising our industry, is absolutely critical to the future of the sector. I hope the Minister will set out the Department’s, and indeed the Government’s, plans to decarbonise the industry. She needs to be under no doubt about how seriously we take the importance of hitting net zero for fishing.
Mr Goodwill
I rise in support of Government amendment 1. Nobody so far has talked about the role of the courts. I suspect that if the wording proposed by the Lords stays in the Bill, there will be a field day for the courts and well funded environmental non-governmental organisations, which will be fighting every step of the way to ensure that the prime fisheries objective of sustainability is taken to the nth degree. We have seen that already in how the courts have been used with general licensing.
For example, at the annual fisheries meeting with other independent coastal states such as Norway, we may well decide that, as a one-off, to take account of choke species and mixed fisheries, perhaps some stocks would be fished above maximum sustainable yield, as a short-term measure to sustain our fishing industries. That additional quota could be assigned to the Norwegian waters and EU waters, but the British fishing Minister would say, “I’m sorry, but although there’s more quota on offer, we cannot take it because we would be shot down in the courts.” There are many other situations in which the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport about being flexible and working with the sector would be tracked every inch of the way by environmental NGOs, which would be keen to take them to court.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Member raises a hypothetical about total allowable catches being set above MSY. He knows well that total allowable catches are routinely set above MSY levels. It is not a once-in-a-moment opportunity; it is a regular occurrence, and it is leading to a decline in fish stocks. Therefore, sending the message to our fisheries that we will have sustainable fishing in our waters is not a bad one, because we are ultimately saying to those fisheries that if we do not set at MSY levels, there will be fewer fish in the sea for the future. Whether we set levels above MSY in conjunction with our European friends or otherwise, that contributes to a decline in fish stocks. Does he agree with that?
Mr Goodwill
I agree with the hon. Member, but where levels are set above MSY levels, it is often for practical reasons to do with the sustainability of a particular fishing industry. It is also to do with choke species. We heard from the Minister how some fisheries would be closed completely were they not to be allowed a degree of choke species to be caught for which a quota is not allocated.
The point I am making is that the law of unintended consequences has not been seen clearly by the Lords. I believe many of our fishing communities would be decimated by action taken not by Ministers but by judges in interpreting the prime fisheries objective as sustainability. That would be an overriding objective and not one that Ministers could reasonably take to fishing communities in the four nations of the United Kingdom sustainably. I am therefore pleased to support the Minister in her amendment, which will prevent such an unintended consequence that even the shadow Minister, I think in his heart of hearts, understands could be a real problem.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
I echo the words of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. We must set the tone and objectives for the negotiations, so it is critical to retain the cross-party amendment passed in the other place to make environmental sustainability the driving force and priority of the legislation. Removing that objective would put the fisheries sector at risk in the long term.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State warned against creating a hierarchy of objectives, but the simple truth is that environmental sustainability must go hand in hand with economic sustainability, as we just heard. We cannot have long-term economic sustainability without first prioritising environmental sustainability, and that means prioritising fish stocks. Fisheries businesses cannot operate if there are no fish left for them to catch.
The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine made the good point that fisheries are striving to get those goals and achieve sustainability, but that must be enshrined in law. If we put environmental sustainability front and centre in the Bill, the rewards in the long term will be there for the fisheries sector to reap sustainably. We want fish stocks to recover and thrive, resulting in a more resilient marine ecosystem. That obviously leads to greater catches over the long term, supporting the fisheries sector and the coastal communities that rely upon it.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I will speak in support of amendments 75 to 78. Amendments 75 and 76 aim to protect the ecosystem of our marine environment by mitigating the catchment of sensitive species. It is therefore right that amendment 77 allows for better monitoring and enforcement of fishers.
The absence of historical data on catches means that there is no way to gauge how much illegal discarding is taking place in our seas. There has been no way to manage or mitigate overfishing. By ensuring realtime scientific data collection we can go a long way in attempting to protect over-exploited species and the ecosystem of our seas and to better ensure that fishers are more mindful of their catches. Amendment 78 provides much-needed assurance in the Bill that we can account for what is being fished, when and by whom—again, preventing the scourge of overfishing. All of that can only benefit our coastal communities.
Turning to the benefits of putting sustainability at the heart of the Bill, as the Lords amendments made clear, last year just 59% of the UK’s fish stocks were fished at or below the sustainable level, down 10% from the previous year. We need sustainable fisheries management to stop overfishing and to safeguard the UK fishing industry’s survival. Environmental sustainability, as proposed by the successful amendments in the Lords, which the Government now seek to reverse, is crucial for the survival of our coastal communities post covid-19.
With seafood export markets hit hard, fishing businesses face huge financial hardship. The hospitality and restaurant sectors closing, and supermarkets closing fish counters, has led to a drastic dip in demand, with fishing markets struggling to continue. The sustainability amendment and other amendments tabled to this clause provide long-awaited relief to coastal communities struggling under the weight of the coronavirus and buckling under the financial hardship imposed upon them as lockdown eases.
Opposition amendments to clause 1 will ensure economic, social and employment benefits to coastal areas across the United Kingdom and will contribute to the availability of fish supplies, which in turn will rejuvenate the staggering tourism and hospitality market in those areas. The Fisheries Bill must and can do more for the UK’s fishing community and associated markets.
Stephanie Peacock
I would like to add my objections to the Government’s decision to remove the sustainability objective as the Fisheries Bill’s main objective. I will speak briefly and focus on Government amendment 1. Healthy fish stocks have been proven to create a more resilient and productive marine environment and ecosystem, which leads to increased long-term catches and greater industry profits. For the sake of our coastal communities, which rely on the UK fishing industry and the thousands of jobs that it creates, not just on the boats but in processing, logistics and food services, we must ensure that sustainability is at the heart of our fishing policy.
I am concerned that the Government are paying lip service to their election promise, as set out in their manifesto, to
“a legal commitment to fish sustainability”.
The Lords amendment put a lens of environmental sustainability over all fisheries management decisions. It required fisheries authorities to consider and demonstrate the impact of their decisions on environmental sustainability, in both the short and long term.
I would like to make it clear that the Lords Bill still granted authorities a degree of flexibility. They could still opt out of the joint fisheries statements in certain circumstances. I refer the Committee to clause 7, which we will come on to later. It states that authorities can amend or replace joint fisheries statements if they can show that there has been a change in circumstances relating to
“available evidence relating to the social, economic or environmental elements of sustainable development.”
The sustainability objective, before it was limited by the Conservative Government, simply required fisheries authorities to put an environmental lens across all decisions, demonstrating that they had put in place provisions intended to avoid any compromising of environmental sustainability in the long and short term. It would have incentivised best practice and ended the type of short-term decision making that we have seen in recent years, whereby, as has been said already today, just for this year quotas are set above scientifically recommended sustainable levels to address short-term economic concerns.
The Government have so far failed to make progress in terms of sustainable fishing, barely scratching the surface of what is needed to achieve environmental targets. Right now, the UK cannot meet 11 of the 15 indicators of marine health that were set out in its marine strategy, and the recent review of the strategy concluded that the 2020 target for good environmental status
“may not be achieved for many years unless there are further improvements to fisheries management measures”.
If we want to protect both our marine environment and the long-term sustainability of our fishing industry—in many ways the two go hand in hand—we cannot stay with the status quo. The Government need to act. Putting sustainability at the heart of the Bill would have meant that we could start to redress the balance towards restoring the health of our fish stocks and helping our marine environment to recover. We should have taken this opportunity to strengthen the Bill and change the way we manage our fisheries going forward, to the benefit of both the industry and the marine environment. Labour Members are disappointed that instead the Government have shown their disregard for environmental sustainability and the health of our seas, the marine environment and our fishing industry.
Amendment 73 sets out the net zero target about which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has already spoken. It would have placed a requirement on fisheries authorities to ensure that
“fish and aquaculture activities achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030”.
That is particularly important in the context of the UK’s environmental sustainability targets, which the Government have already committed to. We need action on all fronts and across all industries to deal with the climate and nature emergency.
Brendan O'Hara
The hon. Lady is talking about emissions targets, which are very laudable, but would we not be applying a much stronger emissions reduction approach to fishing than to any other sector, including energy, transport, agriculture and housing? Why should the fishing industry bear the brunt? It is a genuine question; I am not trying to trip her up. It seems that this amendment would apply a much higher standard to fishing than to any other sector.
Stephanie Peacock
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and I do not believe that the brunt should fall on the fishing industry. This is an issue that every sector of society and the economy has got to deal with. It does not make sense not to seize the opportunity that the Bill presents to ensure that our fishing industry can lead the charge in terms of net zero. We could be pioneers and lead the way for other countries to follow in our footsteps. We could improve the environmental performance of our fishing ports, promoting decarbonisation and phasing out fossil fuels. The end of the CFP and the passage of the Bill through Parliament does represent an opportunity to be bold and ambitious, and now is the time for meaningful change to promote the sort of greener economy that benefits both people and our environment.
Victoria Prentis
I agree, in fact, with a great deal of what is being said. I reiterate that the Government are absolutely committed to leaving the natural environment in a better state than we found it in. There is no watering down of our commitments to sustainability, which are clearly stated in the Bill in the first objective in clause 1. However, I do not feel that the amendment helps to take this further. I am worried that putting the primacy of sustainability in the Bill might—inadvertently, I am sure—cause unnecessary suffering to coastal communities.
To focus on the MSY issue for a moment, I am not going to stand here and suggest that the current position is one we should be proud of. We have undoubtedly made progress on fishing at MSY. We are now fishing at about 67% of MSY. In 1990, we were fishing at 10% of sustainable stocks, so there is no doubt that we are where we want to be, although we are moving slowly in the right direction.
The Government hope that the fisheries management plan, set out in the Bill, will work locally and holistically to make the situation much better, fast, as we must do. However, I am concerned that if we put in the clause which makes the sustainability objective prime, there will be some really serious unintended consequences for coastal communities.
I will give three examples on MSY in particular. If we followed the zero TAC advice for whiting in the Irish Sea, it could close the nephrops fishery that has critical economic importance for Northern Ireland, where landings averaged about 15 million a year over the past five years. Another example, following the zero-catch advice on plaice in the Celtic Sea would close the very valuable anglerfish and megrim fishery and could displace those boats into a more intensely fished area elsewhere, which could also displace even worse environmental harm. Out at Rockall, latterly, there is a very low quota for cod, although the quality of the scientific advice there has been questioned. Following the advice on cod would close the valuable haddock fishery that might itself be taking some of the pressures off the fishery in the North Sea.
I have been asked repeatedly by Opposition Members for further clarity on the plan. I refer them politely to the fisheries White Paper 2018. Our Secretary of State is particularly proud of this document, having worked on it a great deal himself. It sets out very clearly the direction of travel that the Government are determined to follow as we leave the common fisheries policy and are able to take further steps. We are committed to environmental sustainability, and I hope that working together when this great Bill becomes law we will be able to move forward much more quickly than in the past.
I turn briefly to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I remind him that, while this is a framework Bill and touches all areas, it does not, in fact, deal with the Benyon review or some of the specifics that he mentioned. However, I do want to be as helpful as possible. The Benyon review was pushed out on World Oceans Day, which seemed an appropriate time, despite the pandemic. It is important that we get on with this important work. The Government are considering their response at the moment. I think it would be wrong and that this is not the place to go much further than that, but I am happy to take this up with the hon. Gentleman outside the Bill as soon as he likes. We are in a great deal of communication on this at the moment, and a lot of work is being done.
On decarbonising the fleet—I am glad he enjoys Fishing News as much as I do—fishing accounts for about 10% of the domestic shipping CO2 emissions. I am not in any way downplaying that significant amount. The grant-making powers in the Bill could well be used to give grants which would encourage vessels to move to more sustainable types of fuel.
Victoria Prentis
There is no plan, but there is a very good clause which enables the plan to be made. It is something that should and will be done at local levels, but I would be amazed if decarbonisation of the fuels that vessels use was not the sort of thing to be considered.
Written Statements
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Police Covenant for England and Wales
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Our outstanding police deserve the upmost respect, support and recognition. Brave officers put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe, demonstrating remarkable courage, sacrifice and public duty.
They face extraordinary pressure as they protect the people they tirelessly serve from terrorists, serious violence and exploitation. Their families too often fear for their safety or are left to pick up the pieces when something goes wrong.
From day one, this Government have put our world-class police first and prioritised their wellbeing. That is why we have committed to introducing a police covenant in England and Wales to recognise the exceptional job our frontline officers do in unique and challenging circumstances.
We are determined to give our police the enhanced support they need, so I have accelerated work on this pledge to protect both them and their loved ones. Our commitment to ensuring our police have the recognition they deserve is absolute, so this covenant will be enshrined in law. This will leave no room for doubt, creating a statutory duty to do more to support our police.
Police officers and staff are uniquely placed to tell me what they need, so I am today publishing the report on the consultation on what the police covenant should look like. This sets out our recommendations for the implementation of the covenant.
The Government response is available on www.gov.uk. A copy of the consultation will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I would urge anyone connected with policing to read the response and consider how they might support the covenant.
Our outstanding police embody public service and do not hesitate to run towards danger to keep us safe. Nothing is more important than ensuring they have the support, protection and recognition that they need to do their extraordinary job. The implementation of the covenant is the first step in delivering on our promise to recognise that.
I thank Members for their continued engagement on this important issue.
[HCWS438]
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
On 26 March 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 came into force, imposing restrictions on people’s movements and gatherings, and requiring the closure of certain retail and public premises, in the interest of public health in light of the coronavirus pandemic. These regulations were revoked and replaced by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 on 4 July. Further regulations were introduced in localised areas to tackle the spread of coronavirus in hot spots. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020 came into force on 4 July 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford) Regulations 2020 came into force on 1 August 2020, and Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions on Gatherings) (North of England) Regulations 2020 came into force on 5 August and was amended to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England) Regulations 2020 15 August.
Following a review of the Leicester regulations, Bradford and Blackburn regulations and north of England regulations, I have now made further amendments to each regulation to ease the restrictions contained within them, which came into force on 8 September 2020 through the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford, Leicester, and North of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
As part of the changes to these regulations, the easements made elsewhere in England on 25 July will also now apply to the areas covered by the Blackburn and Bradford regulations and Leicester regulations. In addition, the easements made elsewhere in England on 15 August will now also apply in the areas covered by the Blackburn and Bradford regulations and North of England regulations, with the exception of the area of Bolton metropolitan borough council.
As of today, settings and businesses including indoor swimming pools, indoor fitness and dance studios, indoor gyms, sports courts and facilities will be able to reopen in Leicester and the areas covered by the Blackburn and Bradford regulations. In addition; casinos, skating rinks, bowling alleys, indoor play areas including soft-play areas, and exhibition halls and conference centres—which guidance will clarify to be for trial events only—will be able to reopen in the areas covered by the Blackburn and Bradford regulations and the North of England regulations apart from the area of Bolton metropolitan borough council.
Finally, guidance has been changed in areas covered by the Blackburn with Darwen and Bradford regulations to facilitate piloting Government endorsed sports in sports stadia and business event pilots in conference centres and exhibition halls; the resumption of socially- distanced indoor performances; the resumption of wedding and civil partnership receptions of up to 30 people; and relaxing the remaining restrictions on certain close contact services
In Leicester and the areas covered by the Blackburn and Bradford regulations and north of England regulations, some restrictions remain in place on household mixing and gatherings.
Publicly available Government guidance on gov.uk is being updated to ensure it fully corresponds with the amended regulations.
[HCWS439]
Affordable Housing
(3 years, 7 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)
Coronavirus has highlighted to us all the importance of having a safe home to call our own. I believe that everyone should have a decent place to live. I am committed to increasing the supply of affordable homes to rent and buy, providing more people with access to safe, secure and good quality housing.
Today I am announcing the details of the £12.2 billion investment in affordable homes and that Homes England will be publishing the prospectus for the new affordable homes programme this week. This new programme is the biggest single funding commitment to affordable housing in 10 years. The programme will unlock a further £38 billion in public and private investment in affordable housing.
A new £11.5 billion affordable homes programme will be delivered over five years from next year (2021-2026), providing up to 180,000 new homes across England, should economic conditions allow. This new programme includes £9.5 billion of new funding agreed at Budget and £2 billion previously announced for long-term strategic partnerships with housing associations. The money announced at Budget also included £700 million we will be spending on new affordable homes through the existing affordable homes programme 2016-22, which will continue to deliver new homes up to 2023.
I have also published the Government response to the “Making home ownership affordable” discussion paper that confirms the new model for shared ownership, which will be more consumer-friendly, fairer and easier to access.
The new affordable homes programme
Investing in future affordable housing is particularly important at this unprecedented time in order to support people across England, as well as the economy. Through this new programme I am giving housing associations and local authorities the means to continue to deliver affordable housing in the coming years, with the first homes to be delivered from next year.
The £11.5 billion programme will deliver up to 180,000 homes, should economic conditions allow. It will include a wide range of affordable homes of different tenures to support people in different circumstances and stages of their lives. It is my ambition that approximately 50% of the new homes will be available as affordable home ownership under the new model of shared ownership, helping even more people to realise their ambition of owning their own home. In addition, more housing association tenants will be able to become homeowners through the new right to shared ownership.
The remainder of the programme will deliver homes for discounted rent, including affordable and social rent. Social rent level are typically 50 to 60% of market prices and funding for these homes will be available to housing providers across England, to help those in the greatest need, and 10% of delivery through this programme will be used to increase the supply of much needed specialist or supported housing.
This Government are passionate about levelling up, and that includes increasing the supply of housing where it is desperately needed. This programme will deliver homes right across England. I have given £7.4 billion to Homes England to deliver affordable homes outside London. This is over £2 billion more than the amount given under the previous affordable homes programme, underlining the Government commitment to level up. I have also offered the Mayor of London £4 billion to help with acute housing challenge in London. Negotiations with the GLA about what they will deliver in return for the funding are still ongoing.
The new shared ownership model
Shared ownership has so far helped thousands of people buy their own home. Today I am announcing reforms that will be introduced as part of the new programme that will make it easier for more hard-working people and families to access and then progress to full ownership.
I listened to the views of the respondents to the “Making home ownership affordable” discussion paper published last year, and have built on the proposals outlined to set out a refined and expanded set of changes to the shared ownership model.
The new shared ownership model will reduce the minimum initial ownership stake from 25% to 10%, making it easier to save a deposit to get your foot on the ladder of home ownership. The new model will also make it easier and more manageable to increase your stake in the home, as shared owners will be able to staircase in smaller instalments of as little as 1%, down from 10%.
To further support new shared owners, I have also introduced a 10-year “repair-free” period during which the shared owner will not have to pay repairs or maintenance costs. This will help to bridge the gap between renting and home ownership. This change will prevent new shared owners being hit with repairs and maintenance bills and better support them to put money aside towards buying more of their home.
Finally, I will also improve the experience of shared owners wishing to sell their home. Through the new model shared owners will be able to take control of the resales process from the landlord at an earlier point, giving them greater influence over the sale.
These measures will apply to all new shared ownership homes delivered through the new affordable homes programme and we will also set an expectation that the standard model is used for shared ownership delivered through the planning system.
The right to shared ownership
In addition to the above reforms, today I have also confirmed that the vast majority of new rented homes delivered through the new affordable homes programme will provide tenants with the right to shared ownership. This will give tenants the opportunity to purchase a stake in their home if they wish to do so, and access all the benefits of the new shared ownership model.
My announcements today will support the Government commitment to increasing housing supply and support people from all backgrounds to realise their ambition to own a home.
[HCWS440]